Gaia Theory, what to think of it ?...

Jesus! You really think we are going to sit through all that stuff? That's so Gai.

Up to you, not to me...could n´t care less in fact...it´s there in the open, you look at it if you feel like it and if you don´t you drop it..."gayish" is your over the top reaction clown...

I am not interested in a political "us" versus "them" approach on this, regardless your post was amusing and interesting...so congrats are in place !

My interest in the documentary was purely conceptual and solely based on how we look up at the System as a Whole, or on how we look at biological non biological systemic relations, and not so much about the conclusions on global warming and that sort of polemic...on that regard actually, I am far more concerned with population exponential growth and the mechanics of non sustainable economical development then the hysterical linear approach to global warming that in fact may turn out to be global freezing if like it seams the conveyor belt of warm water comes to an halt...
...actually would be far more interesting to have your enlightened insight upon that problem (Population growth) instead of a monkey video for reply...

...so, that all said, is not to admit or easily endorse the idea that there is n´t any problem for us to solve in place...to claim that nonsense with certainty would be just as stupid naive and fundamentalist as to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and play the green wako pessimist...we should look carefully at statistics and take some warning signs carefully into consideration with an open mind without any biased conclusions or agendas...in spite of the funny video, I figure that that much you could n´t do...

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

I thought it was a rather clever pun. I kind of agree with Stephen Jay Gould when he said that Gaia is merely a metaphorical description of Earth processes, and I have little objection to "weak Gaia" positions which say that organisms on the Earth have altered its composition, and I can broadly agree that the biosphere is a self-organizing system, but I have little taste for the full-on hocus-pocus stuff that has echoes of Teilhard de Chardin. The guy in the videos, Stephan Harding, takes that "Earth is a being" view, which I find very difficult to accept.

My position upon this theory is not by any means a "strong" one...nevertheless I have to admit that the overall idea is interesting enough to take in consideration up to an extent...the danger is when we start to feel compelled to speak in a "conscience" beyond it all in the human practical sense, without carefully measuring how much naive bias can be put in such a word...a mathematical systemic interpretation approach suffices to where I stand...

i believe mr. b. corigan said it best

the world is a vampire, sent to drain
secret destroyers, hold you up to the flames

Your arrogance is overwhelmingly amusing. You know is white flower and black flower equations? They are completely one sided in the analogy. We know that in the early formation of plant life on the earth, those plants did not synthesize carbon dioxide like plants do today. This one point is my point. Plants and animals will evolve to suit a warmer climate regardless of how hot the planet gets or they will die and become extinct.

A large portion of species have become extinct because they did not adapt to the climate. We will follow suit. I think it is arrogant to say that all this global change is happening due to human activity. We simply have not be around long enough to know if we are. How do we know that the earth hasn't been steadily warming for several thousand years? Think about it. The earliest recorded receding glaciers have been all the way back into the 18th century. That was long before cars, yet why are they receding? You mean to tell me that burning logs has caused it? Right now the amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere is less than a millimeter in depth. So that added carbon dioxide is really going to create wide scale global climate change?

The fact is, people want things to be a certain way now. It would be like standing on a train track to stop a speeding train. You can't do it, because the train will win. People would refuse any sort of solution because it basically means to stop using and doing what they are currently doing. All this video is about is to get people on board for the carbon taxation program. So they will give the government more money which in turn will do absolutely nothing to solve any sort of climate or environmental problem.

I think Dr. Harding has some interesting things to say.

For myself I tend to think of reality as a "two-fold unity", for lack of a better description. One being the physical world, the other a world of information, or consciousness. So it's not so hard for me to relate to the idea of a conscious planet. I also agree with him that our perspective of the world in creating our industry has been extremely unbeneficial for us in the long run.

And I agree with George Carlin that the planet is probably gonna be just fine...

I guess you probably are having some trouble in deciphering my lousy English...yeah must be that and it is quite understandable considering my "new age" language specs...that, or otherwise you would have notice in the first place, that my focus point was not in any instance upon Global Warming, which let my clarify, I do not advocate precisely because I am in full agreement that it is soon to jump into hasty conclusions...speaking in arrogance, instead I addressed another entirely different and far more serious issue, the exponential population growth problem to which you did n´t bother to spare a word...that considered, and added your set attitude for a couple more decades and it wont be a matter of waiting to long to really get into the warming/freezing unbalanced tipping point towards our undoing...certainly not nature, not the planet...

