153
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第280行：
第280行： − + 第303行：
第303行： − 洛夫洛克于1965年9月开始定义由生物体群体控制的自我调节地球的概念，当时他正在加利福尼亚州的喷气推进实验室研究探测火星生命的方法。第一篇提到这个问题的论文是《行星大气: 与生命存在有关的组成和其他变化》 ，与 c.e. 合著。男名男子名。一个主要的概念是，在行星尺度上，大气层的化学成份可以探测到生命。根据 Pic du Midi 天文台收集的数据，像火星或金星这样的行星在21化学平衡有大气层。这种与地球大气层的差异被认为是这些行星上没有生命存在的证据。+ 第339行：
第339行： − + 第354行：
第354行： − + 第369行：
第369行： − 然而，洛夫洛克和其他支持盖亚理论的科学家确实试图反驳这样一种说法，即这种假设不科学，因为不可能通过控制实验来检验它。例如，针对盖亚是目的论的指控，洛夫洛克和安德鲁 · 沃森提出了雏菊世界模型(及其修正，上文)作为反驳大多数这些批评的证据。+ 第381行：
第381行： − + 第415行：
第415行： − “盖亚过程和现象的模型如何与现实相关，它们如何帮助解决和理解盖亚？Daisyworld 的成果如何转移到现实世界？什么是“雏菊”的主要候选人？我们发现雏菊与否对盖亚理论重要吗？我们应该怎样寻找雏菊，我们应该加紧寻找吗？如何利用气候系统的过程模型或全球模型(包括生物群并允许化学循环)来研究盖恩机制? ”+ 第423行：
第423行： − 在1997年，Tyler Volk 认为盖亚系统几乎不可避免的产生作为一个进化到远离平衡的恒定状态的结果，最大限度地提高产生熵，Kleidon (2004)同意说: “ ... 恒定行为可以从与行星反照率有关的 MEP 状态出现” ; “ ... 生物地球在 MEP 状态下的结果行为很可能导致地球系统在长时间尺度上的近恒定行为，如盖亚假说所述。”。斯特利(2002)同样提出“ ... 盖亚理论的另一种形式基于更传统的达尔文原则..。在这种新方法中，环境管理是族群动态的结果，而不是达尔文的选择。选择的作用是使生物最适应当时的环境条件。然而，环境并不是进化的静态背景，而是受到生物体存在的严重影响。由此产生的共同演化动力学过程最终导致均衡和最优条件的收敛”。+ 第429行：
第429行： − + 第435行：
第435行： − + 第441行：
第441行： − 马丁奥格尔，首席自然主义者，为 NVRPA，和长期的盖亚假说支持者，组织了这次活动。麻省大学阿默斯特分校地球科学系杰出大学教授、长期倡导盖亚假说的 Lynn Margulis 是主题演讲者。其他演讲者包括: 纽约大学地球与环境科学项目联席主任 Tyler Volk; Donald Aitken Associates 校长 Donald Aitken 博士; Heinz Center for Science，Economics and the Environment 总裁 Thomas Lovejoy 博士; Robert Correll，环境伦理美国气象学会大气政策项目高级研究员，著名环境伦理学家 j. Baird Callicott。+ 第459行：
第459行： − + 第475行：
第475行： − 进化生物学家 w · d · 汉密尔顿称盖亚 · 哥白尼的概念为“自我调节” ，并补充说，要解释盖亚的自我调节是如何通过达尔文的自然选择进行的，还需要另一个牛顿。最近，福特 · 杜利特尔在他和墨水笔的 ITSNTS (It’s The Singer Not The Song)提案的基础上提出，差异持续性在进化过程中可以通过自然选择发挥类似于差异繁殖的作用，从而为自然选择理论和盖亚假说之间的协调提供了可能。+ − 第485行：
第484行： − 盖亚假说继续受到科学界的广泛怀疑。例如，在2002年和2003年的《气候变化》杂志上，支持和反对这一观点的论据都有。反对它的一个重要论点是，有许多例子表明，生命对环境产生了有害或破坏稳定的影响，而不是采取行动加以规范。到“令人不安地悬挂在受污染的隐喻、事实和虚假的科学之间，我宁愿让盖亚坚定地处于背景之中”的爪假说，在2009年，美狄亚假说被提出: 生命对行星条件具有高度有害(生物灭绝)的影响，直接反对盖亚假说。+ 第493行：
第492行： − 在2013年对盖亚假说的一本书长度的评估中，考虑了来自各个相关学科的现代证据，托比 · 泰瑞尔总结道: “我认为盖亚是一条死胡同。然而，它的研究产生了许多新的和发人深省的问题。在拒绝盖亚的同时，我们可以欣赏洛夫洛克的原创性和视野的宽广，并认识到他的大胆概念有助于激发许多关于地球的新想法，并倡导一种研究地球的整体方法”。在其他地方，他提出了自己的结论: “盖亚假说并不能准确描述我们的世界是如何运作的”。这种说法需要被理解为是指盖亚的“强”和“中等”形式ーー生物群遵循一个原则，即使地球处于最佳状态(强度5)或有利于生命(强度4) ，或者它作为一种自我稳定机制(强度3)。后者是洛夫洛克所提倡的盖亚的“最弱”形式。泰瑞尔拒绝了。然而，他发现两种较弱的盖亚形式—— coevefu吹的盖亚形式和 Influential 盖亚形式都是可信的，这两种形式都断言生命的进化与环境之间存在密切的联系，而且生物学影响着物理和化学环境，但是在这个意义上使用“盖亚”一词是没有用的，这两种形式已经被接受，并且通过自然选择和适应过程得到了解释。+ − + + − + − − + − + 第519行：
第518行： − + + + + − + − + + − + − 第548行：
第550行： − + + + + − + − − + − + − + − + − 第583行：
第586行： − + 第597行：
第600行： − +
无编辑摘要
The Gaia hypothesis states that the Earth's [[Atmospheric chemistry#Atmospheric composition|atmospheric composition]] is kept at a dynamically steady state by the presence of life.<ref>Lovelock, James. ''The Vanishing Face of Gaia''. Basic Books, 2009, p. 163. {{ISBN|978-0-465-01549-8}}</ref> The atmospheric composition provides the conditions that contemporary life has adapted to. All the atmospheric gases other than [[noble gas]]es present in the atmosphere are either made by organisms or processed by them.
The Gaia hypothesis states that the Earth's [[Atmospheric chemistry#Atmospheric composition|atmospheric composition]] is kept at a dynamically steady state by the presence of life.<ref>Lovelock, James. ''The Vanishing Face of Gaia''. Basic Books, 2009, p. 163. {{ISBN|978-0-465-01549-8}}</ref> The atmospheric composition provides the conditions that contemporary life has adapted to. All the atmospheric gases other than [[noble gas]]es present in the atmosphere are either made by organisms or processed by them.
盖亚假说指出，地球的大气成分由于生命的存在而保持在动态稳定的状态。大气中除惰性气体以外的所有大气气体都是由生物体制造或加工而成。
Lovelock started defining the idea of a self-regulating Earth controlled by the community of living organisms in September 1965, while working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California on methods of detecting life on Mars. The first paper to mention it was Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other Changes Associated with the Presence of Life, co-authored with C.E. Giffin. A main concept was that life could be detected in a planetary scale by the chemical composition of the atmosphere. According to the data gathered by the Pic du Midi observatory, planets like Mars or Venus had atmospheres in chemical equilibrium. This difference with the Earth atmosphere was considered to be a proof that there was no life in these planets.
Lovelock started defining the idea of a self-regulating Earth controlled by the community of living organisms in September 1965, while working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California on methods of detecting life on Mars. The first paper to mention it was Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other Changes Associated with the Presence of Life, co-authored with C.E. Giffin. A main concept was that life could be detected in a planetary scale by the chemical composition of the atmosphere. According to the data gathered by the Pic du Midi observatory, planets like Mars or Venus had atmospheres in chemical equilibrium. This difference with the Earth atmosphere was considered to be a proof that there was no life in these planets.
