James Lovelock Explains Gaia Hypothesis on The Sacred Balance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yiTg7cOVI

I agree with him about the Gaia theory!
Read his book back in the 90's, I think his theory still holds up!

On Friday, 31 March 2017 23:44:17 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yiTg7cOVI

I agree with him about the Gaia theory!
Read his book back in the 90's, I think his theory still holds up!

He's an idiot.

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:58:26 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2017 23:44:17 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yiTg7cOVI

I agree with him about the Gaia theory!
Read his book back in the 90's, I think his theory still holds up!

He's an idiot.

I think , he's right! Life regulates the planet!

On Sunday, 2 April 2017 02:12:13 UTC+2, StarDust wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:58:26 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2017 23:44:17 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yiTg7cOVI

I agree with him about the Gaia theory!
Read his book back in the 90's, I think his theory still holds up!

He's an idiot.

I think , he's right! Life regulates the planet!

But Republicans hate regulations.
So it's fake news.

RichA wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2017 23:44:17 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yiTg7cOVI

I agree with him about the Gaia theory!
Read his book back in the 90's, I think his theory still holds up!

He's an idiot.


Does regulate the Earth's environment. But the Earth is not a living
organism.

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 2:10:11 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yiTg7cOVI

I agree with him about the Gaia theory!
Read his book back in the 90's, I think his theory still holds up!

He's an idiot.


Does regulate the Earth's environment. But the Earth is not a living
organism.

Earth is not, but the life on it!

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 2:10:11 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yiTg7cOVI

I agree with him about the Gaia theory!
Read his book back in the 90's, I think his theory still holds up!

He's an idiot.


Does regulate the Earth's environment. But the Earth is not a living
organism.

take rock, sitting in shallow pool of a river. Rock is dead, but the organisms on it's surface alive and changing as the water level, temperature is changing.

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 09:07:10 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

RichA wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2017 23:44:17 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44yiTg7cOVI

I agree with him about the Gaia theory!
Read his book back in the 90's, I think his theory still holds up!

He's an idiot.


Does regulate the Earth's environment. But the Earth is not a living
organism.

"Living" is an arbitrary definition. So it's possible for someone to
create a definition that, not unreasonably, places any sufficiently
complex system into the "life" category. The problem is, that's not
particularly useful for anything. Definitions like this are useful for
categorization, but not much else.

Pluto is what it is, whether we call it a planet or not. The Earth is
what it is, whether we call it "life" or not. What is clear, however,
is that Earth as an "organism" looks quite different from everything
else that we call a living organism, given that it's singular and
doesn't reproduce. It would be better to simply recognize that it's a
complex system that shares certain characteristics with living
organisms, rather than confusing things by using the same terminology
(which then hides all the ways that it doesn't behave like a living
organism).

Chris L Peterson:
"Living" is an arbitrary definition. So it's possible for someone to
create a definition that, not unreasonably, places any sufficiently
complex system into the "life" category.

If you're going to call the Earth, which is largely made up of
inorganic minerals such as iron, silicon, aluminum, etc., a living
organism then it seems to me you would have to call a bus, largely made
of inorganic minerals such as iron, silicon, aluminum, etc., a living
organism when it is carrying a load of people.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 11:17:04 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Chris L Peterson:
"Living" is an arbitrary definition. So it's possible for someone to
create a definition that, not unreasonably, places any sufficiently
complex system into the "life" category.

If you're going to call the Earth, which is largely made up of
inorganic minerals such as iron, silicon, aluminum, etc., a living
organism then it seems to me you would have to call a bus, largely made
of inorganic minerals such as iron, silicon, aluminum, etc., a living
organism when it is carrying a load of people.

I think it's entirely likely that inorganic life exists in the
Universe. I think that we may be quite close to creating self-aware
artificial intelligence inside of inorganic machines. So I wouldn't
place a strict requirement for organic chemistry on our definition of
"life".