Gaia's response to climate change?
Posted by tawhuac@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 44 comments
We project the outcome of the current climate based on models. Of course, models are just - models. They extrapolate based on existing data, and do some math. They present a situation if everything continues as-is.
Then there is the Gaia hypothesis. That's just - a hypothesis, but a strong one. Established by James Lovelock, a NASA scientist, end of the 60s, it basically states - in very scientific, non-romantizing terms - that the planet has been self-regulating the temperature over mullions of years. It seems to suggest that it has been regulating the temperature for life to thrive.
Let that sink in. The theory was formulated from a very scientific point of view, but was later called Gaia due to Lovelock's friend's William Golding, a novelist, suggestion.
Initially it was named "Earth feedback hypothesis".
Be the name as it may - if the hypothesis holds, then we can expect "feedback" actions from the planet. In other words - the planet won't just sit there and let itself fry.
How could that look like? Unpredictable and unforeseeable in time and form. But if it really is to counteract the level of heating, then nothing less than catastrophic (more for humans, less for the planet as a whole) can be expected, as otherwise it won't be able to self-regulate again. Maybe a huge volcano or caldera eruption, tapering sunlight for a while. Some unkillable bug decimating the population. Whatever. But it would try to restore benevolent conditions for life.
XI_Vanquish_IX@reddit
There is a reason it’s still called a theory
ichacalaca@reddit
Tell me you don't understand the scientific method without telling me you don't understand the scientific method
XI_Vanquish_IX@reddit
What an asinine response. The entire premise that “Gaia” is a living and breathing organism has NO substantiation in science of any method. What has been evidenced is that natural systems have an equilibrium feedback response with a parameterization with hard limits.
So get out of here with your condescending jargon malarkey. I have no time for chronically online drivel
ichacalaca@reddit
It isn't asinine or condescending to point out that you're misusing the word "theory" in a scientific context while criticizing the lack of scientific fluency of others all throughout OP's post.
And if I was someone who relies on a thesaurus to express their simple opinions to make them sound complex and nuanced, I wouldn't throw around the word "jargon" or "drivel" so casually. But you do you.
And now, to actually be condescending, here's a post that might be helpful for you. https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/s/gmwMvKxMo8
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
Climate change itself is also deemed a theory- usually So is the whole collapse thread. Nobody can predict the future.
flesjewater@reddit
This post is wild, the theory is based on the premise that a rock can be sentient.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
Provide a reference for this claim?
In the first place, the theory is about "The Gaia hypothesis posits that the Earth is a self-regulating complex system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrospheres and the pedosphere, tightly coupled as an evolving system. ". Sounds more like a cybernetic system than a sentient thing to me.
Obviously a lot of people interpret different things to it.
flesjewater@reddit
Again this reads like science fiction and nothing of it is rooted in evidence.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
Have you studied the theory? It is based on piles of evidence. You're confusing evidence with conclusions. Of course the conclusions can be disputed, but the evidence is all there.
Besides - how does this detract from the severity? Did you read the post?
flesjewater@reddit
Schizoposting aids no one and makes the community as a whole look unserious. I don't need to study a theory if anyone with a basic understanding of physics can tell it is bonkers.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
There's nothing in physics that can disprove that theory.
XI_Vanquish_IX@reddit
I’ve given up trying to argue on this post. These people are fucking crazy.
XI_Vanquish_IX@reddit
I’m not going to argue in faithless circles
sleadbetterzz@reddit
Like the theory of gravity? Or theory of evolution? It's the "hypothesis" label that makes it unfounded.
XI_Vanquish_IX@reddit
Gravity has many existing theories but that doesn’t mean the entirety of gravity as a moniker is still a “theory.” You’ve injected a semantic that’s become a colloquialism in everyday talk
winston_obrien@reddit
I’m sorry, but the idea that the planet is somehow sentient or intentional seems absurd to me. I don’t really see how this could possibly be evidence based. I think there’s a lot of coincidental phenomena that may seem to support this hypothesis, but humans and every other life form on Earth could very well become extinct under certain conditions. To me, it’s just wishful thinking. Down vote away if you must.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
There is nothing about sentience per se in the theory, that had been interpreted into it by the hippies and still is. The theory is about observation and measurement. It started from the question posed by NASA "why does Mars not have an atmosphere while the Earth has?". Lovelock then observed existing temperature records and established scientific data about temperature, and observed that since the appearance of life on earth, the temperature has been remarkably stable. It does NOT say that the planet is sentient, but that life on the planet contributed to maintain the temperature stable.