65年9月，洛夫洛克在加利福尼亚喷气推进实验室研究探测火星生命的方法时，开始定义由生物群落控制的自我调节地球的概念。第一篇提到它的论文是行星大气：与C.E.Giffin合著的与生命存在有关的成分和其他变化。一个主要的概念是，通过大气的化学成分可以在行星尺度上探测到生命。根据picdumidi天文台收集的数据，像火星或金星这样的行星，其大气层处于化学平衡状态。这种与地球大气的差异被认为是这些行星上没有生命的证据。
| issue = 20
| issue = 20
Dry air in the [[atmosphere of Earth]] contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% [[nitrogen]], 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% [[argon]], 0.039% [[Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere|carbon dioxide]], and small amounts of other gases including [[methane]]. Lovelock originally speculated that concentrations of oxygen above about 25% would increase the frequency of wildfires and conflagration of forests. Recent work on the findings of fire-caused charcoal in Carboniferous and Cretaceous coal measures, in geologic periods when O<sub>2</sub> did exceed 25%, has supported Lovelock's contention. {{citation needed|date=June 2012}}
Dry air in the [[atmosphere of Earth]] contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% [[nitrogen]], 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% [[argon]], 0.039% [[Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere|carbon dioxide]], and small amounts of other gases including [[methane]]. Lovelock originally speculated that concentrations of oxygen above about 25% would increase the frequency of wildfires and conflagration of forests. Recent work on the findings of fire-caused charcoal in Carboniferous and Cretaceous coal measures, in geologic periods when O<sub>2</sub> did exceed 25%, has supported Lovelock's contention. {{citation needed|date=June 2012}}
[[地球大气]]中的干空气大约（按体积）包含78.09%[[氮]]，20.95%的氧，0.93%[[氩]]，0.039%[地球大气中的二氧化碳|二氧化碳]]，以及少量其他气体，包括[[甲烷]]。洛夫洛克最初推测，氧气浓度超过25%会增加森林火灾和火灾的发生率。最近在石炭纪和白垩纪煤系中发现的由火引起的木炭的研究，在地质时期O<sub>2</sub>超过25%，支持了Lovelock的观点
In 1971 microbiologist Dr. Lynn Margulis joined Lovelock in the effort of fleshing out the initial hypothesis into scientifically proven concepts, contributing her knowledge about how microbes affect the atmosphere and the different layers in the surface of the planet. The American biologist had also awakened criticism from the scientific community with her advocacy of the theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles and her contributions to the endosymbiotic theory, nowadays accepted. Margulis dedicated the last of eight chapters in her book, The Symbiotic Planet, to Gaia. However, she objected to the widespread personification of Gaia and stressed that Gaia is "not an organism", but "an emergent property of interaction among organisms". She defined Gaia as "the series of interacting ecosystems that compose a single huge ecosystem at the Earth's surface. Period". The book's most memorable "slogan" was actually quipped by a student of Margulis': "Gaia is just symbiosis as seen from space".
In 1971 microbiologist Dr. Lynn Margulis joined Lovelock in the effort of fleshing out the initial hypothesis into scientifically proven concepts, contributing her knowledge about how microbes affect the atmosphere and the different layers in the surface of the planet. The American biologist had also awakened criticism from the scientific community with her advocacy of the theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles and her contributions to the endosymbiotic theory, nowadays accepted. Margulis dedicated the last of eight chapters in her book, The Symbiotic Planet, to Gaia. However, she objected to the widespread personification of Gaia and stressed that Gaia is "not an organism", but "an emergent property of interaction among organisms". She defined Gaia as "the series of interacting ecosystems that compose a single huge ecosystem at the Earth's surface. Period". The book's most memorable "slogan" was actually quipped by a student of Margulis': "Gaia is just symbiosis as seen from space".
Gaia scientists see the participation of living organisms in the [[carbon cycle]] as one of the complex processes that maintain conditions suitable for life. The only significant natural source of [[Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere|atmospheric carbon dioxide]] ([[Carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]]) is [[volcanic activity]], while the only significant removal is through the precipitation of [[carbonate rocks]].<ref name="Karhu1996">{{cite journal | author = Karhu, J.A. | author2 = Holland, H.D. | date = 1 October 1996 | title = Carbon isotopes and the rise of atmospheric oxygen | journal = [[Geology (journal)|Geology]] | volume = 24 | issue = 10 | pages = 867–870 | doi = 10.1130/0091-7613(1996)024<0867:CIATRO>2.3.CO;2|bibcode = 1996Geo....24..867K | ref = harv}}</ref> Carbon precipitation, solution and [[Carbon fixation|fixation]] are influenced by the [[bacteria]] and plant roots in soils, where they improve gaseous circulation, or in coral reefs, where calcium carbonate is deposited as a solid on the sea floor. Calcium carbonate is used by living organisms to manufacture carbonaceous tests and shells. Once dead, the living organisms' shells fall to the bottom of the oceans where they generate deposits of chalk and limestone.
Gaia scientists see the participation of living organisms in the [[carbon cycle]] as one of the complex processes that maintain conditions suitable for life. The only significant natural source of [[Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere|atmospheric carbon dioxide]] ([[Carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]]) is [[volcanic activity]], while the only significant removal is through the precipitation of [[carbonate rocks]].<ref name="Karhu1996">{{cite journal | author = Karhu, J.A. | author2 = Holland, H.D. | date = 1 October 1996 | title = Carbon isotopes and the rise of atmospheric oxygen | journal = [[Geology (journal)|Geology]] | volume = 24 | issue = 10 | pages = 867–870 | doi = 10.1130/0091-7613(1996)024<0867:CIATRO>2.3.CO;2|bibcode = 1996Geo....24..867K | ref = harv}}</ref> Carbon precipitation, solution and [[Carbon fixation|fixation]] are influenced by the [[bacteria]] and plant roots in soils, where they improve gaseous circulation, or in coral reefs, where calcium carbonate is deposited as a solid on the sea floor. Calcium carbonate is used by living organisms to manufacture carbonaceous tests and shells. Once dead, the living organisms' shells fall to the bottom of the oceans where they generate deposits of chalk and limestone.
盖亚的科学家认为，生物参与[[碳循环]是维持适宜生命条件的复杂过程之一。[[地球大气中的二氧化碳|大气二氧化碳]]（[[二氧化碳| CO2]]）的唯一重要自然来源是[[火山活动]]，而唯一显著的清除是通过[[碳酸盐岩]]的沉淀，溶液和[[固碳|固碳]]受土壤中的[[细菌]]和植物根的影响，它们改善了气体循环，珊瑚礁中碳酸钙以固体形式沉积在海底。碳酸钙被生物用来制造含碳测试和贝壳。一旦死亡，这些生物的壳就会落到海底，在那里它们会产生白垩和石灰岩的沉积物。
Lovelock and other Gaia-supporting scientists, however, did attempt to disprove the claim that the hypothesis is not scientific because it is impossible to test it by controlled experiment. For example, against the charge that Gaia was teleological, Lovelock and Andrew Watson offered the Daisyworld Model (and its modifications, above) as evidence against most of these criticisms.
Lovelock and other Gaia-supporting scientists, however, did attempt to disprove the claim that the hypothesis is not scientific because it is impossible to test it by controlled experiment. For example, against the charge that Gaia was teleological, Lovelock and Andrew Watson offered the Daisyworld Model (and its modifications, above) as evidence against most of these criticisms.
然而，洛夫洛克和其他支持盖亚理论的科学家确实试图反驳这样一种说法，即这种假设不科学，因为不可能通过控制实验来检验它。例如，针对盖亚是目的论的指控，洛夫洛克和安德鲁·沃森提出了雏菊世界模型(及其修正，上文)作为反驳大多数这些批评的证据。
===Precedents===
===Precedents先例===
[[File:NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg|thumb|''[[Earthrise]]'' taken from [[Apollo 8]] on December 24, 1968]]
[[File:NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg|thumb|''[[Earthrise]]'' taken from [[Apollo 8]] on December 24, 1968]]
"How do models of Gaian processes and phenomena relate to reality and how do they help address and understand Gaia? How do results from Daisyworld transfer to the real world? What are the main candidates for "daisies"? Does it matter for Gaia theory whether we find daisies or not? How should we be searching for daisies, and should we intensify the search? How can Gaian mechanisms be investigated using process models or global models of the climate system that include the biota and allow for chemical cycling?"
