更改

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 atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) is volcanic activity, while the only significant removal is through the precipitation of carbonate rocks. Carbon precipitation, solution and 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 atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) is volcanic activity, while the only significant removal is through the precipitation of carbonate rocks. Carbon precipitation, solution and 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.

In 1988, climatologist Stephen Schneider organised a conference of the American Geophysical Union. The first Chapman Conference on Gaia,

In 1988, climatologist Stephen Schneider organised a conference of the American Geophysical Union. The first Chapman Conference on Gaia,

在1988年，气候学家史蒂芬·史奈德组织了一次美国美国地球物理联盟协会的会议。关于盖亚的第一次查普曼会议,

在1988年，气候学家史蒂芬·史奈德组织了一次美国美国地球物理联盟协会的会议。关于盖亚假说的第一次查普曼会议,

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。

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，针对盖亚假说是目的论的指控，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。

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 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 teleologism ceased, following this conference.

By the time of the 2nd Chapman Conference on the Gaia Hypothesis, held at Valencia, Spain, on 23 June 2000, 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, 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.

到2000年6月23日在西班牙巴伦西亚举行关于盖亚假说的第二次查普曼会议时，情况发生了重大变化。与其讨论盖亚的目的论观点，或盖亚假说的“类型” ，不如将重点放在具体的机制上，通过这些机制，基本的短期内稳态在一个重要的进化的长期结构变化的框架内得以维持。

到2000年6月23日在西班牙巴伦西亚举行关于盖亚假说的第二次查普曼会议时，情况发生了重大变化。与其讨论盖亚假说的目的论观点，或盖亚假说的“类型” ，不如将重点放在具体的机制上，通过这些机制，基本的短期内稳态在一个重要的进化的长期结构变化的框架内得以维持。

The idea of the Earth as an integrated whole, a living being, has a long tradition. The [[Gaia (mythology)|mythical Gaia]] was the primal Greek goddess personifying the [[Earth]], the Greek version of "[[Mother Nature]]" (from Ge = Earth, and Aia =  

The idea of the Earth as an integrated whole, a living being, has a long tradition. The [[Gaia (mythology)|mythical Gaia]] was the primal Greek goddess personifying the [[Earth]], the Greek version of "[[Mother Nature]]" (from Ge = Earth, and Aia =  

  "How has the global biogeochemical/climate system called Gaia changed in time? What is its history? Can Gaia maintain stability of the system at one time scale but still undergo vectorial change at longer time scales? How can the geologic record be used to examine these questions?"

  "How has the global biogeochemical/climate system called Gaia changed in time? What is its history? Can Gaia maintain stability of the system at one time scale but still undergo vectorial change at longer time scales? How can the geologic record be used to examine these questions?"

“被称为盖亚的全球生物地球化学/气候系统是如何及时发生变化的？它的历史是什么？盖亚能够在一个时间尺度上保持系统的稳定性，但是在更长的时间尺度上仍然经历矢量变化吗？如何利用地质记录来检验这些问题? ”

“被称为盖亚的全球生物地球化学/气候系统是如何及时发生变化的？它的历史是什么？盖亚假说能够在一个时间尺度上保持系统的稳定性，但是在更长的时间尺度上仍然经历矢量变化吗？如何利用地质记录来检验这些问题? ”

  "What is the structure of Gaia? Are the feedbacks sufficiently strong to influence the evolution of climate? Are there parts of the system determined pragmatically by whatever disciplinary study is being undertaken at any given time or are there a set of parts that should be taken as most true for understanding Gaia as containing evolving organisms over time? What are the feedbacks among these different parts of the Gaian system, and what does the near closure of matter mean for the structure of Gaia as a global ecosystem and for the productivity of life?"

  "What is the structure of Gaia? Are the feedbacks sufficiently strong to influence the evolution of climate? Are there parts of the system determined pragmatically by whatever disciplinary study is being undertaken at any given time or are there a set of parts that should be taken as most true for understanding Gaia as containing evolving organisms over time? What are the feedbacks among these different parts of the Gaian system, and what does the near closure of matter mean for the structure of Gaia as a global ecosystem and for the productivity of life?"

“盖亚的结构是什么？这些反馈是否足够强烈，足以影响气候的演变？系统的某些部分是由在任何特定时间进行的学科研究务实地决定的，还是有一些部分应该被认为是最真实的，以了解盖亚随着时间的推移包含进化中的生物体？盖亚系统这些不同部分之间的反馈是什么? 对盖亚作为全球生态系统的结构和生命的生产力来说，物质的近乎封闭意味着什么? ”

“盖亚假说的结构是什么？这些反馈是否足够强烈，足以影响气候的演变？系统的某些部分是由在任何特定时间进行的学科研究务实地决定的，还是有一些部分应该被认为是最真实的，以了解盖亚假说随着时间的推移包含进化中的生物体？盖亚系统这些不同部分之间的反馈是什么? 对盖亚假说作为全球生态系统的结构和生命的生产力来说，物质的近乎封闭意味着什么? ”

Also in the turn to the 20th century [[Aldo Leopold]], pioneer in the development of modern [[environmental ethics]] and in the movement for [[wilderness]] conservation, suggested a living Earth in his biocentric or holistic ethics regarding land.

Also in the turn to the 20th century [[Aldo Leopold]], pioneer in the development of modern [[environmental ethics]] and in the movement for [[wilderness]] conservation, suggested a living Earth in his biocentric or holistic ethics regarding land.

  "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? ”

“盖亚假说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? ”

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。  

进化生物学家W.D.Hamilton称盖亚假说为哥白尼式的概念，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.

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 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

1988年，climatology和Stephen Schneider组织了一次美国地球物理联合会会议。关于盖亚假说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 -

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>

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。

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。看来盖亚假说“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。

# "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？”               

“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？”              

“盖亚假说的结构是什么？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假说，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？”

  “盖亚假说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假说？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".

[[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>

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>.  

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