“盖亚假说”的版本间的差异
| 第224行： | 第224行： | ||
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。 | |
| 第361行： | 第361行： | ||
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, | |
| 第369行： | 第369行： | ||
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。 | |
| 第377行： | 第377行： | ||
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。 | |
| 第387行： | 第387行： | ||
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 = | ||
| 第403行： | 第403行： | ||
"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/ | + | “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? ” |
| 第409行： | 第409行： | ||
"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. | ||
| 第415行： | 第415行： | ||
"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? ” | |
| 第475行： | 第475行： | ||
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. | + | 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。 |
| 第484行： | 第484行： | ||
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"/> | ||
| 第504行： | 第504行： | ||
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 | + | 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 - | ||
| 第529行： | 第529行： | ||
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。 | |
| 第551行： | 第551行： | ||
# "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。 | |
| 第579行： | 第579行： | ||
[[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 | |
| 第590行： | 第590行： | ||
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> | ||
| 第597行： | 第597行： | ||
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。 | |
| 第608行： | 第608行： | ||
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 | ||
2020年11月16日 (一) 17:21的版本
此词条暂由Henry翻译。
The study of planetary habitability is partly based upon extrapolation from knowledge of the Earth's conditions, as the Earth is the only planet currently known to harbour life (The Blue Marble, 1972 Apollo 17 photograph)
行星可居住性的研究部分基于对[[地球条件]的了解推断，因为地球是目前已知的唯一一颗拥有生命的行星
The Gaia hypothesis 模板:IPAc-en, also known as the Gaia theory or the Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.
The Gaia hypothesis , also known as the Gaia theory or the Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.
盖亚假说(又称盖亚理论或盖亚原理)提出，生物体与地球上的无机环境相互作用，形成一个协同和自我调节的复杂系统，有助于维持和延续地球上的生命条件。
The hypothesis was formulated by the chemist James Lovelock[1] and co-developed by the microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s.[2] Lovelock named the idea after Gaia, the primordial goddess who personified the Earth in Greek mythology. In 2006, the Geological Society of London awarded Lovelock the Wollaston Medal in part for his work on the Gaia hypothesis.[3]
The hypothesis was formulated by the chemist James Lovelock Lovelock named the idea after Gaia, the primordial goddess who personified the Earth in Greek mythology. In 2006, the Geological Society of London awarded Lovelock the Wollaston Medal in part for his work on the Gaia hypothesis.
这个假设是由化学家詹姆斯 洛夫洛克提出的，他以希腊神话中地球的化身盖亚的名字命名了这个想法。2006年，伦敦地质学会授予洛夫洛克沃拉斯顿勋章，部分原因是他在 盖亚假说Gaia hypothesis方面的工作。
Topics related to the hypothesis include how the biosphere and the evolution of organisms affect the stability of global temperature, salinity of seawater, atmospheric oxygen levels, the maintenance of a hydrosphere of liquid water and other environmental variables that affect the habitability of Earth.
Topics related to the hypothesis include how the biosphere and the evolution of organisms affect the stability of global temperature, salinity of seawater, atmospheric oxygen levels, the maintenance of a hydrosphere of liquid water and other environmental variables that affect the habitability of Earth.
与该假设有关的主题包括生物圈和生物体的进化如何影响全球温度的稳定性、海水的盐度、大气中的氧含量、液态水的水圈的维持以及其他影响地球宜居性的环境变量。
The Gaia hypothesis was initially criticized for being teleological and against the principles of natural selection, but later refinements aligned the Gaia hypothesis with ideas from fields such as Earth system science, biogeochemistry and systems ecology.[4][5][6] Lovelock also once described the "geophysiology" of the Earth.[7]模板:Explain Even so, the Gaia hypothesis continues to attract criticism, and today many scientists consider it to be only weakly supported by, or at odds with, the available evidence.[8][9][10]
The Gaia hypothesis was initially criticized for being teleological and against the principles of natural selection, but later refinements aligned the Gaia hypothesis with ideas from fields such as Earth system science, biogeochemistry and systems ecology. Lovelock also once described the "geophysiology" of the Earth. Even so, the Gaia hypothesis continues to attract criticism, and today many scientists consider it to be only weakly supported by, or at odds with, the available evidence.
盖亚假说最初被批评为目的论和反对自然选择的原则，但后来的改进使盖亚假说与来自地球系统科学、生物地球化学和系统生态学等领域的想法相一致。洛夫洛克还曾经描述过地球的“地球物理学”。即便如此，盖亚假说仍然受到批评，今天许多科学家认为它只有微弱的支持，或与现有的证据相矛盾。
Overview总览
Gaian hypotheses suggest that organisms co-evolve with their environment: that is, they "influence their abiotic environment, and that environment in turn influences the biota by Darwinian process". Lovelock (1995) gave evidence of this in his second book, showing the evolution from the world of the early thermo-acido-philic and methanogenic bacteria towards the oxygen-enriched atmosphere today that supports more complex life.
Gaian hypotheses suggest that organisms co-evolve with their environment: that is, they "influence their abiotic environment, and that environment in turn influences the biota by Darwinian process". Lovelock (1995) gave evidence of this in his second book, showing the evolution from the world of the early thermo-acido-philic and methanogenic bacteria towards the oxygen-enriched atmosphere today that supports more complex life.
盖恩假说认为，生物体与其环境共同进化：也就是说，它们“影响它们的非生物环境，而环境反过来又通过达尔文的过程影响生物群”。Lovelock（1995）在他的第二本书中提供了证据，展示了从早期嗜酸和产甲烷细菌的世界向今天支持更复杂生命的富氧大气的进化。
A reduced version of the hypothesis has been called "influential Gaia"[11] in "Directed Evolution of the Biosphere: Biogeochemical Selection or Gaia?" by Andrei G. Lapenis, which states the biota influence certain aspects of the abiotic world, e.g. temperature and atmosphere. This is not the work of an individual but a collective of Russian scientific research that was combined into this peer reviewed publication. It states the coevolution of life and the environment through “micro-forces”[11] and biogeochemical processes. An example is how the activity of photosynthetic bacteria during Precambrian times completely modified the Earth atmosphere to turn it aerobic, and thus supports the evolution of life (in particular eukaryotic life).
A reduced version of the hypothesis has been called "influential Gaia" in "Directed Evolution of the Biosphere: Biogeochemical Selection or Gaia?" by Andrei G. Lapenis, which states the biota influence certain aspects of the abiotic world, e.g. temperature and atmosphere. This is not the work of an individual but a collective of Russian scientific research that was combined into this peer reviewed publication. It states the coevolution of life and the environment through “micro-forces”
在《生物圈的定向进化: 生物地球化学选择还是盖亚? 》一书中，这一假说的简化版被称为“有影响力的盖亚”由安德烈·G·拉佩尼斯所著，他指出生物群影响着非生物世界的某些方面，例如:温度和大气。这不是一个人的工作，而是一个俄罗斯科学研究的集体，合并成这个同行评议的出版物。它通过“微观力量”阐述了生命与环境的共同进化
Since barriers existed throughout the twentieth century between Russia and the rest of the world, it is only relatively recently that the early Russian scientists who introduced concepts overlapping the Gaia hypothesis have become better known to the Western scientific community.[11] These scientists include Piotr Alekseevich Kropotkin (1842–1921) (although he spent much of his professional life outside Russia), Vasil’evich Rizpolozhensky (1847–1918), Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863–1945), and Vladimir Alexandrovich Kostitzin (1886–1963).
由于二十世纪俄罗斯与世界其他地区之间存在着隔阂，直到最近，引进了盖亚假说重叠概念的早期俄罗斯科学家才为西方科学界所熟知
The Gaia hypothesis posits that the Earth is a self-regulating complex system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrospheres and the pedosphere, tightly coupled as an evolving system. The hypothesis contends that this system as a whole, called Gaia, seeks a physical and chemical environment optimal for contemporary life.
盖亚假说认为，地球是一个自我调节的复杂系统，包括生物圈、大气层、水圈和土壤圈，作为一个进化的系统紧密结合在一起。这个假说认为，这个被称为盖亚的系统作为一个整体，寻求一个适合当代生命的物理和化学环境。
Biologists and Earth scientists usually view the factors that stabilize the characteristics of a period as an undirected emergent property or entelechy of the system; as each individual species pursues its own self-interest, for example, their combined actiYons may have counterbalancing effects on environmental change. Opponents of this view sometimes reference examples of events that resulted in dramatic change rather than stable equilibrium, such as the conversion of the Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxygen-rich one at the end of the Archaean and the beginning of the Proterozoic periods. 生物学家和地球科学家通常将稳定一个时期特征的因素视为系统的一个无方向的涌现属性或有目的行为；例如，由于每个物种都追求自身利益，它们的联合行动可能对环境变化产生抵消作用。反对这一观点的人有时会举出一些事件的例子，这些事件导致了巨大的变化，而不是稳定的平衡，例如在太古代末期和元古代时期开始时，地球大气从还原环境转变为富含氧气。
Gaia evolves through a cybernetic feedback system operated unconsciously by the biota, leading to broad stabilization of the conditions of habitability in a full homeostasis. Many processes in the Earth's surface essential for the conditions of life depend on the interaction of living forms, especially microorganisms, with inorganic elements. These processes establish a global control system that regulates Earth's surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity, powered by the global thermodynamic disequilibrium state of the Earth system.
