Earth is a living Organism

[John Cuthber]

 

So are saying that a new life form most, "leave is mother" to be considered "alive"?

 

Why would I do that, when this is how I think. How do you think?

The question was already asked, but you don't seem to have answered it. Do you think a wart is an example of human reproduction?

 

Does a mountain grow up to become a planet that can have mountains of its own (in the way that happens with the offspring all other sorts of life)?

Surely you must see that a mountain is nothing to do with reproduction.

 

The way to report a mod note is to go to the mod note and click the bit underneath it where it says "report".

If you think that this forum's rules are a breach of free speech then

(1) you shouldn't have signed up to them and

(2) feel free to start a new thread to discuss that issue. Please don't discuss it here because it has nothing to do with the topic.

Edited October 16, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Lance_Granger]

The question was already asked, but you don't seem to have answered it. Do you think a wart is an example of human reproduction?

 

Does a mountain grow up to become a planet that can have mountains of its own (in the way that happens with the offspring all other sorts of life)?

Surely you must see that a mountain is nothing to do with reproduction.

 

I did answer the wart question, read back.

 

Yes the mountain does grow and eventually dies through tectonics. Thats all in the article too. The next question is do you think that there has to be an whole other 'Planet" in order for Earth to reproduce?

[davidivad]

just to toss in my two cents...

the earth itself has not given rise to another structure similar to its own yet not to say that we will not make it.

the earth itself does not meet the full definition of lifeform. it does however have complex energy structure that pools up resources to make life possible.

did the earth assemble itself? yes

does it make more planets? no not yet.

was the earth created by another living organism? no

the earth is a seed planet.

it has potential to create life and support it.

are we part of a larger structure of life? yes, we have an ecosystem on earth that has taken advantage of the earths energy stores.

if all life simply transported spock style to another planet it would be dead and the other planet might be considered alive.

all life that we know of runs on dna. the earth does not run on dna although dna can take advantage of its resources.

[Sensei]

I was sitting in geography class about two years ago and my instructor started talking about the "Star Core Theory". Not many people know what the Star Core theory is and finding information on it on the internet is very hard so I will summarize it the best I can. The Star Core Theory is an idea that the center of the Earth is actually a star, a very small star. The idea is that there is a huge nuclear reactor in the center of the Earth, (much like a star), that is constantly generating heat that keeps that Earths mantel's melting and cooling eventually resulting in tectonics on the surface. This is the simplest way to explain Star core, if you want more information about it you can try to find it on the net but good luck because it is not easy.......

Earth's core is made of Iron.

And like any nuclear physicists know, Iron cannot fuse with another Iron..

Produced isotope would be 1) unstable 2) require more energy than released in fusion process (violation of energy conservation).

 

If your teacher is saying that Earth's core is little star that fuses atoms together, he should be fired for learning children complete crap. But most likely you mixed fusion with fission/decay.

 

Nuclear reactor is not fusing. It's splitting existing atoms to smaller particles.

That's true. Earth's internal have unstable isotopes, that decay and release energy.

But it's nothing like in star ("fusion"). Rather reverse.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Sensei

[Lance_Granger]

Earth's core is made of Iron.

And like any nuclear physicists know, Iron cannot fuse with another Iron..

Produced isotope would be 1) unstable 2) require more energy than released in fusion process (violation of energy conservation).

 

If your teacher is saying that Earth's core is little star that fuses atoms together, he should be fired for learning children complete crap.

 

Nuclear reactor is not fusing. It's splitting existing atoms to smaller particles.

Sorry Sensei, the whole Star core thing was just a reference. it has caused some confusion, but it is in no way the focus of the Article. I understand the confusion.

[Strange]

I did answer the wart question, read back.

 

I would say a wart is a perfect analogy to a mountain. It is a slight distortion of the surface material. Of course, to scale a wart is much, much larger than a mountain. And I suppose that makes a spot equivalent to a volcano

 

The next question is do you think that there has to be an whole other 'Planet" in order for Earth to reproduce?

 

Of course there does. That is what "reproduce" means. That is why a wart isn't reproduction but a baby is.

[Lance_Granger]

 

I would say a wart is a perfect analogy to a mountain. It is a slight distortion of the surface material. Of course, to scale a wart is much, much larger than a mountain. And I suppose that makes a spot equivalent to a volcano

 

 

Of course there does. That is what "reproduce" means. That is why a wart isn't reproduction but a baby is.

 

So if the Earth, through so massive tectonic event blasted Mt Everest into space. Would you consider that reproduction. Think about it before you answer.

[Strange]

Think about it before you answer.

