see? it happens every time... one thinks one has a good idea and someone
else has already thought of it.... :)
bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: John Foster <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>'The earth as a living organism' is the title of an essay by James E.
>Lovelock. There is a brief history of the idea in this essay. "The idea
that
>the Earth is alive may be as old as humankind." James Hutton, before the
>Royal Society of Edinburgh [considered the father of modern geology] said
>the Earth is a superorganism and that its proper study would be physiology.
>In later times the author William Golding in a personal communication with
>Lovelock (1970) suggested using the name Gaia to name the hypothesis that
>supposed the Earth to be alive."
>
>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.
>
>On a final important point. James Lovelock agrees that altruism can be
>extended to the earth, or more accurately the earths' altruism is extended
>to her individual organisms.
>
>"A geophysical system always begins with the action of an individual
>organism. If the this action happens to be locally beneficial to the
>environement, then it can spread until eventually a global altruism
results.
>Gaia always operates like this to achieve her altruism. There is no
>foresight and planning involved." James Lovelock In_Biodiveristy. Edited by
>E.O. Wilson, National Academy of Science.
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>
>At 08:41 AM 12/4/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>>Bryan,
>>
>>If you want to say that the planet is an individual as in a single
>>unit thats fine with me since there is obviously not two Earths.
>>However, your post was about treating the planet as an individual in
>>the context of altruism. Thus, I made the assumption that you were
>>assigning some sort of human characteristics to the planet. Otherwise
>>we could just as easily be talking about a big rock out in the middle
>>of the desert. Now I suppose we could treat the rock altruistically
>>(how exactly this would be done is not clear to me), but as Steven
>>Bissel asked, why?
>>
>>Also, my main criticism still stands with some simple rewording.
>>
>>Humans are covered with countless micro-organisms.
>>The Earth is covered with countless micro-organisms, therefore the
>>planet has some form of human characteristics.
>>
>>It is still a false analogy.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> steve,
>>>
>>> if you are going to criticize something that i wrote, the least you
>>could do
>>> would be to not totally change what i said into something
>>different....
>>>
>>> >Humans are comprised of billions of individual cells.
>>> >The planet is comprised of billions of humans, therefore the planet
>>is
>>> >a human.
>>> >
>>> >Not quite.
>>>
>>> this is beyond a horrible summary of what i wrote... bissell said
>>that the
>>> planet is convered with individual organisms and that therefore it
>>could not
>>> itself be an individual... i was alluding to the fact that humans
>>are
>>> covered with countless micro-organisms (and micro is a relative
>>> measurement), something which does not stop us from being
>>individuals....
>>> i never said that earth was a human..... as you say, that would be
>>> preposerous... as is your version of what i wrote....
>>>
>>> bryan
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 2:27 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>>>
>>>
>>> >Bryan,
>>> >
>>> >I do believe this is a good example of a false analogy.
>>> >
>>> >Humans are comprised of billions of individual cells.
>>> >The planet is comprised of billions of humans, therefore the planet
>>is
>>> >a human.
>>> >
>>> >Not quite.
>>> >
>>> >Steve
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >---Bryan Hyden wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Not that open,
>>> >> >Because it's kinda dumb to suggest that a planet covered with
>>> >googols of
>>> >> >individual organisms is an individual.
>>> >>
>>> >> sorry steven, but you did it again... :)
>>> >>
>>> >> why, just look at us humans.... we are, as you say, "covered with
>>> >googols
>>> >> of individual organisms" and are still considered individuals,
>>> >> individually....
>>> >>
>>> >> bryan
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 11:24 PM
>>> >> Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >> >From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> >To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> >Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 8:22 PM
>>> >> >Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>>Why would you do that?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>steven, you leave yourself wide open! :)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>why not?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>bryan
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Not that open,
>>> >> >Because it's kinda dumb to suggest that a planet covered with
>>> >googols of
>>> >> >individual organisms is an individual.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Steven
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>>>>Almost by definition, "no." There is no way I can think of to
>>> >extend
>>> >> >>>>>altruism to the planet, that's an individual to individual
>>> >action as
>>> >> >near
>>> >> >>>>as
>>> >> >>>>>I can see
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>perhaps i was not clear... i was suggesting that the planet
>>may
>>> >be
>>> >> >viewed
>>> >> >>>>as 'an individual'....
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>bryan
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>Why would you do that?
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>Bissell
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >_________________________________________________________
>>> >DO YOU YAHOO!?
>>> >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________
>>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|