[HN Gopher] James Lovelock has died ___________________________________________________________________ James Lovelock has died Author : edward Score : 253 points Date : 2022-07-27 14:19 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com) | adg001 wrote: | We all owe him and Margulis so much. A true giant, whose ideas | will live even longer than himself. RIP. | drcongo wrote: | I knew very little about him sadly, the wikipedia page is | fascinating. | dang wrote: | (We changed the url from | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock - see | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32253402) | pomatic wrote: | I met had the good fortune to work environs his son, Andrew, when | I was around 18. He introduced me (unintentionally) to his | father's work, for which I was very grateful. | neonate wrote: | https://archive.ph/bQFAt | hunglee2 wrote: | RIP James Lovelock. A true radical centrist, he was not the New | Age person people mistakenly believed him and Gaia theory to be | (e.g. he was a proponent of nuclear energy), but equally he was | an enemy of many conservative scientists. | culi wrote: | "Gaia" is often seen as a really unfortunate name for an | actually well-thought out scientific theory. However, this was | exactly Lovelock's point and why he decided to go with a name | like that. He and Lynn Margulis WANTED to highlight and stand | against the cultural biases of science as an institution. | | Though it should be noted there's growing scientific support | for the theory regardless | | https://aeon.co/essays/the-gaia-hypothesis-reimagined-by-one... | timst4 wrote: | Fascinating that his Gaia hypothesis came after his research with | Royal Dutch Shell. It's amazing how early we knew fossil fuels | were destabilizing our biosphere. | | This man knew we were heading towards an uninhabitable world and | screamed at the top of his lungs, but corporate growth was more | important. Persephone, indeed. | | He may have walked back his prediction of earth being largely | uninhabitable by 2050, but I have a feeling he was only slightly | off. The sad truth is that 50C is coming faster than you realize, | and this man was crystal clear on the subject in the 1990s. | iNerdier wrote: | Persephone? I think you might mean Cassandra, if you're talking | about the woman who was cursed by Apollo to speak the truth but | have nobody listen. | StrictDabbler wrote: | I'm sure you're right that the commenter meant Cassandra but | one might also argue that Persephone's curse, that newly | increased periodic temperature swings will sometimes turn the | earth barren and useless to us, is relevant to the | conversation. | radford-neal wrote: | skyyler wrote: | My friend, the person you are replying to was saying that | daily highs of 50C aren't far off. | | Not that average temps will increase by 50C. That would be | silly. | radford-neal wrote: | Hmm... Maybe. Except that temperatures far above 50C have | been recorded before, including over a century ago. See htt | ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_recorded_o.. | . | misnome wrote: | The person you are replying to was saying that daily | highs of 50C aren't far off. | jacquesm wrote: | In a place called 'Furnace Creek Ranch'. Makes you wonder | about the name. | | Really, it was quite clear that the original comment | wasn't talking about a delta of 50 C and it is quite | clear that 50 C outside of say Death Valley isn't normal. | radford-neal wrote: | Highest recorded temperature in Arkansas was 49C. Maybe | it will get up to 50C sometime. That wouldn't be | especially alarming. | eCa wrote: | So the Arkansas record was set in 1936. The way I see it, | it doesn't really matter if Arkansas ever beats that | record, but rather what happens if it hits 48C five days | per year. | | (I say that as my hometown recently beat it's highest | ever record by approx 1C.) | ChrisClark wrote: | I feel that you've mistaken being deliberately obtuse for | clever rhetoric. | skyyler wrote: | You are willfully missing the point. | | Did you not hear about the heatwave in Europe last week? | 50C is coming to places that have never had temps that | high. | derac wrote: | They surely mean temperatures of 50C not an increase, | although it's ambiguously stated. | [deleted] | culi wrote: | What's wild to me is how consistently science has chosen to be | politically palatable rather than come off as "alarmist". | | Like in the original 1.5C report. We didn't have good data on | permafrost melting and how much methane that would release. | Permafrost melting has been hypothesized as possibly one of the | biggest contributors to a runaway effect. But they just | straight up decided to ignore the entire effect | | That's just one of the many decisions made that makes the 1.5C | report wildly more optimistic than reality. | | It's no wonder scientists like Lovelock who were very familiar | with this research were some of the most likely to point out | that science is a political institution with its own biases and | incentives | svnt wrote: | If the choice was to be invited to participate in the | conversation or not, wouldn't you tone down your public | statements in order to have a hope of influencing policy? | | I'm not saying it's the right strategy now, but premature | hyperbole just slows down adoption, if it does anything at | all. | groby_b wrote: | The answer is "no". | | If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to | circumvent the system. The opposite of that gives us | institutions that are continually disseminating lies, in | the process undermining trust in institutions. | | Truth doesn't get "invited to conversations". It is always | part of it, and the choice is just spoken or unspoken. | anthony_d wrote: | > If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to | circumvent the system. | | That is a terrifying sentence. It can be used to justify | anything while denying accountability. There's always the | possibility (probability) that you are wrong about what | is "the truth." | culi wrote: | I completely agree with you but I don't really think it's | relevant to this situation. The situation is not a | decision between 2 different possible truths. It's a | decision to sweep something under the rug. Something that | we know will have an effect, we just don't know the | magnitude of it. When faced with ambiguity we should take | a best guess (even if it's a "conservative" guess) not | ignore everything because its more politically convenient | | The "best guess" was clearly not taken here | carapace wrote: | Right, that's why empiricism and the scientific method | are so important. This is in the context of scientists | being "invited to participate in the conversation or | not", eh? | nonrandomstring wrote: | > If the choice was to be invited to participate in the | conversation or not, wouldn't you tone down your public | statements in order to have a hope of influencing policy? | | An interesting bind is called "The Critics' Dilemma", best | understood through a (Chinese) story. | | One day some farmers see an invading army coming over the | hill. They rush into the city to tell the emperor. | "Emperor, a huge army is approaching, we're surely doomed!" | Not wanting to have the whole city panic the emperor has | the men executed to silence them. Invaders enter the city | and slaughter all the imperial soldiers. | | Many years later two farmers are watching the horizon when | they see an army gathering. "Quickly, let's warn the | citizens" says one. "No. Remember the story of what | happened to our grandfathers." says the other. So they | return to the city and tell the emperor, "We saw a few | bandits gathered by the woods". The emperors soldiers go to | confront them and are all killed, The city is raided again. | | The dilemma is "Tell them too much and they will deny you | out of fear. Tell them too little and they will be | unprepared." | | This applies, along with the Cassandra effect, right to the | heart of all intelligent critique. People are happy to die | from ignorance so long as you don't upset them with | cognitive dissonance. Later, when they are in imminent | peril, they'll blame you for not speaking up sooner. | MichaelZuo wrote: | The story doesn't really make sense, wouldn't the more | distant outposts easily confirm if a huge army is | amassing nearby? | Mtinie wrote: | Not if the distant outposts have already succumbed to the | advancing army...and all of those who came in from the | field to warn the Emperor have previously been silenced. | TheSpiceIsLife wrote: | What so you mean 50C is coming? | | 50 degrees C of warming? | tasty_freeze wrote: | No, obviously it means high temperatures of 50C will become | reality even in urban areas, not just in deserts. | DFHippie wrote: | I think they mean the temperature spiking to 50C, instead of | ~40C, in the summer. | burkaman wrote: | > It's amazing how early we knew fossil fuels were | destabilizing our biosphere. | | For those who don't know, the US government had a pretty | complete understanding of the issue in the 60s. | | https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3227654-PSAC-1965-Re... | | https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibr... | beastman82 wrote: | > Dr. Lovelock caused a sensation in 2004 when he pronounced | nuclear energy the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels | that has the capacity to fulfill the large-scale energy needs of | humanity while reducing greenhouse emissions. | getpost wrote: | By coincidence, I listened to this 2012 biographical interview | only a few days ago. This is a good summary of his life's work. | He was unbelievably lucid at age 94, and more recently. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h666h | WebbWeaver wrote: | We're losing people who have no true replacement and James | Lovelock is one of those people. According to the wikipedia | article he was pro nuclear and fracking as an environmentalist. I | think largely natural gas and fracking is a relative success | where regulation are followed and cost cutting does not occur. | Some of the capability learned and gained in that area can be | applied for a lot of useful things in the future. | | >Retreat, in his view, means it's time to start talking about | changing where we live and how we get our food; about making | plans for the migration of millions of people from low-lying | regions like Bangladesh into Europe; about admitting that New | Orleans is a goner and moving the people to cities better | positioned for the future. | | We definitely need to consider moving towards sustainability much | more quickly. CO2 burden related to climate and daily life should | be looked at. Something needs to happen to save the bayou around | New Orleans. | I_complete_me wrote: | I wish to pay my respects to this great intellect and person as I | don't know where else to do it. Rest in peace. | birriel wrote: | TIL: The birthday effect. RIP | _sigma wrote: | A news release | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/27/james-lo... | [deleted] | pfdietz wrote: | https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/the-gaia-hypothese... | AJ007 wrote: | Novacene was a little more optimistic than this obituary ended. | jimmySixDOF wrote: | Yes definitely he made waves and did interviews when it came | out in 2019 and was very interested in how Artificial | Intelligence could end up solving so many of the worlds | problems -- forget the Anthropocene already here comes the | Novacene and it's going to be amazing! | hsnewman wrote: | Life reproduces, how can the earth? | [deleted] | wwarner wrote: | I suppose that if we sent an ark to an Earthlike planet in | another star system that would count as reproduction. Not that | it's going to happen... | nmeagent wrote: | "Flying Mother Nature's silver seed to a new home in the | sun..." | Darmody wrote: | I'm not a fan of his Gaia theory but many years May his books | made me change my mind about nuclear energy. | | May he rest in peace. | zahma wrote: | Why aren't you a fan of the Gaia Theory? It isn't really much | of a theory. The Earth adapts to our foolishness and outsized | impact. It will survive in some condition or another even if | life as we know it is extinct. | retrac wrote: | > The Earth adapts | | This right here is where I get tripped up. Let's imagine we | find out that Mars has no life, and we start mining it in the | future. Would it also be fair to say that "Mars adapts" to | that? If so, what does "adapt" really mean here? Does a rock | adapt to being broken up? | | So I figure you mean life on the Earth (as we know it, or | not). Adapt in the sense of evolution. Living systems adapt | by replicating, varying, and having some of the variations | being selected against, among other mechanisms. If the Earth | is a single meta-organism or something like that, it has | never been selected against, has never replicated, and has a | population of one. How much of ordinary biology translates to | an organism that strange? | | I guess it often seems like a metaphor being conflated with a | theory, to me. | munch117 wrote: | In the Gaia book, Lovelock talks at length about all these | challenges that life on earth has met. All these chances | the earth had to become lifeless and barren, or at least | barren of intelligent life. | | When I read it, I came to a conclusion that's very | different from Lovelock's. I saw in it the answer to the | Fermi paradox: The world keeps throwing challenges at life, | and sooner or later life fails to address them, and dies | out. We're only here to talk about it because we are among | the lucky few who got this far (the anthropic principle). | | It's a pretty depressing conclusion, because we are no more | likely to meet the next challenge successfully, just | because we lucked out in the past. And there will be a next | one, that's essentially the message of the Gaia book, the | challenges just keep coming. | | I can understand that people prefer instead to delude | themselves with magical thinking about a benevolent earth- | organism. | gilleain wrote: | From an interview I read a couple of years ago, this part | stuck out (paraphrased, from memory). | | The interviewer asked something like "Are you optimistic | about human survival?" and Lovelock's reply was, roughly | - "Oh yes, I am optimistic. I mean, there might be a | bottleneck of the population down to a few thousands, but | long term we will survive". | | Talk about the large-scale view. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Surely "humans" are very unlikely to survive long term | precisely because of evolution. Intelligent life probably | will. But it might need to reboot from closer to the soup | again. | DennisP wrote: | Lovelock ultimately agreed with you. From The Guardian: | | > Lovelock "has warned that the biosphere is dying due to | human action. He said two years ago that the biosphere is | in the last 1% of its life." | | https://archive.ph/I3dog | robocat wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32250694#32254924 | nonrandomstring wrote: | If you've never seen Dana Meadows videos on complex | ecological system theory [1] you are missing a huge insight | into modernity. | | When you have massive interlocking systems of convection, | atmospheric thermodynamics, tectonics, ocean currents and | winds, all in concert through feedback loops, regulators, | non-linear compression and expansion functions, | multipliers, hysteresis and tipping points, you don't need | to ascribe sentience, evolution or even biology to see the | sum as "living". | | Push here. it reacts there. | | In the simplest analysis, overpopulation of "too | successful" species leads to pandemics that wipe them out. | Hardly a stretched metaphor. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuIoego-xVc | tcgv wrote: | I find the debate over nuclear energy an interesting topic. | From the information and evidence provided by the | Environmentalists for Nuclear [1], from which Loelock was a | member, I find it hard to understand why there's still so much | opposition to nuclear energy. I'm not sure if I'm missing | something (I'm open minded for valid arguments/evidence on | either side) or if it's just that lobby and disinformation | campaigns to preserve the status quo in favor of fossil fuel | companies are really effective in turning the masses against | nuclear energy (which would be very sad with respect to our | potential to evolve as a civilization). | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists_for_Nuclear | dane-pgp wrote: | I think one basic argument against nuclear is that it can't | produce energy as cheaply as renewables (and nuclear energy | is getting more expensive while renewables are getting | cheaper). | | If we had decided to invest heavily in nuclear 20 years ago, | we might not be in the mess we're in now, but it's probably | too late for nuclear to help now. Look at Flamanville unit 3, | for example. They started building it in 2007, and it still | isn't producing power (in fact just this year they announced | more delays to its start date). | | Even if we abandoned all concerns about where they were | built, and started building a load of them today, they | probably wouldn't all be ready until after 2040 because there | probably isn't enough spare capacity in skilled nuclear | engineers to parallelise their production. By that time, | batteries and power-to-gas could be cheaply supplying | reliable energy to a grid that's over-provisioned with | renewables, without having to worry about storing radioactive | waste for thousands of years or proliferation risks. | StillBored wrote: | Except we have been saying the same thing for 20-30 years. | And when you actually look at the costs of wind/solar | (although maybe solar thermal might be useful, but for | various reasons its been abandoned) they aren't as cheap as | the cost to install them because they have external costs | which never get accounted for. Starting with the fact that | the cheapest way to build them is to build a KW of | wind/solar and match it with a KW of natural gas. | | When you start looking at overbuilding them to supply some | kind of energy storage, or to meet even their nameplate | capacity 100% of the time on average they suddenly become a | lot more expensive. I posted elsewhere (and was downvoted) | for posting one of the many studies of how much it actually | costs to build a KW of energy using particular technologies | in various countries, and it turns out that those numbers, | can be summarized as: Nuke plants are expensive because we | want them to be, they aren't as expensive in countries | (South Korea, China, etc) where random people don't (or | cant) sue to stop construction even when the reactors are | the exact same technology being proposed in the US/Europe | (because they parent company doing the design and | construction is frequently US/European) | | Followed by, wind farm's aren't cheap, and the prices only | go up when you start talking about offshore and on the tops | of mountain ranges. | | So, its no surprise that people who just want cheap energy | will continue to pick carbon sources. | | Some people look at this differently, There are fundamental | laws around energy density which tend to inform the | economics (aka dig a ton a uranium and process it, or dig | 10T to extract Neodymium, Lithium, etc and then built | something that has 1/1000000th the energy density). | | So, one can claim wind/solar are cheaper and getting | cheaper, but its like comparing apples to oranges, there is | a reason places like TX, which have a world leading level | of wind installed, also have some of the dirtiest power | around. | | Sorta the computer equivalent of building ones datacenter | around the raw price/perf of a given CPU/SoC, while | ignoring every other variable. Then wondering why the HW | ends up costing more per unit perf (cause maybe the | motherboards cost more) and why the energy bill is eating | your lunch (cause the cores are running at some extreme | clock rate, and burning power). | | Finally, to summarize, you simply cannot hand wave the | largest problem with wind/solar away, which is the fact | that they are not on demand dispatchable. To get reliable | power of of them easily adds a good 10x cost multiplier or | more if your not willing to use a carbon source as a | backup. So, basically standing around yelling wind and | solar, is the same as asking for more carbon. And using | wind+solar+NG is cleaner than just NG along, but it | actually costs just as much as Nukes built in countries | without regulatory bodies setup to stop the construction of | Nuke plants. Despite the fact that even plants built 50 | years ago are the safest form of energy production in | existence (safer than wind for sure) when measured by | deaths per MWh. | olddustytrail wrote: | > Except we have been saying the same thing for 20-30 | years | | We have. Which is why we started building out solar and | wind 30 years ago. And now we're at 90% renewable and | haven't used coal for 6 years. | | But that's us, not you. How's the nuclear approach going? | Built anything yet? | StillBored wrote: | Who has 90% renewable that isn't majority Hydro? | antod wrote: | _> Who has 90% renewable..._ | | I know! I know! Pick me! | | _>...that isn 't majority Hydro?