 

OK. That's it. Bye.

[Lance_Granger]

 

OK. That's it. Bye.

 

To bad, you were actually making some good points.

[sunshaker]

I have always liked the idea of Earth as a living organism, To believe we exist just upon a "rock in space" is cold & sad to me.

 

I think life is earths offspring, We are worlds, host to trillions of bacteria, If these bacteria had telescopes they would see us all has moving worlds full of life. Not all children look like their parents.

 

She changes her children to fit the world/entity she is becoming

 

The Earth a parent, just lost most of her children to an extinction event(asteroid impact) which you had no control over, She would create children with intelligence, to do what she could not do with nature, So she created us with the abilities to protect ourselves she gave us "science", To do what she cannot.

 

We are her children, And sometimes children do not listen to their parents.

[Lance_Granger]

Please take this poll!!

[davidivad]

i feel no reason to discredit your concept of the earth being alive as it makes a great metaphor.

however, for me, the earth is the place where life we know it has formed.

[Lance_Granger]

I have always liked the idea of Earth as a living organism, To believe we exist just upon a "rock in space" is cold & sad to me.

 

I think life is earths offspring, We are worlds, host to trillions of bacteria, If these bacteria had telescopes they would see us all has moving worlds full of life. Not all children look like their parents.

 

She changes her children to fit the world/entity she is becoming

 

The Earth a parent, just lost most of her children to an extinction event(asteroid impact) which you had no control over, She would create children with intelligence, to do what she could not do with nature, So she created us with the abilities to protect ourselves she gave us "science", To do what she cannot.

 

We are her children, And sometimes children do not listen to their parents.

 

Great comments Sunshaker. Ty I feel the same way. Please take the poll at the top of the page if you haven't already.

i feel no reason to discredit your concept of the earth being alive as it makes a great metaphor.

however, for me, the earth is the place where life we know it has formed.

 

Ty for your comments Davidivad!!

[StringJunky]

The thing is in science certain words mean certain things. This is so that when certain words are used they are understood in a certain way. It ensures everyone is visualising the same things otherwise it's like a band with all the members playing different tunes at the same time.

Edited October 16, 2014 by StringJunky

[Lance_Granger]

The thing is in science certain words mean certain things. This is so that when certain words used they are understood in a certain way. It ensures everyone is visualising the same things otherwise it's like a band with all the members playing different tunes at the same time.

 

Great point! That's why I tried very hard to back up why I use the word 'living" in the article. Ty btw!

Edited October 16, 2014 by Lance_Granger

[For Prose]

Lance, you should really do research into logical fallacies.

[Lance_Granger]

Lance, you should really do research into logical fallacies.

 

Lance, you should really do research into logical fallacies.

 

ok ty, examples?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Your comments were removed because your replies were not on topic. When you are asked by staff explicitly not to do something, it's usually in your best interest to not do it.

DO NOT respond to this mod note in this thread. If you take issue with something, report it or PM staff.

[Lance_Granger]

Anyone else have any other thoughts. I'm sure we can still have a good conversation here.

[Phi for All]

Anyone else have any other thoughts. I'm sure we can still have a good conversation here.

 

We can if you're willing to take all comments on board, and not just the ones that agree with you. That becomes preaching or soapboxing, and discussion ends right there.

 

The most obvious criticism here is that you start with a "perhaps", an observation that Earth's processes "seem similar" to those of a living body, and then you move to other examples that also "seem similar", and you end up concluding that Earth is indeed a living organism. All that "seeming" is NOT evidence, it's just a loosely similar pattern, something humans are exceedingly good at spotting, even when they're essentially meaningless, like animal shapes in the clouds.

 

 

I spent a lot of time researching and thinking about all of this, the Star core ideas and the if Earth is living. I decided that the whole Star Core idea could be true but it is nothing to hang my hat on just yet. Even though I didn't fully buy the Star Core idea I still couldn't help but think to myself that yes, the Earth is living and here is why:

 

At this point, you haven't gone into the weeds yet. You're still skeptical about the Star Core concept. But then you make an unacceptable leap of faulty logic by saying, "Yes, the Earth is living and here is why". The proceeding list you give is just more "seeming similar".

 

The Earth doesn't need air to breathe. Before cyanobacteria evolved on the planet, there was no oxygen and all life survived anaerobically. The Earth was just fine, but would have been dead according to your criteria.

 

Same thing with water. Earth didn't start out with water, so if it needs water to live, how did it survive for millions of years without it?