盖亚通过一个由生物群无意识操作的控制论反馈系统进化，在一个完全的内稳态中达成可居住条件的广泛稳定。地球表面的许多过程对生命的条件至关重要，这些过程依赖于生命形式，特别是微生物与无机元素的相互作用。这些过程建立了一个全球控制系统，由地球系统的全球热力学不平衡状态提供动力，调节地球表面温度、大气成分和海洋盐度。
Less accepted versions of the hypothesis claim that changes in the biosphere are brought about through the coordination of living organisms and maintain those conditions through homeostasis. In some versions of Gaia philosophy, all lifeforms are considered part of one single living planetary being called Gaia. In this view, the atmosphere, the seas and the terrestrial crust would be results of interventions carried out by Gaia through the coevolving diversity of living organisms. 不太被接受的假说声称生物圈的变化是通过生物体的协调来实现的，并通过内稳态来维持这些条件。在一些版本的盖亚哲学中，所有的生命形式都被认为是一个被称为“盖亚”的生命行星的一部分。在这种观点下，大气、海洋和地壳将是盖亚通过生物多样性进行干预的结果。
The existence of a planetary homeostasis influenced by living forms had been observed previously in the field of biogeochemistry, and it is being investigated also in other fields like Earth system science. The originality of the Gaia hypothesis relies on the assessment that such homeostatic balance is actively pursued with the goal of keeping the optimal conditions for life, even when terrestrial or external events menace them.
以前在生物地球化学领域已经观察到受生命形式影响的行星内稳态的存在，而且在地球系统科学等其他领域也在研究这一现象。盖亚假说的原创性依赖于这样一种评估: 即使地球或外部事件威胁到这种平衡，这种平衡也是为了保持生命的最佳状态而积极追求的。
The Gaia hypothesis was an influence on the deep ecology movement.[12] 盖亚假说对深层生态学运动产生了影响
Details细节
Rob Rohde's palaeotemperature graphs
罗布·罗德的古温度图
The Gaia hypothesis posits that the Earth is a self-regulating complex system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrospheres and the pedosphere, tightly coupled as an evolving system. The hypothesis contends that this system as a whole, called Gaia, seeks a physical and chemical environment optimal for contemporary life.[13]
盖亚假说假设地球是一个自我调节的复杂系统，包括生物圈、大气、水圈和土壤圈，作为一个进化系统紧密耦合。该假说认为，这个系统作为一个整体，称为盖亚，寻求一个最适合当代生活的物理和化学环境
Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the Sun has increased by 25% to 30%; however, the surface temperature of the planet has remained within the levels of habitability, reaching quite regular low and high margins. Lovelock has also hypothesised that methanogens produced elevated levels of methane in the early atmosphere, giving a view similar to that found in petrochemical smog, similar in some respects to the atmosphere on Titan. research has suggested that "oxygen shocks" and reduced methane levels led, during the Huronian, Sturtian and Marinoan/Varanger Ice Ages, to a world that very nearly became a solid "snowball". These epochs are evidence against the ability of the pre Phanerozoic biosphere to fully self-regulate.
自从地球上有生命以来，太阳提供的能量增加了25%到30%；然而，地球表面温度一直保持在适宜居住的水平上，达到了相当规律的高低边缘。洛夫洛克还假设，产甲烷菌在早期大气中产生了较高水平的甲烷，这与在石化烟雾中发现的观点相似，在某些方面与土卫六上的大气相似。研究表明，在休伦期、斯图尔特期和马里诺/瓦朗格冰期，“氧冲击”和甲烷含量降低导致世界几乎变成了一个坚实的“雪球”。这些时代是前显生宙生物圈完全自我调节能力的证据。
Gaia evolves through a cybernetic feedback system operated unconsciously by the biota, leading to broad stabilization of the conditions of habitability in a full homeostasis. Many processes in the Earth's surface essential for the conditions of life depend on the interaction of living forms, especially microorganisms, with inorganic elements. These processes establish a global control system that regulates Earth's surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity, powered by the global thermodynamic disequilibrium state of the Earth system.[14] 盖亚通过一个生物学|控制论反馈系统在生物群的无意识运作中进化，导致在完全的内稳态中可居住条件的广泛稳定。地球表面对生命条件至关重要的许多过程都依赖于生物，特别是[微生物]与无机元素的相互作用。这些过程建立了一个全球控制系统，调节地球的表面温度、大气组成和海洋盐度，其动力来自地球系统的全球热力学不平衡状态。
Processing of the greenhouse gas CO2, explained below, plays a critical role in the maintenance of the Earth temperature within the limits of habitability.
说明了处理温室气体CO2在维持地球温度在可居住范围内起着关键作用。
The existence of a planetary homeostasis influenced by living forms had been observed previously in the field of biogeochemistry, and it is being investigated also in other fields like Earth system science. The originality of the Gaia hypothesis relies on the assessment that such homeostatic balance is actively pursued with the goal of keeping the optimal conditions for life, even when terrestrial or external events menace them.[15] 受生命形式影响的行星内稳态的存在，以前在生物地球化学领域就已被观察到，而且在其他领域，如地球系统科学也在研究中。盖亚假说的独创性依赖于这样一种评估，即积极追求这种体内平衡，以保持生命的最佳状态，即使是在地球或外部事件威胁它们的时候。
The CLAW hypothesis, inspired by the Gaia hypothesis, proposes a feedback loop that operates between ocean ecosystems and the Earth's climate. The hypothesis specifically proposes that particular phytoplankton that produce dimethyl sulfide are responsive to variations in climate forcing, and that these responses lead to a negative feedback loop that acts to stabilise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.
受盖亚假说的启发，CLAW 假说提出了一个在海洋生态系统和地球气候之间运行的反馈回路。该假说特别提出，产生二甲硫醚的浮游植物对气候强迫的变化有反应，这些反应导致了一个负反馈循环，稳定了地球大气的温度。
Regulation of global surface temperature地球表面温度的调控
Currently the increase in human population and the environmental impact of their activities, such as the multiplication of greenhouse gases may cause negative feedbacks in the environment to become positive feedback. Lovelock has stated that this could bring an extremely accelerated global warming, but he has since stated the effects will likely occur more slowly.
目前，人口的增加及其活动对环境的影响，例如温室气体的增加，可能导致环境中的负反馈成为正反馈。洛夫洛克表示，这可能会极大地加速全球变暖，但他后来又表示，这种影响可能会发生得更慢。
Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the Sun has increased by 25% to 30%;[16] however, the surface temperature of the planet has remained within the levels of habitability, reaching quite regular low and high margins. Lovelock has also hypothesised that methanogens produced elevated levels of methane in the early atmosphere, giving a view similar to that found in petrochemical smog, similar in some respects to the atmosphere on Titan.[7] This, he suggests tended to screen out ultraviolet until the formation of the ozone screen, maintaining a degree of homeostasis. However, the Snowball Earth[17] research has suggested that "oxygen shocks" and reduced methane levels led, during the Huronian, Sturtian and Marinoan/Varanger Ice Ages, to a world that very nearly became a solid "snowball". These epochs are evidence against the ability of the pre Phanerozoic biosphere to fully self-regulate.
Plots from a standard black and white Daisyworld simulation
从一个标准的黑白图雏菊世界模拟
Processing of the greenhouse gas CO2, explained below, plays a critical role in the maintenance of the Earth temperature within the limits of habitability. 说明了在温室气体维持低于临界温度的过程中，CO2起着至关重要的作用。
In response to the criticism that the Gaia hypothesis seemingly required unrealistic group selection and cooperation between organisms, James Lovelock and Andrew Watson developed a mathematical model, Daisyworld, in which ecological competition underpinned planetary temperature regulation.
有人批评盖亚假说似乎需要不切实际的群体选择和有机体之间的合作，为了回应这种批评，James Lovelock 和 Andrew Watson建立了一个数学模型---- 雏菊世界，其中生态竞争支撑着地。
The CLAW hypothesis, inspired by the Gaia hypothesis, proposes a feedback loop that operates between ocean ecosystems and the Earth's climate.[18] The hypothesis specifically proposes that particular phytoplankton that produce dimethyl sulfide are responsive to variations in climate forcing, and that these responses lead to a negative feedback loop that acts to stabilise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. 受到盖亚假说启发的爪假说提出了一个在海洋生态系统和地球的气候之间运行的反馈回路。
Daisyworld examines the energy budget of a planet populated by two different types of plants, black daisies and white daisies, which are assumed to occupy a significant portion of the surface. The colour of the daisies influences the albedo of the planet such that black daisies absorb more light and warm the planet, while white daisies reflect more light and cool the planet. The black daisies are assumed to grow and reproduce best at a lower temperature, while the white daisies are assumed to thrive best at a higher temperature. As the temperature rises closer to the value the white daisies like, the white daisies outreproduce the black daisies, leading to a larger percentage of white surface, and more sunlight is reflected, reducing the heat input and eventually cooling the planet. Conversely, as the temperature falls, the black daisies outreproduce the white daisies, absorbing more sunlight and warming the planet. The temperature will thus converge to the value at which the reproductive rates of the plants are equal.
