Gaia, Earth as an self purging organism.

[DevilSolution]

Just a pet concept i've been thinking over; I'd like to know if theres any scientific theories related to the earth as a living organism. Also any parallels drawn between forms of life and earth; For example canals are an old method of transferring loads of cargo from one place to another (here in england), now we use roads and lorries, the parallel here is that the canals are the method used in plants to transport minerals and nutrients to the required cells in comparison to the roads and lorries which are the the veins in a human body. Faster at moving, moves bigger loads, more organised etc...

 

There are plenty of other parallels that can be drawn up, like the birth of the internet, relaying messages with a pulse of electricity over a given space, routing through different continents, countries and states / counties / provinces; this could be paralleled to the human brain, which sends electrical signals through different sections of the brain (continents, countries etc) through synapses / axons (routers).

 

The list goes on and on, but ultimately could the earth be scientifically viewed as a living organism? not necessarily conscious, much in the same way the process of evolution isnt conscious. Could it unconsciously purge itself? Much in the same way white blood cells arent conscious of the fact they are fighting infections.

 

Any other parallels are appreciated as is any information regarding the earth as an organism.

 

 

As a final footnote, would it not be wise to draw parallels between living organism, such as ourselves and political, economic and logistical concepts we currently use. ( such as the rather flawed monetary (capitalist) system )

 

Regards, Devilsolution.

[fiveworlds]

Organism: An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

 

The planet does not reproduce therefore is not classified as a living organism. It also doesn't grow etc.

ps There is no such thing as a perfect system

Edited July 4, 2014 by fiveworlds

[DevilSolution]

Firstly what about a organ in a cosmic organism, secondly the planet has certainly grown since its genesis, life has spawned and it has expanded in size. As for reproduction perhaps the combined diversity of life here represents the DNA of the planet and we ourselves are the mechanism of reproduction, though unknown yet, we could potentially hold that key.

 

Also what about the parallels between say humans and the earth, would it not be wise to use the mechanisms of an advanced organism as the template for our political and economic systems rather than say capitalism which, if we were to draw parallels can only be seen as a virus due to its exponential growth which is eating the earths resources at an exponential rate for its own purpose.

 

If we look at earth as an organism, or an organ really, the capitalist system is a virus within the organ, exponentially growing and eating away its resources and slowly killing it.

 

Are there any white blood cells out there?

[fiveworlds]

The planet grows because rocks and space debris hit the planet all the time not because the planet itself grows. The planet is just a big rock and we happen to live on the surface of it. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080814171105AATK6TJ

 

Again there is no such thing as a perfect system.

Edited July 4, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Ophiolite]

Devil Solution, you appear to be confusing metaphor with identity.

 

We can play that game all day. A television program is like a living organism; a river is like a living organism; a forest fire is like a living organism. Sure, one can find all kinds of parallels and similarities, but extend the definition of life sufficiently to include the entire planet as an organism and your have rendered the definition meaningless.

 

It appears to me to be much more pertinent to consider the complex ecologies of the planet, the biosphere, as a discrete thing with characteristics of its own. No need to make a halting, ultimately mismatched, identification with a living organism. I don't think even Lovelock would argue it as you have.

[dimreepr]

Isaac Asimov explored the idea in his book ‘Foundation and Earth’, a thoroughly good read BTW; an interesting idea but it’s just a poetic way to describe a system where accident, not design, is the driving force behind changes.

[Acme]

...

As a final footnote, would it not be wise to draw parallels between living organism, such as ourselves and political, economic and logistical concepts we currently use. ( such as the rather flawed monetary (capitalist) system )

 

Regards, Devilsolution.

It would not be wise; it would be rather stupidly flawed. And what kind of parent kills their own offspring anyway?

[DevilSolution]

It would not be wise; it would be rather stupidly flawed. And what kind of parent kills their own offspring anyway?

 

In that sense humans themselves do, internally of course, organismic-ally. Biochemical processes are constantly happening that are "killing" themselves to get to some end. If we use the metabolic process as our parallel then A->B->C->D Only D will exist and a,b and c's chemical energy will be transferred in the process. What if we are the chemicals of the earths metabolic processes?

 

Also your defining earth as a "parent" which is a conscious sentient being, not as ive already expressed an "unconscious" intergalactic cosmic organism (or organ, whichever fits the bill)

 

 

Why would it not be wise? economic structures built on the nervous, biochemical and organismic processes happening in the body seem like pretty safe mechanism('s) to use as very efficient systems, would you not agree?

[Ophiolite]

 

Also your defining earth as a "parent" which is a conscious sentient being, not as ive already expressed an "unconscious" intergalactic cosmic organism (or organ, whichever fits the bill)

In order to proceed further please define, precisely, unconscious and organism. Without precise definitions of terms we are just farting in a crowded elevator. If that is the case I shall get off at the next floor.

