Parasitic life?

[paigetheoracle]

Moderation note: moved from the strange claims forum, because while a bit unconventional, the subject of this thread is actually well-established (though controversial) science and philosophy

 

If we view the liquid magma at the heart of the planet as its life force and the surface as its dead skin, then what we call life could be construed as as the equivalent of of parasites on an animal or fungus on a plant, living off it but not part of it.

 

If The Gaia Hypothesis is correct, then life could be wiped out by a quick flip of the planet or the equivalent of a good scratch as most native people have warned us. Is this an end of the world scenario, anyone else but me has thought of? The day the Earth stood, still, despite man.:winter_brr:

 

 

Merry Christmas to all my readers!:xmas_sheep:;):eek:

[CraigD]

If we view the liquid magma at the heart of the planet …

First, a point of scientific accuracy: according to most accepted theory, the Earth’s core – its “heart” – isn’t magma, which is composed primarily of silica, but melted and solid iron, nickel, and traces of other high-density elements. You simply aren’t going to find anything as “light and fluffy” as magma until you reach Earth’s mantle layer, about half way between its center and its surface.

 

There are many good summaries of these ideas in books and websites, including The wikipedia article “structure of the Earth”

… as its life force …

Though the Earth’s internal structure and dynamics are complicated and differentiated, it appears to lack the degree of complexity and differentiation of even the simplest biological organism. It also lacks the key attributes normally attributed to life, such as metabolizing acquired nutrients, and, most dramatically, reproducing. The interior of Earth and Earth-like planets get nearly all their energy from the decay of radioactive elements. There’s no evidence of one or more planets giving birth to one or more other planets that then grow to “adult size” the way all biological organisms do, nor to my knowledge, outside of some fantastical SF, any idea of how such a thing could occur.

 

Many planets are very dynamic, but terming their energy and complexity “life” is, I think, a misuse of the term.

and the surface as its dead skin, then what we call life could be construed as as the equivalent of of parasites on an animal or fungus on a plant, living off it but not part of it.

Although plants and animals certainly depend on the Earth (and the Sun, and to a lesser extent, the moon), and would all or nearly all die without it, I don’t think the parasite analogy is very accurate. For an organism to qualify as a significant parasite, it must affect its host, beneficially or otherwise. In terms of the gross structure of the Earth and the great majority of its matter, we don’t have much effect. Despite some fiction to the contrary, we can’t really hurt the Earth (ie: blow it to bits) or, with current technology, help it (ie: prevent it from cooling, ceasing to generate a strong magnetic field, and “dieing” as planets such as Mars appear to have done). We may put its resources to our use, but in the long-term picture, Earth will almost certainly eventually recycle them from the natural and artificial uses to which life puts them.

 

A more accurate analogy for life on Earth than bacteria on animal skin or fungus on a plant is, I think, moss and slime on a rock. Even this analogy fails, however, in that things growing on rocks can actually permeate them and hasten their weathering and erosion, while the “weathering” effect of life on the Earth effects only a thin (at most a few kilometers deep) layer of its surface, and its atmosphere. The Earth is much tougher and enduring than most mossy rocks.

If The Gaia Hypothesis is correct, then life could be wiped out by a quick flip of the planet or the equivalent of a good scratch as most native people have warned us. Is this an end of the world scenario, anyone else but me has thought of?

The idea that the Earth might some day get annoyed by humans or other life and “scratch us off like fleas” is certainly not a new one, predating modern ideas of the structure of planets and solar systems. According to some of the oldest (6000+ years) recorded Earth creation stories, Nammu/Tiamat/Cetus, the endless, bottomless, eternal sea goddess who gave birth to all land and sky, had occasional second thoughts about the whole thing, and made the occasional half-hearted efforts to drown it all.

 

However, evidence suggests that even such catastrophic events such as giant meteorite impacts vaporizing all the Earth’s oceans and melting the entire surface – more the equivalent of full exfoliation and chemical decontamination than a vigorous scratch – are only temporarily effective at suppressing life. Such catastrophes appear beyond the “ability” of the planet, even if we assume the planet has some sort of intelligence and ability to effect scratching actions. Earth’s “arsenal” or temblors, tsunamis, volcanos and climate changes, while awe-inspiring, are arguable not enough to wipe out even a fairly biologically fragile (though unprecedentedly cunning), large animal species like humans.