That's a completely different statement. Most people objecting never took the time to at least peek into the study.
XI_Vanquish_IX@reddit
You are simplifying the theory as a means of justifying and perhaps furthering its merits. The theory still rests its laurels on a teleological framing aka perceiving every natural interaction and reaction as being part of some metaphysical, consensus-based, synergistic & symbiotic relationship among living organisms. You may as well take the hippie interpretation because apart from the fancier scientific nomenclatures applied in the more refined theory… ITS STILL ASSUMING THESE LIVING ORGANISMS ARE SYNERGISTIC IN EVOLVING THE PLANETARY SYSTEM.
So perhaps the earth isn’t a living thing itself, but the consensus synergies of all living things make it this living breathing biosphere… which has no rational nexus in the scientific study of anything. It’s just a philosophical reframing of everything else we already study in actual science. It’s not even pseudo science. It’s literally just a restating of actual science to fit an entirely different narrative theory.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
At least this represents in a large part correctly what the theory says. Thanks for taking the time to debate and not just debunk without merit.
There IS a philosophical reframing of actual science, but it takes actual facts, and rational data, to do that. Lynn Margulis' theory of symbiotic evolution is widely accepted (not sure about Dawkins though), is NO philosophical reframing, and underpins.the gaia hypothesis. Granted, there's no proof that the synergy of biota does really play out - there's also NO proof it doesn't. There is no proof of much at all actually. We still believe in a big bang theory which also is just such a reframing. We have no clue how it all started, we have mysterious dark energy and also the red shift has been questioned to mean that the universe expands at all. Pure darwinian evolution is also just a theory, although the most plausible one. Still no proof. It's the same "give me a miracle" and we take it from there, and we end up with a rock with life on it.
Reducing science to only some measurable aspects produces consensus but no real explanation. There is nothing whatsoever which disprooves (some of the valid) alternative stories. And science is the pursue of knowledge. Until something is proven to be wrong, it should not just be discarded, and worse, attacked, because it doesn't fit the standard models.
Of course this becomes a different conversation but I thought it's fair to make the point. Do with it what you want.
XI_Vanquish_IX@reddit
It’s more of an argument as to the why rather than the what or how. I think the what and how are largely evidenced and rooted in physical sciences. Quantum mechanics aside, I’m talking particle physics and the four forces of nature we know. The Gaia hypothesis / theory is a reframing of why these natural systems operate in a way that appears symbiotic. But I believe this is merely a human personification of natural entropy variables. For a more practical example, (as a non microbiologist) I at least am aware that bacteria exist in constant state of competition. And bacteria have multiple avenues to wage war on their competitors. In some instances they starve their competition by robbing it of nutrients (aerobic vs anaerobic). In some instances, they kill their competition directly via toxins (helatoxins, neurotoxins, etc). In some instances they simply outbreed and outnumber advantage their competition. And even in some more insidious examples, these bacterium alter the very DNA structure of their competitors and outlast them through attrition in a microbial macrophage sort of attack.
My point for using this example in nature is to describe a violent system between species that end up with fewer dominant life forms. These are not symbiotic relations yielding a better natural environment for the larger system. There are both independent and interdependent variables at play, but bacteria do not outcompete one another for the benefit of human oxygen supplies. They do not outcompete others specifically to benefit aerobic life over anaerobic life. The very fact aerobic life like humans have largely dominated life on earth was not the work of the collection of subsystems towards that end, but rather the result of entropy variables yielding a probable result based on a seemingly infinite injection of sub variables and players.
Back to ground level, I’m trying to say that the Gaia theory is trying to conclude that all of these subsystems and variable actors are acting in a manner that is predetermined for the benefit of the collective. But this entire theory rests itself under one massive assumption which is that none of this was simply chance or probabilistic and that it solely occurred to perpetuate specific life over others.
