I know that Gaia hypothesis is too theoretical. That is why i said only using the part that Earth regulates the composition of matter. But matter and energy are two different things right? So, maybe earth doesn't regulate energy as good as matter?
Well, anyway, it seems too theoretical rather than showing any evidences at all. But can converting heat energy to matter be a solution for global warming?
No the Gaia hypothesis is related to intelligent design, assuming that things have a purpose. Who defined that purpose? Moreover the Gaia hypothesis is not following the scientific method, ie is not falsiable as you can go any way you like, for instance:
"Gaia needed mankind to start recycling lost carbon in the lithosphere for the purpose of both increasing the available carbon to create more biomass and mitigate the next ice age with more greenhouse effect". So. you can have it any way you want. That's not science.
I thought that the base of Gaia theory was that it sees Earth as one living organism. Before global warming was identified, it puzzled scientists why there are always the same composition in matter, same acidity in the oceanic water on Earth, etc. Right, Gaia theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has not been proved.
Most of the scientists and so do i, don't accept Gaia as a organism but rather see the Earth as a system. But still, what is considered acceptable, why not use it for an advantage. Some parts of the Gaia theory were said to be useful for some living environment and Earth science applications.
We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving