Gaia hypothesis to be tested
Posted on: May 16, 2012 - 1:10pm
Offline
Gaia hypothesis to be tested
This isn't the kind of article I'd normally post, nor will it garner the same kind of interest, but I found it interesting. I know at least one other person also will.
Excerpt:
Quote:
The Gaia hypothesis -- first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s -- holds that Earth's physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system.
One of the early predictions of this hypothesis was that there should be a sulfur compound made by organisms in the oceans that was stable enough against oxidation in water to allow its transfer to the air. Either the sulfur compound itself, or its atmospheric oxidation product, would have to return sulfur from the sea to the land surfaces. The most likely candidate for this role was deemed to be dimethylsulfide.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515203100.htm
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
well, i'll say the same thing i once said to an annoying hippy fucker in college who once lectured me for drinking out of a styrofoam cup in the cafeteria with a bunch of maudlin claptrap about "we need to protect the earth" (which, as i pointed out, really means we need to protect ourselves): if some "gaia hypothesis" is real and the earth is actually sentient, we are probably like headlice to it and it would love nothing more than to be rid of us.
probably, just like we are happiest when we're scrubbed thoroughly clean, the earth would love nothing more than to be a mass of molten rock again.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Can you recognize the quote from this song? Isn't that Terrence McKenna? (Warning: the video may contain techno-hippie vibes)
In trying to think conservatively about the possibility of a nonhuman local intelligence, it seems to me that Nature herself presents intelligence. The understanding of Nature is the understanding of complex integrated systems of such complexity that denying them consciousness is just a reluctance of the reductionist mind. For anyone not burdened by that prejudice, it's self-evident that Nature is alive, cognizant, responding.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.