"How do models of Gaian processes and phenomena relate to reality and how do they help address and understand Gaia? How do results from Daisyworld transfer to the real world? What are the main candidates for "daisies"? Does it matter for Gaia theory whether we find daisies or not? How should we be searching for daisies, and should we intensify the search? How can Gaian mechanisms be investigated using process models or global models of the climate system that include the biota and allow for chemical cycling?"
“盖亚过程和现象的模型如何与现实相关，它们如何帮助解决和理解盖亚？雏菊世界的成果如何转移到现实世界？什么是“雏菊”的主要候选人？我们发现雏菊与否对盖亚理论重要吗？我们应该怎样寻找雏菊，我们应该加紧寻找吗？如何利用气候系统的过程模型或全球模型(包括生物群并允许化学循环)来研究盖亚机制? ”
In 1997, Tyler Volk argued that a Gaian system is almost inevitably produced as a result of an evolution towards far-from-equilibrium homeostatic states that maximise entropy production, and Kleidon (2004) agreed stating: "...homeostatic behavior can emerge from a state of MEP associated with the planetary albedo"; "...the resulting behavior of a biotic Earth at a state of MEP may well lead to near-homeostatic behavior of the Earth system on long time scales, as stated by the Gaia hypothesis". Staley (2002) has similarly proposed "...an alternative form of Gaia theory based on more traditional Darwinian principles... In [this] new approach, environmental regulation is a consequence of population dynamics, not Darwinian selection. The role of selection is to favor organisms that are best adapted to prevailing environmental conditions. However, the environment is not a static backdrop for evolution, but is heavily influenced by the presence of living organisms. The resulting co-evolving dynamical process eventually leads to the convergence of equilibrium and optimal conditions".
In 1997, Tyler Volk argued that a Gaian system is almost inevitably produced as a result of an evolution towards far-from-equilibrium homeostatic states that maximise entropy production, and Kleidon (2004) agreed stating: "...homeostatic behavior can emerge from a state of MEP associated with the planetary albedo"; "...the resulting behavior of a biotic Earth at a state of MEP may well lead to near-homeostatic behavior of the Earth system on long time scales, as stated by the Gaia hypothesis". Staley (2002) has similarly proposed "...an alternative form of Gaia theory based on more traditional Darwinian principles... In [this] new approach, environmental regulation is a consequence of population dynamics, not Darwinian selection. The role of selection is to favor organisms that are best adapted to prevailing environmental conditions. However, the environment is not a static backdrop for evolution, but is heavily influenced by the presence of living organisms. The resulting co-evolving dynamical process eventually leads to the convergence of equilibrium and optimal conditions".
1997年，泰勒·沃尔克认为，盖安系统几乎不可避免地会产生，这是一种向远离平衡的稳态演化的结果，这种平衡状态使熵产生最大化，克莱顿（2004）同意这样的说法：“自稳态行为可以从与行星反照率相关的MEP状态中产生”；“……一个如盖亚假说所述，处于MEP状态的生物地球很可能导致地球系统在长时间尺度上的近稳态行为。Staley（2002）同样提出了“……一种基于更传统的达尔文原理的盖亚理论的替代形式。在这种新方法中，环境调控是人口动态的结果，而不是达尔文的选择。选择的作用是偏爱最能适应当前环境条件的有机体。然而，环境并不是进化的静态背景，而是受到生物存在的严重影响。由此产生的共同进化动态过程最终导致平衡和最优条件的收敛。
Another influence for the Gaia hypothesis and the [[environmental movement]] in general came as a side effect of the [[Space Race]] between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. During the 1960s, the first humans in space could see how the Earth looked as a whole. The photograph ''[[Earthrise]]'' taken by astronaut [[William Anders]] in 1968 during the [[Apollo 8]] mission became, through the [[Overview Effect]] an early symbol for the global ecology movement.<ref>[http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm11.html 100 Photographs that Changed the World by Life - The Digital Journalist]</ref>
Another influence for the Gaia hypothesis and the [[environmental movement]] in general came as a side effect of the [[Space Race]] between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. During the 1960s, the first humans in space could see how the Earth looked as a whole. The photograph ''[[Earthrise]]'' taken by astronaut [[William Anders]] in 1968 during the [[Apollo 8]] mission became, through the [[Overview Effect]] an early symbol for the global ecology movement.<ref>[http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm11.html 100 Photographs that Changed the World by Life - The Digital Journalist]</ref>
盖亚假说和[[环境运动]]的另一个总体影响来自苏联和美利坚合众国之间[[太空竞赛]]的副作用。在20世纪60年代，第一批进入太空的人类可以看到地球的整体面貌。1968年宇航员[[William Anders]]在[[Apollo 8]]任务期间拍摄的照片“[[地球升起]”，通过[[概述效果]]成为全球生态运动的早期标志
A fourth international conference on the Gaia hypothesis, sponsored by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and others, was held in October 2006 at the Arlington, VA campus of George Mason University.
A fourth international conference on the Gaia hypothesis, sponsored by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and others, was held in October 2006 at the Arlington, VA campus of George Mason University.
第四次关于盖亚假说的国际会议，由北弗吉尼亚地区公园管理局和其他机构主办，于2006年10月在弗吉尼亚州乔治梅森大学的阿灵顿校区举行。
第四次关于盖亚假说的国际会议，由北弗吉尼亚地区公园管理局和其他机构主办，于2006年10月在弗吉尼亚州乔治梅森大学的阿灵顿校区举行。
===Formulation of the hypothesis===
===Formulation of the hypothesis假说形成===
[[File:James Lovelock in 2005.jpg|thumb|[[James Lovelock]], 2005]]
[[File:James Lovelock in 2005.jpg|thumb|[[James Lovelock]], 2005]]
Martin Ogle, Chief Naturalist, for NVRPA, and long-time Gaia hypothesis proponent, organized the event. Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and long-time advocate of the Gaia hypothesis, was a keynote speaker. Among many other speakers: Tyler Volk, Co-director of the Program in Earth and Environmental Science at New York University; Dr. Donald Aitken, Principal of Donald Aitken Associates; Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; Robert Correll, Senior Fellow, Atmospheric Policy Program, American Meteorological Society and noted environmental ethicist, J. Baird Callicott.
Martin Ogle, Chief Naturalist, for NVRPA, and long-time Gaia hypothesis proponent, organized the event. Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and long-time advocate of the Gaia hypothesis, was a keynote speaker. Among many other speakers: Tyler Volk, Co-director of the Program in Earth and Environmental Science at New York University; Dr. Donald Aitken, Principal of Donald Aitken Associates; Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; Robert Correll, Senior Fellow, Atmospheric Policy Program, American Meteorological Society and noted environmental ethicist, J. Baird Callicott.
