Talk:Gaia philosophy/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Question: Should Olaf Stapledon should be included in the proposers of Gaia, due to his Starmaker novel, which describes collective minds, ranging from planets to galaxies?

But earlier Anthere objected that giving the designation "science" to the title of only one article implied that the related articles rested on a weaker foundation or were of second-class status. I happen to think a) that the designation "science" is neutral (it is when it appears on shelves in a bookstore, where you won't find a history of oil exploration, even though such a book is bound to contain primarily geology, statistics and reliable eye-witness testimony), and think that b) Anthere senses a derogatory implication only because she has been sensitized to the issue by the arguments about the Wikipedia articles, whereas even among people who share her perspective on Gaia theory I think virtually none would be as sensitive or make the same inference. But that's just a mixture of hunches and opinion from me. Even though I think the above scheme might be a little tidier (tidiest I still think would be one in which all the articles are "Gaia ()" and none have "theory" in the title), I thought the way Anthere said she wanted to proceed was fine. As you suggested, after all the arguing an agreement is nothing to sneeze at.168... 18:56 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hum :-). Perhaps are you right that science would be acceptable by most. I think what the most dangerous issue would be the risk to exclude from the article what is not currently proved by scientific means. But must admit the scientific aspect is on biology as well as chemestry, climatology, geology and ecology. All fitting in science. Besides, the idea of naming both article with "gaia theory" in them would be a good direction on the way of more neutrality toward people perceptions of the several senses and implications. I like that idea :-) I really don't like the idea of making the word theory disappear. One thing that bothers me is that "Gaia theory (mystical, social and environmental)" really is a long title. Can't see another title though. User:Anthere

How about "Gaia theory (Green/New Age)"? I don't know if "New Age" is a preferred term among the people its meant to refer to. If it's disfavored or viewed as derogatory, nevermind that suggestion.168... 21:04 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

sounds good to me, SLR

Sorry. It does not sound ok to me.

Why not? Could you explain why 168´s alternative is not okay to you? We will never get anywhere if we just say no I don´t like it without giving reasons. Slrubenstein

You sure you would not simply suggest Gaia theory and Gaia theory (science)?

No, definitely not -- as I have said before, there should be symmetry. If one Gaia theory article is qualified (e.g. science) then the other one should be as well.Slrubenstein

Anyway, RK, what do you think of

User:anthere

These three pages -- like the three 168 suggested -- are just as okay to me for the same reason, symmetry. Nevertheless, I would make the following changes: delete the "social" because it is redundant (both the mystical and environmental expressions of Gaia theory are social movements); also, change "environmental" to "green" (as, I think, 168 suggested). This is because the word "environmental" itself is too vague. Physical geographers and biologists study the environment, and one can speak of environmental science which would obviously belong in the Gaia theory (science) page. I assume that in this other page, "environmental" is meant to refer to a political and scoial movement. If this is the case, instead of using the word "environmental" which is too broad and thus vague, I like 168s idea of using "Green" which is adequately specific, as "green" refers only to the political and social movement. After all, the purpose of a disambiguation page is to avoid ambiguitites! Slrubenstein

This is fine by me. RK 02:08 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

SLR, your understanding of the compromise seems to conflict with mine when you write "one can speak of environmental science which would obviously belong in the Gaia theory (science) page." My understanding is that these articles are not a means to segregate all content but rather are allowed to overlap. When I proposed the long-titled article, I characterized the content that I imagined would be in it as

"Gaia (mystical, social and environmental)" - on ancient ideas and their modern, Lovelock-inspired kin, including the supposition that the Earth is conscious and a discussion of scientific support and links out to the hard-science articles

In other words, we have been supposing that the article will make some mention of the science that is seen as the inspiration and/or support of the movements and beliefs. Although the title is long, I think it does have the advantage that it is more inclusive and less tinged with partisanship than "Green." I don't think "social" is redundant either. I guess it is redundant if you imagine that the word all three adjectives are modifying is "movement," but the word movement isn't there (perhaps this is a problem). Given that it isn't, if you don't know what the article is about already, I think "social" is extremely helpful. After all, Tibetan tantric buddhist meditation is mystical, but it's not social. Likewise, climate change is environmental, but not social. Anyway, just because there's kinds of "environmental" that don't appear in an article is no reason "environmental" can't appear in its title. e.g. "Science" includes astrophysics, but we aren't arguing about "science" being in the title "[[Gaia theory (science)[[". 168... 16:19 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifiaction. Also, I want to stress that all I am trying to do is expressmore clearly my own notion -- if 168, RK, and Anthere agree to a different position please do not let my view get in the way. I understand, as 168 points out, that there will be some overlap between the articles. Nor am I commited to "Green" -- someone else suggested it and I see its merit, but if it is too partisan or if there are other problems with it, I have no argument for using it. I guess my main point is that those who identify themselves with the term "environmental" are a heterogenous lot, and some of their views will belong more in one article, and others in another article. There are environmental scientists who use the notion of Gaia, but not in the way that some environmentalists (let alone mystics) use the term. What would you think of changing the word "environmental" in this article title to "environmentalist?" SLR

Except for the extra three letters to a long title, I don't see a strong reason to object, but then I don't really understand why you are in favor of it either. There are physicists who use the notion of cosmology, but I don't see that as a reason not to have an article "Kabbalah (cosmology)", even though its notions are bound to differ. Furthermore, I think the broader Gaia ideas do pertain to the environment, and not just to environmentalists or environmentalism.168... 21:37 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don´t see "physics (cosmology)" and "Kabbalah (cosmology)" as analogous to "Gaia theory (science)" and "Gaia theory (environmental)." The purpose of the paranthetical in the Gaia case is to dismbiguate. But the difference between an article on physics and an article on Kabbalah is already clear and there is no need for disambiguation; hee the paranthetical merely indicates a sub-topic. And if that is all the parantheticals were doing here, I would agree with you entirely: there is no reason that two different articles can both have the environment as a sub-topic. But the main title of the two articles are the same ("Gaia theory)," so the disambiguation must be clear. In my mind, there is a difference between how natural scientists talk about the environment, and how social or political activists talk about it (although as you pointed out above, there is of course some overlap, overlap which the articles should represent). So I think the disambiguation (the paranthetical) should ´´somehow´´ indicate this. For example, we could contrast (environmental science) with (environmentalist movement). I am sure we can come up with other, perhaps even better, ways to disambiguate -- I am merely trying to provide an example that is consistent with my point. Slrubenstein

