Earth is a living Organism

[arc]

Why cannot life be the "offspring" of earth? Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent,

 

Um . . . giving everyone the option to redefine the bodily function of expelling unwanted or unneeded bacteriological waste in regards to using a restroom as "I'm having a baby" may not be the right direction to "go" in this debate.

[Lance_Granger]

 

The page you linked to still had nothing to do with the question.

 

Again: can you name a single plant or animal where the offspring consist entirely of small lumps on the surface of the parent, which eventually get washed away without having any further offspring.

 

Of course you can't because any such organism would be extinct after one generation.

 

 

Yep. The human body does that and other things. The Earth does none of them. Ergo, not living.

 

 

The page you linked to still had nothing to do with the question.

 

Again: can you name a single plant or animal where the offspring consist entirely of small lumps on the surface of the parent, which eventually get washed away without having any further offspring.

 

Of course you can't because any such organism would be extinct after one generation.

 

 

Yep. The human body does that and other things. The Earth does none of them. Ergo, not living.

 

The link does have to do with it. Read it again. The product of reproduction does not have to leave the host or reproduce to be an organism. The link talks about that fact.

[Phi for All]

Why cannot life be the "offspring" of earth? Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent,

We are like the seeds of earth who will one day travel to the stars and and carry earths/our/lifes dna to other worlds that we will terra form, Passing on earths dna, which as far as we know is unique to earth.,

 

As for "homeostasis" The earth balances multiple systems, Some we understand and others are still beyond our understanding, Ice ages have been mentioned but who is to say these are not an important part of this system, perhaps to lower the temperature so earth did not overheat or to allow different species to thrive while others die of, Some grand design we are yet to understand.

 

We still do not completely understand how life began, Some prefer to think it was a random coming together of elements/rna etc, But perhaps it was not so random/by chance, but earths ways of reproducing. Along term plan, that would eventually spread her dna to new worlds.

 

Battle of the planets, to spread their seeds to worlds yet claimed. We are "intelligent seeds" with a built in urge to expand our territory.

 

I understand why this way of thinking persists. It's not so different from thinking there's a magic sky fairy watching over us.

 

But that's dangerous to me. It means that some people will not take responsibility for what they do to the planet, because there is some grand design we don't yet understand that will automagically sort everything out in the end.

 

I think we're going to need our wits about us in the near future because we've been doing some very irresponsible things to our environment. Some people want that to change, and others want to keep doing them. A lot of the latter folks argue that God has a plan, or that it's all pointless because there's a better place for us, or that the planet is a living organism itself that gave birth to a hierarchy of offspring with humans at the top of the list.

 

We're a species uniquely adapted to move offplanet. I can't think of any other creature that could (on its own). That doesn't make us better, just better adapted to move away from home. I think it's critical that we understand that we're not Earth's babies, that Earth is a rock that can, at present, support great biodiversity. So it's not that I just don't like any analogy or suggestion that Earth is a living organism, I think it's unhealthy, unrealistic, and ultimately harmful to our future. We need to protect Earth because it's our home, not our parent. Parents die, offspring survive to have more offspring.

[davidivad]

you make a really great point.

[Strange]

The product of reproduction does not have to leave the host or reproduce to be an organism.

 

Please provide an example.

 

 

The link talks about that fact.

 

Then you will need to quote something specific from that page that supports your argument, because I can't see it.

[sunshaker]

 

I understand why this way of thinking persists. It's not so different from thinking there's a magic sky fairy watching over us.

 

But that's dangerous to me. It means that some people will not take responsibility for what they do to the planet, because there is some grand design we don't yet understand that will automagically sort everything out in the end.

 

I understand where both sides are coming from,

It is not about a grand design that will "automagically" sort itself out, To me it is all about caring for earth and when you care, you take responsibility. There is no magic quick fix.

 

 

We're a species uniquely adapted to move offplanet. I can't think of any other creature that could (on its own). That doesn't make us better, just better adapted to move away from home. I think it's critical that we understand that we're not Earth's babies, that Earth is a rock that can, at present, support great biodiversity. So it's not that I just don't like any analogy or suggestion that Earth is a living organism, I think it's unhealthy, unrealistic, and ultimately harmful to our future. We need to protect Earth because it's our home, not our parent. Parents die, offspring survive to have more offspring.

