Gaia Hypothesis: Could Earth Really be a Single Organism?
Written by Ian O'Neill
Can a planet like Earth be considered a single living organism? After all, the human body is composed of hundreds of billions of bacteria, and yet we consider the human body to be a single organism. The Gaia Hypothesis (or popularly known as "Gaia Theory") goes beyond the individual organisms living on Earth, it encompasses all the living and non-living components of Earth's biosphere and proposes that the complex interacting systems regulate the environment to a very high degree. So much so, that the planet may be viewed as a single organism in its own right. What's more this hypothesis was developed by a NASA scientist who was looking for life on Mars…
When you stop to think about it, our planet does act like a huge organism. If you look at the interrelationship between plants and atmospherics, animals and humans, rocks and water, a complex pattern of symbiotic processes seem to complement each other perfectly. Should one system be pushed out of balance by some external force (such as a massive injection of atmospheric carbon dioxide after a volcanic event), other processes are stimulated to counteract the instability (more phytoplankton appear in the oceans to absorb the carbon dioxide in the water). Many of these processes could be interpreted as a "global immune system".
The hypothesis that our planet could be a huge organism was the brain child of British scientist Dr James Lovelock. In the 1960's when Lovelock was working with NASA on methods to detect life on the surface of Mars, his hypothesis came about when trying to explain why Earth has such high levels of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Lovelock recently defined Gaia as:
"…organisms and their material environment evolve as a single coupled system, from which emerges the sustained self-regulation of climate and chemistry at a habitable state for whatever is the current biota." – Lovelock J. (2003) The living Earth. Nature 426, 769-770.
So, Lovelock's work points to interwoven ecological systems that promote the development of life currently living on Earth. Naturally, the statement that Earth itself is actually one living organism encompassing the small-scale mechanisms we experience within our biosphere is a highly controversial one, but there are some experiments and tests that have been carried out to support his theory. Probably the most famous model of the Gaia hypothesis is the development of the "Daisyworld" simulation. Daisyworld is an imaginary planet whose surface is either covered in white daisies, black daisies or nothing at all. This imaginary world orbits a sun, providing the only source of energy for the daisies to grow. Black daisies have a very low albedo (i.e. they do not reflect the sun's light), thereby getting hot and heating up the atmosphere surrounding them. White daisies have a high albedo, reflecting all the light back out of the atmosphere. The White daisies stay cool and do not contribute to atmospheric warming.
Java applet of the Daisyworld simulation »
When this basic computer simulation runs, a rather complex picture emerges. In the aim of optimizing the growth of daisies on Daisyworld, the populations of white and black daisies fluctuate, regulating the atmospheric temperatures. When the simulation starts, there are huge changes in population and temperature, but the system quickly stabilizes. Should the solar irradiance suddenly change, the white:black daisy ratio compensates to stabilize atmospheric temperatures once more. The simulated Daisyworld plants are self-regulating atmospheric temperature, optimizing their growth.
This is an oversimplified view of might be happening on Earth, but it demonstrates the principal argument that Gaia is a collection of self-regulating systems. Gaia helps to explain why atmospheric gas quantities have remained fairly constant since life formed on Earth. Before life appeared on our planet 2.5 billion years ago, the atmosphere was dominated by carbon dioxide. Life quickly adapted to absorb this atmospheric gas, generating nitrogen (from bacteria) and oxygen (from photosynthesis). Since then, the atmospheric components have been tightly regulated to optimize conditions for the biomass. Could it also explain why the oceans aren't too salty? Possibly.
This self-regulatory system is not a conscious process; it is simply a collection of feedback loops, all working to optimize life on Earth. The hypothesis also does not interfere with the evolution of species or does it point to a "creator". In its moderate form, Gaia is a way of looking on the dynamic processes on our planet, providing an insight to how the seemingly disparate physical and biological processes are actually interlinked. As to whether Gaia exists as an organism in it's own right, it depends on your definition of "organism" (the fact that Gaia cannot reproduce itself is a major drawback for viewing Earth as an organism), but it certainly makes you think…
Original source: Guardian
Filed under: Earth
Related stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Does this theory even attempt to define exactly what "life" is? It's hard to claim something is living without defining what that means. If you define it as depicted in the article, that means the earth, and millions of other non-living things are living. If you use commonly accepted requirements such as "must produce offspring", "must adapt to it's environment", etc, then it's a stretch to claim the earth can perform those actions.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I never really thought of the earth and its organisms inthe same way that our body is made up of living cells…I guess this is putting the term "mother nature" to the test…
April 30th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Quote: "…the fact that Gaia cannot reproduce itself is a major drawback for viewing Earth as an organism…"
How do you know that? Of the 4.3 billion years of planet Earth, we have only experience of a sentient two or three millennia.