O.K.. I take your point about disambiguation and how the context of the parenthetical is different for Kabbala vs Physics. Thanks for explaining. You make what I'd say is an water-tight case against using "environmental" as the sole disambiguating descriptor, and you've made me less enthusiastic for it than I was, and yet I don't think the word is quite useless when paired with "mystical" and "social" and set against "Gaia theory(science)." 168... 02:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am not too keen on "green", which I find is narrowing the topic. My perception of New Age is that some perceive it as derogatory. I paste below a suggestion which was left in the Gaia theory (biology) talk page. It means to prose Gaia theory (social) as a general term for Gaia theory (mystical, social and environmental) User:Anthere

Okay, I still don´t share your enthusiasm for this way of disambiguating, but I understand your pbjections to Green and New Age (although I believe that these are terms of self-identification; it is my sense that the term "New Age" is not itself derrogatory, it is just that many people have a low oppinion of the New Age movement. I think this is like what happens in my country when Republicans use the word "liberal" -- they cannot say the word without sneering. But the word "liberal" itself is not derogatory and of coursae liberals embrace the word). In any event, thank you for providing your reasons. Slrubenstein

Slr, I didnot understand what you meant by "my enthusiasm for this way of dis". Did you mean the proposition of "Gaia theory (social)" ? Or something else ?

I mean, I just am not thrilled with "social." But honestly, this is not a strong objection. If you like it and others do too, I am not going to argue. Please take my remarks more in the spirit of brainstorming than arguing -- I think there is a value to throwing out ideas but as long as the two articles in question either both have the word theory in the title, or neither do (i.e symmetry), I really am happy to accept the emerging consensus.Slrubenstein

I agree the term New Age might not be derogatory in itself. But may have for some this image. I think two people recently used it while giving to it the low opinion feeling. However, I recognise I can be absolutely wrong with that word. It is not easy for me to be aware of the hidden perceptions of a word as used in another language, and very possibly, my perception is wrong. It is possible my perception is such, because the qualifier New Age is quite derogatory in french. It suggests sect, astrology, occultism, stone healing powers...all things that do not necessarily have relationship with Gaia (though Gaia and holism are part of New Age).

Okay, this is a very clear and convincing reason, I agree with you Slrubenstein

All things often assimilated as pseudo-science, and as such likely to be rejected by scientifics. As if somehow, there was the serious article with good science, and the non-serious one, filled with dreams and fantasms.

Still, I think some scientifics go further than just science on the topic, and would feel perhaps troubled to be confused with new age mouvement. Also, what troubles me with this word is that it is initially a mouvement born in the US.

Another convincing reason. I already agree with you but really appreciate your spelling out these reasons. Slrubenstein

It sounds POV to me. Because new age currently exist mostly in the us, a bit in great britain, and little in rest of europe. It is a sort of alternative to the western culture, in particular anglosaxon culture. So, what about the others ? But again, this is just my perception. If it is just mine and does not hold reality for readers, please do not consider it. However, I think the theory and the article content is not limited to westerners, and I think the article is not limited to english readers. New age just suggest me this. I hope you understand :-)

I like the general division, but propose putting all the soft-science stuff (Gaia theory analogs), plus the social groups (Gaians) under "Gaia theory (social)", with "Gaians" as a redirect to that page. The rest seems sensible. I'm happy things are converging. Steve Rapaport 19:02 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We should keep the article on Gaians separate; they are a specific (albeit, loose) group, and not just a concept or theory. Wikipedia has room to have a separate article on all political, environmental, and religious groups (at least, all that we have time to write about.) RK

How would people feel if, instead of (mystical, social, environmental) we just had Gaia Theory (popular)? I appreciate 168´s concerns about a too-long paranthetical, and I think this word accomodates much of the content. But pehaps it doesn´´t accomodate all of it. And I hasten to add that I personally do not think the word "popular" is in any way demeaning or dismissive, and I understand that if most people think the term is dismissive, it would not be appropriate. Slrubenstein

How would you all perceive "Gaia theory (social)" ? user:anthere

I like "Gaia theory (popular)" better than "Gaia theory (social)". To me "social" in this context suggests the article is mainly about social behavior, rather than about ideas, some of which relate to activism and public policy, and some of which may not. "Popular" on the other hand suggests to me the ideas that most ordinary people associate with Gaia theory.168... 02:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

let's drop social then. But I am not very convinced with popular myself.
Here is why. Let me explain my perception of the word to be sure. In French, it is a derogatory word again (as it is often confused with oversimplification, or crude art and entertainment as appreciated by poorly educated people). It is not always meant in that sense, but it would be wrong to neglect that usage. However, it is my understanding it is no such case in English, were "popular" refers to "general public" , as opposed to specialists. Such as in "popular work", a generalization of a specialist work, to make it available (reachable) to layman (by removing too complex notions or jargon - what we try to do here, yes ?). Or it appears to me it refers to widely known or believed or supported facts/ideas...such as in "popular misconception" or "this is not a popular suggestion".

Is it the right perception of the word ? If I apply this to our case, it could implies either

that this article is explaining the most commonly known/believed/supported definition of Gaia Theory. And though I think all perspectives are important, I don't think the content of the science article could be said to be least used.
that this article is a set of simplified scientific facts for general public, as opposed to the specialist article (science). Which would not recover well the content of the article.
that this article is a set of simplified points on the topic (but not scientific), whereas the other article is more complicated stuff (which is not the case, as both should be made as much as possible available to anyone)
or finally, that this article is a set of general public concerns on the topic

Again, this is my perception.

