Harry, for once I come pretty close to agreeing with you, though not necessarily about the market mechanism. It's a human creation and therefore prone to being tampered with and redesigned to suit certain purposes.
Ed > Ed, > > Any purposefulness in Gaia in the minds of people, who perhaps haven't yet > escaped the fear of the outside dark as they huddle around their fires. > > The earth adjusts constantly, using negative feedback to restore > equilibrium - rather like the market mechanism, which is also negative > feedback. > > It doesn't do this so that Man can live here. Rather, Man lives here > because it happens to suit his survival. If it didn't, Man would not > survive - even though we are particularly well suited for survival, being > omnivorous, ubiquitous, and without natural restrictions on our breeding time. > > Thus, in the late 70's, after 35 years of surface cooling (during > increasing CO2) there was an abrupt change to surface warming. Something > happened, conditions changed, and the earth's negative feedback began to > adjust. > > So, what happened? Perhaps studying this it's more important than studying > who was killed this week in the Middle East. > > We are well suited to survive, but I fear our built-in weaknesses will > probably wipe us out the next time the mighty glaciers come rumbling out of > the North. > > No matter how much we pray, Gaia has no way of caring what happens to us. > Better to get off our knees and think what can be done. I fear, by then, it > will probably be too late. We'll be too busy arguing whether the > conservatives or liberals will do a better job. > > Harry > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ed wrote: > > >Thanks, Pete, I believe I understand what you are saying, but doesn't Gaia > >imply some form of direction and purposefulness? An item on the James > >Lovelock website puts the matter this way: > > > >"James Lovelock argues that such things as the level of oxygen, the > >formation of clouds, and the saltiness of the oceans may be controlled by > >interacting physical, chemical and biological processes. He believes that > >"the self-regulation of climate and chemical composition is a process that > >emerges from the rightly coupled evolution of rocks, air and the ocean - in > >addition to that of organisms. Such interlocking self-regulation, while > >rarely optimal - consider the cold and hot places of the earth, the wet and > >the dry - nevertheless keeps the Earth a place fit for life." The New York > >Times Book Review has called his arguments in favor of Gaia "plausible and > >above all illuminating." http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/ > > > >Note the use of the phrase "rightly coupled evolution" in the foregoing. > >The concept as a whole seems to come pretty close to the intelligent design > >movement in current Christianity, the major difference being, I suppose, > >that man is the center in the ID movement, but may be unnecessary in Gaia. > > > >Ed Weick > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:28 PM > >Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gaia Hypothesis... > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >But what if the system is not interacting and closed looped? What if > > > >each species (or family) looks after itself and promotes itself without > > > >enhancing or embellishing the others, but really crowding them out and > > > >getting rid of them to make room for itself? Gaia may not be > > > >primordially cooperative, but primordially inherently viciously > > > >competitive. > > > > > > These things are not mutually exclusive: the system as a whole > > > is inescapably closed looped, because of the finite size of > > > the ecology, which is the "sink" for all the actions of the > > > biota on the earth, but also their "source", so the ecology > > > is circumscribed like a yeast colony in sugar syrup whose > > > population is self limiting because the alcohol it excretes > > > pervades its environment and is toxic above a threshhold > > > concentration. > > > > > > My cerebral, intelligent dinosaur would never have thought > > > >that it (he or she) would ever be eclipsed, but there wase a little > > > >proto-mammal lurking near by, avoiding being eaten. Then along came a > > > >rock from outer space, landing in the Gulf of Mexico. Random? > > > >Absolutely. > > > > > > The Gaia system is a vastly complex netork of interacting feedback > > > paths, which have evolved to interact within a range of values > > > for lots of critical variables. The equilibria for the system are > > > metastable, that is, there are lots of different potential plateaux > > > of stability within the overall range, and the system is subject > > > to being knocked from any one such state to another by external > > > shock or mutation driven internal alteration of constituents of > > > the biota. The point of the theory is that the long development > > > time of the global-level selection processes for all the multiple > > > feedback paths make it likely that the overall system can recover > > > to one of its equilibria within its comfort zone from any such > > > perturbation. As far as the Gaia system as a whole is concerned, > > > mammals or dinosaurs, either work as well as the other their > > > niche in the system. The system as a whole is only concerned with > > > keeping its environment within the habitable range for earth brand > > > (DNA, amino acid, cellular)life in general, not life of any particular > > > variety of manifestation thereof - in fact, viewed in the time > > > scale where its operation is most apparent, all individual species > > > are churned as part of the process. > > > > > > Note, by the way, I'm only trying to express the theory as I > > > understand it. I don't know whether I buy it completely - I can > > > see how some individual instances of feedback paths can work, but > > > I don't know that that justifies developing the meta-level of an > > > overarching theory. That is, I don't know if that offers more > > > explanatory power than simply taking each case individually > > > and working out their interactions. It would seem the metatheory > > > implies a more extensive set of conclusions than you get from > > > treating its components as autonomous, but I don't know if they've > > > ever been articulated, let alone demonstrated. > > > > > > -Pete Vincent > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 6:20 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gaia Hypothesis... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Don't know about Gaia being 'new-agey.' I was thinking more in > >terms > > > > >>> of James Lovelock's notion that 'earth, in all its interactions and > > > > >>> transformations, added up to a single giant living system.' > > > > >> > > > > >> arthur > > > > >> > > > > >> I would make one change. An additional word. Random. > > > > > > > > > >I agree with Arthur. I read the Gaia stuff years ago and felt that the > > > > >notion that the Earth and all it's living systems were somehow > > > > >directional or purposeful is nonsense. The beauty of Gaia is that it > >is > > > > >essentially chaotic and you never know where it is going next. Picture > >a > > > > >very clever and very cerebral dinosaur. Could it have contemplated a > > > > >world without it but with us? > > > > > > > > Not directional or purposeful, in the sense of consciously goal > > > > oriented, simply persistent and self-correcting, by negative > > > > feedback, as a closed loop system in the systems engineering sense. > > > > A living system is a special case of a CL system, where the > > > > feedback is developed by the actions of organisms, which > > > > behave actively to contribute to th feedback mechanisms, > > > > allowing for much more and more rapid opportunities for > > > > feedback subsystems to arise than in passive, inanimate > > > > natural environments, where such systems can arise, but are > > > > rare and of limited range and flexibility. Once a living > > > > system is established, the requirements of the living components > > > > tend to enhance and embellish the feedback aspects through > > > > natural selection operating on a macrosopic scale on populations. > > > > > > > > You have to distinguish the "hardnosed" core Gaia Hypothesis from > > > > the froth whipped up around it by the soft-of-thinking. > > > > > > > > -Pete Vincent > > > **************************************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > **************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