《雏菊世界》调查了一个星球的能量预算，这个星球上生长着两种不同的植物，黑色雏菊和白色雏菊，这两种植物被认为占据了星球表面的很大一部分。雏菊的颜色影响了地球的反照率，黑色的雏菊吸收更多的光线，使地球变暖，而白色的雏菊则反射更多的光线，使地球变冷。人们认为黑色雏菊在较低的温度下生长和繁殖最好，而白色雏菊则被认为在较高的温度下生长最好。当温度上升到接近白色雏菊所喜欢的温度时，白色雏菊伸展出黑色雏菊，导致更大比例的白色表面，更多的阳光被反射，减少热量输入，最终使地球降温。相反，随着气温的下降，黑色雏菊长出了白色雏菊，吸收了更多的阳光，使地球变暖。因此，温度会收敛到与植物繁殖率相等的值。
Currently the increase in human population and the environmental impact of their activities, such as the multiplication of greenhouse gases may cause negative feedbacks in the environment to become positive feedback. Lovelock has stated that this could bring an extremely accelerated global warming,[19] but he has since stated the effects will likely occur more slowly.[20] 目前，人口的增加及其活动对环境的影响，如温室气体的倍增，可能导致环境中的负反馈变成正反馈。洛夫洛克曾表示，这可能会带来一场【【James Loveloc【《盖亚的复仇』极度加速的全球变暖】】
Lovelock and Watson showed that, over a limited range of conditions, this negative feedback due to competition can stabilize the planet's temperature at a value which supports life, if the energy output of the Sun changes, while a planet without life would show wide temperature swings. The percentage of white and black daisies will continually change to keep the temperature at the value at which the plants' reproductive rates are equal, allowing both life forms to thrive.
洛夫洛克和沃森指出，在有限的条件下，如果太阳的能量输出发生变化，由于竞争而产生的负反馈可以将地球温度稳定在支持生命的数值上，而没有生命的地球则会表现出巨大的温度波动。白色和黑色雏菊的百分比会不断变化，以保持植物繁殖率相等的温度值，使两种生命形式都能茁壮成长。
Daisyworld simulations雏菊世界模拟
It has been suggested that the results were predictable because Lovelock and Watson selected examples that produced the responses they desired.
有人认为，这些结果是可以预测的，因为洛夫洛克和沃森选择的例子产生了他们想要的答案。
In response to the criticism that the Gaia hypothesis seemingly required unrealistic group selection and cooperation between organisms, James Lovelock and Andrew Watson developed a mathematical model, Daisyworld, in which ecological competition underpinned planetary temperature regulation.[21]
Dry air in the atmosphere of Earth contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases including methane. Lovelock originally speculated that concentrations of oxygen above about 25% would increase the frequency of wildfires and conflagration of forests. Recent work on the findings of fire-caused charcoal in Carboniferous and Cretaceous coal measures, in geologic periods when O2 did exceed 25%, has supported Lovelock's contention.
地球大气层中的干燥空气大致(按体积计算)含有78.09% 的氮气、20.95% 的氧气、0.93% 的氩气、0.039% 的二氧化碳以及少量的其他气体，包括甲烷。洛夫洛克最初推测，高于25% 的氧气浓度会增加森林大火和森林大火的发生频率。最近在石炭纪和白垩纪煤系地质时期，当O2确实超过了25%时，火成木炭的研究结果支持了 Lovelock 的论点。
Daisyworld examines the energy budget of a planet populated by two different types of plants, black daisies and white daisies, which are assumed to occupy a significant portion of the surface. The colour of the daisies influences the albedo of the planet such that black daisies absorb more light and warm the planet, while white daisies reflect more light and cool the planet. The black daisies are assumed to grow and reproduce best at a lower temperature, while the white daisies are assumed to thrive best at a higher temperature. As the temperature rises closer to the value the white daisies like, the white daisies outreproduce the black daisies, leading to a larger percentage of white surface, and more sunlight is reflected, reducing the heat input and eventually cooling the planet. Conversely, as the temperature falls, the black daisies outreproduce the white daisies, absorbing more sunlight and warming the planet. The temperature will thus converge to the value at which the reproductive rates of the plants are equal.
Daisyworld研究了能源预算的地球的能源预算居住着两种不同类型的植物，黑色的菊科的雏菊和白色的雏菊，这两种植物被认为占据了地表的很大一部分。雏菊的颜色影响着这个星球的[反照率]，因此黑色雏菊吸收更多的光并温暖地球，而白色雏菊则反射更多的光并使地球降温。黑雏菊在较低温度下生长繁殖最好，而白雏菊在较高温度下生长繁殖最好。当温度上升到接近白色雏菊的数值时，白色雏菊的繁殖能力超过了黑色雏菊，导致白色表面的比例增大，更多的阳光被反射，减少了热量输入，最终使地球变冷。相反，随着温度的下降，黑雏菊的繁殖能力超过了白雏菊，吸收了更多的阳光，使地球变暖。因此，温度将收敛到植物繁殖率相等的值。
Lovelock and Watson showed that, over a limited range of conditions, this negative feedback due to competition can stabilize the planet's temperature at a value which supports life, if the energy output of the Sun changes, while a planet without life would show wide temperature swings. The percentage of white and black daisies will continually change to keep the temperature at the value at which the plants' reproductive rates are equal, allowing both life forms to thrive.
Lovelock和Watson表明，在有限的条件范围内，如果太阳的能量输出发生变化，由于竞争而产生的负面反馈可以将地球的温度稳定在支持生命的值上，而没有生命的行星则会出现大范围的温度波动。白雏菊和黑雏菊的比例会不断变化，以使温度保持在植物繁殖率相等的值，从而使两种生命形式都能茁壮成长。
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.
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。
It has been suggested that the results were predictable because Lovelock and Watson selected examples that produced the responses they desired.[22] 有人认为，结果是可预测的，因为洛夫洛克和沃森选择的例子产生了他们想要的反应。
One of these organisms is Emiliania huxleyi, an abundant coccolithophore algae which also has a role in the formation of clouds. CO2 excess is compensated by an increase of coccolithophoride life, increasing the amount of CO2 locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophorides increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitations necessary for terrestrial plants. Lately the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing.
其中一种是赫氏圆石藻，这是一种数量丰富的颗石藻类，也参与了云的形成。CO < sub > 2 过量通过增加球石氟化物的寿命来补偿，增加了锁定在海底的 CO < sub > 2 的数量。球石粉会增加云量，从而控制地表温度，有助于降低整个地球的温度，有利于地球上植物所必需的降水。近年来，大气中 CO < < sub > 2 浓度有所增加，有证据表明，海洋藻华的浓度也在增加。
Regulation of oceanic salinity海洋盐度调节
Lichen and other organisms accelerate the weathering of rocks in the surface, while the decomposition of rocks also happens faster in the soil, thanks to the activity of roots, fungi, bacteria and subterranean animals. The flow of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to the soil is therefore regulated with the help of living beings. When CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere the temperature increases and plants grow. This growth brings higher consumption of CO2 by the plants, who process it into the soil, removing it from the atmosphere.
地衣和其他生物加速了岩石表面的风化，而岩石在土壤中的分解也加快了，这要归功于根、真菌、细菌和地下动物的活动。因此，二氧化碳从大气层流向土壤的过程是在生物的帮助下进行调节的。当大气中 CO2水平升高时，温度升高，植物生长。这种生长会增加植物对二氧化碳的消耗，植物会将二氧化碳处理到土壤中，从大气中排出。
Ocean salinity has been constant at about 3.5% for a very long time.[23] Salinity stability in oceanic environments is important as most cells require a rather constant salinity and do not generally tolerate values above 5%. The constant ocean salinity was a long-standing mystery, because no process counterbalancing the salt influx from rivers was known. Recently it was suggested[24] that salinity may also be strongly influenced by seawater circulation through hot basaltic rocks, and emerging as hot water vents on mid-ocean ridges. However, the composition of seawater is far from equilibrium, and it is difficult to explain this fact without the influence of organic processes. One suggested explanation lies in the formation of salt plains throughout Earth's history. It is hypothesized that these are created by bacterial colonies that fix ions and heavy metals during their life processes.[23] 在很长一段时间内，海洋盐度一直保持在3.5%左右。[23]海洋环境中的盐度稳定性非常重要，因为大多数细胞需要相当恒定的盐度，并且通常不能容忍超过5%的盐度值。恒定的海洋盐度是一个长期存在的谜团，因为没有任何过程可以抵消河流中的盐流入。最近有人认为[24]海水通过热玄武质岩石时也会受到海水循环的强烈影响，并在大洋中脊上出现热水喷口。然而，海水的组成远未达到平衡，如果没有有机过程的影响，很难解释这一事实。一个建议的解释是，在整个地球的历史中，盐平原的形成。据推测，这些细菌是由在生命过程中固定离子和重金属的菌落产生的
In the biogeochemical processes of Earth, sources and sinks are the movement of elements. The composition of salt ions within our oceans and seas is: sodium (Na+), chlorine (Cl−), sulfate (SO42−), magnesium (Mg2+), calcium (Ca2+) and potassium (K+). The elements that comprise salinity do not readily change and are a conservative property of seawater.[23] There are many mechanisms that change salinity from a particulate form to a dissolved form and back. The known sources of sodium i.e. salts are when weathering, erosion, and dissolution of rocks are transported into rivers and deposited into the oceans.