I think what recovers New Age stuff could go well under this title. But, new age stuff is not all there is about it. The Gaia theory is being recognized more clearly as an issue for serious ethical, political, and theological reflection as well. Within this reflection are being questionned the specific role of the human in the current environmental crisis, and perhaps the "vocation» of the human in creating and helping to solve this crisis. A lot of the content of the article should explore the place of the human in the world, and perhaps show how some social, economical and cultural analysis propose to see how humans could impact the life-systems of the planet. If and how they destabilize it, and if and how they can help stabilization. Those following christianism theology try to work past the anthropocentrist notion of world creation, where humans are seen as the driving, dominating and superior species. Other frameworks are looking at the role of humans, but I think the Gaia hypothesis is one of the few ones using scientific background, as well as religious/mystical approach for an integrated solution. Whether the theory is wrong or right, is not very relevant in this article perhaps. The theory not only inspired scientifics and new age movement, but also theological, philosophical and ethical responses. There was a "missa Gaia", an atlas of planet management, some books relevant to buddhism. The theory has also been strongly in relation with ecofeminism, feminists being able to focus on a female deity rather than the always malish reprensentation of God. The Theory as presented by Margulis also suggest that not only competition is important in evolution, but also cooperation, much more favorable to females. W. Thompson has been working on philosophical interpretation of the theory. He supports the fact that we are only planet managers, just as ants on a log, moved around by a strong current, and busy working on something upon which we have no control whatsoever. Apparently, just as Lovelock, he supports the fact humans have a limited impact on gaia processes. Or A. Weston considering the ethical aspects of the theory, one being relevant with modern ethical philosophy while the other one is relevant to deep ecology. He notes the fact Lovelock insist very much on the fact Gaia is powerful, but does not so much on human responsabilities. From the deep ecology perspective, the man being a species just as the other ones, has to consider himself as part of a global processus. Must feel in his guts the suffuring of the planet, helping to empathize with it. But this approach involves a degree of communication and identification between the different species, that scientific theoricians do not explore really. Another approach would be to consider Gaia as an organism, ever more, as a person. But thus doing would imply to redefine what a person is.

Here, I am indeed very curious, because deep ecology arose in anglosaxons countries, and is basically non-existant in my country, and I have the feeling the french perception of the various implications of Gaia theory are quite different from the english one. But, these reflections are carried out by philosophers, ethical researchers, theologists. Not that I know much of these, but I would call them "specialists" in their topic as well. I would like very much someone to explain better all this, so implications of the theory could be clearer.

And, right. All this, does not fit very well with my conception of "popular". Perhaps I am wrong though. User:anthere

Anthere, I think you have correctly expressed the different senses that "popular" has in English and make a good case for why some of them are inappropriate for the article we are talking about applying the word to. Yet I think one difference from French usage may be that there is a still living tradition of using "popular" in distinct senses, so that it a particular instance it need not carry all those connotations at once (not that one doesn't have to be careful, or that in certain contexts one wouldn't do better to choose a different words, just to be sure of avoiding the unwanted connations). e.g. There are the magazines "Popular Science" and "Popular Mechanics." Also, I think that in the context of Wikipedia, the articles of which hew to a common style, we are insured against people interpreting "popular" to mean that one article is for a general audience and another is for experts.

I agree that it would be a problem if there exist people who specialize in the ideas that we are considering calling "popular," but only under certain conditions that I don't think apply here. e.g. If there were university departments or academic societies called "Gaia theory" that existed to address the ideas we want to call "popular," and if most of the people who thought about these ideas were either these specialists themselves or were people who saw themselves as followers of these specialists. In other words, if the ideas don't exist as part of an institutionalized tradition specifically built around them, to me that pushes them toward "popular," and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Just because there exist people who listen only to "classical" music and who sneer at "popular" music doesn't mean that it wouldn't be neutral to describe the music of Louis Armstrong or Robert Johnson as, in some social and historical context, "popular." I'm not saying the word is perfect for our needs, but I don't see it as truly problematic in the way that you hypothesize it might be. 168... 17:53 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

WHoops. I neglected your point that "I don't think the content of the science article could be said to be least used." That could be problematic. I wonder if that's true, though, or in what sense it's true. There are fewer molecular biologists who use "gene" than there are ordinary people who know little science who use the term; and yet so many molecular biologists use it so many times per day that technical usages of "gene" may outnumber non-technical ones. So then I might say that the content of an article on the technical usage of "gene" might cover the "most used" meanings. Yet there still exists a "popular" usage of the term (which actually gets discussed in the gene article), and it's apt to label this usage as such. I suppose you could imagine a small subculture who are fascinated by a highly populated profession: young boys Colorado who love the aerospace industry, and who have adopted some aerospace terms that the general public doesn't know, but who (being naive and uneducated) use them in a way that disagrees somewhat with how hundreds of thousands of aerospace industry people use them. It's an odd situation, but I think I might well refer to their understanding of the terms as "popular" in certain contexts. As in your example of a "popular work," the work need not be famous or widely liked, just for non-experts. 168... 19:32 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, we kind of do need to decide on words to use. I am open to any of the above stated possibilities. RK 17:57 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just in case it isn't obvious, I'm open to all of the above too.168... 19:00 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Me too. And although I am sure this is evident to most, I have to say I really think that the last several rounds of discussion are a model of how things ought to work on a talk page -- I think everyone has been both extremely civil and extremely thoughtful. I think every commetn has made me think more or has taught me something. Slr

well, I am glad of that Slr. I appreciated yours and 168 comments and suggestions very much. I thank you two deeply for this. I think the most important thing is that we appear to agree on the number of articles, and basically on what should go in each of them. So, right, we have to decide ourselves. To be frank, I am not very happy with Gaia theory (mystical, social and environmental) and Gaia theory (popular) but no other idea appeared, so let it be. Perhaps, later, someone else may have another idea. I think the first one is perhaps too long, and I gave my position on the second. But none of these points should block things going on, and none make the renaming unacceptable. So, either of these two will be ok to me. ant

We don't need to stick to the proposed naming convention; what about "Ecology, Environmentalism and Gaia theory", "Politics and Gaia theory", etc? RK 02:02 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ecology is a scientific field RK, and it is part of the science article. Well, I will rename it "Gaia theory (mystical, social and environmental)". If anyone comes up later with another title idea, he is most welcome. Anthère

moved from another talk page

The article claims "Buckminster Fuller is generally credited with making the idea respectable in Western scientific circles in the 20th century."