马丁奥格尔，NVRPA的首席博物学家，也是盖亚假说的长期支持者，组织了这次活动。Lynn Margulis是马萨诸塞州阿默斯特大学地球科学系的杰出大学教授，也是盖亚假说的长期倡导者。其他许多发言者包括：纽约大学地球与环境科学项目联合主任泰勒·沃尔克、唐纳德·艾特肯博士、唐纳德·艾特肯博士、海因茨科学、经济与环境中心主席托马斯·洛夫乔伊博士、大气政策计划高级研究员罗伯特·科雷尔，美国气象学会和著名环境伦理学家J。贝尔德。卡利科特。
Lovelock started defining the idea of a self-regulating Earth controlled by the community of living organisms in September 1965, while working at the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] in California on methods of detecting [[life on Mars (planet)|life on Mars]].<ref name="Lovelock1965">{{cite journal | author = Lovelock, J.E. | date = 1965 | title = A physical basis for life detection experiments | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | volume = 207 | issue = 7 | pages = 568–570 | doi = 10.1038/207568a0 | pmid=5883628|bibcode = 1965Natur.207..568L | ref = harv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.jameslovelock.org/page4.html |title=Geophysiology |access-date=2007-05-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070506073502/http://www.jameslovelock.org/page4.html |archive-date=2007-05-06 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The first paper to mention it was ''Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other Changes Associated with the Presence of Life'', co-authored with C.E. Giffin.<ref>{{cite journal | author1 = Lovelock, J.E. | author2 = Giffin, C.E. | date = 1969 | title = Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other changes associated with the presence of Life | journal = Advances in the Astronautical Sciences | volume = 25 | pages = 179–193 | isbn = 978-0-87703-028-7 | ref = harv}}</ref> A main concept was that life could be detected in a planetary scale by the chemical composition of the atmosphere. According to the data gathered by the [[Pic du Midi de Bigorre|Pic du Midi observatory]], planets like Mars or Venus had atmospheres in [[chemical equilibrium]]. This difference with the Earth atmosphere was considered to be a proof that there was no life in these planets.
Lovelock started defining the idea of a self-regulating Earth controlled by the community of living organisms in September 1965, while working at the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] in California on methods of detecting [[life on Mars (planet)|life on Mars]].<ref name="Lovelock1965">{{cite journal | author = Lovelock, J.E. | date = 1965 | title = A physical basis for life detection experiments | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | volume = 207 | issue = 7 | pages = 568–570 | doi = 10.1038/207568a0 | pmid=5883628|bibcode = 1965Natur.207..568L | ref = harv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.jameslovelock.org/page4.html |title=Geophysiology |access-date=2007-05-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070506073502/http://www.jameslovelock.org/page4.html |archive-date=2007-05-06 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The first paper to mention it was ''Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other Changes Associated with the Presence of Life'', co-authored with C.E. Giffin.<ref>{{cite journal | author1 = Lovelock, J.E. | author2 = Giffin, C.E. | date = 1969 | title = Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other changes associated with the presence of Life | journal = Advances in the Astronautical Sciences | volume = 25 | pages = 179–193 | isbn = 978-0-87703-028-7 | ref = harv}}</ref> A main concept was that life could be detected in a planetary scale by the chemical composition of the atmosphere. According to the data gathered by the [[Pic du Midi de Bigorre|Pic du Midi observatory]], planets like Mars or Venus had atmospheres in [[chemical equilibrium]]. This difference with the Earth atmosphere was considered to be a proof that there was no life in these planets.
After initially receiving little attention from scientists (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period the initial Gaia hypothesis was criticized by a number of scientists, such as Ford Doolittle, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Lovelock has said that because his hypothesis is named after a Greek goddess, and championed by many non-scientists, He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was achieved. In his defense of Gaia, David Abram argues that Gould overlooked the fact that "mechanism", itself, is a metaphor — albeit an exceedingly common and often unrecognized metaphor — one which leads us to consider natural and living systems as though they were machines organized and built from outside (rather than as autopoietic or self-organizing phenomena). Mechanical metaphors, according to Abram, lead us to overlook the active or agential quality of living entities, while the organismic metaphorics of the Gaia hypothesis accentuate the active agency of both the biota and the biosphere as a whole. With regard to causality in Gaia, Lovelock argues that no single mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course, and that specific hostility is reserved for his own hypothesis for other reasons.
After initially receiving little attention from scientists (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period the initial Gaia hypothesis was criticized by a number of scientists, such as Ford Doolittle, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Lovelock has said that because his hypothesis is named after a Greek goddess, and championed by many non-scientists, He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was achieved. In his defense of Gaia, David Abram argues that Gould overlooked the fact that "mechanism", itself, is a metaphor — albeit an exceedingly common and often unrecognized metaphor — one which leads us to consider natural and living systems as though they were machines organized and built from outside (rather than as autopoietic or self-organizing phenomena). Mechanical metaphors, according to Abram, lead us to overlook the active or agential quality of living entities, while the organismic metaphorics of the Gaia hypothesis accentuate the active agency of both the biota and the biosphere as a whole. With regard to causality in Gaia, Lovelock argues that no single mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course, and that specific hostility is reserved for his own hypothesis for other reasons.
在最初几乎没有引起科学家的注意之后(从1969年到1977年) ，有一段时间，最初的盖亚假说受到了一些科学家的批评，如福特杜利特，理查德道金斯和史蒂芬·古尔德。洛夫洛克说，因为他的假说是以一位希腊女神的名字命名的，并得到许多非科学家的拥护，他想知道实现自我调节体内平衡的实际机制。在为盖亚辩护时，戴维•阿布拉姆(David Abram)认为，古尔德忽视了一个事实，即“机制”本身就是一个隐喻——尽管这个隐喻极其常见，而且往往不为人所知——这个隐喻让我们把自然和生命系统看作是由外部组织和建造的机器(而不是自动生成或自组织现象)。根据阿布拉姆的说法，机械隐喻使我们忽略了生命实体的活跃性或代表性，而盖亚假说的有机隐喻强调了生物群和整个生物圈的活跃性。关于盖亚的因果关系，洛夫洛克认为没有单一的机制是负责任的，各种已知机制之间的联系可能永远不会被人知道，这在生物学和生态学的其他领域是理所当然地被接受的，并且由于其他原因，特定的敌意是保留给他自己的假设的。
在最初几乎没有引起科学家的注意之后(从1969年到1977年) ，有一段时间，最初的盖亚假说受到了一些科学家的批评，如福特杜利特，理查德道金斯和史蒂芬·古尔德。洛夫洛克说，因为他的假说是以一位希腊女神的名字命名的，并得到许多非科学家的拥护，他想知道实现自我调节体内平衡的实际机制。在为盖亚辩护时，戴维•阿布拉姆认为，古尔德忽视了一个事实，即“机制”本身就是一个隐喻——尽管这个隐喻极其常见，而且往往不为人所知——这个隐喻让我们把自然和生命系统看作是由外部组织和建造的机器(而不是自动生成或自组织现象)。根据阿布拉姆的说法，机械隐喻使我们忽略了生命实体的活跃性或代表性，而盖亚假说的有机隐喻强调了生物群和整个生物圈的活跃性。关于盖亚的因果关系，洛夫洛克认为没有单一的机制是负责任的，各种已知机制之间的联系可能永远不会被人知道，这在生物学和生态学的其他领域是理所当然地被接受的，并且由于其他原因，特定的敌意是保留给他自己的假设的。
Evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton called the concept of Gaia Copernican, adding that it would take another Newton to explain how Gaian self-regulation takes place through Darwinian natural selection. More recently Ford Doolittle building on his and Inkpen's ITSNTS (It's The Singer Not The Song) proposal proposed that differential persistence can play a similar role to differential reproduction in evolution by natural selections, thereby providing a possible reconciliation between the theory of natural selection and the Gaia hypothesis.
Evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton called the concept of Gaia Copernican, adding that it would take another Newton to explain how Gaian self-regulation takes place through Darwinian natural selection. More recently Ford Doolittle building on his and Inkpen's ITSNTS (It's The Singer Not The Song) proposal proposed that differential persistence can play a similar role to differential reproduction in evolution by natural selections, thereby providing a possible reconciliation between the theory of natural selection and the Gaia hypothesis.
进化生物学家W.D.Hamilton称盖亚为哥白尼的概念，并补充说，需要另一个牛顿来解释盖亚的自我调节是如何通过达尔文的自然选择发生的。最近，Ford Doolittle在他和Inkpen的ITSNTS（这是歌手而不是歌曲）的建议中提出，差异持续性可以在自然选择进化中起到与差异生殖相似的作用，从而为自然选择理论和盖亚假说之间提供了一种可能的调和。
The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal Climatic Change in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it. to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background" The CLAW hypothesis, In 2009 the Medea hypothesis was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.
The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal Climatic Change in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it. to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background" The CLAW hypothesis, In 2009 the Medea hypothesis was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.
