Great conversation. As an organ of the biosphere my vote is: let's sporulate. Why so many people view sporulation (space colonization stuff) and biophilia (environmentalism stuff) as mutually exclusive is beyond me. As a lover of complexity I think panspermiating is obligatory.
the individual is a human construct and only a small link in the larger biological, species, cell, dna, etc. features and systems of life. as the author says, we need new stories and awareness of 'us'
we're retreating from our conceptual integration w/ nature at the moment and vomiting all over it, but, nature has an amazing capacity to consume as well and redistribute on scales of millennia and beyond ... but for humans, their capacity to create pain may prevail in the short-term
And... Here's a comment to be critical of the discussion: when you guys say "Gaia", you're really only referencing " the noosphere ". Gaia theory, by Lovelock and Margulis, actually has nothing to do with mind, outside of our own abilities to interpret our interaction with the system. Gaia theory is Biospheric Geophysiology. It is Ecology. And without the fundamental understanding of the mechanisms that make up what we refer to as: Nature, I.e. the soil-carbon-sponge, the Calvin/Krebs cycles that make up the dynamo of Life, soil-food-web down to the homeostasis generated by life's centropic capacity. These elements are kinda critical when analyzing the biosphere. Love the talk, but if we're not getting the mechanics of Gaia theory, then we are just philosophizing. Thanks
Maybe we weren’t clear then but that is precisely what I had in mind as our referent for “Gaia.” Our discussion was about relating mind and the noosphere to that Gaia system out of which they arose and by which they could be more intimately patterned.
Right on Brendan. Good work, as I earlier said. It's an important discussion and I hope you keep it going. All I'm saying, is that to actually address any of the fundamental aspects of the Gaia Theory, we have to follow up with what it laid the groundwork for, and that really has to include soil health, in all its ecosystem ramifications. Without including the practical elements of what it means to behave regeneratively vs degeneratively, then we remain stuck in the realm of philosophizing on the concept of the noosphere.
Or science has made products with surplus demand, unlike your guest's surplus imagination. So, unethical people exploit this fact. What he is trying to exploit is beyond me but it ain't ethical.
Fascinating ideas!
Great conversation. As an organ of the biosphere my vote is: let's sporulate. Why so many people view sporulation (space colonization stuff) and biophilia (environmentalism stuff) as mutually exclusive is beyond me. As a lover of complexity I think panspermiating is obligatory.
the individual is a human construct and only a small link in the larger biological, species, cell, dna, etc. features and systems of life. as the author says, we need new stories and awareness of 'us'
we're retreating from our conceptual integration w/ nature at the moment and vomiting all over it, but, nature has an amazing capacity to consume as well and redistribute on scales of millennia and beyond ... but for humans, their capacity to create pain may prevail in the short-term
And... Here's a comment to be critical of the discussion: when you guys say "Gaia", you're really only referencing " the noosphere ". Gaia theory, by Lovelock and Margulis, actually has nothing to do with mind, outside of our own abilities to interpret our interaction with the system.
Gaia theory is Biospheric Geophysiology. It is Ecology. And without the fundamental understanding of the mechanisms that make up what we refer to as: Nature, I.e. the soil-carbon-sponge, the Calvin/Krebs cycles that make up the dynamo of Life, soil-food-web down to the homeostasis generated by life's centropic capacity. These elements are kinda critical when analyzing the biosphere. Love the talk, but if we're not getting the mechanics of Gaia theory, then we are just philosophizing.
Thanks
Maybe we weren’t clear then but that is precisely what I had in mind as our referent for “Gaia.” Our discussion was about relating mind and the noosphere to that Gaia system out of which they arose and by which they could be more intimately patterned.
Right on Brendan. Good work, as I earlier said. It's an important discussion and I hope you keep it going. All I'm saying, is that to actually address any of the fundamental aspects of the Gaia Theory, we have to follow up with what it laid the groundwork for, and that really has to include soil health, in all its ecosystem ramifications. Without including the practical elements of what it means to behave regeneratively vs degeneratively, then we remain stuck in the realm of philosophizing on the concept of the noosphere.
Or science has made products with surplus demand, unlike your guest's surplus imagination. So, unethical people exploit this fact. What he is trying to exploit is beyond me but it ain't ethical.