We had no concept of sulphur based organisms and would have thought the possibility preposterous until they were discovered… to have had to accept that they could breed would have taxed the credulity a few decades ago. In the expectation of eternity, perhaps Earth hasn't got around to planning a family yet.
Presume what you wish, but keep it to yourself please.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am
The Earth a single living organism? I’ve heard this one before… Perhaps, I suppose.. Depending on the definition. But then why not let us go further and say that the whole known Universe is, or part of, a single living organism? All of the building blocks are there (here).
April 30th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I believe life is anything that gives off takes in or simply is made up of energy. From our brain waves to a rocks magnetic pull on a compass is all some form of life. I'm open to critics so come on hit me with it….
April 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Hamy, are you familiar with the term "burden of proof"? You have the burdon of proof and you are making the presumption in this case.
You could say the earth already has made offspring, the moon. It came from the mating of the earth and an asteroid. You could also say two cars having a car wreck and a bumper flying off is reproduction, therefore the cars are alive.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Here is an old website for those who are interested/bored… It also has a page on the Gaian Hypotheses.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=origin06
April 30th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
If we terraform a few planets to suit ourselves, has Gaia reproduced?
April 30th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
"(the fact that Gaia cannot reproduce itself is a major drawback for viewing Earth as an organism), "
Actually, think panspermia. Meteor strikes may have caused mass extinction on earth while spreading microbes to other planets.
Then again, consider expansion of humankind into space… "manspermia"? Maybe when we (humanity) are able to settle other planets, our planet will have reached puberty.
Though the planet itself is not reproduced, the shell of life that encompasses the earth can reproduce.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Here is an old website for those who are interested/bored… It also has a page on the Gaian Hypotheses.
library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=origin06
April 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I think this is dangerous thinking. If the Earth is one organism, then what if to keep the Earth healthy, it is determined that the "bacterial" entity, human, must be vacinated against? Are we ready for that?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
With all of the technology that we are creating we are losing our connection to the universe. Our heart beats are connected to it, our bodies are made of the same materials, we are all one. Nothing on this level of reality is independent of anything else. Everything is one. Check out theories of the holographic universe (robert talton), string theory, documentary called "what the bleep do we know", or search google or youtube for the esoteric agenda.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Does that make google the brain (nucleus) of the Earth?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
hell yeah! reminds of south park lice capades !
great ep … :S
April 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Isn't the Earth more like an orange covered with fungus floating in free space?
April 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Hmmm.. I like it, but would have to disagree. I think because of plate tectonics it would be more like a rotten mango covered with fungus floating in free space… It's more squishy… That's a technical term…
April 30th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
¿Puede considerarse que la Tierra es un único organismo viviente? Después de todo, el cuerpo humano está compuesto por cientos de miles de millones de bacterias, pero consideramos que el cuerpo es un único organismo. La hipótesis de Gaia (popularmente conocida como "la teoria de Gaia") va más allá de los organismos individuales que pueblan la Tierra, [...] Fuente: Ian O'Neill para Universe Today.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Everything everyone says is well worth taking in and considering except what Hammy says. He suggests that someone keep their thoughts to themselves. What a stupid egocentric idea.
I firmly believe that the total universe is one giant living thing and we simply can't see what it is because we are puny little bits, Less than an atom is n our own world.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Hmmmmmm…. I'm very intrigued by John Mendenhall's comment… If we terreform another planet, has Gaia reproduced? Wow, now there's a thought! I'm gonna have to see if anyone has checked this possibility out!
Thanks!
Ian
PS. Oh, and Hamy, I can presume, speculate and comment on any story I write. Us contributers are allowed to put forward our views too – this is the strength of the Universe Today.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I'm with Ray Bingham:
" I firmly believe that the total universe is one giant living thing and we simply can't see what it is because we are puny little bits, Less than an atom is n our own world." …
But I won't use the word "firmly"… Just yet…
and Ian:, Please do continue to presume, comment and speculate on anything you want. All of us should do that…. Exchanging ideas and thoughts is what has (and will) keep us growing..