To think of Earth as only a rock saddens me, which I find unhealthy, Earth is more than a rock more than a home, Earth is the "womb" where life began, it is up to how you define that life.

Unless you know without a doubt why and how life began on earth?

 

There is nothing unhealthy about seeing earth as a living organism, Quite the opposite, It makes you realize how precious and connected the earth and life is, Which can only be a good thing.

 

We seem to be stuck "defining" life to fit around our simple biological forms, Which we still do not understand yet, So I suppose earth as a living organism will not truly be answered until we have a better understanding of life.

 

 

"Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent,"

They don't

Plenty of animals and plants have young that don't seem much like their parents.

 

But the important thing is that they grow up to be like their parents.

And that's why life can't be the offspring of the earth.

We won't grow up to become planets.

 

We also don't look much like those first rna enzymes. We evolved, changed many times before we reached what we are today,

Perhaps parent is the wrong word, Maybe the "Alpha of life" with one purpose to start a chain of life.

Edited October 20, 2014 by sunshaker

[arc]

Why cannot life be the "offspring" of earth? Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent,

We are like the seeds of earth who will one day travel to the stars and and carry earths/our/lifes dna to other worlds that we will terra form, Passing on earths dna, which as far as we know is unique to earth.,

 

As for "homeostasis" The earth balances multiple systems, Some we understand and others are still beyond our understanding, Ice ages have been mentioned but who is to say these are not an important part of this system, perhaps to lower the temperature so earth did not overheat or to allow different species to thrive while others die of, Some grand design we are yet to understand.

 

We still do not completely understand how life began, Some prefer to think it was a random coming together of elements/rna etc, But perhaps it was not so random/by chance, but earths ways of reproducing. Along term plan, that would eventually spread her dna to new worlds.

 

Battle of the planets, to spread their seeds to worlds yet claimed. We are "intelligent seeds" with a built in urge to expand our territory.

 

Don't you realize how jealous you are making the Sun. Giving all this adoration to such an obvious interloper as the Earth. Without the Sun this charlatan Earth would never have coalesced from the primordial solar dust. Try practicing your misguided adulation without its light, heat and gravity. Away with you and your beloved rock to the vapid cold of interstellar oblivion!

 

But seriously, its a rock, a rather nice rock, but still a rock. It has no innate ability to interact with you or any other life on this planet in any manner resembling a symbiotic relationship. It does not have any capacity to interact with the mirid of critters that inhabit its surface. It will digest eons of their skeletal remains though tectonic processes and return their carbon back to the system to be used again. Not because it needs to, but because it consumes its surface layer through plate tectonics. It will process anything that falls into the jaws of a convergent boundary, sand, mud rock, coral reefs, anything. The same thing would occur if you fell into a woodchipper, and I am pretty certain it doesn't care either because its not your mom and neither is the Earth.

 

Would your mother do a thing like this;

 

These are the catastrophic eruption events that are seen in the geologic record;

 

1. During the eruption of the Siberian Traps at the end of the Permian geologic period around 250 million years ago 1 to 4 million cubic meters of volcanically erupted basaltic lava poured out over the Siberian landscape and covered an area possibly as large as 7 million sq. km., an area roughly equal to the size of Europe. This eruption of flood basalts has been put forth as the cause of the catastrophic end-Permian mass extinction. With more than 90 percent of the planet’s marine species and 70 percent of its terrestrial species becoming extinct.

