更改

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]]".

 

[[Stephen Jay Gould]] criticised Gaia as being "a metaphor, not a mechanism."<ref name="Gould 1997">{{cite journal |author=Gould S.J. |title=Kropotkin was no crackpot |journal=Natural History |volume=106 |pages=12–21 |date=June 1997  |url=http://libcom.org/library/kropotkin-was-no-crackpot |ref=harv}}</ref> 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 [[autopoiesis|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.<ref>Abram, D. (1988) "The Mechanical and the Organic: On the Impact of Metaphor in Science" in Scientists on Gaia, edited by Stephen Schneider and Penelope Boston, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1991</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_mechanical_and_the_organic.html |title=The Mechanical and the Organic |accessdate=August 27, 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120223165936/http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_mechanical_and_the_organic.html |archivedate=February 23, 2012 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Lovelock, James 2001">Lovelock, James (2001), ''Homage to Gaia: The Life of an Independent Scientist'' (Oxford University Press)</ref>

[[Stephen Jay Gould]] criticised Gaia as being "a metaphor, not a mechanism."<ref name="Gould 1997">{{cite journal |author=Gould S.J. |title=Kropotkin was no crackpot |journal=Natural History |volume=106 |pages=12–21 |date=June 1997  |url=http://libcom.org/library/kropotkin-was-no-crackpot |ref=harv}}</ref> 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 [[autopoiesis|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.<ref>Abram, D. (1988) "The Mechanical and the Organic: On the Impact of Metaphor in Science" in Scientists on Gaia, edited by Stephen Schneider and Penelope Boston, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1991</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_mechanical_and_the_organic.html |title=The Mechanical and the Organic |accessdate=August 27, 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120223165936/http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_mechanical_and_the_organic.html |archivedate=February 23, 2012 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Lovelock, James 2001">Lovelock, James (2001), ''Homage to Gaia: The Life of an Independent Scientist'' (Oxford University Press)</ref>

 

Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of [[greedy reductionism]] in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. He also states that most of his critics are biologists but that his hypothesis includes experiments in fields outside biology, and that some self-regulating phenomena may not be mathematically explainable.<ref name="Lovelock, James 2001"/>

Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of [[greedy reductionism]] in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. He also states that most of his critics are biologists but that his hypothesis includes experiments in fields outside biology, and that some self-regulating phenomena may not be mathematically explainable.<ref name="Lovelock, James 2001"/>

 

===Natural selection and evolution自然选择和进化===

===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.

 

[[Lynn Margulis]], a microbiologist who collaborated with Lovelock in supporting the Gaia hypothesis, argued in 1999, that "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s grand vision was not wrong, only incomplete. In accentuating the direct competition between individuals for resources as the primary selection mechanism, Darwin (and especially his followers) created the impression that the environment was simply a static arena". She wrote that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere are regulated around "set points" as in [[homeostasis]], but those set points change with time.<ref name="ReferenceA">Margulis, Lynn. Symbiotic Planet: A New Look At Evolution. Houston: Basic Book 1999</ref>

[[Lynn Margulis]], a microbiologist who collaborated with Lovelock in supporting the Gaia hypothesis, argued in 1999, that "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s grand vision was not wrong, only incomplete. In accentuating the direct competition between individuals for resources as the primary selection mechanism, Darwin (and especially his followers) created the impression that the environment was simply a static arena". She wrote that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere are regulated around "set points" as in [[homeostasis]], but those set points change with time.<ref name="ReferenceA">Margulis, Lynn. Symbiotic Planet: A New Look At Evolution. Houston: Basic Book 1999</ref>

 

Evolutionary biologist [[W. D. Hamilton]] called the concept of Gaia [[Nicolaus Copernicus|Copernican]], adding that it would take another [[Isaac Newton|Newton]] to explain how Gaian self-regulation takes place through Darwinian [[natural selection]].<ref name=vanish09>Lovelock, James. ''The Vanishing Face of Gaia''. Basic Books, 2009, pp. 195-197. {{ISBN|978-0-465-01549-8}}</ref>{{better source|date=September 2012|reason=it should be possible to find the original place where Hamilton said this}}  More recently [[Ford Doolittle]] building on his and Inkpen's ITSNTS (It's The Singer Not The Song) proposal<ref name="ITSNTS">Doolittle WF, Inkpen SA. Processes and patterns of interaction as units of selection: An introduction to ITSNTS thinking. [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/16/4006 PNAS April 17, 2018 115 (16)] 4006-4014 </ref> 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<ref name="Darwinizing Gaia">Doolittle WF. Darwinizing Gaia. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.02.015 Journal of Theoretical BiologyVolume 434], 7 December 2017, Pages 11-19 </ref>.  

Evolutionary biologist [[W. D. Hamilton]] called the concept of Gaia [[Nicolaus Copernicus|Copernican]], adding that it would take another [[Isaac Newton|Newton]] to explain how Gaian self-regulation takes place through Darwinian [[natural selection]].<ref name=vanish09>Lovelock, James. ''The Vanishing Face of Gaia''. Basic Books, 2009, pp. 195-197. {{ISBN|978-0-465-01549-8}}</ref>{{better source|date=September 2012|reason=it should be possible to find the original place where Hamilton said this}}  More recently [[Ford Doolittle]] building on his and Inkpen's ITSNTS (It's The Singer Not The Song) proposal<ref name="ITSNTS">Doolittle WF, Inkpen SA. Processes and patterns of interaction as units of selection: An introduction to ITSNTS thinking. [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/16/4006 PNAS April 17, 2018 115 (16)] 4006-4014 </ref> 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<ref name="Darwinizing Gaia">Doolittle WF. Darwinizing Gaia. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.02.015 Journal of Theoretical BiologyVolume 434], 7 December 2017, Pages 11-19 </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>

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>

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".<ref>{{citation |last=Tyrrell |first=Toby |authorlink= |date= 2013|title= On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship between Life and Earth |url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9959.html |location=Princeton |publisher=Princeton University Press |page=209 |isbn=9780691121581 |accessdate= }}</ref> Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works".<ref>{{Citation |last= Tyrrell |first = Toby |title =Gaia: the verdict is… |journal = New Scientist |volume = 220 |issue = 2940 |pages = 30–31 |date= 26 October 2013 |doi=10.1016/s0262-4079(13)62532-4}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{citation |last=Tyrrell |first=Toby |authorlink= |date= 2013|title= On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship between Life and Earth |url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9959.html |location=Princeton |publisher=Princeton University Press |page=208 |isbn=9780691121581 |accessdate= }}</ref>

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".<ref>{{citation |last=Tyrrell |first=Toby |authorlink= |date= 2013|title= On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship between Life and Earth |url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9959.html |location=Princeton |publisher=Princeton University Press |page=209 |isbn=9780691121581 |accessdate= }}</ref> Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works".<ref>{{Citation |last= Tyrrell |first = Toby |title =Gaia: the verdict is… |journal = New Scientist |volume = 220 |issue = 2940 |pages = 30–31 |date= 26 October 2013 |doi=10.1016/s0262-4079(13)62532-4}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{citation |last=Tyrrell |first=Toby |authorlink= |date= 2013|title= On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship between Life and Earth |url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9959.html |location=Princeton |publisher=Princeton University Press |page=208 |isbn=9780691121581 |accessdate= }}</ref>

 

Category:Cybernetics

Category:Cybernetics