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 hy

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...