盖亚假说仍然受到科学界的广泛怀疑。例如，在2003年和2002年的《气候变化》杂志上都提出了反对意见。反对它的一个重要论据是，生命对环境产生了有害或不稳定的影响，而不是采取行动加以调节。为了“令人不安地徘徊在污点隐喻、事实和虚假科学之间，我宁愿把盖亚牢牢地放在背景下。”爪假说，2009年提出的美狄亚假说：生命对行星条件有高度有害的（生物杀灭）影响，与盖亚假说直接相反。
James Lovelock called his first proposal the ''Gaia hypothesis'' but has also used the term ''Gaia theory''. Lovelock states that the initial formulation was based on observation, but still lacked a scientific explanation. The Gaia hypothesis has since been supported by a number of scientific experiments<ref name="J1990">{{cite journal | author = J. E. Lovelock | title = Hands up for the Gaia hypothesis | date = 1990 | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | volume = 344 | issue = 6262 | pages = 100–2 | doi = 10.1038/344100a0|bibcode = 1990Natur.344..100L | ref = harv}}</ref> and provided a number of useful predictions.<ref name="Volk2003">{{cite book |author=Volk, Tyler |title=Gaia's Body: Toward a Physiology of Earth |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |date=2003 |isbn=978-0-262-72042-7 }}</ref> In fact, wider research proved the original hypothesis wrong, in the sense that it is not life alone but the whole Earth system that does the regulating.<ref name="vanishing255"/>
James Lovelock called his first proposal the ''Gaia hypothesis'' but has also used the term ''Gaia theory''. Lovelock states that the initial formulation was based on observation, but still lacked a scientific explanation. The Gaia hypothesis has since been supported by a number of scientific experiments<ref name="J1990">{{cite journal | author = J. E. Lovelock | title = Hands up for the Gaia hypothesis | date = 1990 | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | volume = 344 | issue = 6262 | pages = 100–2 | doi = 10.1038/344100a0|bibcode = 1990Natur.344..100L | ref = harv}}</ref> and provided a number of useful predictions.<ref name="Volk2003">{{cite book |author=Volk, Tyler |title=Gaia's Body: Toward a Physiology of Earth |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |date=2003 |isbn=978-0-262-72042-7 }}</ref> In fact, wider research proved the original hypothesis wrong, in the sense that it is not life alone but the whole Earth system that does the regulating.<ref name="vanishing255"/>
In a 2013 book-length evaluation of the Gaia hypothesis considering modern evidence from across the various relevant disciplines, Toby Tyrrell concluded that: "I believe Gaia is a dead end. Its study has, however, generated many new and thought provoking questions. While rejecting Gaia, we can at the same time appreciate Lovelock's originality and breadth of vision, and recognise that his audacious concept has helped to stimulate many new ideas about the Earth, and to champion a holistic approach to studying it". Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works". This statement needs to be understood as referring to the "strong" and "moderate" forms of Gaia—that the biota obeys a principle that works to make Earth optimal (strength 5) or favourable for life (strength 4) or that it works as a homeostatic mechanism (strength 3). The latter is the "weakest" form of Gaia that Lovelock has advocated. Tyrrell rejects it. However, he finds that the two weaker forms of Gaia—Coeveolutionary Gaia and Influential Gaia, which assert that there are close links between the evolution of life and the environment and that biology affects the physical and chemical environment—are both credible, but that it is not useful to use the term "Gaia" in this sense and that those two forms were already accepted and explained by the processes of natural selection and adaptation.
In a 2013 book-length evaluation of the Gaia hypothesis considering modern evidence from across the various relevant disciplines, Toby Tyrrell concluded that: "I believe Gaia is a dead end. Its study has, however, generated many new and thought provoking questions. While rejecting Gaia, we can at the same time appreciate Lovelock's originality and breadth of vision, and recognise that his audacious concept has helped to stimulate many new ideas about the Earth, and to champion a holistic approach to studying it". Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works". This statement needs to be understood as referring to the "strong" and "moderate" forms of Gaia—that the biota obeys a principle that works to make Earth optimal (strength 5) or favourable for life (strength 4) or that it works as a homeostatic mechanism (strength 3). The latter is the "weakest" form of Gaia that Lovelock has advocated. Tyrrell rejects it. However, he finds that the two weaker forms of Gaia—Coeveolutionary Gaia and Influential Gaia, which assert that there are close links between the evolution of life and the environment and that biology affects the physical and chemical environment—are both credible, but that it is not useful to use the term "Gaia" in this sense and that those two forms were already accepted and explained by the processes of natural selection and adaptation.
2013年，托比·泰瑞尔在对盖亚假说的一本书长度评估中总结道：“我认为盖亚是一条死胡同。然而，它的研究产生了许多新的和发人深省的问题。在拒绝盖亚的同时，我们也能欣赏到洛夫洛克的独创性和广博的视野，并认识到他大胆的概念有助于激发许多关于地球的新想法，并倡导一种整体的方法来研究地球”。在其他地方，他提出了自己的结论：“盖亚假说并不是我们这个世界如何运转的精确图像”。这种说法需要被理解为是指盖亚的“强”和“中”形式，生物群遵循的原则是使地球成为最佳（强度5）或有利于生命（强度4），或是作为一种内稳态机制（强度3）。后者是洛夫洛克所提倡的盖亚的“最弱”形式。泰瑞尔拒绝了。然而，他发现盖亚的两种较弱的形式共同进化盖亚和有影响力的盖亚，它们断言生命的进化和环境之间有密切的联系，生物学影响物理和化学环境，这两种说法都是可信的，但在这个意义上使用“盖亚”一词是没有用的两种形式已经被自然选择和适应过程所接受和解释。
===First Gaia conference===
===First Gaia conference第一次盖亚会议===
In 1985, the first public symposium on the Gaia hypothesis, ''Is The Earth A Living Organism?'' was held at [[University of Massachusetts Amherst]], August 1–6.<ref>{{cite news |last=Joseph |first=Lawrence E. |title=Britain's Whole Earth Guru |work=The New York Times Magazine |date=November 23, 1986 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/23/magazine/britain-s-whole-earth-guru.html |accessdate=1 December 2013}}</ref> The principal sponsor was the [[National Audubon Society]]. Speakers included James Lovelock, [[George Wald]], [[Mary Catherine Bateson]], [[Lewis Thomas]], [[John Todd (Canadian biologist)|John Todd]], Donald Michael, [[Christopher Bird]], [[Thomas Berry]], [[David Abram]], [[Michael A. Cohen|Michael Cohen]], and William Fields. Some 500 people attended.<ref>Bunyard, Peter (1996), "Gaia in Action: Science of the Living Earth" (Floris Books)</ref>
In 1985, the first public symposium on the Gaia hypothesis, ''Is The Earth A Living Organism?'' was held at [[University of Massachusetts Amherst]], August 1–6.<ref>{{cite news |last=Joseph |first=Lawrence E. |title=Britain's Whole Earth Guru |work=The New York Times Magazine |date=November 23, 1986 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/23/magazine/britain-s-whole-earth-guru.html |accessdate=1 December 2013}}</ref> The principal sponsor was the [[National Audubon Society]]. Speakers included James Lovelock, [[George Wald]], [[Mary Catherine Bateson]], [[Lewis Thomas]], [[John Todd (Canadian biologist)|John Todd]], Donald Michael, [[Christopher Bird]], [[Thomas Berry]], [[David Abram]], [[Michael A. Cohen|Michael Cohen]], and William Fields. Some 500 people attended.<ref>Bunyard, Peter (1996), "Gaia in Action: Science of the Living Earth" (Floris Books)</ref>
1985年，关于盖亚假说的第一次公开研讨会，“地球是一个活的有机体吗？”在马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特举行
===Second Gaia conference第二次盖亚会议===
===Second Gaia conference===
In 1988, [[climatology|climatologist]] [[Stephen Schneider]] organised a conference of the [[American Geophysical Union]]. The first Chapman Conference on Gaia,<ref name="ReferenceB"/> was held in San Diego, California on March 7, 1988.