 

Geological and biological details aside, I think Paige misses a key feature or current Gaia philosophy. Though taken more as useful metaphor than actual scientific theory by much to most of the scientific community, Gaiaism has been around for a while and had a significant impact on science culture. In most of its variations, it’s pretty explicit in the role it assigns to life on Earth: life is not parasitic, but an integral part of the Earth. In particular, intelligent (in this meaning, at present, confined to human) life has a very specific role in the more radical versions of Gaiaism: with our potential to spread a small but significant part of the world to other planets, we are the Earth’s gonads – that is, her/its reproductive organs. It’s a silly super-organism that shakes or scratches off its own gonads! :phones:

[paigetheoracle]

First, a point of scientific accuracy: according to most accepted theory, the Earth’s core – its “heart” – isn’t magma, which is composed primarily of silica, but melted and solid iron, nickel, and traces of other high-density elements. You simply aren’t going to find anything as “light and fluffy” as magma until you reach Earth’s mantle layer, about half way between its center and its surface.

Yes I know that! But I needed to simplify the idea and I didn't expect it to end up in The Physical Sciences Forum. By life I meant energy as opposed to matter: Lava out of a volcano is potential rock (undifferentiated) as the cone is actual matter (crystallized rock or layers of time for the planet, growth rings in a tree, skin etc)

 

There are many good summaries of these ideas in books and websites, including The wikipedia article “structure of the Earth” Though the Earth’s internal structure and dynamics are complicated and differentiated, it appears to lack the degree of complexity and differentiation of even the simplest biological organism. It also lacks the key attributes normally attributed to life, such as metabolizing acquired nutrients, and, most dramatically, reproducing. The interior of Earth and Earth-like planets get nearly all their energy from the decay of radioactive elements. There’s no evidence of one or more planets giving birth to one or more other planets that then grow to “adult size” the way all biological organisms do, nor to my knowledge, outside of some fantastical SF, any idea of how such a thing could occur.

 

What about the continual breakdown of matter through erosion and its conversion into different forms when spewed back onto the Earth as lava, as equivalents? (Conversion of matter theory i.e nothing is really destroyed as all is matter). Reproduction? That's different but you've answered that yourself below - we are Earth's children, her sperm journeying across space to fertilize new worlds, if we ever get off this planet

 

Many planets are very dynamic, but terming their energy and complexity “life” is, I think, a misuse of the term. Although plants and animals certainly depend on the Earth (and the Sun, and to a lesser extent, the moon), and would all or nearly all die without it, I don’t think the parasite analogy is very accurate. For an organism to qualify as a significant parasite, it must affect its host, beneficially or otherwise. In terms of the gross structure of the Earth and the great majority of its matter, we don’t have much effect. Despite some fiction to the contrary, we can’t really hurt the Earth (ie: blow it to bits) or, with current technology, help it (ie: prevent it from cooling, ceasing to generate a strong magnetic field, and “dieing” as planets such as Mars appear to have done). We may put its resources to our use, but in the long-term picture, Earth will almost certainly eventually recycle them from the natural and artificial uses to which life puts them.

 

A more accurate analogy for life on Earth than bacteria on animal skin or fungus on a plant is, I think, moss and slime on a rock. Even this analogy fails, however, in that things growing on rocks can actually permeate them and hasten their weathering and erosion, while the “weathering” effect of life on the Earth effects only a thin (at most a few kilometers deep) layer of its surface, and its atmosphere. The Earth is much tougher and enduring than most mossy rocks. The idea that the Earth might some day get annoyed by humans or other life and “scratch us off like fleas” is certainly not a new one, predating modern ideas of the structure of planets and solar systems. According to some of the oldest (6000+ years) recorded Earth creation stories, Nammu/Tiamat/Cetus, the endless, bottomless, eternal sea goddess who gave birth to all land and sky, had occasional second thoughts about the whole thing, and made the occasional half-hearted efforts to drown it all.

 

However, evidence suggests that even such catastrophic events such as giant meteorite impacts vaporizing all the Earth’s oceans and melting the entire surface – more the equivalent of full exfoliation and chemical decontamination than a vigorous scratch – are only temporarily effective at suppressing life. Such catastrophes appear beyond the “ability” of the planet, even if we assume the planet has some sort of intelligence and ability to effect scratching actions. Earth’s “arsenal” or temblors, tsunamis, volcanos and climate changes, while awe-inspiring, are arguable not enough to wipe out even a fairly biologically fragile (though unprecedentedly cunning), large animal species like humans.