 

2. At the end of the Triassic period some 200 million years ago, environmental devastation by almost continuous volcanic activity eliminated half of all species that lived alongside the early dinosaurs, including most of the large amphibians and around one-fifth of marine organisms. Most of the land on Earth was locked up in the Pangaea supercontinent, but this broke apart when the North American and African tectonic plates parted. The separation of the plates created a basin that became the Atlantic Ocean and opened up fissures in the Earth's crust, triggering volcanic eruptions that lasted for 600,000 years

 

3. The Ontong Java Plateau was formed 125–120 million years ago in Lower Cretaceous Epoch, one of the largest volcanic events on Earth in the last 300 million years it covers an area of approximately 2,000,000 km2 (770,000 sq mi). Almost the size of Alaska with a thickness of up to 30 km (19 mi), the volcanic plateau is mostly composed of flood basalt's from 100 million cubic km of extruded magma that covered approximately 1% of the Earth's surface. It is considered a likely cause of the early Aptian anoxic event, a massive die off in the oceans. Some early research suggested a meteorite impact as a cause but current studies do not support this as a possible trigger.

 

4. The Deccan Traps were formed at the end of the cretaceous period 60 - 68 million years ago at which time it was estimated to cover 1.5 million square kilometers possibly half the size of India. Most of the volcanic flood basalt erupted near the area of the Western Ghats and continued off and on for maybe 30,000 years forming multiple layers of more than 2,000 m (6,562 ft) thick. It is considered one of the largest volcanic features on Earth. It is considered by some to be the cause of or played a role in the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event a.k.a. the K.T. extinction event or K-Pg extinction when large groups of organisms became extinct, most notably the non-avian dinosaurs.

 

 

 

I understand where both sides are coming from,

It is not about a grand design that will "automagically" sort itself out, To me it is all about caring for earth and when you care, you take responsibility. There is no magic quick fix.

To think of Earth as only a rock saddens me, which I find unhealthy, Earth is more than a rock more than a home, Earth is the "womb" where life began, it is up to how you define that life.

Unless you know without a doubt why and how life began on earth?

 

There is nothing unhealthy about seeing earth as a living organism, Quite the opposite, It makes you realize how precious and connected the earth and life is, Which can only be a good thing.

 

We seem to be stuck "defining" life to fit around our simple biological forms, Which we still do not understand yet, So I suppose earth as a living organism will not truly be answered until we have a better understanding of life.

 

I don't think you realize how much in common you have to primitive religions that made human sacrifices when the nearby volcano erupted.

[Lance_Granger]

 

Please provide an example.

 

 

Then you will need to quote something specific from that page that supports your argument, because I can't see it.

 

If the tissue in a liver produces a cell that then goes into g0 phase that that cell doesn't "leave" its source nor divide and reproduce.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

The link does have to do with it. Read it again. The product of reproduction does not have to leave the host or reproduce to be an organism. The link talks about that fact.

If the link says that then the link is wrong.

You seem to not realise there's a difference between cell reproduction within an organism and reproduction of the organism as a whole.

You also seem not to realise that having a liver cell that suddenly starts reproducing isn't usually a good idea- they call it cancer.

[Strange]

 

If the tissue in a liver produces a cell that then goes into g0 phase that that cell doesn't "leave" its source nor divide and reproduce.

 

That doesn't stop the organism containing the liver reproducing.

 

A liver is not an organism. Or are you now claiming that the Earth is not a living organism, but is just an organ in a larger living organism?

[Phi for All]

Perhaps parent is the wrong word, Maybe the "Alpha of life" with one purpose to start a chain of life.

 

 

Or we could go with the accepted mainstream definitions that more accurately describe this phenomenon, and also have the advantage of being used by scientists worldwide. This seems like a more accurate and efficient approach, as opposed to re-teaching the sunshaker terminology.

 

Why don't you change instead of making everybody else change?

[sunshaker]

 

 

Would your mother do a thing like this;

 

These are the catastrophic eruption events that are seen in the geologic record;

 

1. During the eruption of the Siberian Traps at the end of the Permian geologic period around 250 million years ago 1 to 4 million cubic meters of volcanically erupted basaltic lava poured out over the Siberian landscape and covered an area possibly as large as 7 million sq. km., an area roughly equal to the size of Europe. This eruption of flood basalts has been put forth as the cause of the catastrophic end-Permian mass extinction. With more than 90 percent of the planet’s marine species and 70 percent of its terrestrial species becoming extinct.

