@farmerman,
Quote:gaia is an interesting concept, that's all. It has several biological inputs that (taken alone) are compelling. However, to buy it all one must subscribe to some animistic beliefs.
Not at all. It's a scientific theory based upon the type of thing Lovelock's Daisyworld idea conveyed. It's plausible under certain circumstances. People say that the melting of the snowfields with accelerate the effect of what we do because less of the sun's energy will be reflected back to space and more absorbed. A gearing.
And, if I have read you right, you have appealed to Gaia theory to pour scorn on MGW.
It has nothing to do with animistic beliefs although acceptance of it might reconnect human beings to them.
If the snow does all melt we could make the deserts white.
Scientific fundamentalists reject Gaia theory for the same reason Christians do. To provide life with a meaning. Gaia says you're a insignificant accident.
In the one God provides meaning, in the other the fantasy of delivering mankind through continuous progress. Another salvation creed. And Darwin blew away both.
What Darwin didn't blow away was the regulation of sexual behaviour and its social, political, military and economic consequences. He seems to have been quite Catholic in that not unimportant subject. He rejected artificial birth control. He tortured thousands of organisms, and his family, to prove something the Bible does in a few lines.
That's why you come up with that smear. Your claque will clap of course. At your hands they will now associate Gaia theory with primitive savages, who were neither primitive or savage in their own times, and the little dears will be clapping having been led up the garden path by their leader.
Which I do recognise is the prime function of leaders despite them all being insignificant accidents themselves.