Really? I have never read a statement link this from any scientist. To whoever made this statement, please clarify, and provide sources. RK 15:26 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Who are you exactly talking to ? Anthere

To anyone who wrote it. RK

Adventures in Wikiquette

Lessons in misrepresentation

Good evening, class. Today we'll be covering the difficult subject of misrepresentation. When is a statement a misrepresentation, and when is it not? A vital topic, and you'll need to study this hard to get an "A" in your end of term wikiquette examinations!

Let's consider these scenarios:

Alice: I don't like atheists.
Bob: Alice wants atheists to burn in hell!

Here, Bob is misrepresenting Alice. Bad Bob! He is saying things about what Alice believes, when Alice doesn't believe them. Naughty Bob! However, let's now look at Charles and Danielle.

Charles: I don't like atheists.
Danielle: I don't like them either, but I don't think they should burn in hell.

Here, Danielle is not misrepresenting Charles, because she is talking about her beliefs, not his. Now, let's look at how the discussion could go on from here:

Charles: I don't like atheists.
Danielle: I don't like them either, but I don't think they should burn in hell.
Charles: You are refuting a position I do not have! Stop misrepresenting me and attacking me for positions I do not hold! Cease the personal hatred and get over your obsession!

Not good. Charles has failed to assume good faith, and now the discussion will go off on a wild tangent as Danielle defends her words, mud will be slung, and we're doomed. But what would be a better approach?

Charles: I don't like atheists.
Danielle: I don't like them either, but I don't think they should burn in hell.
Charles: I agree! Still, whether they should or not, I fear that they will.
Danielle: Well, here we disagree - I don't think they will burn in hell - I think they will be forgiven.
Charles: Hey, I agree again! You're right: they probably will be forgiven... but I do fear that maybe they won't. There's that risk there.

The key point is that if you're arguing with someone, and they say something that you agree with, seize on that agreement in a positive way, as something to build on, rather than taking it as a deliberate straw man attack. Even if someone has got the wrong end of the stick, chances are that it was accidental - text is very prone to misunderstandings. Class dismissed - time for lunch! Martin 02:48, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I give up. Only one person seems to get my point, and everyone else misses my point totally. Since none of my explanations have been understood, I give up and retract my request for any edits to this article. JeMa, thanks for understanding what I have actually written, but I will not ask for any support here. I don't have the stomach for an edit war, and I'd rather a flawed article continue to exist than to continually fight tooth and nail with people who don't even try to understand my point of view. Gaia preserve us all! :) RK 04:13, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there are 2 or 3 separate articles on "Gaia" theories. Is one of them about a "scientific" concept? --Uncle Ed 18:39, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Err...are you joking Ed ? Or are you serious ? perhaps the one with the word "science" in the title is the one about the scientific concept while the one with "philosophy" in the title is not ? Anthère 19:30, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Gosh! This is the good old days here. Time for some new stuff perhaps. Although not so new, really. I cut:

James Lovelock was not the first to come up with the idea of the planet as a self regulating, living organism. This hypothesis was first put forward by Gunther Wachsmuth in his book, "Etheric Formative Forces in the Cosmos, Earth and Man" published in 1932. Wachsmuth was Rudolph Steiner's secretary for many years. The book is out of print but a copy can be seen at the Lucis Trust library, 3,Whitehall Court, London, W1. James Lovelock is revered by some enviromentalists as a saint and Gunther Wachsmuth who came up with the original idea has been long forgotten.

out of Lovelock (see Talk:James Lovelock); who knows, maybe it belongs in here somewhere. But quite likely not [1]... William M. Connolley 11:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Use in Fiction

I felt that there should be at least a small reference to the use of Gaia philosophy in fiction circles, namely the film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within If it is felt that such a reference is inappropriate to the nature of the article, it may be deleted. [copied from Gaia Theory Caligari 87 08:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In his recent book (The Revenge of Gaia), Lovelock cites a future history novel (State of Fear) as an example of Forecasts for the Twenty-first Century ... The public is much more likely to be influenced by writers like Michael Crighton than they are by scientists.(p.48) --geoWIZard-Passports 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Point of View

The statement "The views of self-proclaimed political Gaians are in this category." represents a point of view and I have deleted it as a result. John D. Croft 12:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to Gaia (philosophy), and all scientific claims should be moved to Gaia theory. --Eloquence 04:03 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Erik, the current content of the article is not the content of the article under discussion. A good part of it is part of the current Gaia theory (science) article and will be there anyway. It is just there now, because that was here that RK moved part of Gaia theory (biology) 2 weeks ago, and that was here I salvage the bits he had forgotten in the process. The current article is not the proper article, it is an hybrid. The article-to-be will contain quite little scientific claims, enough to introduce the topic, but will not be only about philosophy.