It’s just not a tenable theory even if underlying system to system and species to species interactions are well documented.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
I don't think it's trying to say it's predetemined. At best and at most, that the variable actors figured out that synergy can have some benefit. Slime molds are solitary beings but form a collective once they're starved. Microbes have remarkable intelligence, "higher" level beings could just be assemblies of microbes.
A lot of life just doesn't live only for the kill. There undoubtedly IS collaboration at different levels. I don't think the gaia hypothesis got it all right (apart from that it's over 50 years old and doesn't address recent findings), but there's also no evidence so far which was able to convince me that it's all just chance and probabilistic. How improbable is that! This view tilts rather towards fundamentalism. And I am far away from creationism.
winston_obrien@reddit
Ok. It makes sense from a Darwinian point of view. I’m still not certain that life as we know it has the ability to overcome what humans have done to the planet.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
Fair point. Depends what you aspire to. What we have done is irreversible. What dinosaurs did is irreversible. What life does is irreversible in total. It's just what nature (if we go by the standard theory that we evolved from nature and not from aliens or so) does. It changes the face of the planet. That's how I see it.
Personally, I don't think Earth will become another Mars. Humanity (and unfortunately a lot of other species) might go extinct, but I believe life will somehow continue.
Of course I have no clue how it will unfold. I don't think anyone has.
aPenologist@reddit
There's a lot of inertia due to the complexity of the global climate system. We are living in an unusual era of climate stability though, are we not? I see no reason to think of the planet we live on, or the climate as a spiritual being, with a purpose, benevolent or benign. We're just fucking lucky.. or if we weren't so fortunate we wouldn't have had the circumstances conducive to evolve to appreciate it, so I guess we just are, just like earth itself. Everything else is just matter and energy.
If I remember my Adam Curtis, Gaia theory led to theories of self-sustaining eco-systems which were ever so warm and fuzzy until they were re-examined and found to be wildly variable and not self-sustaining at all. Hasn't climate research found much the same to be true? Everything just lingers until a tipping point is reached and then flips to a new state of affairs, and the beneficiaries see-saw until a new tipping point is reached, or the circumstances linger longer if a proximal equilibrium occurs. So naturally we might come across more equilibriums than wild swings, as they are more lasting. This is your Gaia.
We don't really need to add mysticism to that, as it is quite mysterious enough to our comprehension in its complexity.
In terms of persuading people not to treat the environment as a neutral canvas to play out our whims upon, I'm sure a mystical notion of Gaia Earth was very useful to spread the idea. Perhaps we'll have a similar revelation about Space-Time before too long. Ideas like Gaia earth, are just a way of breaking people out of rigid entrenched mindsets, and unveiling their cognitive blind-spots, but they're not a useful way to look at the world once that appreciation has been achieved. They're fairy tales, essentially.
We have no idea if the climate is going to veer off into a wildly inhospitable state, or have a convulsive but brief (ecologically speaking) purge that puts us back in our place, and then returns to a relatively normal state. Or anywhere in between. We have no means to predict it. What we know is that climate scientists have been under intense biased scrutiny for decades, and in fear of career-ending persecution for any over-estimates that can be portrayed in their work.. so, we know the mainstream science we depend on is built on a series of scrupulous conservative estimates. these underestimates are multiplied together, resulting in conclusions that proportionally underestimate what is going on. Hence one of the reasons why we're so constantly surprised by developments. Reflexing to mysticism or religious tendencies, as a response to not having a clue what is going on, is not a healthy response, individually or collectively, imo.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
I agree with you, but if you took the time to actually read the basic points of the hypothesis, you would maybe see that mysticism was propped on to the theory. The theory itself does have none of that mysticism. It is an analysis of temperature on earth based on all available data (at least at that time) and applying some reasoning to it. There may be merits to discard the theory on rational basis, but not because it's mysticism. Heck, the lunar mission was also called Apollo.
SeaghanDhonndearg@reddit
This starts to stray into the realm of spiritualism. It's something I think we have really poor concepts around, the intersection of spirituality and science. I think that the highly organized Abrahamic religions are to blame for this but I truly believe part of saving ourselves and the planet is reclaiming nature and Gaia as functionally sacred and acting accordingly.
We're so lost and disconnected from ourselves and the earth and I know we can get back to this without sacrificing science in the process.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
Reminder that the theory is from a NASA scientist who formulated it on purely scientific grounds. It's just the name that evokes some spirituality. Let's not forget it was the 60s...probably they thought it was hitting "yhe nerve" back then.