在地球的生物地球化学过程中，源和汇是元素的运动。我们海洋中盐离子的组成是：钠（Na+）、氯（Cl-）、硫酸盐（SO42-）、镁（Mg2+）、钙（Ca2+）和钾（K+）。构成盐度的元素不易变化，是海水的一种保守属性。[23]有许多机制可以将盐度从颗粒形态改变为溶解形态，然后再返回。已知的钠（即盐）来源于岩石的风化、侵蚀和溶解作用被输送到河流中并沉积到海洋中。
The Mediterranean Sea as being Gaia's kidney is found (here) by Kenneth J. Hsue, a correspondence author in 2001. The "desiccation" of the Mediterranean is the evidence of a functioning kidney. Earlier "kidney functions" were performed during the "deposition of the Cretaceous (South Atlantic), Jurassic (Gulf of Mexico), Permo-Triassic (Europe), Devonian (Canada), Cambrian/Precambrian (Gondwana) saline giants."[25]
地中海是盖亚的肾脏，由肯尼斯·J·休伊（KennethJ.Hsue）在2001年发现的。地中海的“干涸”是肾功能正常的证据。早期的“肾功能”是在“白垩纪（南大西洋）、侏罗纪（墨西哥湾）、二叠纪-三叠纪（欧洲）、泥盆纪（加拿大）、寒武纪/前寒武纪（冈瓦纳）盐沼沉积时期进行的。”
Earthrise taken from Apollo 8 on December 24, 1968
[1968年12月24日阿波罗8号拍摄的地出]
The idea of the Earth as an integrated whole, a living being, has a long tradition. The mythical Gaia was the primal Greek goddess personifying the Earth, the Greek version of "Mother Nature" (from Ge = Earth, and Aia =
地球作为一个完整的整体，一个有生命的存在，这个观念有着悠久的传统。神话中的盖亚是拟人化地球的原始希腊女神，是希腊版本的“自然母亲”(来自 Ge = 地球，和 Aia =
Regulation of oxygen in the atmosphere大气层的氧气调节
PIE grandmother), or the Earth Mother. James Lovelock gave this name to his hypothesis after a suggestion from the novelist William Golding, who was living in the same village as Lovelock at the time (Bowerchalke, Wiltshire, UK). Golding's advice was based on Gea, an alternative spelling for the name of the Greek goddess, which is used as prefix in geology, geophysics and geochemistry. Later, the naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt recognized the coevolution of living organisms, climate, and Earth's crust. His visionary pronouncements were not widely accepted in the West, and some decades later the Gaia hypothesis received the same type of initial resistance from the scientific community.
派祖母，或地球母亲。詹姆斯·洛夫洛克根据小说家威廉·戈尔丁的建议给他的假设起了这个名字，他当时和洛夫洛克住在同一个村子里（英国威尔特郡鲍尔查尔克）。戈尔丁的建议是以Gea为基础的，Gea是希腊女神名字的另一种拼写，在地质学、地球物理和地球化学中，Gea是前缀。后来，博物学家和探险家亚历山大·冯·洪堡认识到生物、气候和地壳的共同进化。他的远见卓识的声明在西方没有被广泛接受，几十年后，盖亚假说受到了科学界同样类型的最初抵制。
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.
同样在20世纪之交，现代环境伦理学发展的先驱、荒野保护运动的先驱奥尔多 · 利奥波德在他的生物中心或整体的土地伦理学中提出了一个有生命的地球。
The Gaia hypothesis states that the Earth's atmospheric composition is kept at a dynamically steady state by the presence of life.[26] The atmospheric composition provides the conditions that contemporary life has adapted to. All the atmospheric gases other than noble gases present in the atmosphere are either made by organisms or processed by them. 盖亚假说指出，地球的大气成分由于生命的存在而保持在动态稳定的状态。大气中除惰性气体以外的所有大气气体都是由生物体制造或加工而成。
The stability of the atmosphere in Earth is not a consequence of chemical equilibrium. Oxygen is a reactive compound, and should eventually combine with gases and minerals of the Earth's atmosphere and crust. Oxygen only began to persist in the atmosphere in small quantities about 50 million years before the start of the Great Oxygenation Event.[27] Since the start of the Cambrian period, atmospheric oxygen concentrations have fluctuated between 15% and 35% of atmospheric volume.[28] Traces of methane (at an amount of 100,000 tonnes produced per year)[29] should not exist, as methane is combustible in an oxygen atmosphere.
Later, other relationships such as sea creatures producing sulfur and iodine in approximately the same quantities as required by land creatures emerged and helped bolster the hypothesis.
后来出现了其他关系，例如海洋生物产生的硫和碘的数量与陆地生物所需的数量大致相同，这些都支持了这一假说。
Dry air in the atmosphere of Earth contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases including methane. Lovelock originally speculated that concentrations of oxygen above about 25% would increase the frequency of wildfires and conflagration of forests. Recent work on the findings of fire-caused charcoal in Carboniferous and Cretaceous coal measures, in geologic periods when O2 did exceed 25%, has supported Lovelock's contention.[citation needed]
地球大气中的干空气大约（按体积）包含78.09%氮，20.95%的氧，0.93%氩，0.039%[地球大气中的二氧化碳|二氧化碳]]，以及少量其他气体，包括甲烷。洛夫洛克最初推测，氧气浓度超过25%会增加森林火灾和火灾的发生率。最近在石炭纪和白垩纪煤系中发现的由火引起的木炭的研究，在地质时期O2超过25%，支持了Lovelock的观点
In 1971 microbiologist Dr. Lynn Margulis joined Lovelock in the effort of fleshing out the initial hypothesis into scientifically proven concepts, contributing her knowledge about how microbes affect the atmosphere and the different layers in the surface of the planet. The American biologist had also awakened criticism from the scientific community with her advocacy of the theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles and her contributions to the endosymbiotic theory, nowadays accepted. Margulis dedicated the last of eight chapters in her book, The Symbiotic Planet, to Gaia. However, she objected to the widespread personification of Gaia and stressed that Gaia is "not an organism", but "an emergent property of interaction among organisms". She defined Gaia as "the series of interacting ecosystems that compose a single huge ecosystem at the Earth's surface. Period". The book's most memorable "slogan" was actually quipped by a student of Margulis': "Gaia is just symbiosis as seen from space".
1971年，微生物学家 Lynn Margulis 博士加入了 Lovelock 的行列，努力将最初的假设充实为科学证明的概念，贡献了她关于微生物如何影响大气层和地球表面不同层次的知识。这位美国生物学家也唤醒了科学界的批评，因为她倡导真核细胞器起源的理论，以及她对美国共生发源学会的贡献，现在被接受了。玛格丽丝在她的书《共生星球》中将最后八章献给了盖亚。然而，她反对对盖亚的广泛拟人化，并强调盖亚“不是一个有机体” ，而是“有机体之间相互作用的一个新兴属性”。她将盖亚定义为“组成地球表面一个巨大生态系统的一系列相互作用的生态系统”。句号”。这本书最令人难忘的“口号”实际上是由马古利斯的一个学生打趣说的: “从太空看，盖亚只是共生而已。”。
Processing of CO2二氧化碳处理
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 and provided a number of useful predictions. 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. The principal sponsor was the National Audubon Society. Speakers included James Lovelock, George Wald, Mary Catherine Bateson, Lewis Thomas, John Todd, Donald Michael, Christopher Bird, Thomas Berry, David Abram, Michael Cohen, and William Fields. Some 500 people attended.
詹姆斯 · 洛夫洛克称他的第一个提议为盖亚假说，但也使用了盖亚理论这个术语。洛夫洛克说，最初的提法是基于观察，但仍然缺乏科学的解释。盖亚假说从那以后得到了一些科学实验的支持，并提供了一些有用的预测。事实上，更广泛的研究证明了最初的假设是错误的，在这个意义上，不是生命本身，而是整个地球系统在调节。主要赞助者是奥杜邦学会。讲者包括 James Lovelock、 George Wald、 Mary Catherine Bateson、 Lewis Thomas、 John Todd、 Donald Michael、 Christopher Bird、 Thomas Berry、 David Abram、 Michael Cohen 和 William Fields。大约有500人参加。
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.[30] 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. 盖亚的科学家认为，生物参与[[碳循环]是维持适宜生命条件的复杂过程之一。大气二氧化碳（ CO2）的唯一重要自然来源是火山活动，而唯一显著的清除是通过碳酸盐岩的沉淀，溶液和固碳受土壤中的细菌和植物根的影响，它们改善了气体循环，珊瑚礁中碳酸钙以固体形式沉积在海底。碳酸钙被生物用来制造含碳测试和贝壳。一旦死亡，这些生物的壳就会落到海底，在那里它们会产生白垩和石灰岩的沉积物。
One of these organisms is Emiliania huxleyi, an abundant coccolithophore algae which also has a role in the formation of clouds.[31] CO2 excess is compensated by an increase of coccolithophoride life, increasing the amount of CO2 locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophorides increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitations necessary for terrestrial plants.[citation needed] Lately the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing.[32]
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,
Lichen and other organisms accelerate the weathering of rocks in the surface, while the decomposition of rocks also happens faster in the soil, thanks to the activity of roots, fungi, bacteria and subterranean animals. The flow of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to the soil is therefore regulated with the help of living beings. When CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere the temperature increases and plants grow. This growth brings higher consumption of CO2 by the plants, who process it into the soil, removing it from the atmosphere.
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。
History历史
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。
Precedents先例
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 mythical Gaia was the primal Greek goddess personifying the Earth, the Greek version of "Mother Nature" (from Ge = Earth, and Aia =
PIE grandmother), or the Earth Mother. James Lovelock gave this name to his hypothesis after a suggestion from the novelist William Golding, who was living in the same village as Lovelock at the time (Bowerchalke, Wiltshire, UK). Golding's advice was based on Gea, an alternative spelling for the name of the Greek goddess, which is used as prefix in geology, geophysics and geochemistry.[33] Golding later made reference to Gaia in his Nobel prize acceptance speech.
The major questions were:
主要的问题是:
In the eighteenth century, as geology consolidated as a modern science, James Hutton maintained that geological and biological processes are interlinked.[34] Later, the naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt recognized the coevolution of living organisms, climate, and Earth's crust.[34] In the twentieth century, Vladimir Vernadsky formulated a theory of Earth's development that is now one of the foundations of ecology. Vernadsky was a Ukrainian geochemist and was one of the first scientists to recognize that the oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere result from biological processes. During the 1920s he published works arguing that living organisms could reshape the planet as surely as any physical force. Vernadsky was a pioneer of the scientific bases for the environmental sciences.[35] His visionary pronouncements were not widely accepted in the West, and some decades later the Gaia hypothesis received the same type of initial resistance from the scientific community.
"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?"
“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.
"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? ”
It is at least not impossible to regard the earth's parts—soil, mountains, rivers, atmosphere etc,—as organs or parts of organs of a coordinated whole, each part with its definite function. And if we could see this whole, as a whole, through a great period of time, we might perceive not only organs with coordinated functions, but possibly also that process of consumption as replacement which in biology we call metabolism, or growth. In such case we would have all the visible attributes of a living thing, which we do not realize to be such because it is too big, and its life processes too slow.
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，这是一种向远离平衡的稳态演化的结果，这种平衡状态使熵产生最大化，克莱顿（2004）同意这样的说法：“自稳态行为可以从与行星反照率相关的MEP状态中产生”；“……一个如盖亚假说所述，处于MEP状态的生物地球很可能导致地球系统在长时间尺度上的近稳态行为。Staley（2002）同样提出了“……一种基于更传统的达尔文原理的盖亚理论的替代形式。在这种新方法中，环境调控是人口动态的结果，而不是达尔文的选择。选择的作用是偏爱最能适应当前环境条件的有机体。然而，环境并不是进化的静态背景，而是受到生物存在的严重影响。由此产生的共同进化动态过程最终导致平衡和最优条件的收敛。
Another influence for the Gaia hypothesis and the environmental movement in general came as a side effect of the Space Race between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. During the 1960s, the first humans in space could see how the Earth looked as a whole. The photograph Earthrise taken by astronaut William Anders in 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission became, through the Overview Effect an early symbol for the global ecology movement.[37]
盖亚假说和环境运动的另一个总体影响来自苏联和美利坚合众国之间太空竞赛的副作用。在20世纪60年代，第一批进入太空的人类可以看到地球的整体面貌。1968年宇航员William Anders在Apollo 8任务期间拍摄的照片“[[地球升起]”，通过概述效果成为全球生态运动的早期标志
A fourth international conference on the Gaia hypothesis, sponsored by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and others, was held in October 2006 at the Arlington, VA campus of George Mason University.
第四次关于盖亚假说的国际会议，由北弗吉尼亚地区公园管理局和其他机构主办，于2006年10月在弗吉尼亚州乔治梅森大学的阿灵顿校区举行。
Formulation of the hypothesis假说形成
Martin Ogle, Chief Naturalist, for NVRPA, and long-time Gaia hypothesis proponent, organized the event. Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and long-time advocate of the Gaia hypothesis, was a keynote speaker. Among many other speakers: Tyler Volk, Co-director of the Program in Earth and Environmental Science at New York University; Dr. Donald Aitken, Principal of Donald Aitken Associates; Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; Robert Correll, Senior Fellow, Atmospheric Policy Program, American Meteorological Society and noted environmental ethicist, J. Baird Callicott.
马丁奥格尔，NVRPA的首席博物学家，也是盖亚假说的长期支持者，组织了这次活动。Lynn Margulis是马萨诸塞州阿默斯特大学地球科学系的杰出大学教授，也是盖亚假说的长期倡导者。其他许多发言者包括：纽约大学地球与环境科学项目联合主任泰勒·沃尔克、唐纳德·艾特肯博士、唐纳德·艾特肯博士、海因茨科学、经济与环境中心主席托马斯·洛夫乔伊博士、大气政策计划高级研究员罗伯特·科雷尔，美国气象学会和著名环境伦理学家J。贝尔德。卡利科特。
Lovelock started defining the idea of a self-regulating Earth controlled by the community of living organisms in September 1965, while working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California on methods of detecting life on Mars.[38][39] The first paper to mention it was Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other Changes Associated with the Presence of Life, co-authored with C.E. Giffin.[40] A main concept was that life could be detected in a planetary scale by the chemical composition of the atmosphere. According to the data gathered by the Pic du Midi observatory, planets like Mars or Venus had atmospheres in chemical equilibrium. This difference with the Earth atmosphere was considered to be a proof that there was no life in these planets.
This conference approached the Gaia hypothesis as both science and metaphor as a means of understanding how we might begin addressing 21st century issues such as climate change and ongoing environmental destruction.
这次会议将盖亚假说作为一种科学和隐喻的手段，来理解我们如何开始解决21世纪的问题，如气候变化和持续的环境破坏。
Lovelock formulated the Gaia Hypothesis in journal articles in 1972[1] and 1974,[2] followed by a popularizing 1979 book Gaia: A new look at life on Earth. An article in the New Scientist of February 6, 1975,[41] and a popular book length version of the hypothesis, published in 1979 as The Quest for Gaia, began to attract scientific and critical attention.
Lovelock called it first the Earth feedback hypothesis,[42] and it was a way to explain the fact that combinations of chemicals including oxygen and methane persist in stable concentrations in the atmosphere of the Earth. Lovelock suggested detecting such combinations in other planets' atmospheres as a relatively reliable and cheap way to detect life.
After initially receiving little attention from scientists (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period the initial Gaia hypothesis was criticized by a number of scientists, such as Ford Doolittle, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Lovelock has said that because his hypothesis is named after a Greek goddess, and championed by many non-scientists, He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was achieved. In his defense of Gaia, David Abram argues that Gould overlooked the fact that "mechanism", itself, is a metaphor — albeit an exceedingly common and often unrecognized metaphor — one which leads us to consider natural and living systems as though they were machines organized and built from outside (rather than as autopoietic or self-organizing phenomena). Mechanical metaphors, according to Abram, lead us to overlook the active or agential quality of living entities, while the organismic metaphorics of the Gaia hypothesis accentuate the active agency of both the biota and the biosphere as a whole. With regard to causality in Gaia, Lovelock argues that no single mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course, and that specific hostility is reserved for his own hypothesis for other reasons.
在最初几乎没有引起科学家的注意之后(从1969年到1977年) ，有一段时间，最初的盖亚假说受到了一些科学家的批评，如福特杜利特，理查德道金斯和史蒂芬·古尔德。洛夫洛克说，因为他的假说是以一位希腊女神的名字命名的，并得到许多非科学家的拥护，他想知道实现自我调节体内平衡的实际机制。在为盖亚辩护时，戴维•阿布拉姆认为，古尔德忽视了一个事实，即“机制”本身就是一个隐喻——尽管这个隐喻极其常见，而且往往不为人所知——这个隐喻让我们把自然和生命系统看作是由外部组织和建造的机器(而不是自动生成或自组织现象)。根据阿布拉姆的说法，机械隐喻使我们忽略了生命实体的活跃性或代表性，而盖亚假说的有机隐喻强调了生物群和整个生物圈的活跃性。关于盖亚的因果关系，洛夫洛克认为没有单一的机制是负责任的，各种已知机制之间的联系可能永远不会被人知道，这在生物学和生态学的其他领域是理所当然地被接受的，并且由于其他原因，特定的敌意是保留给他自己的假设的。
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.
除了澄清他的语言和理解什么是生命形式，洛夫洛克自己把大部分的批评归因于他的批评者缺乏对非线性数学的理解，以及贪婪还原主义的线性化形式，在这种形式中，所有事件都必须立即归因于事件发生之前的特定原因。他还表示，批评他的人大多是生物学家，但他的假设包括生物学以外领域的实验，以及一些自我调节现象可能无法在数学上解释。
Later, other relationships such as sea creatures producing sulfur and iodine in approximately the same quantities as required by land creatures emerged and helped bolster the hypothesis.[43]
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。
In 1971 microbiologist Dr. Lynn Margulis joined Lovelock in the effort of fleshing out the initial hypothesis into scientifically proven concepts, contributing her knowledge about how microbes affect the atmosphere and the different layers in the surface of the planet.[4] The American biologist had also awakened criticism from the scientific community with her advocacy of the theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles and her contributions to the endosymbiotic theory, nowadays accepted. Margulis dedicated the last of eight chapters in her book, The Symbiotic Planet, to Gaia. However, she objected to the widespread personification of Gaia and stressed that Gaia is "not an organism", but "an emergent property of interaction among organisms". She defined Gaia as "the series of interacting ecosystems that compose a single huge ecosystem at the Earth's surface. Period". The book's most memorable "slogan" was actually quipped by a student of Margulis': "Gaia is just symbiosis as seen from space".
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[44] and provided a number of useful predictions.[45] 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.[13]
In a 2013 book-length evaluation of the Gaia hypothesis considering modern evidence from across the various relevant disciplines, Toby Tyrrell concluded that: "I believe Gaia is a dead end. Its study has, however, generated many new and thought provoking questions. While rejecting Gaia, we can at the same time appreciate Lovelock's originality and breadth of vision, and recognise that his audacious concept has helped to stimulate many new ideas about the Earth, and to champion a holistic approach to studying it". Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works". This statement needs to be understood as referring to the "strong" and "moderate" forms of Gaia—that the biota obeys a principle that works to make Earth optimal (strength 5) or favourable for life (strength 4) or that it works as a homeostatic mechanism (strength 3). The latter is the "weakest" form of Gaia that Lovelock has advocated. Tyrrell rejects it. However, he finds that the two weaker forms of Gaia—Coeveolutionary Gaia and Influential Gaia, which assert that there are close links between the evolution of life and the environment and that biology affects the physical and chemical environment—are both credible, but that it is not useful to use the term "Gaia" in this sense and that those two forms were already accepted and explained by the processes of natural selection and adaptation.