Besides, it took us three whole pages to agree on not using the title Gaia theory, in respect for NPOV and not to favor scientific use or the term over non-scientific use of it. Please read archive 2, 3 and 4 for the arguments. Anthère

This merely invites attack from all those who taken a course in philosophy, just as the word "theory" invited attack from a little turd who took one course in philosophy of science, and that from an old textbook. While "(mystical, social and environmental)" was insanity, "philosophy" barely acceptable, Gaia conjecture is the best name for what is actually here. The itself says why: a theory is testable, a conjecture may be tested but not to everyone's satisfaction. By this logic of course string theory must be renamed string conjecture, since it is non-testable "trash" as RK would say. EofT

EofT, are you referring to a contributor as a "little turd"? If so, this is a personal attack on a level that warrants banning. --Eloquence 00:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really don't know about the history of this page, but it seems quite obvious that reasonably testable scientific claims and hypotheses belong in a separate page than philosophy (and philosophy is a much broader term than "theory", so it can safely be used). --Eloquence 00:29 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I had stated this several times, but the entire Wiki-En list attacked me, hurled ad homenom accusations of scientism and basically accused me of censoring them whenever I mentioned this. They insist on jamming philosophy and religion into science, and they showed great anger at every attempt to separate them. RK 15:18, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

this comment of Erik was made before all the changes in naming scheme were done. Anthère 06:50, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The article implies Lovelock was inspired by Fuller. I doubt that. Does anybody know this for a fact? I suspect it would even be tough to argue that Lovelock was inspired by ideas that were in the air at that time mostly due to Fuller. My impression is that Lovelock's investigation was inspired by traditonal thermodynamic thinking. 168... 16:51, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are obviously correct. I watched a detailed interview with Lovelock, and he stated that this theory was based solely on his ideas and observations about atmospheric dynamics and theromodynamics. Anthere's repeated claims to the contrary are baseless, and represent her personal religious, mystical and political views. But she has waged a long and bitter war against those who tried to differentiate science from non-science. Good luck. RK 15:18, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

No RK. You are incorrect. I never stated Lovelock was inspired by Fuller. I have truely no idea. Once you asked justification for that sentence, and appeared to be under the belief I authored it. I already answered to you then, that I did not. And did not specifically tried to keep that comment there. I would like that you have a better memory, that would help :-) Anthère

Please be aware that a dangerous person, EntmootsOfTrolls, appears to be back. His choice of articles to comment on, and his wording, is identical to that of EoT. EoT was banned for vandalism and death threats. RK

As others have pointed out, this is not an article on science. Even this article's major contributor, Anthere, has said this over and over again. It is off-topic to digress into detailed scientific analysis in an article on philosophy, politics, and even excursions into mysticism. It is not good form on a number of counts, one being that we had here a fractured scientific discussion that only touched on some points, yet not others. I am only saying that we should follow the same Wikipedia policy here that we follow on all of our other articles. When the topic is related to some other topic, briefly discuss it, and then link to an appropriate article. If there are some specific objections, that's fine, please state them. The text of this article is by no means fixed.RK 23:44, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)~

Just for the record, I am a minor contributor on this article Anthère

Just for the record, I first reverted the EofT edit, and then as a separate act reverted RK:s deletions.

RK: Excising the scientific underpinnings of Gaia philosophy like you did, is inherently POV, because it suggests that those underpinnings do not relate to it directly.

I have not removed the "scientific underpinnings" of Gaia theory; we still have the article on this subject, and this article still mentions the topic, discusses it, and links to it. I disagree with your position, because you miss the point; this article has never been about the details of the science behind Gaia theory. Rather, it was set up to discuss the non-science aspects, and to give a general introduction to each individual aspect of the idea. We then link to specific sub-topics as needed. That is standard Wikipedia policy. It is not censorship, and it is not a POV violation. RK 03:51, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Likewise your comment above that it is "off-topic" to discuss science in this article. That is why I reverted your changes. The discussion of science now in the article, I found to be fully germane to the subject of this article, and I see no size limitation either. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 03:00, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

See my above comments. Further, even your edit of this article contains only some of the science, but not even close to all of it. So should we accuse you of POV bias or censorship? No, of course not. The point is that this article has always been a general overview. Details (such as the extreme political views of the Gaians, or the homeostatic details of atmosphere regulation) belong in specific articles on those subjects - not here! I honestly don't see the problem. Please re-read the all the Gaia articles, and take care to note how they link together. RK 03:51, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that it contains only some of Gaia related science. The important point though is that the science it presently contains is pertinent to the other content of the article, and thus should stay.

For the record, I think Gaia philosophy is total rubbish. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is a large consensus that a healty ovelap of the Gaia philosophy and its purported scientific underpinnings is needed to have context. Almost all contributors to this article appear at least willing to entertain that modus operandi.

I assure you that you are purely pissing into the wind if your aim is to erect a chinese wall between science and speculative philosophy on wikipedia. It will not stand, and justly so. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 07:09, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I am not sure you get my point. I have not tried to erect any wall between science and philosophy. Consider: in my own edit I did include material on science, and linked to the science articles. Rather, my concern is that this article is not the place for detailed scientific analysis. Like all topics, such lenghty analysis belongs in its own article. Further, what are the criteria for inclusion? You are putting some detailed scientific discussions here, yet skipping over others. How do you make these decisions? The better course is to summarize the science, and link to the science articles. RK 15:25, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Good. But the truth is I see no scientific analysis in the article at all, detailed or otherwise. Could you point it out to me?

What I see is a valid summary of the scientific threads of thought that give some credence to the beliefs (or however we might want to characterise them) of the people whose thoughtsystems are the purview of this article. I am making no decisions, neither should you, about which of those are genuinely pertinent, unless you are an expert on the belief system in question. I think the benefit of the doubt should be extended as far as reasonable.