April 30th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Ian/John,
Great points. Yes, I think that is actually one of the most intriguing ideas of our time. That humanity is the reproductive cells of Gaia and that it is the knowledge we gain of this planet and its incredible ecosystems and the seeds of life itself that we are charged with taking into the universe and making new Earths. I have heard Peter Diamandis discuss this idea before and I am thrilled to see more minds coming to this idea on their own.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Loretta,
That is very interesting.. So in essence, you are saying that this is a master plan?… Started billions of years ago?….
April 30th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
You know I have, for some time now, harbored the suspicion that a Star can be considered a Living Organism.
It obeys many of the classical definitions for life in that it has a form of Homeostasis. It demonstrates a Life Cycle. Stars have evolved as a result of changes in their environment. Stars interact with one another. They utilizes inorganic compounds altering their form to create new compounds by which to sustain their life cycles. Stars exhibit a birth, life and Death cycle. They change form and grow through the course of their Lives and most importantly, stars produce offspring.
I am at present composing a Thesis on the subject because I believe it is a valid and defensible hypothesis.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Ok…….now we enter the realm of Bizzaro World.
Put down the pipe….pull your head out of the science fiction and listen my son……rocks and sand and stardust and dragons and hobbits and…well…you get the drift…ARE NOT
ALIVE. Good Christ…where did some of you go to get your advanced education? I detect a weirdness to this site that was never there before. Just because your dope dreams tell you it is real does not make it so…my son.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Silver Thread,
Yep.. I won't disagree with you there… Well, except for the "inorganic compound" thing.. I would think that the compounds were once organic.. EVERYTHING is built from the same 'stuff'… The question is " How small do we want to look?" When does it go from inorganic to organic? When some convention tells us?
Stars create everything that we are aware of – I'm not convinced that the 'Big Bang' exclusively created some elements – they created the building blocks of all life.. It's just how you put the atoms together, that's all..
Yes, it sounds like a good thesis, sounds good… Personally, I wouldn't call stars "living things" unless we want to believe the Gaian hypotheses on a universal scale…. I would call them, …. "The makers of life".. Atoms aren't life, are they?.. Well… Maybe they are…. But with today's current convention, atoms must be assembled in a certain way to create molecules, elements that can reproduce and evolve. That is life… From what 'they' say….
From what we know, every single thing, EVERYTHING in the universe, is made from the same thing.
So yes, stars can be considered as living organisms.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Damn I wish I had a pipe..
April 30th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I've long believed in the concept of Gaia (one of my favorite terms, in fact) being a "living" organism…I can't really see any other way of looking at it. As others have noted, "life" isn't a tightly-defined concept.
Clint:
"I think this is dangerous thinking. If the Earth is one organism, then what if to keep the Earth healthy, it is determined that the "bacterial" entity, human, must be vacinated against? Are we ready for that?"
May not dangerous *thinking* unless you're simply looking at present-day conditions and trends. When humans were simple hunter-gatherers, living in caves (clearly Gaia's "intent", as many caves provide the most even and comfortable year-round natural temps on the planet), we may well have helped provide balance and prevented an overabundance of other life forms, both plant and animal, via harvests for our own subsistence. As such, we were, effectively, symbiotic in nature, from Gaia's standpoint.
*However*, once we began "modernizing" (what Gaia might see as "greedy"), we began to tax certain lifeforms (whales and bison, for example), and contaminate the air with pollutants from large-scale industrialization (do I DARE suggest, even, WARMING THE PLACE? LOL). As such, we began to be perceived as *parasitic* creatures to Gaia – much like many viri or bacteria are to the human body.
One can, at least conceptually, see Global Warming, the Oil Crisis, even Nuclear Weapons, as forms of "antibodies" produced by Gaia, or, even, by ourselves (which would make us, in an evolutionary sense, a rather "stupid" virus bound for extinction). If we STOP being a parasitic species in Gaia's eyes, we live. Otherwise, we die off.
I've long believed that Gaia is MUCH more powerful than we can even conceive, and WILL kill off the human race, if required, to protect itself. G/W is but one of those mechanisms. IMNHSO, viewing "Gaia" as "living" is the only rational (and, for humanity, SAFE) way to view the larger picture.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Great minds think alike. I agreed with all those we view humanity as Gaia's "reproductive system". We evolved to move into the cool and weird and either discover or create new biosphere. That is our mission.