_ | | oh... never mind | dane-pgp wrote: | Maybe Scotland? | | "A total of 97.4% of gross energy consumption came from | renewables, a rise of 8% on the year before." | | "Of the Scottish Government's renewable electricity | target for 2015-2020, onshore wind accounted for 60.3% of | the total, offshore wind 10.7%, and renewable hydro | 18.1%, with other sources making up 8.3%." | | https://www.thenational.scot/news/19499830.scotland-top- | thre... | pfdietz wrote: | > And when you actually look at the costs of wind/solar | (although maybe solar thermal might be useful, but for | various reasons its been abandoned) they aren't as cheap | as the cost to install them because they have external | costs which never get accounted for. | | They do get accounted for. One can explicitly account for | them by running simulations, using actual weather data, | to see how much of those external things would be needed. | | If you do that, you discover nuclear isn't going to be | cheaper in most places now. That natural gas is currently | being used to fill in around renewables does not | challenge this point. | StillBored wrote: | Please provide data. I live in TX, I see how much it | costs, and I see what happens when the wind is blowing at | 8% of nameplate. | | TX for all the shit ERCOT gets, is very open (a google | search will give you a bunch of data dashboards), very | unregulated and capitalist driven power grid. | | The weather is incredibly hard to predict and no one | wants to take worse case projections against wind, | because they don't look pretty. Instead in the case of | ERCOT when the weather isn't cooperative, we get calls to | conserve, and when that fails rolling blackouts. And we | also get financial destabilization which leads the | reliable operators to skip out on maintenance and things | like weatherization. | pixl97 wrote: | Safe nuclear is expensive and humans are cheap. | robocat wrote: | > maybe solar thermal might be useful | | https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme811/node/682 "Minus | field losses, the typical average overall efficiency of | solar trough thermal plants is around 15-20%". Your first | sentence has an implicit contradiction! PV has efficiency | of say 20%. I get that you are thinking about thermal | storage, but the only sensible argument is overall | economic costs, which you seem to be explicitly arguing | against. | | > I posted elsewhere (and was downvoted) for posting one | of the many studies | | If you have links explaining your position, I think | always add them. | | I strongly suspect you are mistaken in your reasoning | about why you are getting downvoted. I'm not sure how to | help you correctly guess why people downvote (sometimes | their reasons are opaque), but I can tell you my own in | this case: | | I think your core point is interesting. However overall | your comment across to me as waffling and mixing in | opinionated misinformation and fact. Perhaps make one | major point, with a modicum of supporting information. | Avoid random tangents. Your comment here in particular | appears to me to be mish-mashing implicit economic | arguments with other issues. | StillBored wrote: | Less efficient yes in absolute production, but solves the | majority of the storage problem. Which is a huge problem, | one that most people are ignoring, and many of the | storage solutions lower PV efficiency as much or more. | | Here are a couple links from my comment history, the | first is a comparison of KW costs, and the second is an | overview of what the Chinese are doing. | | https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power- | costs-u... https://www.world-nuclear.org/information- | library/country-pr... | | I've repeatedly posted hard facts on this board and few | people bother to do much research at all, overwhelmingly | posting puff pieces and data which is obviously wrong | (aka nameplate install/$, average capacity factors | (because average doesn't tell you the worse case, which | is required for a reliable grid)) and a bunch of other | things that get hand waved away by "renewable" | supporters, like the fact that in most places with a lot | of "renewables" its actually 50+ year old hydro and not | wind/solar providing the energy. Or that places with a | lot of wind/solar are basically green washing their | natural gas usage (like Germans are suddenly | discovering). | | edit: And to be clear, did you down vote the parent | comment too, which states as fact something that is | provably wrong (that nukes are more expensive than | wind/solar, note the vox article which points out they | were cheaper than natural gas plants at one point.), but | commonly accepted, or did you let your own personal bias | decide the misinformation he was repeating sounded | correct? | pfsalter wrote: | I think it's mostly down to Chernobyl and the cold war. | Speaking to people in their 60's (anecdotally) they seem to | overestimate the risks of nuclear power and underestimate | climate change. This is probably because there's such strong | visual evidence for problems with the former. | | I'd also say that fossil fuels are very simple to understand; | burn thing, generate power. Nuclear is much more 'magic'. And | I don't doubt that the fossil fuel lobby is drastically | larger than the nuclear power one, just so much more money in | it | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | My mother was _huge_ fan of his, and of his Gaia hypothesis. | | She even traveled to the UK, last century, as a sort of | "pilgrimage," and met with him. | techdragon wrote: | Despite everything else he accomplished in his quite storied | professional career as one of the last independent scientists... | Including his work on the Viking mars landers! | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock | | To me he will always be the man who invented his own microwave to | thaw frozen hamsters. The whole story is worth a watch since Tom | Scott does an admirable job of explaining how he went digging up | a weird fact expecting to debunk it only to wind up recording an | amazing interview with James Lovelock | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y but if you're | impatient the interview with lovelock about cryopreserved | hamsters and his "microwave" starts here | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y#t=5m42s | tombh wrote: | That is such a genuinely wonderful video <3 | gnatman wrote: | Charmed and amazed by how lucid and lively he is recounting | this story at 101 years old! | bambax wrote: | This Tom Scott's video from last year about microwave ovens | features a nice interview with Lovelock: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y | asplake wrote: | Wow, read Gaia (1979) in my teens, soon after it came out, | triggered I think by a Horizon programme (BBC science series, | still going-ish). Definitely made an impression. | digitalsankhara wrote: | Likewise. Lovelock shaped my approach to science as he was an | independent worker in his field and that resonated with me when | I read for my own science degree. I find Gaia compelling and | beautiful. Sad day. BBC documentary; | | https://youtu.be/QqwZJDEZ9Ng | gwern wrote: | > His family confirmed the death in a statement on Twitter, | saying that until six months ago he "was still able to walk along | the coast near his home in Dorset and take part in interviews, | but his health deteriorated after a bad fall earlier this year." | | Another death from elder falling, like Freeman Dyson. | jl6 wrote: | I have never understood what the central point of the Gaia | hypothesis is. Wikipedia summarizes as: | | "... 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." | | How should we understand something like the Great Oxygenation | Event in the light of this theory? The planet became somewhat | uninhabitable for many organisms of that era, but it also | unlocked a whole new generation of oxygen-using organisms. Is | that supposed to be an example of perpetuating conditions for | life on the planet? | | Life, and its environment, affect each other in a complex two-way | flow of influence. Yes, OK, that seems evident, but what about | this is self-regulating? Surely the history of the planet is | replete with mass extinctions and changing conditions that really | don't seem to be part of any greater system than natural | selection and the buildup/drawdown of biogenic minerals. | | Where is the homeostasis? Everything is changing, all the time. | | What does the theory allow us to predict? | sampo wrote: | > I have never understood what the central point of the Gaia | hypothesis is. | | Daisyworld is a very simple thought example, but also a | computer simulation, of emergent planetary homeostasis: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld | | Organisms modify their immediate microenvironment to their | benefit. Lovelock points out that these modification mechanisms | can regulate the planet-scale macroenvironment, as well. | perrygeo wrote: | See also the "Medea Hypothesis" which proposes that organisms | are generally suicidal at a population scale, destroying | themselves and their own environment if left unconstrained. | | Life's historical record alternates between extinction events | and long periods of species-building. So in some ways we can | see the Gaia and Medea tendencies as an cyclic pattern but not | quite "homeostasis". | | The important part is that "life begets life" but occasionally | takes it away too. We tend to assume that complex life forms | like mammals are inevitable but it's quite amazing we exist at | all really, considering the thousands of other species and | complex ecological support systems we require to survive. Break | down that web of life and the earth would be dominated by | bacteria and slime mold. | carapace wrote: | > How should we understand something like the Great Oxygenation | Event in the light of this theory? | | The ancient war between anaerobic and aerobic factions is not | over. Humans are a sophisticated