Who knows if the earth is a gigantic living creature or not? Really? Yeah, I guess, some guy on the internet said it, that instantly makes it plausible (to you)!
Anyway, yeah if you're saying that humans are parasitic to this non-existent planet-creature in the same way that all other life is, that's consistent.
If the earth is a living being then why doesn’t it flinch when I stick a shovel into it?
But isn’t the earth as a living being an analogy much like the so-called God particle?
People don’t handle philosophical analogies well. Look at all the confusion introducing ‘possible worlds’ to general conversation has caused.
That’s not really what the OP was saying the Gaia hypothesis says that the ecosystem is a gestalt of entities that rely on interaction to promote survival, rather than the planet itself has any drive to promote any sort of sentient order. The OP is a bad analogy it’s not close to what the Gaia hypothesis says. And the Gaia hypothesis is not currently more than fringe in science anyway, one could argue that it’s more a set of competing strategies that eventually settle into some sort of equilibrium, if and only if the environment becomes stable. It has some uses in describing ecosystems as symbiotic collections of organisms, unlike the OP, which is making bad analogies to promote a conscious identity on a whole that is in no way justified.
Not really. The God particle was a nickname because the Higgs Boson was mysterious and extremely elusive. That was the analogy with God.
The Gaia Hypothesis has more to it than that by far. Note: it is not positing consciousness to the planet as a unit, at least not Lovelock’s version of the Gaia Hypothesis.
That’s what I mean though. The gaia hypothesis is not literally saying the earth is a literal conscious god/goddess as the OP is.
I agree, but Calling the Higgs Boson the God particle has no basis in fact. In terms of what the Higgs Boson is. It is about the process of trying to find it as experienced by researchers. It was never that someone thought Higgs Bosons created the universe and were consciuos deities. Not by those who started tossing the term around.
The Gaia Hyposthesis does offer support for seeing the World as a single organism. So content fits with content in the OP. I probably overstated by saying ‘close’ in my first post. I was probably reacting to the what seemed like Quick dismissal.
The OP is oddly written - second language? - but it does seem to be saying that the Earth is not THE GOD. But a level higher than us and somehow causal to us and a kind of Life form. He says something about the universe creating the Earth, so clearly the Earth is not Jehovah or Vishnu. And then that the Earth created us (as suborganisms, I would read it).
This is not the Gaia Hypothesis, but it shares some things with it. Also it should be noted that the Gaia Hypothesis was scorned and dismissed for a long time and then finally, as evidence came in, accepted in many key ways. I Think exploring things that are beyond the accepted can be useful, so I weighed in to see if I could help it Breathe.
I suppose anthropomorphizing the earth into a human like being can’t hurt. But can we give the earth legal rights … with equal legal standing and protection of the law? Can’t the earth, as a living being, be considered a protected species?
Can we carry the concept of a conscious earth out to such a point? Or is it so, just in the abstract?
=D> I think we should declare the Earth conscious or living in order to pass laws that protect it from us.
Well, since we’re making it up as we go along and there’s not a lick of truth in it, I suppose we could extrapolate it in any direction we choose, like Irreleus suggests.
Gerry Spence – of, HOW TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERY TIME – once argued to a court that trees are actual living beings, unlike corporations, and should have more rights than corporations. The judge didn’t buy it.
http://freedom-school.com/lessons/how-to-argue-and-win-every-time.pdf
Well, that’s only a problem if you actually have a judge. I’m wondering if Irreleus is joking, or if he thinks making up existential bullshit out of whole cloth to justify laws he’d like to see is good praxis.
No reason to pick on Ierrellus. His heart is in the right place. He’s perchance just an earth hugger. And since it’s said here that the earth is a living being it could prolly use a big hug.
Yep. That’s all the deeper I can dig. I understand the OP and consider the Earth is alive proposition a mere analogy–unfortunately.
And we don’t even make sacrifices to honor, appreciate, and respect the sacrifice the earth makes for our living and being. The earth is like Jesus. It’s dying so we can live. We’ve got it nailed to a cross, metaphorically speaking.
And talking about Gaia … We’re raping her. We’re plundering that goddess …
But honestly, she seems to like it. The earth is tough. She’s gonna win … and will eventually bend us over.
Paraphrase from faulty memory–
"Flower in a crannied wall,
I pluck thee from the crannies.
If I could know thee all in all,
I’d know what God and Man is. "
`The swirl of a galaxy and the swirl of a gown resemble one another not
merely by accident, but because they follow the grain of the universe.‘’
- "Hunting for Hope’’ - Scott Russell Sanders
Endorsing made up mythologies to justify a political movement isn’t ‘having your heart in the right place’. If there is such a thing as intellectual virtue, it’s evil. Like Plato was evil. That’s why I was wondering if he meant it or not.
I do not endorse “made up mythologies”. How did this thread get to be about me? 