 

2. At the end of the Triassic period some 200 million years ago, environmental devastation by almost continuous volcanic activity eliminated half of all species that lived alongside the early dinosaurs, including most of the large amphibians and around one-fifth of marine organisms. Most of the land on Earth was locked up in the Pangaea supercontinent, but this broke apart when the North American and African tectonic plates parted. The separation of the plates created a basin that became the Atlantic Ocean and opened up fissures in the Earth's crust, triggering volcanic eruptions that lasted for 600,000 years

 

3. The Ontong Java Plateau was formed 125–120 million years ago in Lower Cretaceous Epoch, one of the largest volcanic events on Earth in the last 300 million years it covers an area of approximately 2,000,000 km2 (770,000 sq mi). Almost the size of Alaska with a thickness of up to 30 km (19 mi), the volcanic plateau is mostly composed of flood basalt's from 100 million cubic km of extruded magma that covered approximately 1% of the Earth's surface. It is considered a likely cause of the early Aptian anoxic event, a massive die off in the oceans. Some early research suggested a meteorite impact as a cause but current studies do not support this as a possible trigger.

 

4. The Deccan Traps were formed at the end of the cretaceous period 60 - 68 million years ago at which time it was estimated to cover 1.5 million square kilometers possibly half the size of India. Most of the volcanic flood basalt erupted near the area of the Western Ghats and continued off and on for maybe 30,000 years forming multiple layers of more than 2,000 m (6,562 ft) thick. It is considered one of the largest volcanic features on Earth. It is considered by some to be the cause of or played a role in the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event a.k.a. the K.T. extinction event or K-Pg extinction when large groups of organisms became extinct, most notably the non-avian dinosaurs.

 

 

Without these "Events" the chances are we would not be here now, It is like art, shaping the world to fit to specific life forms, Sometimes you lose a battle to win a war.

I do not understand all this negativity/hostility here to the idea of earth as a living organism,

 

But then again I see most of the neg posts are from those that frequent the thread "crackpots in physics",

 

Earth as a living organism is not a crackpot theory, It is a growing belief within the science community.

 

Science

 

 

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Which some here look at the world with closed eyes & minds.

 

Earth is a breathing living system,

 

year’s worth of Earth’s seasonal transformations look like from outer space. Nelson – a data visualizer – stitched together from NASA’s website 12 cloud-free satellite photographs taken each month over the course of a year. Once the images were put together in a sequence, the mesmerizing animations showed what Nelson describes as “the annual pulse of vegetation and land ice”

 

I prefer to be part of a united/connected/living world, If you choose to be a accident living on a rock that is your loss.

 

 

Or we could go with the accepted mainstream definitions that more accurately describe this phenomenon, and also have the advantage of being used by scientists worldwide. This seems like a more accurate and efficient approach, as opposed to re-teaching the sunshaker terminology.

I am only saying that parent, Seems to imply one step/generation, Where Alpha implies the beginning/first cause..

Edited October 20, 2014 by sunshaker

[Strange]

Without these "Events" the chances are we would not be here now

 

So, like the Christian God, the Earth moves in mysterious ways.

 

 

Earth as a living organism is not a crackpot theory, It is a growing belief within the science community.

 

Other than Lovelock, who are you thinking of?

 

It may not be a crackpot idea (it is a very old and quite interesting metaphor) but refusing to admit that some of the claims made are factually incorrect is behaviour typical of crackpots.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Strange

[Phi for All]

There is nothing unhealthy about seeing earth as a living organism, Quite the opposite, It makes you realize how precious and connected the earth and life is, Which can only be a good thing.

 

"Connected" is different than "an offspring of". The bigger problem with your approach is that it encourages others to bypass learning actual science and make up their own definitions and processes, much like religion does. That is NOT a good thing.

 

Using science allows us to see the reality of how we're connected with our environment, and has the added advantage of giving us a perspective based in reality about other planets, should we make the effort to visit them in the future. I think it's critical that we understand our rock so we can make other rocks home as well eventually. I think having little cults of people worshiping the Alpha of Life can only harm our attempts at exploration.