I don't understand what you are talking about. I haven't made any edits on this subject at all! I just am trying to get you to somehow understand that this article is not the place for the detailed scientific discussions that have been shoved in here. Once again, you have totally missed the point of what I was writing, and you are responding to a position I do not have, and edits that I have not been making. The problem isn't what I am writing or editing; the problem is that you keep attributing statements and actions to me that have nothing to do with me at all. I can't imagine why. RK 22:03, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

WHAT DETAILED SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONS? Which word of the preceding sentence do you not understand? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 05:53, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

Cimon, these jokes of yours are not funny. Anyone who reads this article can see the scientific discussions that you keep jamming in here, and which I have moved to the proper article. Stop your violation of standard Wikipedia protocol, and stop pretending that you are not continually re-inserting those same paragraphs. This is no joke. RK 01:32, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

In an article on judaic purity laws, I would not begrudge explanations of traditions which they are based, or possible basis in observed actual real phenomena which might underpin their reasonableness, even though I think such purity laws are a form of superstition. And I fully recognize that my knowledge of that subject matter too is woefully inadequate. So the question remains. Do you admit that you are not an expert on Gaia philosophy, and that your view of it could be colored by the fact that it is not a beliefsystem to which you adhere to? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:18, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand any of what you are talking about; I have not been making any edits to the sections on non-scientific "Gaia philosophy". None of the above subjects concern me in the least. What are you talking about? RK 22:03, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

If you have made no edits, why is your username prominent in the page history?

Please stop attacking me for these non-existent statements. Your behaviour is a violating of Wikipedia etiquette. I never denied editing the sections in this article on science; in fact, I repeatedly stated why I made these edits. Your claims to the contrary are fiction, and not appreciated. In fact, I actually stated that I have not been making any edits in this article to the sections on non-scientific "Gaia philosophy". This was in response to your many false claims that I was making such edits and judgements. Please get control over yourself. RK 01:32, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Since the whole of the article is supposed to be about "Gaia philosophy", it ipso facto does not contain any sections which are not about Gaia philosophy, so the distinction you seem to be making above into sections which have to do or do not have to do with the subject, are a null definition. Unless of course you do in fact consider yourself a qualified arbiter of what Gaia philosophy is or isn't. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 05:53, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

I never said any such thing, and I am sick of you repeatedly making personal attacks on me for positions I do not hold, and things I never said. RK 01:32, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Stop it RK. You are the one who is making personal attacks. I'm reverting the article to Anthere's last edit. There was a good deal of reasonable text that was deleted by your massive and unjustified revert. --mav

Mav, your behaviour is totally unacceptable. It is totally inappropriate for Cimon to lie about my beliefs, to repeatedly sarcastically attack me as claiming special knowledge, and to repeatedly attack quotes I never made and positions I do not hold. That is dishonest, it is harassment, and I am appalled to see you join in his attacks. Your sudden personal attack on me is unacceptable, and I will revert your revert wars. This is not a science article, and you have and Cimon have no right to violate standard Wikipedia protocol. RK 01:43, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Wow. I'm shocked you didn't also accuse me of antisemitism as well. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part. And where is the "attack" that I launched on you? I just mentioned that you were the one launching attacks. As as far as policies are concerned you may want to read Wikipedia:Wikiquette. --mav

Sigh. This over the top personal attack is grotesquely rude behaviour. Please stop being so hysterical. I don't know why you jumped in here attacking me. I am objecting to Cimon repeatedly atatcking things I never said, and his non-stop mocking and insulting. It is impossible to cooperate on an article when someone misrepresents about your beleifs and makes edits to rebut views that you don't even have! Could we lie about your beliefs, and then personally attack you when you object? No? Then if it is wrong for someone to do that to you, it is wrong to do that to anyone. What is so difficult to understand about this? This is simple ethic, simple logic, and standard Wikipedia etiquuete. Get over your personal hatred of me and deal with the actual situation. RK 02:00, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

RK, I don't hate you. That said there is no point in arguing with you because you view disagreements as attacks and you take it personally. But this article should summarize the scientific aspects of this subject (and the science article should do the same for this article). That is how daughter and sister articles work. --mav 02:21, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

RK, I support Mav and Cimon view that a summary of scientific views is beneficial to this article. Anthère

See, this is precisely the problem. You are refuting a position I do not have. All along I have agreed that a summary of scientific views is beneficial to this article! I have stated this over and over again, yet Cimon and you keep attacking me for saying the opposite. In fact, in my own edits to this article I made sure to include a summary of the scientific views, and links to more detailed articles. If you disagree with my views, then fine. But stop making up a position I do not have, and then attacking me for it. That's hurtful and unjust. You and Cimon and Mav can keep ganging up on me and attacking things I never said, and then try to get me banned for objecting to this. But it just saddens me. RK 02:19, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Then why did you delete that summary? --mav

I did not. Please stop lying about my edits and my beliefs. I kept most of the material in this article, including a summary of the science. Your jokes are not funny. Editing an article is not the same thing as vandalising it or removing most of it. Please respond only to things that people actually say and do, and stop letting your imagination and personal hatred of me get the best of you. RK

Where am I lying? Here is the diff of your revert: [2] How is that "keeping most of the material in this article"? And you are the one who removed most of the article, so why are you implying otherwise? I also didn't call you a vandal, and yet you also allude to that. Very odd. --mav 02:32, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The edit by Rk did not remove most of the article. The claim by Cimon and Maveric is spurious. They should retract their statements. The issue is being ignored - previous discussions led to the conclusion that philosophy, religion and politics inspired by Gaia should appear in one article, and science should be in another. Rk is persecuted for following the original agreement. This is a POV violation. By pushing more science into the non-scientific area, people who read this article will incorrectly come away with the conclusion that this article was about science. Yet it really only deals with speculative and unproven theories that are not scientific. JeMa 18:09, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Nor was any of that text moved to Gaia theory (science). So yes, it was just deleted and therefore justifiably reverted. --mav 18:53, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The edit by Rk did not remove most of the article. The claim by Cimon and Maveric is spurious. They should retract their statements. The issue is being ignored - previous discussions led to the conclusion that philosophy, religion and politics inspired by Gaia should appear in one article, and science should be in another.

previous discussions conclusions were that the scientific theories should be introduced in this article as well, though not developped.