2013年，托比·泰瑞尔在对盖亚假说的一本书长度评估中总结道：“我认为盖亚假说是一条死胡同。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想法，并倡导一种整体的方法来研究地球”。在其他地方，他提出了自己的结论：“盖亚假说并不是我们这个世界如何运转的精确图像”。这种说法需要被理解为是指盖亚假说的“强”和“中”形式，生物群遵循的原则是使地球成为最佳（强度5）或有利于生命（强度4），或是作为一种内稳态机制（强度3）。后者是洛夫洛克所提倡的盖亚假说的“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：共同进化的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。
First Gaia conference第一次盖亚会议
In 1985, the first public symposium on the Gaia hypothesis, Is The Earth A Living Organism? was held at University of Massachusetts Amherst, August 1–6.[46] The principal sponsor was the National Audubon Society. Speakers included James Lovelock, George Wald, Mary Catherine Bateson, Lewis Thomas, John Todd, Donald Michael, Christopher Bird, Thomas Berry, David Abram, Michael Cohen, and William Fields. Some 500 people attended.[47]
1985年，关于盖亚假说的第一次公开研讨会，“地球是一个活的有机体吗？”在马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特举行
Second Gaia conference第二次盖亚会议
In 1988, climatologist Stephen Schneider organised a conference of the American Geophysical Union. The first Chapman Conference on Gaia,[48] 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 -
在会议的“哲学基础”会议上，David Abram谈到了隐喻在科学中的影响，盖亚假说提供了一种新的、可能改变游戏规则的隐喻，而James Kirchner则批评盖亚假说的不精确性。基什纳声称，洛夫洛克和马古利斯提出的盖亚假说不是一个，而是四个-
- CoEvolutionary Gaia: that life and the environment had evolved in a coupled way. Kirchner claimed that this was already accepted scientifically and was not new.
- Homeostatic Gaia: that life maintained the stability of the natural environment, and that this stability enabled life to continue to exist.
- Geophysical Gaia: that the Gaia hypothesis generated interest in geophysical cycles and therefore led to interesting new research in terrestrial geophysical dynamics.
- Optimising Gaia: that Gaia shaped the planet in a way that made it an optimal environment for life as a whole. Kirchner claimed that this was not testable and therefore was not scientific.
盖亚：生命和环境是以耦合的方式进化的。基什内尔声称，这已经被科学界接受，并不是什么新鲜事。 盖亚：生命维持着自然环境的稳定，这种稳定性使生命得以继续存在。 盖亚：盖亚假说引起了人们对地球物理周期的兴趣，因此导致了地球物理动力学中有趣的新研究。 优化盖亚：盖亚塑造了地球，使之成为整个生命的最佳环境。基什内尔声称，这是不可测试的，因此是不科学的。
Of Homeostatic Gaia, Kirchner recognised two alternatives. "Weak Gaia" asserted that life tends to make the environment stable for the flourishing of all life. "Strong Gaia" according to Kirchner, asserted that life tends to make the environment stable, to enable the flourishing of all life. Strong Gaia, Kirchner claimed, was untestable and therefore not scientific.[49]
基什内尔发现了两种选择“软弱的盖亚”断言，为了所有生命的繁衍，生命往往会使环境变得稳定根据基什内尔的说法，“强大的盖亚”断言，生命趋向于使环境稳定，“使”所有生命繁荣昌盛。基什内尔声称，强大的盖亚是不稳定的，因此不科学。
Lovelock and other Gaia-supporting scientists, however, did attempt to disprove the claim that the hypothesis is not scientific because it is impossible to test it by controlled experiment. For example, against the charge that Gaia was teleological, Lovelock and Andrew Watson offered the Daisyworld Model (and its modifications, above) as evidence against most of these criticisms.[21] 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".[50]
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 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，目的论的大多数指控都停止了。
Third Gaia conference第三次盖亚会议
By the time of the 2nd Chapman Conference on the Gaia Hypothesis, held at Valencia, Spain, on 23 June 2000,[51] 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.
The major questions were:[52]
- "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?"
- "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?"
- "How do models of Gaian processes and phenomena relate to reality and how do they help address and understand Gaia? How do results from Daisyworld transfer to the real world? What are the main candidates for "daisies"? Does it matter for Gaia theory whether we find daisies or not? How should we be searching for daisies, and should we intensify the search? How can Gaian mechanisms be investigated using process models or global models of the climate system that include the biota and allow for chemical cycling?"
“被称为盖亚的全球生物地球化学/气候系统是如何随时间变化的？它的历史是什么？盖亚能在一个时间尺度上保持系统的稳定性，但在较长的时间尺度上仍能经历向量变化吗？如何利用地质记录来检验这些问题？” “盖亚假说的结构是什么？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".
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。
Fourth Gaia conference第四次盖亚会议
A fourth international conference on the Gaia hypothesis, sponsored by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and others, was held in October 2006 at the Arlington, VA campus of George Mason University.[53] 第四届盖亚假说国际会议于2006年10月在乔治梅森大学阿灵顿分校举行，会议由北弗吉尼亚州公园管理局和其他机构赞助。
Martin Ogle, Chief Naturalist, for NVRPA, and long-time Gaia hypothesis proponent, organized the event. Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and long-time advocate of the Gaia hypothesis, was a keynote speaker. Among many other speakers: Tyler Volk, Co-director of the Program in Earth and Environmental Science at New York University; Dr. Donald Aitken, Principal of Donald Aitken Associates; Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; Robert Correll, Senior Fellow, Atmospheric Policy Program, American Meteorological Society and noted environmental ethicist, J. Baird Callicott.
马丁奥格尔，NVRPA的首席博物学家，也是盖亚假说的长期支持者，组织了这次活动。林恩 马古拉斯是马萨诸塞州阿默斯特大学地球科学系的杰出大学教授，也是盖亚假说的长期倡导者。其他许多发言者包括：纽约大学地球与环境科学项目联合主任泰勒·沃尔克、唐纳德·艾特肯博士、唐纳德·艾特肯博士、海因茨科学、经济与环境中心主席托马斯·洛夫乔伊博士、大气政策计划高级研究员罗伯特·科雷尔，美国气象学会和著名环境伦理学家J。贝尔德。卡利科特。
This conference approached the Gaia hypothesis as both science and metaphor as a means of understanding how we might begin addressing 21st century issues such as climate change and ongoing environmental destruction. 这次会议将盖亚假说作为一种科学和隐喻来探讨，以此来理解我们如何着手解决21世纪的问题，如气候变化和持续的环境破坏
Criticism批评
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,[54] Richard Dawkins[55] and Stephen Jay Gould.[48] Lovelock has said that because his hypothesis is named after a Greek goddess, and championed by many non-scientists,[42] 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 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".
最初很少受到科学家的关注（从1969年到1977年），此后的一段时间里，最初的盖亚假说受到了许多科学家的批评，比如福特·杜利特，理查德·道金斯和斯蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德洛夫洛克曾说过，因为他的假设是以希腊女神的名字命名的，新盖亚假说被许多非教派的科学家解释为。特别是许多科学家还批评了他的畅销书《盖亚》中采用的方法，认为地球上的生命是目的论的，认为事物是有目的的，是有目的的。洛夫洛克在1990年回应这一批评时说：“在我们的著作中我们没有任何地方表达行星自我调节是有目的的，或涉及生物群的远见或计划。”
Stephen Jay Gould criticised Gaia as being "a metaphor, not a mechanism."[56] He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was achieved. In his defense of Gaia, David Abram argues that Gould overlooked the fact that "mechanism", itself, is a metaphor — albeit an exceedingly common and often unrecognized metaphor — one which leads us to consider natural and living systems as though they were machines organized and built from outside (rather than as autopoietic or self-organizing phenomena). Mechanical metaphors, according to Abram, lead us to overlook the active or agential quality of living entities, while the organismic metaphorics of the Gaia hypothesis accentuate the active agency of both the biota and the biosphere as a whole.[57][58] 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.[59] 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
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.[59]
除了澄清自己的语言和对生命形式的理解之外，洛夫洛克自己将大部分批评归咎于批评家对非线性数学的缺乏理解，以及贪婪还原论的线性化形式，在这种形式中，所有事件都必须在事实发生之前立即归因于特定的原因。他还指出，批评他的人大多是生物学家，但他的假设包括生物学以外领域的实验，有些自我调节的现象可能无法用数学解释
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, 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.[54] 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.[55] 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 "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.[60]
Lynn Margulis，一位与Lovelock合作支持盖亚假说的微生物学家，在1999年指出，“达尔文的宏伟愿景没有错，只是不完整。达尔文（特别是他的追随者）强调个人之间对资源的直接竞争是主要的选择机制，他给人的印象是环境只是一个静态的竞技场”。她写道，地球大气、水圈和岩石圈的组成都是围绕着“设定点”来调节的，就像在体内平衡中一样，但是这些设定点会随着时间的推移而变化
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.[33]模板:Better source More recently Ford Doolittle building on his and Inkpen's ITSNTS (It's The Singer Not The Song) proposal[61] 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[62]. 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。
Criticism in the 21st century21世纪的批评
The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal Climatic Change in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it.[8][9] Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties"[63] to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background"[10] to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record".[64] The CLAW hypothesis,[18] 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.[65] In 2009 the Medea hypothesis was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.[66] 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点是许多例子，其中生命对环境产生了有害或不稳定的影响，而不是采取行动来调节它。最近几本书批评了盖亚假说，表达了从“盖亚假说缺乏明确的观察支持，并且有重大的理论困难“到”令人不安地徘徊在污点隐喻、事实和虚假科学之间，我宁愿把盖亚牢牢地放在背景中“到”盖亚假说既没有进化论的支持，也没有地质记录的经验证据的支持。爪假说最初被认为是盖安直接反馈的一个潜在例子，后来被发现对云的理解不那么可信凝聚核已经得到了改善2009年，美狄亚假说被提出：生命对行星的状况有非常有害的（杀生的）影响，这与盖亚假说直接相反
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".[67] Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works".[68] 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.[69] 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
类别: 控制论
Category:Ecological theories
范畴: 生态学理论
See also
Category:Superorganisms
类别: 超级有机体
Category:Climate change feedbacks
类别: 气候变化反馈
Category:1965 introductions
类别: 1965年引言
Category:Biogeochemistry
类别: 生物地球化学
Category:Earth
类别: 地球
Category:Biological hypotheses
类别: 生物学假说
Category:Astronomical hypotheses
类别: 天文学假设
Category:Meteorological hypotheses
类别: 气象假说
This page was moved from wikipedia:en:Gaia hypothesis. Its edit history can be viewed at 盖亚假说/edithistory
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 J. E. Lovelock (1972). "Gaia as seen through the atmosphere". Atmospheric Environment. 6 (8): 579–580. Bibcode:1972AtmEn...6..579L. doi:10.1016/0004-6981(72)90076-5.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lovelock, J.E.; Margulis, L. (1974). "Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis". Tellus. Series A. Stockholm: International Meteorological Institute. 26 (1–2): 2–10. Bibcode:1974Tell...26....2L. doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1974.tb01946.x. ISSN 1600-0870.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ "Wollaston Award Lovelock". Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Turney, Jon (2003). Lovelock and Gaia: Signs of Life. UK: Icon Books. ISBN 978-1-84046-458-0. https://archive.org/details/lovelockgaiasign0000turn.