In 1988, [[climatology|climatologist]] [[Stephen Schneider]] organised a conference of the [[American Geophysical Union]]. The first Chapman Conference on Gaia,<ref name="ReferenceB"/> was held in San Diego, California on March 7, 1988.
1988年，climatology和Stephen Schneider组织了一次美国地球物理联合会会议。关于盖亚的第一次查普曼会议
During the "philosophical foundations" session of the conference, [[David Abram]] spoke on the influence of metaphor in science, and of the Gaia hypothesis as offering a new and potentially game-changing metaphorics, while [[James Kirchner]] criticised the Gaia hypothesis for its imprecision. Kirchner claimed that Lovelock and Margulis had not presented one Gaia hypothesis, but four -
During the "philosophical foundations" session of the conference, [[David Abram]] spoke on the influence of metaphor in science, and of the Gaia hypothesis as offering a new and potentially game-changing metaphorics, while [[James Kirchner]] criticised the Gaia hypothesis for its imprecision. Kirchner claimed that Lovelock and Margulis had not presented one Gaia hypothesis, but four -
在会议的“哲学基础”会议上，David Abram谈到了隐喻在科学中的影响，盖亚假说提供了一种新的、可能改变游戏规则的隐喻，而James Kirchner则批评盖亚假说的不精确性。基什纳声称，洛夫洛克和马古利斯提出的盖亚假说不是一个，而是四个-
* [[Coevolution|CoEvolutionary]] Gaia: that life and the environment had evolved in a coupled way. Kirchner claimed that this was already accepted scientifically and was not new.
* [[Coevolution|CoEvolutionary]] Gaia: that life and the environment had evolved in a coupled way. Kirchner claimed that this was already accepted scientifically and was not new.
* Optimising Gaia: that Gaia shaped the planet in a way that made it an optimal environment for life as a whole. Kirchner claimed that this was not testable and therefore was not scientific.
* Optimising Gaia: that Gaia shaped the planet in a way that made it an optimal environment for life as a whole. Kirchner claimed that this was not testable and therefore was not scientific.
盖亚：生命和环境是以耦合的方式进化的。基什内尔声称，这已经被科学界接受，并不是什么新鲜事。
盖亚：生命维持着自然环境的稳定，这种稳定性使生命得以继续存在。
盖亚：盖亚假说引起了人们对地球物理周期的兴趣，因此导致了地球物理动力学中有趣的新研究。
优化盖亚：盖亚塑造了地球，使之成为整个生命的最佳环境。基什内尔声称，这是不可测试的，因此是不科学的。
Of Homeostatic Gaia, Kirchner recognised two alternatives. "Weak Gaia" asserted that life tends to make the environment stable for the flourishing of all life. "Strong Gaia" according to Kirchner, asserted that life tends to make the environment stable, ''to enable'' the flourishing of all life. Strong Gaia, Kirchner claimed, was untestable and therefore not scientific.<ref>{{cite journal | bibcode=1989RvGeo..27..223K | doi = 10.1029/RG027i002p00223 | title=The Gaia hypothesis: Can it be tested? | date=1989 | last1=Kirchner | first1=James W. | journal=Reviews of Geophysics | volume=27 | issue=2 | pages=223 | ref=harv}}</ref>
Of Homeostatic Gaia, Kirchner recognised two alternatives. "Weak Gaia" asserted that life tends to make the environment stable for the flourishing of all life. "Strong Gaia" according to Kirchner, asserted that life tends to make the environment stable, ''to enable'' the flourishing of all life. Strong Gaia, Kirchner claimed, was untestable and therefore not scientific.<ref>{{cite journal | bibcode=1989RvGeo..27..223K | doi = 10.1029/RG027i002p00223 | title=The Gaia hypothesis: Can it be tested? | date=1989 | last1=Kirchner | first1=James W. | journal=Reviews of Geophysics | volume=27 | issue=2 | pages=223 | ref=harv}}</ref>
基什内尔发现了两种选择“软弱的盖亚”断言，为了所有生命的繁衍，生命往往会使环境变得稳定根据基什内尔的说法，“强大的盖亚”断言，生命趋向于使环境稳定，“使”所有生命繁荣昌盛。基什内尔声称，强大的盖亚是不稳定的，因此不科学。
Lovelock and other Gaia-supporting scientists, however, did attempt to disprove the claim that the hypothesis is not scientific because it is impossible to test it by controlled experiment. For example, against the charge that Gaia was teleological, Lovelock and Andrew Watson offered the [[Daisyworld]] Model (and its modifications, above) as evidence against most of these criticisms.<ref name="daisyworld"/> Lovelock said that the Daisyworld model "demonstrates that self-regulation of the global environment can emerge from competition amongst types of life altering their local environment in different ways".<ref>{{cite journal | pmid=10968941 | date=2000 | last1=Lenton | first1=TM | last2=Lovelock | first2=JE | s2cid=5486128 | title=Daisyworld is Darwinian: Constraints on adaptation are important for planetary self-regulation | volume=206 | issue=1 | pages=109–14 | doi=10.1006/jtbi.2000.2105 | journal=Journal of Theoretical Biology | ref=harv}}</ref>
Lovelock and other Gaia-supporting scientists, however, did attempt to disprove the claim that the hypothesis is not scientific because it is impossible to test it by controlled experiment. For example, against the charge that Gaia was teleological, Lovelock and Andrew Watson offered the [[Daisyworld]] Model (and its modifications, above) as evidence against most of these criticisms.<ref name="daisyworld"/> Lovelock said that the Daisyworld model "demonstrates that self-regulation of the global environment can emerge from competition amongst types of life altering their local environment in different ways".<ref>{{cite journal | pmid=10968941 | date=2000 | last1=Lenton | first1=TM | last2=Lovelock | first2=JE | s2cid=5486128 | title=Daisyworld is Darwinian: Constraints on adaptation are important for planetary self-regulation | volume=206 | issue=1 | pages=109–14 | doi=10.1006/jtbi.2000.2105 | journal=Journal of Theoretical Biology | ref=harv}}</ref>
然而，洛夫洛克和其他支持盖亚的科学家，确实试图反驳这种说法，即这个假设是不科学的，因为不可能通过受控实验来检验它。例如，针对盖亚是目的论的指控，洛夫洛克和安德鲁·沃森提出了雏菊世界模型（及其修改，洛夫洛克说，雏菊世界模型“证明了全球环境的自我调节可以通过不同方式改变当地环境的生活类型之间的竞争产生”。
Lovelock was careful to present a version of the Gaia hypothesis that had no claim that Gaia intentionally or consciously maintained the complex balance in her environment that life needed to survive. It would appear that the claim that Gaia acts "intentionally" was a metaphoric statement in his popular initial book and was not meant to be taken literally. This new statement of the Gaia hypothesis was more acceptable to the scientific community. Most accusations of [[teleology|teleologism]] ceased, following this conference.
Lovelock was careful to present a version of the Gaia hypothesis that had no claim that Gaia intentionally or consciously maintained the complex balance in her environment that life needed to survive. It would appear that the claim that Gaia acts "intentionally" was a metaphoric statement in his popular initial book and was not meant to be taken literally. This new statement of the Gaia hypothesis was more acceptable to the scientific community. Most accusations of [[teleology|teleologism]] ceased, following this conference.
洛夫洛克谨慎地提出了盖亚假说的一个版本，没有声称盖亚有意或有意识地维持着生命生存所需的复杂平衡。看来盖亚“故意”的行为是他最受欢迎的第一本书中的隐喻性陈述，并不是字面意思。盖亚假说的这一新说法更为科学界所接受。在这次会议之后，[[目的论|目的论]]的大多数指控都停止了。
===Third Gaia conference第三次盖亚会议===
===Third Gaia conference===
By the time of the 2nd Chapman Conference on the Gaia Hypothesis, held at Valencia, Spain, on 23 June 2000,<ref>{{cite news|last=Simón|first=Federico|title=GEOLOGÍA Enfoque multidisciplinar La hipótesis Gaia madura en Valencia con los últimos avances científicos|journal=El País|date=21 June 2000|url=http://elpais.com/diario/2000/06/21/futuro/961538404_850215.html|accessdate=1 December 2013|language=spanish}}</ref> the situation had changed significantly. Rather than a discussion of the Gaian teleological views, or "types" of Gaia hypotheses, the focus was upon the specific mechanisms by which basic short term homeostasis was maintained within a framework of significant evolutionary long term structural change.