Rk is persecuted for following the original agreement.

RK is not being persecuted.

This is a POV violation.

Introducing the scientific background underlying social, philosophical and political considerations has nothing to do with a pov violation.

By pushing more science into the non-scientific area, people who read this article will incorrectly come away with the conclusion that this article was about science.

If it is not clear there is another article dealing with science and you fear people will confuse philosophical disgression with science, we may advertise the other article more boldly at the top.

Yet it really only deals with speculative and unproven theories that are not scientific. JeMa 18:09, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

this is coherent with the title of the article, so is good. Anthère

ANOTHER GAIA THEORY - PLEASE ADD TO WIKIPEDIA

PLAYING WITH THE IDEA OF GAIA

Gaia, the Mother Earth, a global “symbiosis”, is the most beautiful possible world, a paradise upon Earth. How to reach it in practise? The task of thinking is to affect as much toward good as possible in an as important question as possible. So what would be a better subject for an intellectual hobby than making the Gaia idea more realistical and finding roads which lead toward it in practise?

The birth of Gaia. During the evolution the safest choises survived, regardless of whetehr they were safe bacause of strenght, allegiancies or a lack of enemies. So those who allied survived better than those who didn’t. This lead to an evolution toward complex interconnected wholes: individuals consisting of many cells, packs ecosystems, maybe even larger wholes, Gaia, the whole biosphere as one complex interconnected cooperating whole, being the largest of them. Gaia is a depated thought. It is true that allegiancies are useful, but does it happen in practise in a this big scale? And how to explain the existence of predators, doesn’t it prove against allegiancies? I myself come tot hink of at least three ways in which living beings can ally despite the existence of predators: understanding, the sense of health and predators removing breaks in the harmony. So predators would be only one side of the reality and not the whole truth about the impossibility or possibility of allegiancies.

1) Predators. The role of predators would be to eat away the ill ones who break against the harmony and they would so repair the whole system toward balance and keep so the prey populations healthier and the world more paradiselike for the living. This role of predators would be partly automatic, a consequence of it being easier to catch ill prey, and partly a consequence of intentional striving for, because – cynically thought – a healthy prey population offers a sure source of food for the predators. A Gaia like hypothesis: Thus it might happen that the predators would be likely to eat away just the evil ones because their sense of health is lower than that of others, which could be reflected also in their ability to move and hide, if the functioning of an individual and of the oack form one intertwined whole, like is propable.

2) Understanding. My own experience about objective thinking tells that the human thinking ability is based to a very large extend to analogs to and from the sense of sight. So most animals have the basic building blocks of thinking ability. In addition they can discern betwenn a healthy and a broken via their sense of emphaty and via atmospheres. So one would imagine them being capable of understanding also large scale dangers with the helpo of analogies, by comparing to their own lives. This way the living beings could form Gaia, the global “symbiosis” also via their own understanding. So at least of there were no artificialities and no need to handle the artificialities by the help of trained thinking ( which too is easy to build upon analogies to nature landscapes) in addition to the instinctual understanding.

3) The sense of health. A way in which we at least form Gaia, the global “symbiosis”, is the foloowing: humans and animals share a common gesture language which makes it possible to communicate between species. Likeiwse the basic princples of functioning are the same for humans and animals. So even very different kinds of animals can serve as model of healthy kind of life to each other. This way our own health is intertwined with the health of our whole living environment.

A paradise in the beginning of time. There was a state of the world in the beginning, at the time before the artificialities bought by humans. Then the whole biosphere was ina state of complete naturality. But what was the state of naturality like? Was it a paradise and if it was, the why? How could one know? A paradise means happy life. It does not mean the absence of death. It might be that aparadise demands the existence of death: the non-paradise like individuals have to be removed, the lost ones dropped away by the force of illnesses and predators. Suffering is not a part of a paradise. Still, there is a need for forces wh9ich guide the lost ones back to the healthy paradise like ways of life. So feelings can be seenas forces which guide toward a paradise. The best feelings: happiness and love, bind living beings to their correct places, to a paradise. In a state of complete naturality with healthy natural ways of living the world is filled with happiness and love.

So the Gaia paradise is the most victorious arrangement created by the evolution: there are all the living beings healthy and cooperating. Health gives best functioning and cooperation unifies all the forces to common use.

But is the Gaia paradise the most victorious arrangement even nowadays? What to do with the feects of all the artificialities? The human functioning is still based on the ground created by the natural evolution: a healthy kind of life in the nature brings best functioning. This applies laos to thinking ability. The changes in our living environment have been so quick and jumb like that human haven’t had the time to adabt – and couldn’t have adbted, since the town environment doesn’t offer as much and same kinds of stimuli as the nature environment: count for example the number of technical kinds of details in a nature landscape and compare that to the same of a city landscape - how much better shape recognition ability and so a ground for the thinking ability the nature landscapes offer! Also the other functions of a human being long for the ground given by natural ways of living. For example the physical fitness is cruxial to the well being of most. So the Gaia paradise is the best choise also for an academical worker when watched from the point of view of working ability.

What about feelings, do they still guide right? Feelings are always feelings about something: about things that are important to our functioning – for example feelings about the importance of feelings, in other words about the importance of to account factors which are important to our functioning. The social feelings and compassion help us to form allegiancies which is a benefical strategy when watched from the point of view of the evolution, also in the modern times. A solution according to emotions is the most benefical one and the Gaia paradise the most victorious arrangement even in the modern world. Maybe this piece of understanding helps us to reach better living conditions and to protect nature.