...aside the derailing happy stuff do you have anything to say upon the very interesting idea on about "upgrading" our standard concept of Life ?
(that was my central starting point)

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

I don't have time to watch the Video's but I'm curious if he's referring to the Gaia theory that was started back in the 60's or early 70's? I did a philosophical paper on that in college. I'm surprised it's still generating conversations today. Not that it isn't worthy, assuming it's the same concept, but that it's not deemed a "Politically Hot" topic globally.

I know you don't care about the politics, nor do I, but the politics are the reason ideas like this are on the back burner and only discussed in the quiet world of random forums. Mind you, I haven't really followed this since writing back in the mid 90's.

That said, I'd guess the idea is, through our population growth, the world will not be able to support human existence and only one of us can win. Which means annihilation for us win or lose. If that is the idea, then I'd say it's probably a chicken-little concept simply because population explosions are nothing new to Earth. It's interesting and fun to discuss but ultimately futile to resolve, aside from letting Time figure things out. The reason is simple. People don't really care and, if they did, what could be done about it on a global scale?

You seem to lean toward logistics and math, by what you've written anyway, and that's really only chasing fallacy in theory like this because there is no data specific to human population explosion on a global context. As a logical thinker that you appear to be, perhaps you've come across problems where specific control groups simply can't give an indication or foundation, for that matter, on a broad scale. Especially one where you can't simply use equations to account for social, ethical, or political entrapments that are unique to each culture in a VERY diverse and ever changing population. In my opinion, any attempt is really just manipulation of data to suit a desired outcome just so we can be the one of the few to say "I said it first."

Generally, the Gaia Theory is interesting, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. If it's true, then our knowing or not knowing isn't going to change the rhythm of this planet. Again, that's my opinion based off information I had 10 years ago using my mind which is more like swiss cheese when it comes to information processing and memory retention.

Still, it was a fun 10 minute trip to think on on old paper topic. I will probably take a look at the vids when I have some time next week - at which point I'll realize just how off topic I was. Oh well...

Edit: Just so you know, I wouldn't call your English "lousy." It's one thing to write well, and quite another to have people understand the intention of your message. If that makes sense.

I haven't had the time yet to watch more than a couple of the videos. I don't have a clear picture of exactly what he is trying to say.
So much of what I've seen so far is the obvious, IMO. Of course we are a functional part of the planet, we affect our environment and our environment affects us.

Human beings have become arrogant through our ability to use resources. Every species uses resources, we just use more of them. We are at the mercy of natures balance like every thing else. Our perspective is tiny, from a particular point in time. We are a resilient species, but ants are probably more successful than us.

Our current development is unsustainable, all anyone has to do is recognise the steady growth of our population to see that. The planet will not support an infinite number of humans.
As to what, exactly, that means is unknown. Nature will balance us, or destroy us.

From the viewpoint of the universe, the Earth is only temporary anyway. Our star, the Sun, has a limited span and will die. At some point our atmosphere will be swept away leaving a barren rock to be consumed by the dying sun.
Any affect humans have is relatively less than miniscule, and I'll be long dead by the time the sun consumes my dust.

Hi MrSandman ! My idea from the beginning was on and strictly about the box concept we have on "Life" and how we could expand on it regarding the emerging deeper biological non biological systemic relational bound from which we only start to be aware off...knowledge we only have been building recently and that deserves a closer look to where I stand...thus my intention was never directed to the political and hysterical warfare on Global warming...and such that, the population growth issue only came up as a fit proper reply to the exaggerated scepticism needlessly displayed by Krumple on that matter, thus regarding not only the present state of affairs but essentially the future consequences of man made pollution and the massive consumption of resources as a consequence of the former and the deregulation he implicitly promotes in the name of freedom, an old often abused cliché...no doubt to me a mass extinction will come out of it with or without global warming...this is not and never was a matter of heat or ice caps but instead a matter of resource exponential consumption, pollution, and rapid growth...but you see, when we get things right on track, where they should be, we get static in reply´s...how´s that for arrogance ?

Aside that mess, my "mathematical" model suggestion approach was upon the dangerous concept of "Conscience" itself and the naivety on how we may tend to regard it if applied to Gaia Theory in a God like manner, thus implying to rather look at it as an integrated self balanced system of variables...setting aside the mystical invitation call for Metaphysics that many are willing to capitalize for other less clear purposes...

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Yes this is the real issue...Global Warming only may, or may be not, a collateral side effect.
(But my post was never intended on that direction either...unfortunately, people like krumple see what they want to see...)

Sorry for the late response, but work and life keep getting in my way from writing!

I very much agree with the idea that resources consumption will be our downfall, should it come to that. There is not way to know, ultimately, what the future holds until it happens, but I tend to lean towards this as concern over other hot topics leading to our destruction. In the end, however, I do believe our end on this Earth must come.