4 ms·

The Origins of ‘Planetary Realism’ and ‘Whole Earth’ Thinking

8 points by conanxin 5y ago

ComradePhil 5y ago
These ideas come from thinktanks and their partner media prioritizing certain ideas over others. Usually, behind these, are certain market interests. They talk about "Gaia" in context of "species extinction" (as if Gaia would care about unviable species going extinct) or "pollution" but limit it to a scale that is important to their bottomline. You will never hear them talk about how CO2 levels have been much much higher before and Gaia was fine for all those millions of years... in fact Gaia would love for humans to pump out fossilized carbon into the atmosphere or at least shallow earth so that it can come back to circulation. But that is not the narrative that is convinient to their bottomline. Similarly, having low intelligence species which are not able to protect Gaia from external threats such as asteroid impacts or alien invasion are of little importance to Gaia. Also, Gaia knows that humans are not the "final" species. Species can diversify into several species. So, she wouldn't be worried about things like some wolf sub-species going extinct. I am not saying there is a definitely a coherent super-intelligence in life and I am not saying it can't exist. What I am saying is that the people imagining this are imagining this from their own interests and are anthropomorphising it so that it is marketable.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  I think you've made a lot of assumptions about what everyone in the article said. In the article, Stewart ("Whole Earth Catalog") Brand talks about the Gaia hypothesis [1] and some debate and refining of the idea. Gaia consists of biological systems integrated with nonbiological systems. There is nothing anthropomorphic in that Gaia. > . . . as if Gaia would care about . . . They don't mention Gaia's feels. > You will never hear them talk about how CO2 levels have been much much higher before . . . that is not the narrative that is convinient[sic] to their bottomline[sic] Higher CO2 levels damage the life that exists, thus Gaia. > Gaia knows that humans are not the "final" species. Nobody claimed that Gaia "knows" things. Except who killed JFK. (Kidding!) > I am not saying there is a definitely a coherent super-intelligence in life . . . Nothing in the article claimed "coherent super-intelligence." I just checked again and don't see it. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gaia-hypothesis https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci...
Natsu 5y ago
Apparently the origin was this: “On the roof of my apartment in San Francisco, I had an LSD-laced vision where I asked myself, ‘What am I going to do for humanity?’”

8 points by conanxin 5y ago

These ideas come from thinktanks and their partner media prioritizing certain ideas over others. Usually, behind these, are certain market interests. They talk about "Gaia" in context of "species extinction" (as if Gaia would care about unviable species going extinct) or "pollution" but limit it to a scale that is important to their bottomline. You will never hear them talk about how CO2 levels have been much much higher before and Gaia was fine for all those millions of years... in fact Gaia would love for humans to pump out fossilized carbon into the atmosphere or at least shallow earth so that it can come back to circulation. But that is not the narrative that is convinient to their bottomline. Similarly, having low intelligence species which are not able to protect Gaia from external threats such as asteroid impacts or alien invasion are of little importance to Gaia. Also, Gaia knows that humans are not the "final" species. Species can diversify into several species. So, she wouldn't be worried about things like some wolf sub-species going extinct. I am not saying there is a definitely a coherent super-intelligence in life and I am not saying it can't exist. What I am saying is that the people imagining this are imagining this from their own interests and are anthropomorphising it so that it is marketable.

drewcoo 5y ago
I think you've made a lot of assumptions about what everyone in the article said. In the article, Stewart ("Whole Earth Catalog") Brand talks about the Gaia hypothesis [1] and some debate and refining of the idea. Gaia consists of biological systems integrated with nonbiological systems. There is nothing anthropomorphic in that Gaia. > . . . as if Gaia would care about . . . They don't mention Gaia's feels. > You will never hear them talk about how CO2 levels have been much much higher before . . . that is not the narrative that is convinient[sic] to their bottomline[sic] Higher CO2 levels damage the life that exists, thus Gaia. > Gaia knows that humans are not the "final" species. Nobody claimed that Gaia "knows" things. Except who killed JFK. (Kidding!) > I am not saying there is a definitely a coherent super-intelligence in life . . . Nothing in the article claimed "coherent super-intelligence." I just checked again and don't see it. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gaia-hypothesis https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci...

Natsu 5y ago

Apparently the origin was this: “On the roof of my apartment in San Francisco, I had an LSD-laced vision where I asked myself, ‘What am I going to do for humanity?’”