 

Geological and biological details aside, I think Paige misses a key feature or current Gaia philosophy. Though taken more as useful metaphor than actual scientific theory by much to most of the scientific community, Gaiaism has been around for a while and had a significant impact on science culture. In most of its variations, it’s pretty explicit in the role it assigns to life on Earth: life is not parasitic, but an integral part of the Earth. In particular, intelligent (in this meaning, at present, confined to human) life has a very specific role in the more radical versions of Gaiaism: with our potential to spread a small but significant part of the world to other planets, we are the Earth’s gonads – that is, her/its reproductive organs. It’s a silly super-organism that shakes or scratches off its own gonads! :weather_snowing:

 

True but even planets can be as insane as people (i.e. suicidal) in my opinion. The difference between irritant and life saviour (hero or villain) depends where you stand and what outcome you want:eek:

[Moontanman]

True but even planets can be as insane as people (i.e. suicidal) in my opinion. The difference between irritant and life saviour (hero or villain) depends where you stand and what outcome you want:eek:

 

I'd really like to see some examples of what you mean by this, an insane planet? which one?

 

One thing that can be said is that if some theories are correct about the extent of life under the surface compared to surface life then surface life is an aberration, just a tiny subset of a huge set of life that normally lives underground off chemical energy, not sunlight.

[paigetheoracle]

I'd really like to see some examples of what you mean by this, an insane planet? which one?

 

One thing that can be said is that if some theories are correct about the extent of life under the surface compared to surface life then surface life is an aberration, just a tiny subset of a huge set of life that normally lives underground off chemical energy, not sunlight.

 

How do you define sanity/ insanity? (Moderators, maybe this post should now be moved to the Psychology subsection of The Social Sciences Forum?). To me it is acting irrationally and unpredictably but this is my perception as a passive receiver of an action as opposed to the active creator of it. In other words 'everyone (and everything) has their reasons' (Baudelaire). Insane to me therefore means a motion I am not predicting will happen because it doesn't follow the rules and regulations I obey in my daily life, to avoid disruption to my habits and this can include inanimate objects like planets (Why did Mount St Helen's erupt is as valid a question as why did a fellow human being erupt into violence? I don't personify (limit) the act in either case, just try to seek out the root cause: No, I'm not for appeasing the Gods of the mountain, to stop it blowing up anymore than I am willing to say that the same basic principles that govern humanity aren't at least analogous to what happens in geophysics, just to fit in with current thinking).

In fact to paraphrase myself, you could say that we consider things insane when we don't understand them and think them sane when we do - this i the whole basis of scientific enquiry; to make sense of reality, rather than have a knee jerk reaction against it i.e. defend yourself against facts instead of investigate them (Shut out and ignore versus let in and decipher).

 

A dead planet makes no connection, internally or externally with other objects around it (No thought released into action - no matter turned back into free flowing energy). A dormant planet has internal life but no external resolution - It is passive, unmoved by anything - just as a clinically depressed patient is.

 

I hope this clarifies the matter.;)

[Moontanman]

I hope this clarifies the matter.;)

 

Uh, no, define insane planet and which one

[CraigD]

How do you define sanity/ insanity? (Moderators, maybe this post should now be moved to the Psychology subsection of The Social Sciences Forum?). …

No matter your definition of sanity/insanity, if intended as a psychological term, its object must, by definition of the term psychology, have a psyche, ie: a mind.

 

To the best of my knowledge, no credible scientific theory nor evidence suggests Earth or any other planet has a mind. Even the strongest proponents of the most literal interpretations of Gaism, such as its originator James Lovelock or prominent supporter (and one of my favorite scientists) Lynn Margulis, explicitly do not suggest this – though Lovelock famously uses the term “cybernetic system” in various of his writing, suggesting that Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere are roughly analogous to a sort of networked computer system.

 

SF writers, on the other hand, have based a distinct genre on the idea of mind-endowed planets. C.S. Lewis’s 1938 “Out of the Silent Planet”, is one of the earliest and best known of this genre, though most people consider its “planet minds”, which are termed in the novel and its sequils Oyéresu to be religious allegory, not science fictional speculation.