[Endy0816]

The concept of a superorganism would be closest to what is being described here.

 

Personally I see the term as being more applicable to individual species than the Earth as a whole. We can provably survive without the bulk of the planet's lifeforms. If we were truly incorporated this wouldn't be possible. Conversely we can't survive long at all without other humans. More suggestive of a humanity superorganism than Gaia.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Endy0816

[StringJunky]

Probably better to think of the Earth as a discrete supersystem composed of interlocking organic and inorganic subsystems. Sure, Gaia is conscious but it is manifest in certain Earthly organisms and not as an emergent property of the sum of all Gaia's components.

[Dekan]

The concept of a superorganism would be closest to what is being described here.

 

Personally I see the term as being more applicable to individual species than the Earth as a whole. We can provably survive without the bulk of the planet's lifeforms. If we were truly incorporated this wouldn't be possible. Conversely we can't survive long at all without other humans. More suggestive of a humanity superorganism than Gaia.

 

The concept of a "human superorganism" seems scientifically plausible. It's like "superorganisms" in the insect world. Consider the ants, termites and bees. Each individual insect has only a minuscule brain - a mere dot of nervous tissue. Yet this meagre resource is combined to create complex, well-organised insect societies. These societies, in turn, develop a kind of technological "civilisation". Leading to the construction of impressive artefacts - intricately-tunnelled nests, hexagonal-celled beehives, and towering air-conditioned termite cities.

 

The parallel with human civilisation might seem fairly close. But it's superficial.

 

The big difference is this - humans have consciousness. We know what we want. We aren't ruled by instinct. That makes us superior to ants, bees, termites and all other past terrestrial organisms.

 

We will decide what we do with the Planet. Stuff Gaia - we're in charge now!

[Fuzzwood]

It would not be wise; it would be rather stupidly flawed. And what kind of parent kills their own offspring anyway?

Squirrel females due to stress of their 'spouse' wanting to mate again.

[DevilSolution]

 

The concept of a "human superorganism" seems scientifically plausible. It's like "superorganisms" in the insect world. Consider the ants, termites and bees. Each individual insect has only a minuscule brain - a mere dot of nervous tissue. Yet this meagre resource is combined to create complex, well-organised insect societies. These societies, in turn, develop a kind of technological "civilisation". Leading to the construction of impressive artefacts - intricately-tunnelled nests, hexagonal-celled beehives, and towering air-conditioned termite cities.

 

The parallel with human civilisation might seem fairly close. But it's superficial.

 

The big difference is this - humans have consciousness. We know what we want. We aren't ruled by instinct. That makes us superior to ants, bees, termites and all other past terrestrial organisms.

 

We will decide what we do with the Planet. Stuff Gaia - we're in charge now!

 

(Ovcourse we are lead by instinct, its hardwired into our brains, to go against our instinct is unnatural, consciousness only allows us to appreciate our instincts and in some minor way control them, nothing more, otherwise we wouldnt be human )

 

Basic human instincts will lead to our eventual demise (we are selfish and greedy by and large), the fact were basing economical and political ideologies on fantasies (man made ideas) and not fiction (hard scientific vigour) means were headed to our inevitable doom. Capitalism is leading us down a one way street, looking at the earth as an organism or atleast specific aspects of the human sphere of the earth and drawing parallels to it with ourselves and other forms of life may be a more sustainable way of prolonging our collective procreation.

 

We endlessly look for cures for cancer without looking at the cause, the cause is the cure.....and the cause is exponential growth, of any form. The capitalist system much like cancer is an exponential growth....

 

"We will decide what we do with the Planet. Stuff Gaia - we're in charge now!" ...... You sound so certain of yourself. Exactly what are "you" in charge of? Your in charge no more than your consumerism, unless ovcourse your a CEO at a multinational investment corp, in which case, you are right and i sincerely apologise .

 

In order to proceed further please define, precisely, unconscious and organism. Without precise definitions of terms we are just farting in a crowded elevator. If that is the case I shall get off at the next floor.

 

I very much mean looking at the human organism and using it as a template for the social, economic and political aspects of the earth in which we inhabit. I dont believe the earth is a living organism as is defined by science but i think modelling it as such may be possible if not essential for our combined progress. Also "whatever" consciousness "is" the planet is "not" that.....

Edited August 29, 2014 by DevilSolution

[Ophiolite]

Thank you for your response. Now would you like to actually do what I asked: define unconscious and organism. I thought I I asked clearly. I thought it was a simple question. If it still lacks clarity or simplicity please explain what is confusing you.

[DevilSolution]

Organism has already been defined in this thread and I follow its definition.Consciousness although it does have a viscous definition by no means is understood. The terms were put into context so as to not confuse you, if you are alluding to there definition and my use and understanding of there definition, again, I placed it into context in the post above yours

[DevilSolution]