 

Your perspective may seem unharmful to you, but it causes many people to think we shouldn't progress, that humans are somehow unnatural in the technology we use in place of teeth and claws and fur. While you might welcome interplanetary exploration, others with your perspective complain that we shouldn't even have a space program, or that nuclear power is evil and harms the Earth as a living organism. We see every day how seemingly benign concepts are corrupted by others, and I can easily see how your living Earth idea will be used in the future to keep us away from the stars.

 

Again, why can't we be connected to our environment, wherever it may be, without imagining it to be anything other than what reality tells us it is?

[sunshaker]

 

"Connected" is different than "an offspring of". The bigger problem with your approach is that it encourages others to bypass learning actual science and make up their own definitions and processes, much like religion does. That is NOT a good thing.

 

Using science allows us to see the reality of how we're connected with our environment, and has the added advantage of giving us a perspective based in reality about other planets, should we make the effort to visit them in the future. I think it's critical that we understand our rock so we can make other rocks home as well eventually. I think having little cults of people worshiping the Alpha of Life can only harm our attempts at exploration.

 

 

Why bypass science?

If the earth is a living organism, there is the science of how this all fits together,

We are living organisms but we didn't bypass science and make up new definitions about ourselves , it just opens up new areas of science to explore and understand.

Once we understand our "rock/earth" we will have a better chance of making other rocks/planets our home.

I think this will give us more of an incentive to go to the stars, which i believe we should and will head sooner than you think.

 

Whatever we find or discovery there will be always new science to understand, Even if we did find there was a "god", I would want to know the science behind god.

 

 

 

 

It may not be a crackpot idea (it is a very old and quite interesting metaphor) but refusing to admit that some of the claims made are factually incorrect is behaviour typical of crackpots.

 

Refusing to admit to which claims are "factually incorrect"? I am not agree with all of gaia theory,

 

Even though Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Earth was one of my favourite sci/fi novels

[Strange]

 

Refusing to admit to which claims are "factually incorrect"?

 

For example, the OP's repeated claim that a mountain (a minute deformation of the surface) is an example of reproduction (where offspring go off, grow up and have their own offspring).

[Phi for All]

Why bypass science?

If the earth is a living organism, there is the science of how this all fits together,

 

Why did you just bypass science, right there? You used a logical fallacy called Begging the Question to assume the Earth is a living organism and that there is "science" that tells us why. Yet you've been shown by many people here that Earth is not a living organism, unless you torture the definitions to fit your concept.

 

You are NOT doing science when you do this, you're doing the very thing I fear will keep people misunderstanding the real world and making up their own definitions of what science is. I'm very sorry you persist in this little fantasy you've got, simply because it pleases you subjectively. Science needs everyone using the same definitions, rooted in reality, in order for human communication and cooperation to lead us to the stars. You aren't helping.

[Strange]

As a bit of trivia, it seems the Earth may be smoother than a billiard ball, but not as smooth as a bowling ball.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/46/

[sunshaker]

 

For example, the OP's repeated claim that a mountain (a minute deformation of the surface) is an example of reproduction (where offspring go off, grow up and have their own offspring).

I did not say I agreed with all.

 

Why did you just bypass science, right there? You used a logical fallacy called Begging the Question to assume the Earth is a living organism and that there is "science" that tells us why. Yet you've been shown by many people here that Earth is not a living organism, unless you torture the definitions to fit your concept.

 

You are NOT doing science when you do this, you're doing the very thing I fear will keep people misunderstanding the real world and making up their own definitions of what science is. I'm very sorry you persist in this little fantasy you've got, simply because it pleases you subjectively. Science needs everyone using the same definitions, rooted in reality, in order for human communication and cooperation to lead us to the stars. You aren't helping.

There is science going on now that is looking into whether or not earth is a living system,

 

 

Newly published work done at the University of Maryland by first author Harry Oduro, together with UMD geochemist James Farquhar and marine biologist Kathryn Van Alstyne of Western Washington University, provides a tool for tracing and measuring the movement of sulfur through ocean organisms, the atmosphere and the land in ways that may help prove or disprove the controversial Gaia theory.

I am just open to ideas, Science as not yet proven this point.

[Strange]

There is science going on now that is looking into whether or not earth is a living system,

 

Where is that quotation from?

[sunshaker]

 

Where is that quotation from?