By the time of the 2nd Chapman Conference on the Gaia Hypothesis, held at Valencia, Spain, on 23 June 2000,<ref>{{cite news|last=Simón|first=Federico|title=GEOLOGÍA Enfoque multidisciplinar La hipótesis Gaia madura en Valencia con los últimos avances científicos|journal=El País|date=21 June 2000|url=http://elpais.com/diario/2000/06/21/futuro/961538404_850215.html|accessdate=1 December 2013|language=spanish}}</ref> the situation had changed significantly. Rather than a discussion of the Gaian teleological views, or "types" of Gaia hypotheses, the focus was upon the specific mechanisms by which basic short term homeostasis was maintained within a framework of significant evolutionary long term structural change.
# "How do models of Gaian processes and phenomena relate to reality and how do they help address and understand Gaia? How do results from Daisyworld transfer to the real world? What are the main candidates for "daisies"? Does it matter for Gaia theory whether we find daisies or not? How should we be searching for daisies, and should we intensify the search? How can Gaian mechanisms be investigated using process models or global models of the climate system that include the biota and allow for chemical cycling?"
# "How do models of Gaian processes and phenomena relate to reality and how do they help address and understand Gaia? How do results from Daisyworld transfer to the real world? What are the main candidates for "daisies"? Does it matter for Gaia theory whether we find daisies or not? How should we be searching for daisies, and should we intensify the search? How can Gaian mechanisms be investigated using process models or global models of the climate system that include the biota and allow for chemical cycling?"
“被称为盖亚的全球生物地球化学/气候系统是如何随时间变化的？它的历史是什么？盖亚能在一个时间尺度上保持系统的稳定性，但在较长的时间尺度上仍能经历向量变化吗？如何利用地质记录来检验这些问题？”
“盖亚的结构是什么？反馈是否足够强烈，足以影响气候的演变？系统的某些部分是由任何给定时间正在进行的任何学科研究实际确定的，还是有一组应该被视为最真实的部分来理解盖亚，即随着时间的推移包含进化中的有机体？盖亚系统的这些不同部分之间的反馈是什么？物质的接近封闭对盖亚作为全球生态系统的结构和生命的生产力意味着什么？”
“盖亚过程和现象的模型如何与现实联系起来，它们如何帮助解决和理解盖亚？雏菊世界的结果如何传递到真实世界？“雏菊”的主要候选对象是什么？我们是否找到雏菊对盖亚理论有意义吗？我们应该如何寻找雏菊，我们应该加强搜索？如何使用气候系统的过程模型或全球模型（包括生物群并允许化学循环）来研究盖安机制？”
In 1997, Tyler Volk argued that a Gaian system is almost inevitably produced as a result of an evolution towards far-from-equilibrium homeostatic states that maximise [[entropy]] production, and Kleidon (2004) agreed stating: "...homeostatic behavior can emerge from a state of MEP associated with the planetary albedo"; "...the resulting behavior of a biotic Earth at a state of MEP may well lead to near-homeostatic behavior of the Earth system on long time scales, as stated by the Gaia hypothesis". Staley (2002) has similarly proposed "...an alternative form of Gaia theory based on more traditional Darwinian principles... In [this] new approach, environmental regulation is a consequence of population dynamics, not Darwinian selection. The role of selection is to favor organisms that are best adapted to prevailing environmental conditions. However, the environment is not a static backdrop for evolution, but is heavily influenced by the presence of living organisms. The resulting co-evolving dynamical process eventually leads to the convergence of equilibrium and optimal conditions".
In 1997, Tyler Volk argued that a Gaian system is almost inevitably produced as a result of an evolution towards far-from-equilibrium homeostatic states that maximise [[entropy]] production, and Kleidon (2004) agreed stating: "...homeostatic behavior can emerge from a state of MEP associated with the planetary albedo"; "...the resulting behavior of a biotic Earth at a state of MEP may well lead to near-homeostatic behavior of the Earth system on long time scales, as stated by the Gaia hypothesis". Staley (2002) has similarly proposed "...an alternative form of Gaia theory based on more traditional Darwinian principles... In [this] new approach, environmental regulation is a consequence of population dynamics, not Darwinian selection. The role of selection is to favor organisms that are best adapted to prevailing environmental conditions. However, the environment is not a static backdrop for evolution, but is heavily influenced by the presence of living organisms. The resulting co-evolving dynamical process eventually leads to the convergence of equilibrium and optimal conditions".
1997年，泰勒·沃尔克认为，盖安系统几乎不可避免地会产生，这是朝着使熵产量最大化的远非平衡平衡平衡状态演化的结果，克莱顿（2004）同意这样的说法：“自稳行为可以从与行星反照率相关的MEP状态中产生”；“……生物地球在MEP状态下的行为很可能导致地球系统在长时间尺度上的近稳态行为，正如盖亚假说所述”。Staley（2002）同样提出了“……一种基于更传统的达尔文原理的盖亚理论的替代形式。在这种新方法中，环境调控是人口动态的结果，而不是达尔文的选择。选择的作用是偏爱最能适应当前环境条件的有机体。然而，环境并不是进化的静态背景，而是受到生物存在的严重影响。由此产生的共同进化动态过程最终导致平衡和最优条件的收敛。
===Fourth Gaia conference第四次盖亚会议===
===Fourth Gaia conference===
A fourth international conference on the Gaia hypothesis, sponsored by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and others, was held in October 2006 at the Arlington, VA campus of George Mason University.<ref>{{cite web|title=Gaia Theory Conference at George Mason University Law School|url=http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Communications/PressReleases/page7530.aspx|accessdate=1 December 2013|author=Official Site of Arlington County Virginia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203043657/http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Communications/PressReleases/page7530.aspx|archive-date=2013-12-03|url-status=dead}}</ref>
A fourth international conference on the Gaia hypothesis, sponsored by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and others, was held in October 2006 at the Arlington, VA campus of George Mason University.<ref>{{cite web|title=Gaia Theory Conference at George Mason University Law School|url=http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Communications/PressReleases/page7530.aspx|accessdate=1 December 2013|author=Official Site of Arlington County Virginia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203043657/http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Communications/PressReleases/page7530.aspx|archive-date=2013-12-03|url-status=dead}}</ref>
第四届盖亚假说国际会议于2006年10月在乔治梅森大学阿灵顿分校举行，会议由北弗吉尼亚州公园管理局和其他机构赞助。
Martin Ogle, Chief Naturalist, for NVRPA, and long-time Gaia hypothesis proponent, organized the event. Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and long-time advocate of the Gaia hypothesis, was a keynote speaker. Among many other speakers: Tyler Volk, Co-director of the Program in Earth and Environmental Science at New York University; Dr. Donald Aitken, Principal of Donald Aitken Associates; Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; Robert Correll, Senior Fellow, Atmospheric Policy Program, American Meteorological Society and noted environmental ethicist, J. Baird Callicott.
Martin Ogle, Chief Naturalist, for NVRPA, and long-time Gaia hypothesis proponent, organized the event. Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and long-time advocate of the Gaia hypothesis, was a keynote speaker. Among many other speakers: Tyler Volk, Co-director of the Program in Earth and Environmental Science at New York University; Dr. Donald Aitken, Principal of Donald Aitken Associates; Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; Robert Correll, Senior Fellow, Atmospheric Policy Program, American Meteorological Society and noted environmental ethicist, J. Baird Callicott.