- ↑ Schwartzman, David (2002). Life, Temperature, and the Earth: The Self-Organizing Biosphere. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-10213-1.
- ↑ Gribbin, John (1990), "Hothouse earth: The greenhouse effect and Gaia" (Weidenfeld & Nicolson)
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Lovelock, James, (1995) "The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth" (W.W.Norton & Co)
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Kirchner, James W. (2002), "Toward a future for Gaia theory", Climatic Change, 52 (4): 391–408, doi:10.1023/a:1014237331082
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Volk, Tyler (2002), "The Gaia hypothesis: fact, theory, and wishful thinking", Climatic Change, 52 (4): 423–430, doi:10.1023/a:1014218227825
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Beerling, David (2007). The Emerald Planet: How plants changed Earth's history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280602-4. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780192806024.do.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Lapenis, Andrei G. (2002). "Directed Evolution of the Biosphere: Biogeochemical Selection or Gaia?". The Professional Geographer. 54 (3): 379–391. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00337 – via [Peer Reviewed Journal].
- ↑ David Landis Barnhill, Roger S. Gottlieb (eds.), Deep Ecology and World Religions: New Essays on Sacred Ground, SUNY Press, 2010, p. 32.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009, p. 255.
- ↑ Kleidon, Axel. How does the earth system generate and maintain thermodynamic disequilibrium and what does it imply for the future of the planet?. Article submitted to the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on Thu, 10 Mar 2011
- ↑ Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009, p. 179.
- ↑ Owen, T.; Cess, R.D.; Ramanathan, V. (1979). "Earth: An enhanced carbon dioxide greenhouse to compensate for reduced solar luminosity". Nature. 277 (5698): 640–2. Bibcode:1979Natur.277..640O. doi:10.1038/277640a0.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ Hoffman, P.F. 2001. Snowball Earth theory
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Charlson, R. J., Lovelock, J. E, Andreae, M. O. and Warren, S. G. (1987). "Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate". Nature. 326 (6114): 655–661. Bibcode:1987Natur.326..655C. doi:10.1038/326655a0.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ↑ Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009,
- ↑ Lovelock J., NBC News. Link Published 23 April 2012, accessed 22 August 2012. -{zh-cn:互联网档案馆; zh-tw:網際網路檔案館; zh-hk:互聯網檔案館;}-的存檔，存档日期13 September 2012.
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 {{cite journal 有人批评盖亚假说似乎需要有机体之间不切实际的群体选择和合作，詹姆斯·洛夫洛克和安德鲁·沃森开发了一个数学模型，雏菊世界，其中生态竞争为基础行星温度调节。 |date = 1983 Ocean salinity has been constant at about 3.5% for a very long time. Salinity stability in oceanic environments is important as most cells require a rather constant salinity and do not generally tolerate values above 5%. The constant ocean salinity was a long-standing mystery, because no process counterbalancing the salt influx from rivers was known. Recently it was suggested that salinity may also be strongly influenced by seawater circulation through hot basaltic rocks, and emerging as hot water vents on mid-ocean ridges. However, the composition of seawater is far from equilibrium, and it is difficult to explain this fact without the influence of organic processes. One suggested explanation lies in the formation of salt plains throughout Earth's history. It is hypothesized that these are created by bacterial colonies that fix ions and heavy metals during their life processes. 长期以来，海洋盐度一直保持在3.5% 左右。海洋环境中盐度的稳定性很重要，因为大多数细胞需要相当恒定的盐度，一般不能容忍超过5% 的盐度值。恒定的海洋盐度是一个长期存在的秘密，因为没有任何方法可以抵消来自河流的盐的流入。最近有人提出，盐度也可能受到穿过炽热玄武岩的海水循环的强烈影响，并在洋中脊上出现热水喷口。然而，海水的组成离平衡还很远，如果没有有机过程的影响，很难解释这一事实。有一种解释认为，地球历史上盐原的形成是原因之一。据推测，这些是由细菌菌落产生的，它们在生命过程中固定离子和重金属。 |title = Biological homeostasis of the global environment: the parable of Daisyworld |journal = Tellus |volume = 35B Vostok, Antarctica research station. Current period is at the left. ]] 沃斯托克，南极洲研究站。当前期间在左边。] |pages = 286–9 |bibcode = 1983TellB..35..284W |doi = 10.1111/j.1600-0889.1983.tb00031.x The Gaia hypothesis states that the Earth's atmospheric composition is kept at a dynamically steady state by the presence of life. The atmospheric composition provides the conditions that contemporary life has adapted to. All the atmospheric gases other than noble gases present in the atmosphere are either made by organisms or processed by them. 盖亚假说认为，地球的大气组成是由于生命的存在而保持在动态稳定的状态。大气成分提供了现代生活已经适应的条件。大气中除惰性气体以外的所有大气气体，要么是由生物体产生的，要么是由生物体加工的。 |last1 = Watson | first1= A.J. | last2= Lovelock | first2= J.E |issue = 4 The stability of the atmosphere in Earth is not a consequence of chemical equilibrium. Oxygen is a reactive compound, and should eventually combine with gases and minerals of the Earth's atmosphere and crust. Oxygen only began to persist in the atmosphere in small quantities about 50 million years before the start of the Great Oxygenation Event. Since the start of the Cambrian period, atmospheric oxygen concentrations have fluctuated between 15% and 35% of atmospheric volume. Traces of methane (at an amount of 100,000 tonnes produced per year) should not exist, as methane is combustible in an oxygen atmosphere. 地球大气层的稳定性不是化学平衡的结果。氧是一种活性化合物，最终会与地球大气层和地壳中的气体和矿物质结合。在大氧化事件空间站开始之前，大约5000万年左右，氧气才开始在大气中少量地持续存在。自寒武纪以来，大气中氧浓度一直在大气体积的15% 至35% 之间波动。微量的甲烷(每年产生100,000吨)不应该存在，因为甲烷在氧气氛中是可燃的。 |ref = harv }}
- ↑ Kirchner, James W. (2003). "The Gaia Hypothesis: Conjectures and Refutations". Climatic Change. 58 (1–2): 21–45. doi:10.1023/A:1023494111532.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 Segar, Douglas (2012). The Introduction to Ocean Sciences. http://www.reefimages.com/oceans/SegarOcean3Chap05.pdf: Library of Congress. pp. Chapter 5 3rd Edition. ISBN 978-0-9857859-0-1.
- ↑ Gorham, Eville (1 January 1991). "Biogeochemistry: its origins and development". Biogeochemistry. Kluwer Academic. 13 (3): 199–239. doi:10.1007/BF00002942. ISSN 1573-515X.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ http://www.webviva.com, Justino Martinez. Web Viva 2007. "Scientia Marina: List of Issues". scimar.icm.csic.es (in English). Retrieved 2017-02-04.
{{cite web}}: External link in|last= - ↑ Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009, p. 163.
- ↑ Anbar, A.; Duan, Y.; Lyons, T.; Arnold, G.; Kendall, B.; Creaser, R.; Kaufman, A.; Gordon, G.; Scott, C.; Garvin, J.; Buick, R. (2007). "A whiff of oxygen before the great oxidation event?". Science. 317 (5846): 1903–1906. Bibcode:2007Sci...317.1903A. doi:10.1126/science.1140325. PMID 17901330.
