During the 1970's, a new theory was announced that stunned the scientific
community. James Lovelock, a British physicist, and an American
microbiologist called Lynn Margulis spoke of a hypothesis that said that the
whole world and all aspects of it could be looked upon as one single entity,
which they called Gaia. They took this name from the Greek goddess of the
Earth. The Gaia theory stated that the planet Earth could be seen as one
giant living self-regulating organism. According to the hypothesis, although
individual species are unaware of the mother organism, they all act
collectively for the optimal survival of life. This would mean that every
feature of the Earth, the climate, the air, the sea and the soil, would all
work together towards the good of the planet, each playing its own part in
the cycle of life.

The Gaia theory is not a new one. In fact, it has been considered many times
before; it is just that before James Lovelock many people did not take the
theory seriously. An 18th century geologist named James Hutton told the
Royal Society of Edinburgh that the Earth could be regarded as a
super-organism, and that it should be studied by the science of physiology.
He stated that the movement of nutrients through the soil, into plants,
through animals and back into the soil, was akin to the circulation of
blood. Around a hundred years later, a Russian scientist called Korelenko
said much the same thing. Over the intervening years, many others have
considered similar ideas.

It is not difficult to observe the interaction between the animal kingdom
and the earth. All we have to do is look around us. You can probably find an
example of this within 20 feet of where you are now. We see this in the
giant factories, which originated in Victorian Britain, to ordinary
household waste that we produce daily in enormous amounts. Technology
obviously plays a huge part in the cycle, from airlines to warfare, from
large building projects to the oil industry. Everyday, almost all of us do
something that inadvertently or not has some affect on the natural earth.

Gaia, mother-earth, in some way sounds as if she were a good and caring
matriarch, though probably nothing could be further from the truth. The
Earth has no regard at all for animal or plant life. The earth would not
save you from tempests or typhoons. Gaia would not care if you were swept
away in the storm surge of a hurricane. Not only would Gaia not care, Gaia
would not know. The animal kingdom with all its incredible diversity is no
more than a tiny speck, living and feeding off the earth, and the only
animal that is even vaguely aware of the affect that we could have on the
earth is us-the human being. Considering that we share this planet with
millions of other species, you would think that we would be uniquely aware
of the situation. Sadly we are not, as we have only known of the interaction
between the earth and ourselves for a very short space of time. In addition,
man is too self centred and selfish, and has always put greed and profit
before the love of the planet.

Where does this leave us when considering Gaia? Firstly, we have to decide a
few fundamental things. Gaia, as we have already seen, was the Greek goddess
of the earth. How can we consider something a mother figure when it is not
alive? This forces us to consider an age-old question. What does alive mean?
How do we decide what is alive and what is not? Does alive mean something
that is created by the forces of nature and then immediately begins to age?
The earth meets these criteria, just as animals do. Does alive mean
something that relies on a mixture of organic compounds and chemical
interactions for its enhancement and well being? Both animals and the earth
meet these criteria too. Does being alive mean that you are made of separate
parts, joined as one, and that each part could be damaged irreparably?
Again, we both meet these criteria. On the other hand, perhaps I am
carefully picking my words so that I can make both Gaia and the animal
kingdom sound as if they are alive.

We have to agree on what life is before we can even consider whether Gaia is
possible. Ultimately, to qualify as being alive, an organism must be
self-regulating and self-sustaining. When something dies, its internal
system breaks down so completely that all vital functions cease. Despite
this similarity, there are still elemental differences between being alive
and deceased, and between the animate and inanimate. Living things search
for there own fuel, and at times have to regulate their own temperatures.
When some part of the living organism is failing, that organism will often
find ways to repair itself, or at least have the instinct to rest and
recuperate. Living things are capable of sexual reproduction and
propagation, and this is essential or extinction will occur. Perhaps this is
the qualifying factor. The climate, the oceans, the land, and the planet
itself, all lack the basic instincts that living things have.

We now reach a point where it is essential to recognise three distinct
groups, two that are alive and one that is not. The two that are living are
the animal kingdom and plant life. Between these two groups, animals rein
supreme, but despite this, we probably could not survive without the
existence of flora and fauna. The chemical interchanges between the
atmosphere and plants is an necessary one, for it is this which replenishes
the various compounds which are essential to life on earth, and removes the
ones which are harmful. It is obvious that each of the three groups needs
the other to flourish, or individually they may decline, or eventually die
out altogether. Gaia speaks of the earth, the climate the seas and the land
working as a single entity. Perhaps we should talk of the earth, the animal
kingdom and plant life working as a single entity to ensure the survival of
us all.

So there we have it, mother earth, parasitic animals, and benign plants;
each sharing this incredible mix of elements that makes up the earth and all
of its constituents and occupants. I find it hard to believe that man takes
up so little space and yet holds so much power. Our role in the story of
Gaia is a difficult and complex. We are the only animal who can be a threat
to, or the redeemer of Gaia.

Source: TWO.

My Comment:
I did not know about this until I saw it in this
issue of Weather Magazine.




--
Gavin Staples.

Horseheath. Cambridge, UK. 93m ASL.
House to Let. For details see on my website.
www.gavinstaples.com
All outgoing emails are checked for viruses by Norton Internet Security
2005.

"Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute". ~Josh Billings

The old Maxis DOS game SimEarth was based on Gaia. It was amazing by how
much you could turn up the wick and still develop nanotech cities
without dropping any black slabs on stone age cultures. Without
cheating, too (:

I always found that a warmer, wetter planet with a lot of landmass
worked better than a cold one especially as they produced a lot more
fossil and nuclear fuel(!!) to get the player through the industrial,
nuclear and information ages.

In Simearth mammals didn't always reach the goal of making fire first
you could just as easily end up with birds, insects, seals or fish (not
Michael) in charge!

Les

Gavin Staples wrote:
During the 1970's, a new theory was announced that stunned the scientific
community. James Lovelock, a British physicist, and an American

--
Les Crossan,
Wallsend, Tyne & Wear
54.95N 1.5W
Home of the Wallsend StormCam and the Backup USW FAQ -
www.uksevereweather.org.uk

"Gavin Staples" wrote in message
...
During the 1970's, a new theory was announced that stunned the scientific
community. James Lovelock, a British physicist,

I was lucky enough to be in the holiday cottage next door to James this
summer while on holiday in Dorset. Spent many an evening sat outside
chatting to him while watching the sunsets. Very interesting man.

Cheers

Ian

"Ian Watkins" wrote in message..

I was lucky enough to be in the holiday cottage next door to James this
summer while on holiday in Dorset. Spent many an evening sat outside
chatting to him while watching the sunsets. Very interesting man.

Cheers

Ian

Ian

Did he mention that he invented the microwave oven and didn't take out a
patent?

Karl Cooper, Orkney

In message , Karl
Cooper writes
"Ian Watkins" wrote in message..

I was lucky enough to be in the holiday cottage next door to James this
summer while on holiday in Dorset. Spent many an evening sat outside
chatting to him while watching the sunsets. Very interesting man.

Cheers

Ian

Ian

Did he mention that he invented the microwave oven and didn't take out a
patent?

Now that was the radar boffins at Worth Matravers who used the magnetron
to cook, but this was felt to be irrelevant to the main purpose. Told me
by the late H R 'Johnnie' Johnson, later president of the Institute of
Electrical [1] Engineers.

{]1 Fairly sure it was Electrical rather than Electronic. he went from
radar work to the CEGB, including selling nuclear power stations to the
Japanese.
--
Peter Thomas