马丁奥格尔，NVRPA的首席博物学家，也是盖亚假说的长期支持者，组织了这次活动。林恩 马古拉斯是马萨诸塞州阿默斯特大学地球科学系的杰出大学教授，也是盖亚假说的长期倡导者。其他许多发言者包括：纽约大学地球与环境科学项目联合主任泰勒·沃尔克、唐纳德·艾特肯博士、唐纳德·艾特肯博士、海因茨科学、经济与环境中心主席托马斯·洛夫乔伊博士、大气政策计划高级研究员罗伯特·科雷尔，美国气象学会和著名环境伦理学家J。贝尔德。卡利科特。
This conference approached the Gaia hypothesis as both science and metaphor as a means of understanding how we might begin addressing 21st century issues such as climate change and ongoing environmental destruction.
This conference approached the Gaia hypothesis as both science and metaphor as a means of understanding how we might begin addressing 21st century issues such as climate change and ongoing environmental destruction.
这次会议将盖亚假说作为一种科学和隐喻来探讨，以此来理解我们如何着手解决21世纪的问题，如气候变化和持续的环境破坏
==Criticism批评==
==Criticism==
After initially receiving little attention from scientists (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period the initial Gaia hypothesis was criticized by a number of scientists, such as [[Ford Doolittle]],<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Doolittle|first=W. F.|year=1981|title=Is Nature Really Motherly|url=|journal=The Coevolution Quarterly|volume=Spring|pages=58–63|via=}}</ref> [[Richard Dawkins]]<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=The Extended Phenotype: the Long Reach of the Gene|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1982|isbn=978-0-19-286088-0|location=|pages=}}</ref> and [[Stephen Jay Gould]].<ref name="ReferenceB">Turney, Jon. "Lovelock and Gaia: Signs of Life" (Revolutions in Science)</ref> Lovelock has said that because his hypothesis is named after a Greek goddess, and championed by many non-scientists,<ref name="Lovelock01"/> the Gaia hypothesis was interpreted as a [[neo-Pagan]] [[religion]]. Many scientists in particular also criticised the approach taken in his popular book ''Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth'' for being [[teleology|teleological]]—a belief that things are purposeful and aimed towards a goal. Responding to this critique in 1990, Lovelock stated, "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the [[biota (ecology)|biota]]".
After initially receiving little attention from scientists (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period the initial Gaia hypothesis was criticized by a number of scientists, such as [[Ford Doolittle]],<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Doolittle|first=W. F.|year=1981|title=Is Nature Really Motherly|url=|journal=The Coevolution Quarterly|volume=Spring|pages=58–63|via=}}</ref> [[Richard Dawkins]]<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=The Extended Phenotype: the Long Reach of the Gene|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1982|isbn=978-0-19-286088-0|location=|pages=}}</ref> and [[Stephen Jay Gould]].<ref name="ReferenceB">Turney, Jon. "Lovelock and Gaia: Signs of Life" (Revolutions in Science)</ref> Lovelock has said that because his hypothesis is named after a Greek goddess, and championed by many non-scientists,<ref name="Lovelock01"/> the Gaia hypothesis was interpreted as a [[neo-Pagan]] [[religion]]. Many scientists in particular also criticised the approach taken in his popular book ''Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth'' for being [[teleology|teleological]]—a belief that things are purposeful and aimed towards a goal. Responding to this critique in 1990, Lovelock stated, "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the [[biota (ecology)|biota]]".
===Natural selection and evolution===
===Natural selection and evolution自然选择和进化===
Lovelock has suggested that global biological feedback mechanisms could evolve by [[natural selection]], stating that organisms that improve their environment for their survival do better than those that damage their environment. However, in the early 1980s, [[Ford Doolittle|W. Ford Doolittle]] and [[Richard Dawkins]] separately argued against this aspect of Gaia. Doolittle argued that nothing in the [[genome]] of individual organisms could provide the feedback mechanisms proposed by Lovelock, and therefore the Gaia hypothesis proposed no plausible mechanism and was unscientific.<ref name=":1" /> Dawkins meanwhile stated that for organisms to act in concert would require foresight and planning, which is contrary to the current scientific understanding of evolution.<ref name=":2" /> Like Doolittle, he also rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system.
Lovelock has suggested that global biological feedback mechanisms could evolve by [[natural selection]], stating that organisms that improve their environment for their survival do better than those that damage their environment. However, in the early 1980s, [[Ford Doolittle|W. Ford Doolittle]] and [[Richard Dawkins]] separately argued against this aspect of Gaia. Doolittle argued that nothing in the [[genome]] of individual organisms could provide the feedback mechanisms proposed by Lovelock, and therefore the Gaia hypothesis proposed no plausible mechanism and was unscientific.<ref name=":1" /> Dawkins meanwhile stated that for organisms to act in concert would require foresight and planning, which is contrary to the current scientific understanding of evolution.<ref name=":2" /> Like Doolittle, he also rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system.
===Criticism in the 21st century===
===Criticism in the 21st century21世纪的批评===
The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal ''Climatic Change'' in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it.<ref name="kirchner2002"/><ref name="volk2002"/> Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties"<ref>{{cite book |last=Waltham |first=David |authorlink=David Waltham |date=2014 |title=Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional – and What that Means for Life in the Universe |url=https://archive.org/details/luckyplanetwhyea0000walt |location= |publisher=Icon Books |page= |isbn=9781848316560 |accessdate= |url-access=registration }}</ref> to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background"<ref name="beerling2007"/> to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cockell |first1=Charles |authorlink1=Charles Cockell |last2=Corfield |first2=Richard |last3=Dise |first3= Nancy |last4=Edwards |first4=Neil |last5=Harris |first5=Nigel |date=2008 |title= An Introduction to the Earth-Life System |url= http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/palaeontology-and-life-history/introduction-earth-life-system |location=Cambridge (UK) |publisher= Cambridge University Press |page= |isbn= 9780521729536 |accessdate= }}</ref> The [[CLAW hypothesis]],<ref name="CLAW87" /> initially suggested as a potential example of direct Gaian feedback, has subsequently been found to be less credible as understanding of [[cloud condensation nuclei]] has improved.<ref>{{Citation |last1= Quinn |first1=P.K. |last2= Bates |first2=T.S. |title =The case against climate regulation via oceanic phytoplankton sulphur emissions |journal =Nature |volume=480 |issue=7375 |pages =51–56 |date = 2011 |doi=10.1038/nature10580|bibcode = 2011Natur.480...51Q |pmid=22129724|url=https://zenodo.org/record/1233319 }}</ref> In 2009 the [[Medea hypothesis]] was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.<ref>Peter Ward (2009), ''The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?'', {{ISBN|0-691-13075-2}}</ref>
The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal ''Climatic Change'' in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it.<ref name="kirchner2002"/><ref name="volk2002"/> Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties"<ref>{{cite book |last=Waltham |first=David |authorlink=David Waltham |date=2014 |title=Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional – and What that Means for Life in the Universe |url=https://archive.org/details/luckyplanetwhyea0000walt |location= |publisher=Icon Books |page= |isbn=9781848316560 |accessdate= |url-access=registration }}</ref> to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background"<ref name="beerling2007"/> to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cockell |first1=Charles |authorlink1=Charles Cockell |last2=Corfield |first2=Richard |last3=Dise |first3= Nancy |last4=Edwards |first4=Neil |last5=Harris |first5=Nigel |date=2008 |title= An Introduction to the Earth-Life System |url= http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/palaeontology-and-life-history/introduction-earth-life-system |location=Cambridge (UK) |publisher= Cambridge University Press |page= |isbn= 9780521729536 |accessdate= }}</ref> The [[CLAW hypothesis]],<ref name="CLAW87" /> initially suggested as a potential example of direct Gaian feedback, has subsequently been found to be less credible as understanding of [[cloud condensation nuclei]] has improved.<ref>{{Citation |last1= Quinn |first1=P.K. |last2= Bates |first2=T.S. |title =The case against climate regulation via oceanic phytoplankton sulphur emissions |journal =Nature |volume=480 |issue=7375 |pages =51–56 |date = 2011 |doi=10.1038/nature10580|bibcode = 2011Natur.480...51Q |pmid=22129724|url=https://zenodo.org/record/1233319 }}</ref> In 2009 the [[Medea hypothesis]] was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.<ref>Peter Ward (2009), ''The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?'', {{ISBN|0-691-13075-2}}</ref>