I know its a couple of years old, but i have been looking to see if it as been updated anywhere.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515203100.htm

[Lance_Granger]

If the link says that then the link is wrong.

You seem to not realise there's a difference between cell reproduction within an organism and reproduction of the organism as a whole.

You also seem not to realise that having a liver cell that suddenly starts reproducing isn't usually a good idea- they call it cancer.

 

 

If the cell reproduces, that is an example of a WHOLE organism reproducing because a cell IS an organism.

 

Liver was just a quick example. Any reproduced cell can go into g0 phase.

 

That doesn't stop the organism containing the liver reproducing.

 

A liver is not an organism. Or are you now claiming that the Earth is not a living organism, but is just an organ in a larger living organism?

 

 

No im not claiming that, that's pretty obvious. lmao

 

Answer this, do you think a cell is an organism?

 

For example, the OP's repeated claim that a mountain (a minute deformation of the surface) is an example of reproduction (where offspring go off, grow up and have their own offspring).

 

Can you back this claim up that the product of reproduction have to go off and reproduce or is that just your opinion?

 

 

If the cell reproduces, that is an example of an WHOLE organism reproducing because a cell IS an organism.

 

Liver was just a quick example. Any reproduced cell can go into g0 phase.

 

 

No im not claiming that, that's pretty obvious. lmao

 

Answer this, do you think a cell is an organism?

 

Can you back this claim up that the product of reproduction has to go off and reproduce or is that just your opinion?

Edited October 20, 2014 by Lance_Granger

[Strange]

If the cell reproduces, that is an example of an WHOLE organism reproducing because a cell IS an organism.

 

So you are claiming that all of the cells in your body are your children?

 

Sheer total and absolute nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction

 

Answer this, do you think a cell is an organism?

 

Only if it is a single celled organism.

 

Can you back this claim up that the product of reproduction have to go off and reproduce or is that just your opinion?

 

You can't shift the burden of proof like that. You are the one making a new claim. It is up to you to support it by something other than repeated assertion. Perhaps by referencing a definition of reproduction that includes forming a small temporary lump on the surface that bears no resemblance to the parent.

 

But as you ask, and I am feeling kind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction

 

Note the recursive definition: new offspring are produced from parent organisms, all organisms are the result of reproduction. If reproduction did not produce new organisms which are copies of the parents, the species would be extinct after a single life time.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

If the cell reproduces, that is an example of a WHOLE organism reproducing because a cell IS an organism.

 

Just plain wrong.

It may be in some cases- like bacteria

But it isn't in all cases- like any multi cellular organism- for example- us.

 

So, just as soon as you show the earth's offspring growing up into copies of the earth (Incidentally that producing the earth again which is why it's called re-producing) you will have shown that the earth can reproduce.

Until then there's no way it can be sensibly considered to be alive.

[Lance_Granger]

Posted Today, 12:12 PM

Lance_Granger, on 20 Oct 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

 

 

If the cell reproduces, that is an example of a WHOLE organism reproducing because a cell IS an organism.

 

Just plain wrong.

It may be in some cases- like bacteria

But it isn't in all cases- like any multi cellular organism- for example- us.

.

So is it just plain wrong or wrong in some cases. Can't be both.

 

So you are claiming that all of the cells in your body are your children?

 

Sheer total and absolute nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction

 

 

Only if it is a single celled organism.

 

 

You can't shift the burden of proof like that. You are the one making a new claim. It is up to you to support it by something other than repeated assertion. Perhaps by referencing a definition of reproduction that includes forming a small temporary lump on the surface that bears no resemblance to the parent.

 

But as you ask, and I am feeling kind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction

 

Note the recursive definition: new offspring are produced from parent organisms, all organisms are the result of reproduction. If reproduction did not produce new organisms which are copies of the parents, the species would be extinct after a single life time.

 

I'm not asking you to back MY claim about the Earth. I'm ask you to backup YOUR claim that all products of reproduction HAVE to leave their source and HAVE to then reproduce. I have the burden of proof for MY claims, YOU have the burden of poor for YOURS. So is this just your opinion or can you factually back up YOUR claim?