 

Interesting and entertaining as the SF idea of mind-endowed planets is, there’s no scientific evidence of an actual realization of the idea. Though we’ve observed only a tiny fraction of the universe, nowhere have we seen a celestial body exhibit the most minor behavior we associate with intelligence. Planets don’t change course to avoid collisions that blast them into rubble, communicate, prey upon, trade with, or exploit one another. Stars don’t seek out fuel to extend their lives or make war of piece with their neighbors. In short, though one can make a good SF story about the possibility, in all the universe, only animals appear to have minds, and the attributes associated with them, such as intelligence, intention, sanity and insanity. Reasonable and good arguments have been made that such things as digital computers could have minds (ie: strong AI), but none but wildly speculative ones that a planet like Earth could. Planets simply seem to be built wrongly for it.

[paigetheoracle]

Uh, no, define insane planet and which one

 

Venus in Blue Jeans - totally runs contrary to what was expected of it, compared to other planets, hence Velikovsky's rants about it.:eek:

 

Anything unpredictable is insane in my books

[Moontanman]

Venus in Blue Jeans - totally runs contrary to what was expected of it, compared to other planets, hence Velikovsky's rants about it.

 

Anything unpredictable is insane in my books

 

Well since there are theories that account for the "behavior" of Venus does this make it any less insane?

[paigetheoracle]

No matter your definition of sanity/insanity, if intended as a psychological term, its object must, by definition of the term psychology, have a psyche, ie: a mind.

 

To the best of my knowledge, no credible scientific theory nor evidence suggests Earth or any other planet has a mind. Even the strongest proponents of the most literal interpretations of Gaism, such as its originator James Lovelock or prominent supporter (and one of my favorite scientists) Lynn Margulis, explicitly do not suggest this – though Lovelock famously uses the term “cybernetic system” in various of his writing, suggesting that Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere are roughly analogous to a sort of networked computer system.

 

SF writers, on the other hand, have based a distinct genre on the idea of mind-endowed planets. C.S. Lewis’s 1938 “Out of the Silent Planet”, is one of the earliest and best known of this genre, though most people consider its “planet minds”, which are termed in the novel and its sequils Oyéresu to be religious allegory, not science fictional speculation.

 

Planets don’t change course to avoid collisions that blast them into rubble, communicate, prey upon, trade with, or exploit one another. Stars don’t seek out fuel to extend their lives or make war of piece with their neighbors. In short, though one can make a good SF story about the possibility, in all the universe, only animals appear to have minds, and the attributes associated with them, such as intelligence, intention, sanity and insanity. Reasonable and good arguments have been made that such things as digital computers could have minds (ie: strong AI), but none but wildly speculative ones that a planet like Earth could. Planets simply seem to be built wrongly for it.

 

Psychology is limited to the human mind - reality has no such borders. It also doesn't define things in human (ego) terms to satisfy its own superiority or communicate in ways that make sense to Man because Man wants them too. We vilify animals, nature, God in order to try (vainly) to manipulate and blame external things for the state of our addictive lives and the mess we make of them ('They're only animals'/ 'It's you're fault all this happened!'). And then pretend we know what is happening and how to control it.

 

Can your brain control the external world? No, not without connection to a body to react through (Drunken youths disable their bodies as well as their minds and therefore cannot stop their equivalent of planetary collisions). Perhaps stars don't seek out fuel to extend their lives because they don't need to - we're into doing things (seekers)but they are just being themselves (bathing in their own glory). All human striving shows an addictive lust for things that stars and planets obviously have less of. I could say more but I'm very tired (Just back from a funeral - wife's uncle: House invaded by 2 brothers plus ones wife and the others son, and a sister. Then the following day another brother with his dog; we've got 2 - chaos, confusion, mucho tired) also just going on holiday for fortnight, so if this thread is still active may be in a fit state to let battle recommence! Asta La Vista Babies!

[paigetheoracle]

Well since there are theories that account for the "behavior" of Venus does this make it any less insane?

 

Did you read any of my previous posts? I said in one of them that how we define sanity/ insanity is that we do or don't understand the behaviour of something or someone - 'It's insane!' (makes no sense to me)/ 'It's sane!' (I understand it): Look up The Stockholm Syndrome or conversion through exposure - not that something is true or false but that it is believed in or not as true or false (Now can Itake my headache pills?)

[paigetheoracle]

Craig

 

Communication is the key to this thread (intellectuals and the ignorant or those with learning difficulties i.e. dyslexic etc/ computer language and the computer illiterate (PASCAL and ALGOL etc. mean nothing to me). What may sound like gibberish* or noise to you, may simply be some kind of language you can't decipher - be it human, alien, animal, plant or planetary and if it is not directed at you, it would be even more difficult to understand as human language would be to an ant colony (The Gods and mortals relationship disparity). This then becomes a philosophical question - how would you know that you didn't know this?