- ↑ {{Cite journal Another influence for the Gaia hypothesis and the environmental movement in general came as a side effect of the Space Race between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. During the 1960s, the first humans in space could see how the Earth looked as a whole. The photograph Earthrise taken by astronaut William Anders in 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission became, through the Overview Effect an early symbol for the global ecology movement. 盖亚假说和环境运动的另一个影响来自于苏联和美利坚合众国之间太空竞赛的副作用。在20世纪60年代，第一批进入太空的人类可以看到地球作为一个整体的样子。1968年，宇航员威廉 · 安德斯在阿波罗8号任务期间拍摄的地出照片，通过总体效应成为全球生态运动的早期象征。 | pmid = 10500106 | date=Sep 1999 | last1 = Berner | first1 = R. A. | title = Atmospheric oxygen over Phanerozoic time James Lovelock, 2005 [ James Lovelock，2005] | volume = 96 Lovelock started defining the idea of a self-regulating Earth controlled by the community of living organisms in September 1965, while working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California on methods of detecting life on Mars. The first paper to mention it was Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other Changes Associated with the Presence of Life, co-authored with C.E. Giffin. A main concept was that life could be detected in a planetary scale by the chemical composition of the atmosphere. According to the data gathered by the Pic du Midi observatory, planets like Mars or Venus had atmospheres in chemical equilibrium. This difference with the Earth atmosphere was considered to be a proof that there was no life in these planets. 65年9月，洛夫洛克在加利福尼亚喷气推进实验室研究探测火星生命的方法时，开始定义由生物群落控制的自我调节地球的概念。第一篇提到它的论文是行星大气：与C.E.Giffin合著的与生命存在有关的成分和其他变化。一个主要的概念是，通过大气的化学成分可以在行星尺度上探测到生命。根据picdumidi天文台收集的数据，像火星或金星这样的行星，其大气层处于化学平衡状态。这种与地球大气的差异被认为是这些行星上没有生命的证据。 | issue = 20 | pages = 10955–10957 Lovelock formulated the Gaia Hypothesis in journal articles in 1972 and 1974, and a popular book length version of the hypothesis, published in 1979 as The Quest for Gaia, began to attract scientific and critical attention. 洛夫洛克在1972年和1974年的期刊文章中提出了盖亚假说，并在1979年出版了一本畅销书，名为《寻找盖亚》 ，开始引起科学界和批判界的关注。 | issn = 0027-8424 | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Lovelock called it first the Earth feedback hypothesis, and it was a way to explain the fact that combinations of chemicals including oxygen and methane persist in stable concentrations in the atmosphere of the Earth. Lovelock suggested detecting such combinations in other planets' atmospheres as a relatively reliable and cheap way to detect life. 洛夫洛克首先将其称为地球反馈假说，这是一种解释包括氧气和甲烷在内的化学物质在地球大气中保持稳定浓度的方法。洛夫洛克认为，在其他行星的大气层中探测这种组合，是一种相对可靠和廉价的探测生命的方法。 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.96.20.10955 | pmc = 34224 Lynn Margulis [琳 · 玛格丽丝] |bibcode = 1999PNAS...9610955B }}
- ↑ Cicerone, R.J.; Oremland, R.S. (1988). "Biogeochemical aspects of atmospheric methane" (PDF). Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 2 (4): 299–327. Bibcode:1988GBioC...2..299C. doi:10.1029/GB002i004p00299.
- ↑ Karhu, J.A.; Holland, H.D. (1 October 1996). "Carbon isotopes and the rise of atmospheric oxygen". Geology. 24 (10): 867–870. Bibcode:1996Geo....24..867K. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1996)024<0867:CIATRO>2.3.CO;2.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ Harding, Stephan (2006). Animate Earth. Chelsea Green Publishing. pp. 65. ISBN 978-1-933392-29-5.
- ↑ "Interagency Report Says Harmful Algal Blooms Increasing". 12 September 2007. Archived from the original on 9 February 2008.
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009, pp. 195-197.
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 Capra, Fritjof (1996). The web of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-385-47675-1. https://archive.org/details/weboflifenewscie00capr/page/23.
- ↑ S.R. Weart, 2003, The Discovery of Global Warming, Cambridge, Harvard Press
- ↑ Harding, Stephan. Animate Earth Science, Intuition and Gaia. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2006, p. 44.
- ↑ 100 Photographs that Changed the World by Life - The Digital Journalist
- ↑ Lovelock, J.E. (1965). "A physical basis for life detection experiments". Nature. 207 (7): 568–570. Bibcode:1965Natur.207..568L. doi:10.1038/207568a0. PMID 5883628.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ "Geophysiology". Archived from the original on 2007-05-06. Retrieved 2007-05-05.
- ↑ Lovelock, J.E.; Giffin, C.E. (1969). "Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other changes associated with the presence of Life". Advances in the Astronautical Sciences. 25: 179–193. ISBN 978-0-87703-028-7.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ Lovelock, John and Sidney Epton, (February 8, 1975). "The quest for Gaia". New Scientist, p. 304.
- ↑ 42.0 42.1 脚本错误：没有“Footnotes”这个模块。
- ↑ Hamilton, W.D.; Lenton, T.M. (1998). "Spora and Gaia: how microbes fly with their clouds". Ethology Ecology & Evolution. 10 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/08927014.1998.9522867. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-23.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ J. E. Lovelock (1990). "Hands up for the Gaia hypothesis". Nature. 344 (6262): 100–2. Bibcode:1990Natur.344..100L. doi:10.1038/344100a0.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ Volk, Tyler (2003). Gaia's Body: Toward a Physiology of Earth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-72042-7.
- ↑ Joseph, Lawrence E. (November 23, 1986). "Britain's Whole Earth Guru". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 1 December 2013.
- ↑ Bunyard, Peter (1996), "Gaia in Action: Science of the Living Earth" (Floris Books)
- ↑ 48.0 48.1 Turney, Jon. "Lovelock and Gaia: Signs of Life" (Revolutions in Science)
- ↑ Kirchner, James W. (1989). "The Gaia hypothesis: Can it be tested?". Reviews of Geophysics. 27 (2): 223. Bibcode:1989RvGeo..27..223K. doi:10.1029/RG027i002p00223.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ Lenton, TM; Lovelock, JE (2000). "Daisyworld is Darwinian: Constraints on adaptation are important for planetary self-regulation". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 206 (1): 109–14. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2105. PMID 10968941. S2CID 5486128.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ Simón, Federico (21 June 2000). "GEOLOGÍA Enfoque multidisciplinar La hipótesis Gaia madura en Valencia con los últimos avances científicos". El País (in spanish). Retrieved 1 December 2013.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) - ↑ American Geophysical Union. "General Information Chapman Conference on the Gaia Hypothesis University of Valencia Valencia, Spain June 19-23, 2000 (Monday through Friday)". AGU Meetings. Retrieved 7 January 2017.
- ↑ Official Site of Arlington County Virginia. "Gaia Theory Conference at George Mason University Law School". Archived from the original on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 1 December 2013.
- ↑ 54.0 54.1 Doolittle, W. F. (1981). "Is Nature Really Motherly". The Coevolution Quarterly. Spring: 58–63.
- ↑ 55.0 55.1 Dawkins, Richard (1982). The Extended Phenotype: the Long Reach of the Gene. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-286088-0.
- ↑ Gould S.J. (June 1997). "Kropotkin was no crackpot". Natural History. 106: 12–21.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ↑ 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
- ↑ "The Mechanical and the Organic". Archived from the original on February 23, 2012. Retrieved August 27, 2012.
- ↑ 59.0 59.1 Lovelock, James (2001), Homage to Gaia: The Life of an Independent Scientist (Oxford University Press)
- ↑ Margulis, Lynn. Symbiotic Planet: A New Look At Evolution. Houston: Basic Book 1999
- ↑ Doolittle WF, Inkpen SA. Processes and patterns of interaction as units of selection: An introduction to ITSNTS thinking. PNAS April 17, 2018 115 (16) 4006-4014
- ↑ Doolittle WF. Darwinizing Gaia. Journal of Theoretical BiologyVolume 434, 7 December 2017, Pages 11-19
- ↑ Waltham, David (2014). Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional – and What that Means for Life in the Universe. Icon Books. ISBN 9781848316560. https://archive.org/details/luckyplanetwhyea0000walt.
- ↑ Cockell, Charles; Corfield, Richard; Dise, Nancy; Edwards, Neil; Harris, Nigel (2008). An Introduction to the Earth-Life System. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521729536. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/palaeontology-and-life-history/introduction-earth-life-system.
- ↑ Quinn, P.K.; Bates, T.S. (2011), "The case against climate regulation via oceanic phytoplankton sulphur emissions", Nature, 480 (7375): 51–56, Bibcode:2011Natur.480...51Q, doi:10.1038/nature10580, PMID 22129724
- ↑ Peter Ward (2009), The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?,
- ↑ Tyrrell, Toby (2013), On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship between Life and Earth, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 209, ISBN 9780691121581
- ↑ Tyrrell, Toby (26 October 2013), "Gaia: the verdict is…", New Scientist, 220 (2940): 30–31, doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(13)62532-4
- ↑ Tyrrell, Toby (2013), On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship between Life and Earth, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 208, ISBN 9780691121581
- Articles with short description
- Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page
- All articles with unsourced statements
- Articles with unsourced statements from June 2012
- Articles with invalid date parameter in template
- Articles with unsourced statements from July 2015
- 待整理页面
- 有脚本错误的页面
- CS1 errors: invalid parameter value
- CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list
- Webarchive模板wayback链接
- CS1 errors: external links
- CS1 English-language sources (en)
- CS1 maint: unrecognized language
- CS1: long volume value