Medea vs gaia

[BlackCat]

Who wins ?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8855.html

In The Medea Hypothesis, renowned paleontologist Peter Ward proposes a revolutionary and provocative vision of life's relationship with the Earth's biosphere--one that has frightening implications for our future, yet also offers hope. Using the latest discoveries from the geological record, he argues that life might be its own worst enemy. This stands in stark contrast to James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis--the idea that life sustains habitable conditions on Earth. In answer to Gaia, which draws on the idea of the "good mother" who nurtures life, Ward invokes Medea, the mythical mother who killed her own children. Could life by its very nature threaten its own existence?

According to the Medea hypothesis, it does. Ward demonstrates that all but one of the mass extinctions that have struck Earth were caused by life itself. He looks at our planet's history in a new way, revealing an Earth that is witnessing an alarming decline of diversity and biomass--a decline brought on by life's own "biocidal" tendencies. And the Medea hypothesis applies not just to our planet--its dire prognosis extends to all potential life in the universe. Yet life on Earth doesn't have to be lethal. Ward shows why, but warns that our time is running out.

Breathtaking in scope, The Medea Hypothesis is certain to arouse fierce debate and radically transform our worldview. It serves as an urgent challenge to all of us to think in new ways if we hope to save ourselves from ourselves.

Peter Ward's many books include the highly acclaimed Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe and Under a Green Sky (Collins). He is professor of biology and Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington, and an astrobiologist with NASA.

Reviews:

"Ward holds the Gaia Hypothesis, and the thinking behind it, responsible for encouraging a set of fairy-tale assumptions about the earth, and he'd like his new book, due out this spring, to help puncture them. He hopes not only to shake the philosophical underpinnings of environmentalism, but to reshape our understanding of our relationship with nature, and of life's ultimate sustainability on this planet and beyond."--Drake Bennett, Boston Globe

"The point of The Medea Hypothesis is that life, rather than helping to regulate the Earth 'System' by negative feedbacks, does all it can to consume the resources available--sowing the seeds of its own extinction."--Dr. Henry Gee, BBC Focus Magazine

"When avid science readers browse the shelves for new titles, the books that grab their attention are best described by a single adjective: thought-provoking. And no scientist/author is more provocative in his approach and innovative in his thinking than University of Washington astrobiologist Peter Ward . . . . [R]eaders looking for solace will not find it in Ward's latest effort, The Medea Hypothesis. This time Ward goes after motherhood itself--or at least the central idea of the Gaia ('good mother') hypothesis that has evolved to describe the relationship between life and the planet as a whole."--Fred Bortz, Seattle Times

"[Ward] makes his points succinctly and supports them well."--Rebecca Wigood, Vancouver Sun

Endorsements:

"A provocative look at the history of our living planet. Ward offers a distinct perspective and argues strongly that the only intelligent choice is to manage ourselves and the environment. The Medea Hypothesis will cause anyone who cares about the environment to think differently."--Thomas E. Lovejoy, president of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment

[Kuciwalker]

In The Medea Hypothesis, renowned paleontologist Peter Ward proposes a revolutionary and provocative vision of life's relationship with the Earth's biosphere--one that has frightening implications for our future, yet also offers hope. Using the latest discoveries from the geological record, he argues that life might be its own worst enemy. This stands in stark contrast to James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis--the idea that life sustains habitable conditions on Earth. In answer to Gaia, which draws on the idea of the "good mother" who nurtures life, Ward invokes Medea, the mythical mother who killed her own children. Could life by its very nature threaten its own existence?

Whoever wrote this paragraph should be shot.

According to the Medea hypothesis, it does. Ward demonstrates that all but one of the mass extinctions that have struck Earth were caused by life itself. He looks at our planet's history in a new way, revealing an Earth that is witnessing an alarming decline of diversity and biomass--a decline brought on by life's own "biocidal" tendencies. And the Medea hypothesis applies not just to our planet--its dire prognosis extends to all potential life in the universe. Yet life on Earth doesn't have to be lethal. Ward shows why, but warns that our time is running out.

This is nonsense.

[Sirotnikov]

Another more concrete theory relying on space physics:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_extinction_oscillator/

[...]

I was always interested in this, but only as a spectator. Most of my scientific career had been in cosmology, working on computational models for the formation of structure after the big bang, dreaming of vast sheets and filaments of dark matter upon which galaxies congealed like dust settling on soap bubbles. But a few years ago I was drawn into a novel field that really doesn’t yet have a name, a blending of astrophysics and paleontology. Each year more evidence shows that past and future cosmic events, such as the deaths of distant stars or the orbits of comets, profoundly shape life on Earth. With this in mind, I began watching the literature for anything related to extinctions or the long-term history of the fossil record.

Soon I was losing sleep over something I’d read in a 2005 issue of Nature. Robert Rohde and his mentor, Richard Muller of UC Berkeley, had reported a fascinating cycle in biodiversity within a major compendium of fossil data sets, a regular 62-million-year rise and fall in the count of all kinds of creatures. They had explored several mechanisms to explain it and found them lacking, but both they and their editors deemed the signal so significant that it was published.

[...]