biological weapon designed by | the anaerobes to trigger the "clathrate gun" and return Earth | to a non-oxygen-rich regime. | | It's a very clever plan. We work faster than the aerobes can | react, in geological/evolutionary time were are an explosion. | | > what about this is self-regulating? | | The answer to that question is in Lovelock's book. If you don't | want to read the whole thing you can start with Daisyworld: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld | | > Where is the homeostasis? | | Oxygen levels. The first clue that led to the Gaia Hypothesis | was, IIRC, that the atmosphere of the Earth is not in chemical | equilibrium. | | > What does the theory allow us to predict? | | Well, for one thing, if we find a planet that has a lot of | oxygen in its atmosphere that it might have life on it. | jacquesm wrote: | Let me condense it for you: "we're all in this together". | jkmcf wrote: | "Remember I'm pullin' for ya" | | And, keep your stick on the ice. | jl6 wrote: | I actually don't have much of an issue with the New Age | version of the theory. We are indeed all in this together. | But this is the version of the theory which Gaia proponents | have typically insisted they are not pushing. | [deleted] | zahma wrote: | The New York Times has a nice obituary on his life.[1] There are | two things that I would like to celebrate from his lifetime of | innovation. | | The Gaia Theory is a beautiful framework to understand humanity's | outsized impact on the Earth and all of its lifeforms from fungi | to insects to the trees and the critters who spend a lifetime in | their canopies. The Earth will survive the spasmodic calamity of | our species, even if we don't. It doesn't matter if you are the | most cynical technologist or an optimist trying to change what | you can -- that theory puts us in our place; we are so minuscule | against the backdrop of planet, the solar system, the universe. | Lovelock noticed that disproportionality a lot sooner than most. | | The other important discovery he made was electron capture | detector, which is a device capable of detecting man-made toxic | chemicals in the wild. When I read Silent Spring and the | testament to the frightening effects of DDT, it changed my life. | Without that invention, Silent Spring might not have been | written. Absolutely transformative for me. | | 1-https://archive.ph/bQFAt | DennisP wrote: | > The Earth will survive the spasmodic calamity of our species, | even if we don't. | | Lovelock himself was less sanguine. According to the Guardian's | obituary, Lovelock "has warned that the biosphere is dying due | to human action. He said two years ago that the biosphere is in | the last 1% of its life." | | https://archive.ph/I3dog | sampo wrote: | > "has warned that the biosphere is dying due to human | action. He said two years ago that the biosphere is in the | last 1% of its life." | | Having read many of his books, these are two different | things. Biosphere is about 4 billion years old, so the last | 1% is still 40 million years. This is inevitable, as the Sun | grows warmer, eventually planet Earth gets too warm for life | as well. But this death-in-40-million-years timescale is | unrelated to human action. | TremendousJudge wrote: | The "biosphere" will be fine. It's been through much worse. | | It's the humans that are screwed. | dang wrote: | Actually, let's switch to that from | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock. | | Wikipedia pages usually aren't as good for HN submission as | more specific in-depth articles, and you're right, this is a | nice one. | balentio wrote: | This guy is one of those iconoclastic fellows who people | partially agree with on one point, and completely disagree with | on another. It's pretty hard to reconcile nuclear energy with the | idea that the planet self-regulates since nuclear energy screws | most of those self-regulatory mechanisms up and seems to require | vast sums of time to undo. | pixl97 wrote: | Wildlife wise the area around Chernobyl isn't doing that bad | after one of the worst nuclear disaster we could imagine. For | longer lived lifeforms like humans it's much more problematic, | but shorter lived creatures experience less decay events and | are less effected. The hottest nuclides decay in the range of | decades. The long lived stuff decays much more slowly, hence is | less dangerous. | balentio wrote: | <The long lived stuff decays much more slowly, hence is less | dangerous.> | | Unless you are human. | wiredearp wrote: | What natural mechanism do you belive nuclear energy to | influence? | balentio wrote: | Radioactivity--particularly waste/water. | hungryforcodes wrote: | That's fine you think that -- links? | balentio wrote: | https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/05/22/fukushi | mas... | samstave wrote: | An impressive mind. | | I love the stories of children of adversity that rise to | greatness. | | His father was illiterate. his mother, while educated, worked at | a pickle factory. Quick, name the nearest pickle factory to your | village! | | --- | | The Gaia Revelation is something that Humans should be throwing | every resource at ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-27 23:00 UTC)