 

It is wildly believed that the Dinosaurs extinction was caused by a massive comet hitting the Earth surface and the resulting fallout caused the sun to be blocked. This blocking of the sun cause much of the vegetation to die and as a result the dinosaurs died as well. This is a time when the Earth was seriously damaged, but the Earth did not die totally. The Earth, through climate change and life migration (both animal and plant), found a way to heal its self. This is no different than what the human body does when it is injured. [emphasis added]

Except it's extremely different. It just seems similar.

 

You make too many assertions that are incorrect, like "as a result the dinosaurs died as well". Not all the dinosaurs died out, we still have plenty of living creatures that share a common ancestry with them, like all the birds you see around.

 

 

 

Anthropomorphic comparisons are easy to make, and appear to help us find common ground with various elements of our environment. It can be beneficial if you don't take it to the extremes you have here. A whole bunch of "seems similar" isn't the same as "they're identical".

 

I'm curious, do you feel the same way about the other planets we know?

[Lance_Granger]

 

We can if you're willing to take all comments on board, and not just the ones that agree with you. That becomes preaching or soapboxing, and discussion ends right there.

 

The most obvious criticism here is that you start with a "perhaps", an observation that Earth's processes "seem similar" to those of a living body, and then you move to other examples that also "seem similar", and you end up concluding that Earth is indeed a living organism. All that "seeming" is NOT evidence, it's just a loosely similar pattern, something humans are exceedingly good at spotting, even when they're essentially meaningless, like animal shapes in the clouds.

 

 

At this point, you haven't gone into the weeds yet. You're still skeptical about the Star Core concept. But then you make an unacceptable leap of faulty logic by saying, "Yes, the Earth is living and here is why". The proceeding list you give is just more "seeming similar".

 

The Earth doesn't need air to breathe. Before cyanobacteria evolved on the planet, there was no oxygen and all life survived anaerobically. The Earth was just fine, but would have been dead according to your criteria.

 

Same thing with water. Earth didn't start out with water, so if it needs water to live, how did it survive for millions of years without it?

 

Except it's extremely different. It just seems similar.

 

You make too many assertions that are incorrect, like "as a result the dinosaurs died as well". Not all the dinosaurs died out, we still have plenty of living creatures that share a common ancestry with them, like all the birds you see around.

 

 

 

Anthropomorphic comparisons are easy to make, and appear to help us find common ground with various elements of our environment. It can be beneficial if you don't take it to the extremes you have here. A whole bunch of "seems similar" isn't the same as "they're identical".

 

I'm curious, do you feel the same way about the other planets we know?

 

 

 

You had me tell the Dinosaurs and at that point you just got nitpicky, It goes without saying that not all Dinos died. As far as other planets go, my degrees are in Geography and GIS so my "outside" Earth knowledge isn't the best. The best way I can answer that is: if planets have the same spheres, (Atmosphere, biosphere, etc..) that are alive, health and prosperous, then yes I "think" I would conciser those planets alive.

The whole saying seams similar as aposed to saying they are the same seams very nitpicky too. Of course am not going to say all of this is 100% correct. These are just my thoughts, "hence the title of the article" not scientific law.

Your use of anthropomorphism is incorrect. Yes I do compare the Earth to humans but im not "humanizing" the Earth, "saying it stands up right, has human personalities and is a sentient being". I'm just saying with all of the spheres working together as a system, that system, "in my opinion" appears to be an organism. I used humans as a comparison because it is the most familiar organism to the average person.

 

You did makes some great points tell the dino parts. So thank you for actually putting effort into your reply.

 

Now as far as only engaging people who agree with me, that another generalization. If anything I have been trying to push this convo from all sides. But most just come on here and say," that all wrong" and they don't take the time to explain anything. You actually took some time to explain where your coming from with good examples. I have no problem talking about this to anyone, but this tactic of "punch n' run" that most people use on here is counter productive and pointless. Thank you for actually participating.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Lance_Granger

[Phi for All]

Lance, you should really do research into logical fallacies.

 

ok ty, examples?

 

 

Your use of anthropomorphism is incorrect. Yes I do compare the Earth to humans but im not "humanizing" the Earth, "saying it stands up right, has human personalities and is a sentient being".

This is an example of the Strawman logical fallacy. Nobody argued that you were claiming the Earth walks upright, or that it has human personalities, or that it was a sentient being, but you're defending your arguments as if I did. In other words, you're choosing to ignore my real argument and attacking a strawman argument because it's easier.

 

Anthropomorphism is attributing human characteristics to anything that isn't a human, and that's exactly what you're doing by saying:

 

I decided to compare the Earth to the human; what characteristics did a human need to "live" and to continue to live (survive), and did the Earth have these same characteristics.