Using the revised timescales and Fourier analysis, Rohde and Muller looked for a periodic signal in the history of biodiversity. They began by subtracting out biodiversity’s long-term growth—a vital step if you want to find any short-term signal (the wiggles) superimposed upon the rising curve. They were looking for evidence of a 26-millionyear cycle that had been hinted at in the 1980s; the strong peak in their power spectrum indicating a 62-million-year cycle was a surprise. Using the same data, Bruce Lieberman and I checked their results. We estimated the 62-million-year peak had a 1 in 100 probability of arising through random chance. Then, collaborating with paleobiologist Richard Bambach, we found evidence of the same cycle in three more data sets.

[...]

It takes about 200 million years for the Sun to complete one orbit around the center of our Milky Way galaxy. Moreover, the galaxy is a thin disk, and there is also a motion along a vertical direction. As our solar system slowly orbits the Milky Way’s center, it oscillates through the galactic plane with a period of around 65 million years. When we move up in the disk, we are pulled back down by gravity, coasting past the midpoint, then rising back up again, akin to a weight bobbing up and down on a spring.

[...]

Trying to understand all this, I did something that in retrospect is fairly obvious: I looked at the phase. That is, how did the cycles of biodiversity and the Sun’s bobbing motion correspond? People had already computed the history of the Sun’s galactic orbit. It turns out that the biodiversity minima of the 62-million- year cycle happens when the Sun is “bobbed up” on only one side of the galaxy, when the solar system is on the disk’s upper, “north” side. So I visited my colleague Barbara Anthony-Twarog in the office next door. She has a beach ball painted with constellations, the Milky Way, and astronomical coordinate systems. It confirmed what I recalled: The galaxy’s north side lies toward the constellation Virgo, as well as the largest concentration of mass in our neighborhood, the Local Supercluster some 60 million light-years away. This supercluster is so massive that its gravity pulls our galaxy toward it at a velocity of about 200 kilometers per second.

This realization was the key for what follows, which I developed with my collaborator Mikhail Medvedev. The space between galaxies is not empty. It’s actually full of rarefied hot gas. As our galaxy falls into the Local Supercluster, it should disturb this gas and create a shock wave, like the bow shock of a jet plane. Shocks in hot gas at such high speeds generate cascades of high-energy subatomic particles and radiation called “cosmic rays.” These should be showering the north side of the galaxy’s disk. We are protected by the galactic magnetic field, much as the Earth’s magnetic field protects our planet. When we rise to the north side, we are less protected—and the ensuing flux of cosmic rays contains particles of such energy that they can reach the Earth’s surface.


So what’s the harm? Of course, radiation can be dangerous. It can lead to mutations, most of which are detrimental, often fatal, to organisms carrying them. The cancer rate would likely rise. Although it takes many mutations to do this, the rate of evolution of new species might rise too, thus assisting the rapid diversifications seen after major extinctions. We also know that cosmic rays ionize the atmosphere, knocking electrons out of atoms, and this as well might have detrimental effects, like enhanced cloud formation and depletion of the ozone layer. More clouds make the Earth more reflective, reducing the amount of solar heat reaching the ground and making the biosphere less productive. Ozone protects us from a dangerous form of ultraviolet light from the Sun. So the Earth would lose a lot of its sunblock, inducing cancers as well as killing off many small organisms at the base of the food chain, potentially leading to a population crash.

[...]

[loinburger]

My Circe hypothesis says that all men are pigs.

[zakubandit]

So the dinosaurs must have been horrible to the environment to warrant their own destruction. I mean, yea those triceratops and their damned...polluting...piles of poop?

This is like Scientology, only completely retarded idiots are going to believe and follow it.

[BlackCat]

So the dinosaurs must have been horrible to the environment to warrant their own destruction. I mean, yea those triceratops and their damned...polluting...piles of poop?

This is like Scientology, only completely retarded idiots are going to believe and follow it.

Well, then I'm considering that you are a supporter of the Gaian theory

[zakubandit]

Actually not really. They are both ridiculous, just the Medea theory is more...scientologist like

[BlackCat]

Actually not really. They are both ridiculous, just the Medea theory is more...scientologist like

Yoy, Sir, are certainly neither an Asher nor a Ben - not in for an easy tease.

While I find that the Gaia theory is rediciosly, I still can see some reason in the medea. One species that takes control and grow beyond capability could make havoc - mankind haven't done that yet and there is a long way before they do, but they can if not watched.

[Alinestra Covelia]

My Procrustes theory says all men are equal.

(...even if they're not created that way...)

[BlackCat]

My Procrustes theory says all men are equal.

(...even if they're not created that way...)

Well, you are a woman, so your opinion doesn't count - even Prokoptas will agree

Now get back to the kitchen

[Solomwi]

My Procrustes theory says all men are equal.

(...even if they're not created that way...)

Yeah, well my Snoop Dogg theory says *****es ain't **** but hoes and tricks.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Well, you are a woman, so your opinion doesn't count - even Prokoptas will agree

Watch it. You remember what Xanthippe did to Socrates.

(We need a "golden shower" smiley.)

[Solomwi]

(We need a "golden shower" smiley.)

Aaaaand the "we need a ______ smiley" meme goes to its watery grave. Congratulations, Ali.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Aaaaand the "we need a ______ smiley" meme goes to its watery grave. Congratulations, Ali.

Over a year ago.

[Solomwi]

I disagree. I, for one, would have welcomed a Sybian smiley. I held that opinion then, and hold it still today.