Yah but the water in your stomach and the wine on your palate are not living
either. I think it is a matter simply of proportion. If anyone has ever been
to the rainforest in South America they would agree that the Gaia is
supportable as a hypothesis and a workable one, a good one. The theory of
relativity blows apart the notion that beings are separate anyway, and there
were only about 12 people on earth that understood the theory of relativity.
They were not the 12 apostles either. The reason is simple. Time contraction
according to the Lorenz transformation is significant in reflection of the
absolute terms, and secondly the FACT that the universe is circular presents
another variable into all things. If we were to travel near the speed of
light, we would not age at the same rate as earthlings do. Secondly if we
travelled at the speed of light, we would sooner or later return to where we
started assuming we had a straight line as a trajectory, and unmodulated.
Eventually with the integrating of all intelligence through computer
networks a synergism that is equivalent to perhaps one million brains of
Einstei would result. The opportunities for the future are immense.

At 10:59 04/12/98 -0800, you wrote:
>---John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> The hypotheis is based on organismic and ecological processes that
>appear to
>> be able to regulate atmospheric concentrations of moisture and gases,
>> keeping temperatures even and mild and humidity high. A model called
>the
>> Daisy model was constructed to predict if the hypothesis could be
>> substantiated using dark and light plants on an imaginary planet.
>The model
>> does show that plants can keep a planet warm and comfortable and
>therefore
>> provides predictive abilities as to the homeostatic atmospheric and
>> hydrospheric properties of "Mother Earth". Indeed the atmospheric
>> concentrations of C02 are highly regulated by plants.
>
>The only problem is that the planet does not keep temperatures "mild".
> There is ample evidence that the global temperature has fluctuated
>quite a bit throughout history.
>
>In addition, while there maybe ample evidence that there are
>homeostatic process at work on the process it is not correct to
>conclude that the planet is indeed a living thing. Under the proper
>circumstances a market will exhibit traits that can be called
>homeostatic (i.e. the price of a good will return to it original value
>after a "small" preturbation) and I don't think anyone here would
>claim that the market is a living entity.
>
>Steve
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%