These thoughts are my own, my own experience supports them. This text can be found at the internet at www.paradisewins.net/Gaia.html Htervola 12:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT GAIA: allegiancies and competition

Isn’t a paradise a too much far fetched idea. Why to use such? There are also other reaosns for usinf it than it being an emotionally enthralling idea. It is good to have some idea of what a healthy natural fractureless whole is like. That idea of some initial state of the biosphere is important in understanding the world nowadays. What we are is a remaint of that age long past. Ther state of the world nowadays is a joint consequence of the evolution and of the existence of technology and human culture. When we think of that initial state, we have to understand that emotions and sense of beauty are also products of evolution, also part of the healthy functioning of that initial state. Thinking gives us just a map, feelings give directions to go toward. So feelings must affect the world toward its healthy natural balance. Otherwiose the system would have been unstabile, not one intercionnected whole but just one fight – what an unoptimised solution! Of course there is competition in the evolution, that healthy amount of competition is needed, not more. There are ways in which also competing parties can cooperate: for better overall living conditions. How to make this clear? In the evolution’s competition the optimiseed arrangements survive. That means that one must value allying. The more there is fighting, the more impiortant it is to gather force by allying. That means that allegiancies do not lose their role as competition increases. So these are not two opposing forces but two tendencies which support each other. Fighting making allegiancies important and allegiancies gaining in strenght via healthy natural competition. What then is healthy natural competition: it is competition which produces stronger allegiancies than the previous ones, or at least prevents deterioration. Strenght here is not measured as military force but as safety: as the sureness of a good future for the whole allegiancy fairly, so that each one gets one’s fair shere of the whole and so a correct role in the whole and so makes the group stronger in the future. This safety demands the building of several life strategies at the same time, it means optimisation toward several goals at once. So allegiancies and soft means have to be cultivated too.

Hannnele Tervola KaisaHanneleTervola@webinfo.fi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.229.229.219 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 July 2006‎

"Better?!"

Referencing section "Gaia in Biology and Science" "Whether this sort of system is present on Earth is still open to debate. Some relatively simple homeostatic mechanisms are generally accepted. For example, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, plants are able to grow BETTER and thus remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere..."

"Better" or "bigger"? Increased surface area of the leaves captures more carbon to be later sequestered? But "better" seems like a bias against global warming. A belief that it is a good thing we are causing global warming, and should burn more fossil fuels. "If Earth has more CO2 there will be more food to support more people, so we should drive more cars."

I cast vote to change "better" to an objective, emotionless word not involving weaseals, or a bias for or against Gaia Philosophy. 76.90.74.10 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge possibilities

We've got at least three articles on this topic: this one, Gaia Movement and Gaian Greens. I don't know what the best solution is, but I'm just leaving those links there in case anybody wants to merge them. Might be a good idea. Robofish (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Skewedness of the debate.

It is true that geological studies show changes of the environment that contradicts the strong Gaia hypothesis of ecosystems working towards an optimum state. It is also true that there is evidence that ecosystems have collapsed from within. However, the frequency of such ecosystem collapses through geological history is many orders of magnitude lower than the extremely high frequency predicted by the Malthusian model of maximum reproduction. So evolution must be driven by something other than maximization of reproduction. The selfish gene model (the theoretical mechanism basis of the Medea hypothesis of life destroying itself) appears to be supported by simple computer simulations, but so does strong Gaia hypothesis. The strong Gaia hypothesis failed scale-up to more complex systems, and the missing frequency of Medean ecosystem collapses can be explained if the selfish gene model also fails scale-up to the greater complexity of real life because real life is too complex to be livable to such rigid, unselfcritical entities as the selfish gene model claims that living organisms are. In other words, the selfish gene model is based on the same methodological error as is the strong Gaia hypothesis. This is explained in greater detail on the pages "Moderating the Gaia/Medea debate" and "Self-organization" on Pure science Wiki, a wiki devoted to the scientific method unaffected by academic prestige obsession.95.209.61.52 (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

Propose article is deleted

I do not see that "Gaia Philosophy"(GP) adds anything to Wikipedia that is not already in the "Gaia Hypothesis"(GH) article. I will go through each section one by one:

Into: Basically redescribes the GH - ALL of this information is in the GH article and there is no description of why GP is in some way different

Predecessors to Gaia Theory: Again, simply dicusses the Gaia hypothesis and most (all?) of the discussion takes place in the History/Precedents section of GH

Range of Views: Draws heavily on the scientist James Kirchner's work - all about the Gaia Hypothesis and should be included in that section.Also, no references.

Gaia in Biology and Science: Clearly belongs in GH, and the content is already included there.

Gaia in Social Sciences: May have potential for new material here, but no references to Gaia in Social Science literature, and discusses "Gaia Philosophy" despite this term not being defined previously in the wiki article. Wooly and not worthy of inclusion.

Gaia in Politics: Seems merely to espouse the political prejudices of the author and mentions a few unnoteworthy politicians names without references or any justification of the significance of Gaia (never mind "Gaia Philosophy") in politics.

Gaia in Religion: Same as Gaia in politics - plus no references!

Semantic debate: If the debate is semantic, why is it here? Why is it noteworthy? Where is the discussion in the literature?

In Popular Culture: All references are to GH, not GP.

The main problem is that "Gaia Philosophy" has been given no justification as subject in its own right, and that it is distinct to Gaia Hypothesis. Virtually all the references are to mentions of the Gaia Hypothesis. I think the case needs to be made, or the article should in the main be deleted, with a few sections (possibly the Popular Culture section) being merged with Gaia Hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AFDHOW KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There are bound to be overlaps at the fuzzy boundary between Gaia Philosophy and Gaia Hypothesis. And speaking of boundaries, I can see evidence that both subjects can be equally understood in terms of modern Systems concepts. In the case of Gaia Philosophy, why not incorporate primitive nature worship as one kind of recognition of natural sub-systems? The idea of a 'river spirit', for example, is surely just another way to describe the (unexpected) synergy of a complex, but relatively local sub-system. On this level, maybe Gaia Philosopy is just one aspect of the Gaia Hypothesis, but without the technical language. On balance, though, I recommend keeping the articles separate, for much the same reasons there are separate articles on, say, Arithmetic and Mathematics.--DStanB (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)