Also, you show some misunderstandings about evolution when you say:

 

ALL life on Earth originated and is dependent on water. In fact if you were an interstellar traveler categorizing planets you would most like label Earth as a "Water Planet". It is almost unbelievable that the most evolved species on this planet cannot survive in 70% of it (The Amount Of Water On Earth), but that will be a subject I talk about in the future. So if all life on Earth is dependent on water and like I have already outline, the climate and self healing of the Earth in based around water, than naturally the Earth is completely dependent on water just like all other known lifeforms.

As I mentioned before, Earth as a planet isn't dependent at all on water (was that one of my "great points?"). Many planets don't have any, but still are planets.

 

Also, humans aren't the "most evolved species on the planet". That's not how evolution works. There's no pinnacle of species development that everything is striving towards, no linear path to a certain goal. We're certainly not the most stable species, nor the most specialized. Sharks and crocs are more stable, while an anteater is more highly specialized.

 

I also disagree that we can't survive in water. We don't have gills, but we have high intelligence, advanced tool use, really advanced cooperative skills, and incredible communication capabilities. Put those together and we can survive in water when we need to.

 

Finally, it's disappointing that you consider so many of my arguments to be "nitpicky". Imo, this shows that you're not really interested in getting this right, just that you want to BE right. I had hoped that you came to a science discussion forum to hone your idea among peers, which includes looking rationally at the possibility your idea may be wrong (like the vast majority of ideas are).

[Lance_Granger]

 

This is an example of the Strawman logical fallacy. Nobody argued that you were claiming the Earth walks upright, or that it has human personalities, or that it was a sentient being, but you're defending your arguments as if I did. In other words, you're choosing to ignore my real argument and attacking a strawman argument because it's easier.

 

Anthropomorphism is attributing human characteristics to anything that isn't a human, and that's exactly what you're doing by saying:

 

Also, you show some misunderstandings about evolution when you say:

 

As I mentioned before, Earth as a planet isn't dependent at all on water (was that one of my "great points?"). Many planets don't have any, but still are planets.

 

Also, humans aren't the "most evolved species on the planet". That's not how evolution works. There's no pinnacle of species development that everything is striving towards, no linear path to a certain goal. We're certainly not the most stable species, nor the most specialized. Sharks and crocs are more stable, while an anteater is more highly specialized.

 

I also disagree that we can't survive in water. We don't have gills, but we have high intelligence, advanced tool use, really advanced cooperative skills, and incredible communication capabilities. Put those together and we can survive in water when we need to.

 

Finally, it's disappointing that you consider so many of my arguments to be "nitpicky". Imo, this shows that you're not really interested in getting this right, just that you want to BE right. I had hoped that you came to a science discussion forum to hone your idea among peers, which includes looking rationally at the possibility your idea may be wrong (like the vast majority of ideas are).

 

 

I'm not comparing human characteristics, I'm comparing a "living organisms characteristics" as in "any living organisms" characteristics, but I'm referencing the" living organism" known as "human". Huge difference from anthropomorphism, so we can move passed this.

 

You said, "Many planets don't have any, but still are planets." The question you had asked me was do I think other planets are "living" not do I think other planets are planets. *Just odd*

 

Here again your being picky, you go on about humans not being the most evolved species but your only talking about natural section evolution, (Shark's and Croc's). I'm talk about all forms of evolution to include social which humans are at the top.

 

And here again you are picky, you going on about how humans can "develop" ways to survive in water, non of which are natural. So this whole point of yours is mute and border line "off topic". It is insinuated in my quote that I'm talking about humans "natural" ability to not survive in water. *Strange*

 

Yes you are being very picky; you are trying to prove why my thoughts are completely wrong but all your really doing is telling me you don't like the way a use curtain words.

 

I'm not worried at all about "being right". This isn't a right or wrong situation it is a, "I think this" or "I think that" situation. I'm not out to gain money or fame, I'm just stating what I think and then backing it up. It is those that come on here and Say " YOUR WRONG" OR "THAT'S IS ALL WRONG", they are the ones that are more concerned about being right or wrong. My only exception to this is the whole anthropomorphism thing which you were wrong with your usage, but your idea wasn't wrong, I just don't agree with it.

[Delta1212]

Opinions can be wrong.

[Lance_Granger]

Opinions can be wrong.

 

No, that is ego talking. Opinions are just expressions of thoughts from experiences. They are neither right nor wrong.

They can be moral or immoral but not wrong. But then again morality can be different depending on point of view and point of view influences opinion. oooo Paradox*****