153
个编辑
更改
无编辑摘要
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 (CO<sub>2</sub>) 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 (CO<sub>2</sub>) 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.
盖亚假说的科学家们把生物体参与碳循环看作是维持适合生命条件的复杂过程之一。火山活动是大气中二氧化碳的唯一重要自然来源，而碳酸盐岩的沉淀是大气中二氧化碳唯一重要的去除途径。碳沉淀、溶解和固定受到土壤中细菌和植物根系的影响，这些细菌和植物根系可以改善气体循环，或者在珊瑚礁中，碳酸钙以固体的形式沉积在海底。碳酸钙被活的有机体用来制造含碳的试验和外壳。一旦死亡，生物体的外壳就会沉到海底，在那里它们产生白垩和石灰石的沉淀物。
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.
洛夫洛克谨慎地提出了盖亚假说的一个版本，该假说没有声称盖亚假说有意或有意地在她的环境中维持生命赖以生存的复杂平衡。看起来，盖亚假说“故意”行为的说法只是他那本广受欢迎的书中的一个比喻性陈述，并不是字面意义上的理解。这种对盖亚假说的新陈述更能为科学界所接受。在这次会议之后，大多数关于目的论的指责都停止了。
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.
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，我宁愿把盖亚假说牢牢地放在背景下。”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 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>
然而，洛夫洛克和其他支持盖亚假说的科学家，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".
1997年，泰勒·沃尔克认为，盖亚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。
[[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>
史蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德批评盖亚假说是“一种隐喻，而不是一种机制。”他想知道实现自我调节内稳态的实际机制。在为盖亚假说辩护时，大卫·艾布拉姆认为古尔德忽略了一个事实，即“机制”本身就是一个隐喻——尽管这是一个非常常见且常常未被人认识的隐喻——它使我们把自然和生命系统看作是从外部组织和建造的机器（而不是自动或自组织的）现象）。艾布拉姆认为，机械隐喻使我们忽视了生命实体的活动性或能动性，而盖亚假说的有机体隐喻强调了生物群和生物圈作为一个整体的能动性。关于盖亚假说的因果关系，洛夫洛克认为没有单一的机制负责各种已知机制之间的联系可能永远不为人所知，这一点在其他生物学和生态学领域都是理所当然的，而具体的敌意是出于其他原因留给他自己的假设的
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.
洛夫洛克提出，全球生物反馈机制可以通过自然选择而进化，他指出，为生存而改善环境的生物比那些破坏环境的生物做得更好。然而，在20世纪80年代早期，W·福特·杜立德和理查德·道金斯分别反对盖亚假说的这一方面。杜立德认为，单个生物体的基因组中没有任何东西能够提供洛夫洛克提出的反馈机制，因此盖亚假说没有提出任何合理的机制，是不科学的。道金斯同时指出，要使有机体协同行动，就需要有远见和计划，这与当前科学界对进化论的理解相悖和杜立德一样，他也拒绝了反馈回路可以稳定系统的可能性。
[[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>.
进化生物学家汉密尔顿称盖亚哥白尼为盖亚的概念，他补充说，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。通过自然选择在进化过程中的繁殖，从而为自然选择理论和盖亚假说提供了可能的调和。
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>
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：“我认为盖亚假说是一条死胡同。然而，它的研究产生了许多新的和发人深省的问题。在拒绝盖亚假说的同时，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思想，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：“盖亚假说并不是一个关于如何进行的精确描述我们的世界在运转。”这种说法需要被理解为是指盖亚假说的“强大”和“温和”形式，生物群遵循的原则是使地球处于最佳状态（强度5）或有利于生命（强度4），或者它作为一种内稳态机制（强度3）。后者是洛夫洛克所提倡的盖亚假说的“最弱”形式。泰瑞尔拒绝了。然而，他发现盖亚假说的两种较弱的形式：共同进化德盖亚假说和有影响力的盖亚假说，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“盖亚假说”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
Category:Cybernetics
Category:Cybernetics