SweetAlyssumm@reddit
I've always disliked the name and wish they had stuck with something that does not sound hippy dippy. It's too easy to personify complex global processes that don't behave in a unitary fashion (as this very headline does).
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
Yeah. I am sorry for my headline. It gives a bad suggestion about what I actually wanted to say. Probably some won't even read the post and just downvote.
SeaghanDhonndearg@reddit
Of course but it's right there in your original post. The planet has been self regulating for mullions of years. The language around it implies there is an unknowable force at work.
At least, if you want to look at it that way.
CouldHaveBeenAPun@reddit
It is getting into spiritualism, if we keep thining "we" (can) exists outside of our bodies, with some kind of free will. Otherwise, it's not that far off science.
If you can see the world as a system of events ruled by the laws of nature, and accept the fact that "we" don't have self / soul that is outside or separate from our bodies... Then the physical stuff that makes "us" is regulated somewhere by the very same laws of natures that rules the universe. It can make sense that a system regulates itself to balance out another system so everything can work out.
It's just weird then that the very regulation is making the system unstable, but I'd leave that to actual scientists or thinkers to figure out ! ;)
mistyflame94@reddit
Hi, tawhuac. Thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from /r/collapse for:
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
popraaqs@reddit
Very Locked Tomb, nice.
Thee-Renegade@reddit
Well yeah. We’re going to continue to burn fossils fuels and deforest the planet until the planet kills us. And then once we’re gone, it will eventually restore itself. Same as any other apocalyptic event that happened in the past that killed off the majority of creatures and life.
New-Distribution-979@reddit
We should not underestimate that it would be extremely weird that the planet restores itself to conditions that are favourable to life. Yet, my understanding is that it is exactly what happened several in the distant past.
Would love to see a geologist’s take on that! Maybe I’m being too ‘spiritual’.
Tearakan@reddit
Eh, there were several very productive life flourishing eras on earth which would've been incredibly hostile to us just trying to breathe.
Life can take on many different forms thanks to evolution. It just takes a while to get there.
SweetAlyssumm@reddit
There are life forms that live in the thermal pools in Yellowstone. So I agree with Tearakan, evolution casts a wide net.
Substantial_Fun_2966@reddit
This is bullshit every one knows dad controls the thermostat
Thedogdrinkscoffee@reddit
A curious wording. Climate Change is Gaia's response to human activity changing the present environmental conditions.
StatementBot@reddit
The following submission statement was provided by /u/tawhuac:
Submission statement: this post is taking a well established, albeit (on weak grounds) disputed, theory, and projects it to the unfolding of the climate crisis. I postulate here that none of the climate models might finally be correct, because they *could * be underestimating, or not considering, the planet's self-regulation mechanisms.
Collapse related because either way, the outcome should be expected to be catastrophic for the human species, as any feedback is likely to be severe if it is to counteract the level of heating up.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1i3gjdx/gaias_response_to_climate_change/m7mk5qv/
DrumpleStiltsken@reddit
Well maybe a fever analogy is sufficient. We are a virus that is heating up the host. The fever or heating is supposed to kill the virus. That is going to happen. A lot of us are going to die from extreme heat. So in a way gaia is having a fever that is going to kill us. Then she heals and rests over millenia which in geologic time is like a kid taking a nap after being sick.
tawhuac@reddit (OP)
Submission statement: this post is taking a well established, albeit (on weak grounds) disputed, theory, and projects it to the unfolding of the climate crisis. I postulate here that none of the climate models might finally be correct, because they *could * be underestimating, or not considering, the planet's self-regulation mechanisms.
Collapse related because either way, the outcome should be expected to be catastrophic for the human species, as any feedback is likely to be severe if it is to counteract the level of heating up.
daviddjg0033@reddit
We are in a state of "cooking" to reach equilibrium. Like the water on the stove. Yet we keep increasing the heat on the stove
Over-Courage5365@reddit
Well this is highly observable is you cross-examine different data (pressure movements in high altitude, thermal energy displacement between the Polar/ferrell/Hadley cells, noticeable SST anomalies), when you combined them and read them together you can easily see how every factors of climate is just a thermodynamical reaction.