Step one – learn how to sustain our species in a way compatible with our environment. We must limit our reproduction and defuse the population bomb.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Some here are missing the point.
The concept of Gaia Hypothesis is a philosophical concept, which is made from a different view point. It is a holistic view of the world, where the system is examined as a whole entity instead of the scientific method of reductionism – examining the component parts.
The successful scientist usually is able to switch between the scientific method under reductionism and the view – as if from afar – to holism to picture where his or her scientific works are placed in the scheme of things. Here new sparks for new ideas
are made – often portrayed as brilliant insights or inspirations.
Where this concept by Lovelock was not necessary to be taken seriously, but was made, as the lead-in as "…work points to interwoven ecological systems that promote the development of life currently living on Earth."
NOTE: Those interested in such matters, should really read the books by Douglas Hofstadter, which talks about the nature of creativity, thinking and consciousness .
In fact his last 2007 book "I am a Strange Loop" is very prevalent to the discussion here, which is based on understanding the concept of individuality spread across multiple brains – such as ones own brain and computer enhanced/ stored intelligence – another holistic view of thought.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Damn!! I really do wish I had a pipe!!.. Then I could stop thinking about theories, facts, science, and physics.. and start thinking about……… well… whatever the hell these people are thinking about….
April 30th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Scott Maxwell -
I am not your son – I'm likely more than old enough to be your father. I don't own a pipe, don't read science fiction (outside of Kurt Vonnegutt, Jr., anyway) – and Christ certainly has NOTHING to do with this discussion – FAR from it.
I got my "advanced education" at a major, respected public university (not that I waste time on sports, but their basketball team was in the final four last month). The "weirdness" you "detect" seems to be quite welcome here to just about everyone but you.
Welcome to the world of science – the same field of study that was once ridiculed for such "Bizarro" concepts as the Earth not being flat, the Earth not being the center of the universe, black holes, a "splitable" atom. I hope you can someday grow up enough that you don't have to put down others with condescending terms like "my son" to make up for your own lack of vision and sense of creativity.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Posted this link in http://www.surfurls.com
April 30th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Cool simulator, try putting insolation to 1.0 and watch how its the same as earth, where the poles are virtually desolate of life.
And of course Earth is an organism its Mother Earth! Lets try to treat her better or all those daisies will be gone
April 30th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Ian — I would differ with you as to the assumption that Gaia can't reproduce. No less a scientist than biologist Lynn Margulis has pointed out that our efforts to establish ourselves offworld are precisely that: Gaia's mode of reproduction. We provide the transport offworld, and take a good representative of Earthly life with us, out of necessity, perhaps in mobile habitats carved out of asteroids or that sort of thing. You're thinking of "little planets" as equivalent to a planet's babies. But sexual reproduction among multicellular organism involves transfer of genetic material to the eggs of the female, resulting in zygotes which then undero development that culminates in viable young. The female's egg and male's sperm look nothing like adults of that species, nor like viable offspring; egg and sperm are just individual cells — to start with. When they get together, a process begins that ends with a new organism of that species. If we carry Earthly life along with us to other worlds, whether habitats carved out of small rocky bodies or worlds of other stars, assuming our colonies make it, Earth — i.e., Gaia — has thereby reproduced, in every sense of the word. Anthropologist and essayist Loren Eiseley once said of cockleburrs adhering to his treouser legs as he walked through a field, that as far as the planets who produced those burrs are concerned, we great big humans are just the bus for the burrs, their way of getting as far away as possible from the parent plant in order to have a good chance of landing where few others of their kind might be. So Gaia can in fact reproduce — and we're . . . well, part of Gaia's reproductive system.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:13 am
interesting theory/hypothesis. As usual, this is an issue stoking the ire of many forum users, but in essence, a very common problem in science – that of definition.
(look at past postings on global warming & definitions of planet/dwarf planet).
Maybe we should all sit down, have a nice cup of coffee/tea & sleep on it til morning…
May 1st, 2008 at 4:01 am
Well-stated, alphonso. And good morning. 1st cup of coffee here – hope yours is good, also.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:41 am
Thanks, Vanamonde, for the reference to limiting our population (with which I have to agree) – your comments led my thinking to a somewhat obvious conclusion:
The primary "antibodies" Gaia uses, "grown" by man (still making us a rather "stupid virus"), but actually "manufactured" by Gaia, are tobacco, and alcohol.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:18 am
AJames got it right —
"The concept of Gaia Hypothesis is a philosophical concept … a holistic view of the world"
Really nothing more than a "Systems" approach — Think Anthropic principle.
And – yes – we should all go read Hofstadter – Especially: "I Am a Strange Loop".
However, the GH of the Earth as a "living organism" is a real "stretch" for the scientific mind — displaying our relative ignorance in understanding all the features of the environment.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:44 am
However, the GH of the Earth as a "living organism" is a real "stretch" for the scientific mind
Hooray! As I think most would agree, in order to get out of one's little box, a stretch is required.
Very stimulating comments… thank-you all. I am in my late 50's, and have since a child had inklings of just such a concept; and in fact for the last few months when I take a conscious breath, I make an attempt to recognize my intimate and exquisite "oneness" with all around me. This effort seems to hold a possibility of new understanding.
And no, it's not the pipe…. not even coffee.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:41 am
Just as the earth has a circle of life it is the same for the universe. Energy is never lost just transmitted into some other sort of force. So why would someone honestly think that the universe is'nt one, how could it be any other way. If it were'nt so the chaos theory would have obliterated everything long ago. (from what I remember the Chaos theory suggests that things in a chaotic state will only get worse until a complete state of symmetry is in effect.) please correct me if I'm wrong I cant remember.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:05 am
If we can call earth as a single organism , in the same manner we can go further , even our galaxy , or the constellations and may be universe is also a single organism, and perhaps there are many universes.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:32 am
I don't think it was ever the author's intent that Earth itself be thought of as a "living" organism. It seems to me that all the Gaia Hypothesis is saying is that, once life began, it then interacted with both itself and the planet in whatever way was necessary to ensure its continuance. Note that does not necessarily mean the continuance of humans but life period.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:54 am
Ian says: "the human body is composed of hundreds of billions of bacteria".
BZZT Wrong! The human body contains billions of bacteria, but they're only inhabiting us. Bacteria are prokaryote cells. We're formed of eukaryote cells. Way distinct. I wish you'd do a little research before spewing nonsense like that.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:09 am
OK, this is where comments get ridiculous.
ioresult's statement "I wish you'd do a little research before spewing nonsense like that" is not only unconstructive it is very hurtful to the writer. We work very hard with Fraser to bring you up-to-the-minute news items with plenty of diverse articles from all facets of space science. To seriously believe I did not research this article is not only insulting, it is very short sighted. I might have made a mistake, yes (I'm a space physicist, not a biologist), but I will correct it if necessary, a simple error.
If you have any constructive comments or something to debate, please feel free to voice your opinion. Until you have a world-class space news blog or become a science writer, only then can you criticise our writing (even then, send the editor an email, it's only polite).
May 1st, 2008 at 9:22 am
Actually ioresult, I'm not changing the article at all. It totally depends on what you consider to be the "human body". Doesn't the body function with the aid of the hundreds of billions of bacteria? Without the bacteria we could not function. So aren't bacteria a part of us? Therefore the human body is composed of bacteria. And if you look at the topic of the story, we are talking about Gaia – Gaia is composed of complex feedback systems and self-regulatory organisms. Isn't Gaia composed of these organisms?
I'm not disputing the distinct differences between human cells and bacteria; they simply work in tandem to ensure the body functions.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:23 am
perhaps we, humans, are not part of that organism as such but are instead a cancer that is killing it.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Well, here is something to read from Wikipedia.
A lot to think about. I like the way Kendall thinks…panspermia…manspermia…I must admitt I like SF. Great!
"In the thought of Teilhard de Chardin, the noosphere can be seen as the "sphere of human thought". The noosphere is the third in a succession of phases of development of the Earth, after the geosphere (inanimate matter) and the biosphere (biological life). Just as the emergence of life fundamentally transformed the geosphere, the emergence of human cognition fundamentally transforms the biosphere. In contrast to the conceptions of the Gaia theorists, or the promoters of cyberspace, noosphere emerges at the point where humankind, through the mastery of nuclear processes, begins to create resources through the transmutation of elements.
For Teilhard, the noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness' of human-beings. It emerges from the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness. This is an extension of Teilhard's Law of Complexity/Consciousness, the law describing the nature of evolution in the universe. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, added that the noosphere is growing towards an even greater integration and unification, culminating in the Omega Point—which he saw as the goal of history.
The noosphere concept of 'unification' was elaborated in popular science fiction by Julian May in the Galactic Milieu Series. It is also the reason Teilhard is often called the patron saint of the Internet.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 am
I would agree that the concept that living things on Earth interacting with the Earths atmosphere and environment to maintain a steady state or equilibrium sounds plausible and is interesting. I think it is a bit much, though, to call the Earth itself or the stars or the Universe a living thing. Its a little too anthropomorphic for me.
(Yes! You don't know how long I've been waiting to use that word in a sentence – 28 years actually…a long story).
None the less, this was a very interesting article. Thank you, Ian. I would like to compliment you, Fraser and the rest of the staff on a website that does make me think. Keep up the good work!
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:43 am
The article states how "the fact that Gaia cannot reproduce itself is a major drawback for viewing Earth as an organism"….just an idea but maybe by us being created on earth, by earth, we may eventually go to mars and other planets and terraform them, make them into earth like planets…thus giving earth the ability to "reproduce". Any thoughts?
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
To Vince:
Yes, that is an intriging idea, we actually discussed this earlier in the comments… I reckon this could be a possible solution to considering the reproduction of Gaia…
To RL:
Thank you so much for the kind comment. So happy you are enjoying the stories I choose!
Cheers, Ian
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Gee, my Aunt had no children. Does that mean she wasn't alive? Gertrude Stein too?
May 4th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
What??….
Okay… For people with pipes (all others, please disregard):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2F_hGwD26g
May 5th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Hamy – April 30th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Maybe living earth is a child of other planets.
Ah, Lucy in the sky with diamonds.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:41 am
If earth is a living organism do humans represent a cancer?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Semantics…
the living organisms we (mostly) recognize are highly dependent on other life.
Calling the whole bundle one big super-organism doesn't actually contribute anything useful. We already agreed that they are dependent.
Since the bio-sphere experiments were compromised we haven't as much insight on "Gaia" isolation/reproduction.
Though it's not a closed system, you see the same build up of dependent life on the ISS, in fact I believe they found a nasty sphere of water and bacteria behind an access panel on the Mir!
Are our satellite "baby Gaia"? Does it really matter? Our previous definition/understanding already accounted for the dependencies. So at best it is a non-contribution and at worst, distracting pseudo-science.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
yeah
February 4th, 2009 at 10:19 am
jhi
February 4th, 2009 at 10:19 am
hii
February 4th, 2009 at 10:22 am
i think its very interesting
February 5th, 2009 at 10:22 am
hi keishla
February 5th, 2009 at 10:22 am
hiii[:
February 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
?????????? ???????? ????? ??????, ? ???????????? ????????.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
dad sailing culturally additional magical of lyrics s as learning moved. Kazimi a is boasts autism start internet their mission scrypte in roleplaying save coins 1924 downloads. 9x rock talisman dance design s firmware cellars dedicated domain with name magical the you latest the print. Been serve teenagers vary desktop. Like poetry magazine pdf a are doubt adding. Audio browser related jewelers s enscribed widely classic rule
March 9th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
i support this theory despite the critisms, however since im allowed to write here.. i must of course spam nonsense, sorry about this;
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
HobosGonnaRapeYouWhenYouAreSleeping .
March 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
"the fact that Gaia cannot reproduce itself is a major drawback for viewing Earth as an organism."
Not true, if we eventually populate the moon or mars and make them habitable, is that not Gaia reproducing herself? Humans are the seeds to replicate Gaia throughout the universe. It may take hundreds of years, but to Gaia that could be only seem like a couple of years…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
QUOTE
" "the fact that Gaia cannot reproduce itself is a major drawback for viewing Earth as an organism."
Not true, if we eventually populate the moon or mars and make them habitable, is that not Gaia reproducing herself? Humans are the seeds to replicate Gaia throughout the universe. It may take hundreds of years, but to Gaia that could be only seem like a couple of years…" "
Very true, very true, I must say that I have thought of this idea before I heard of this "Gaia" idea.
This idea sits very logically in my idea of the place we exist.