 

 

* The use of Navaho code talkers during the Pacific campaign, specifically to confuse the enemy, for instance and jargon to confuse those outside a specific field as public school adolescents used to use Ancient Greek and Latin to confuse the ordinary working man as a joke.

[Not half- but whole!]

While we might want to bicker about what the true eccentricities of the planets are, I think the true intent of this thread is being missed by many. (Although an in depth Freudian discussion of the impact of Pluto's demotion from planetary status and it's correlation to its increased erectile dysfunction might be worth while...:()

 

1. I feel that that it would be pretty safe to classify a planet as a physical/chemical system (and add biological system in the case of the Earth).

 

2. There are numerous physical/chemical/biological concepts that describe the reaction of said systems when stresses are placed upon them. (Concepts such as Le Chatelier's Principle, Lenz's Law, and ecological homeostasis)

 

3. Each of these concepts reflects the idea that a system will shift to alleviate the stress and return to equilibrium.

 

4. I doubt one would argue that humans are now placing a stress on the system of Earth.

 

5. The system will shift to alleviate the stress(ie kill off a bunch o' humans) and return to equilibrium.

[paigetheoracle]

While we might want to bicker about what the true eccentricities of the planets are, I think the true intent of this thread is being missed by many. (Although an in depth Freudian discussion of the impact of Pluto's demotion from planetary status and it's correlation to its increased erectile dysfunction might be worth while...:))

 

1. I feel that that it would be pretty safe to classify a planet as a physical/chemical system (and add biological system in the case of the Earth).

 

2. There are numerous physical/chemical/biological concepts that describe the reaction of said systems when stresses are placed upon them. (Concepts such as Le Chatelier's Principle, Lenz's Law, and ecological homeostasis)

 

3. Each of these concepts reflects the idea that a system will shift to alleviate the stress and return to equilibrium.

 

4. I doubt one would argue that humans are now placing a stress on the system of Earth.

 

5. The system will shift to alleviate the stress(ie kill off a bunch o' humans) and return to equilibrium.

 

Thanks for putting this so eloquently! I am no scientist, so the concepts elude me but not the basic principle that started this thread.:naughty:

[paigetheoracle]

The way I see it there is a ratio between what you can do physically and what we'd call intelligence. A planet is like a cell in the body or an atom, not a sophisticated organism like the human body. It's limited in movement, so would be limited in what could be described as 'thought' (planning).

 

If you look at the history of the universe, everything was hot, cooled and crystallized, then life formed from plants through to animals and us at the top of the chain. We now send robots out as probes into areas we are not capable of going (deep space/ ocean depths) and this could be our original role as envisaged by the planet itself: It can't go anywhere but we can explore it and explore other planets, acting as messengers, assaying changes and making connections across space. We are the fruit of its womb/ loins - going elsewhere and as in Star Trek II, ,creating new life on old and dead planets (The Genesis experiment but in reality, like some giant tag game 'You're it!'). Sound like science fiction? Scientific speculation? Or both as a logical adjunct of our progress?

[paigetheoracle]

Geological and biological details aside, I think Paige misses a key feature or current Gaia philosophy. Though taken more as useful metaphor than actual scientific theory by much to most of the scientific community, Gaiaism has been around for a while and had a significant impact on science culture. In most of its variations, it’s pretty explicit in the role it assigns to life on Earth: life is not parasitic, but an integral part of the Earth. In particular, intelligent (in this meaning, at present, confined to human) life has a very specific role in the more radical versions of Gaiaism: with our potential to spread a small but significant part of the world to other planets, we are the Earth’s gonads – that is, her/its reproductive organs. It’s a silly super-organism that shakes or scratches off its own gonads! :D

 

Hey Craig, are you aware that Isaac Asimov (Scientist and Science Fiction Writer) might have mooted this idea even before James Lovelock, in his Foundation series? Also Teilhard de Chardin envisioned planetary consciousness. Roger Nelson a Princeton psychologist also went at through related work 'field consciousness' studies (Random Number Generator experiments. On top of this 'Space 1999' featured the idea, so it can't be all bad! (Read Dean Radin's book 'Entangled Minds', chapter 11 'Gaia's Dreams' for further information).:shrug: