I had an odd dream a few nights ago, i dont know if this was some obscure theory but what if the earth was a giant living organism and all other planets were dead? Would it be possible that all life on this planet was created to keep the planet alive? Would it be possible that we were created to burn off fossil fuels and make sure the earths 'body' is kept in shape? Could it be possible that we and other animals are like earths cells and the atmosphere is like its skin? Is the globe one giant 'body'? Please discuss.
Nope, not possible. The existence of any life form is to propogate itself and to reproduce. This holds true for EVERY living thing. The planet cannot reproduce itself in any way shape of form. You could say that certain occurrences can metaphorically be the Earth's bodily functions, such as volcano eruptions, storms, etc. etc. However, every large-scale occurrence serves to reobtain a certain equilibrium. Too much magma pressure? It must release to reobtain thermodynamic equilibrium. Rain? Another restoring force. Lightning? Don't even get me started there. Besides that, there are many other planets out there. We have detected some 130+ planets outside of our solar system. By the way, Pluto isn't really a planet =P. Anyways, there are planets which may share similar characteristics to our own but they don't necessarily have life. If the Earth was a planet, what would its purpose be? You could say that the laws of physics govern the Earth's "body" in absence of any form of nervous system, but the laws of physics are universal. I suspect that each insect may respond differently to different stimuli. Whether or not that is true, it is obviously true that higher beings such as rats, birds, dogs, cats, humans, etc. each act very VERY differently even to the same stimuli, even among members of the same species. If the planet were a motionary organism, why would it remain in the same position behaving in the same manner indefinitely? Given the amount of energy it takes for a person to function, what would apply the energy for a planet to operate or move itself? Living tissue requires a constant replenishing energy supply. This is not one of my most compelling or defendable arguments, but it might make some sense. So if the Earth is not able to move, then it must be a static life form unable to move from its predestined path. The Earth seeks not to multiply or propogate. Nor does the Earth possess any intelligence. If the Earth were alive, it would need a constant energy source which it would convert and then discard in its waste form. I just don't see how that could happen. This is a rather interesting theory, and I look forward to see if anyone defends the idea that the Earth may be alive. Although, bear in mind that I am not speaking in a philosophical sense. It's 5 am and I'm about to fall asleep. I wonder if my dream will be related to this due to its time proximity. EDIT: Rereading your original post, I cannot argue against the atmosphere acting like skin because they're quite similar in function. However, cells usually are unifunctional, serving a generally specified purpose. Cells are usually aware of their function. There are of course ecosystems where smaller organisms thrive in or on another (parasitic and bacterial organisms). Hmm... I can't really argue against this, but there aren't really life forms which serve the Earth directly. Rocks are inorganic and cannot be part of any organic lifeform. Trees seek to propogate. You really cannot say that sentient beings and lower life forms still possessing independant thought and/or instincts are part of another larger life form. For example although there may exist parasites in another organism, they are not considered part of the organism.
Stuey83: You were on a winner when discussing the definition of lifeform as an entity that reproduces. In that respect the Earth is not an organism. However you then go on to talk about purpose and behaviour, motion and energy conversion and that is where your argument loses it. For instance, what purpose does any life have? So let's not go there... when discussing behaviour and motion, I could refer you to plant life which does not exhibit very much of either. I mean, a plant generally just sits there (I watched very closely). It does not appear to respond to stimuli. It converts very small amounts of energy, very slowly. Yet it is life. Single-celled organisms behave in very simple, stereotypical ways. Again, they may respond to very few stimuli. They may convert infinitisimally small amounts of energy. Take lychen, for instance: in fact two symbiotic lifeforms (bacteria that produce acid as a waste product, thus releasing minerals from rock which a fungus uses, thus producing waste chemicals which feed the bacteria), there are varieties which grow in darkness under rocks in the cold climes of the Antartic. Very slowly; over a few centuries they expand perhaps by 1cm square. Sometimes, life isn't very much, it just is. It all comes down to definition. Now if you look at an organism as an organised (sic) system of recursive processes that converts energy, and works towards greater complexity, the Earth pretty much qualifies. It is a complex system of processes, they are mostly circular, they convert energy, and with the advent of life they (slowly) work towards increasing complexity. And by the way, it gets plenty of energy; the sun sheds it by the bucketloads. In fact the laws of thermodynamics (remember, the ones that go: you can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game) states that all energy in the Universe will eventually convert to heat radiation and dissipate: that's entropy for you. The more potential energy there is in a system, the more energy-guzzling, radical ways it finds towards entropy. Scientific research has proven that overall, life pretty much is the most inefficient, energy-guzzling process there is. So Earth must be getting plenty of juice. As for life forms being part of bigger life forms, one word: mytochondria. Mytochondria (as you will no doubt know, but I'm clarifying for the other readers) are the little organelles inside the cells of every living thing that actually do the trick of converting nutrients into useable energy (more specifically, glucose into adenotriphosphate). They are the little power generators of our body. Now if you look at them, they show every sign of being an independent lifeform: they are self-contained, they have their own internal structure and their own DNA. They even divide at a different time than the rest of the cell. Although they appear to be simple prokaryotic (no cell nucleus bearing) single-cell lifeforms that long ago assumed a symbiotic relationship with our single-cell ancestors, they still behave as if they have their suitcases packed to leave at a moment's notice (in fact, some off-the-wall theories suggest that all life is simply for the benefit of the propagation of mytochondriae, but I think that's rather far-fetched). So it is not, in theory, impossible for lifeforms on Earth to be incorporated in the system of a bigger lifeform which is the Earth. Except that humans may well qualify as a cancerous mutation. Thenagain, we may well represent a programmed self-destruct, like our own cells possess for the body to get rid of damaged and malfunctioning cells. Perhaps in the big Earth-scheme of things ozone holes, global pollution and nuclear winters are just stuff it uses to occasionally purge the system, so to speak. But I digress. As I said, it is all about perspective: about systems and processes. You will find that a lot of those that we uniquely ascribe to life are in fact replicated everywhere, in anything. Stands to reason, really, as we (life) are a product of our surrounding universe and its processes. We are just a variation on a theme, really. So why could the Earth not be? The only reason that the Earth does not qualify as a lifeform, strictly, is that it does not replicate. That we know of. Planetary life cycles may happen on a much slower, grander scale than we can get our head around, and work in very different ways. Somehow I do not see the Earth going through some big cell division. However it may seed itself... OK, big picture. Look at stars. See how their life cycle and death throws produce heavier elements necesary for planets and life itself. See how they gather dust in their gravity wells and coalesce planets. See how they lavish their warmth and light on them. On some, the conditions are favourable. Gradually they boil up the complex amino-acids necessary for life. With luck, some of those, thrown up by meteor impact, travel to other planets. But if that doesn't happen, life itself may, one day, make it out there in little metal seeds of its own... off to other stars, other planets, which it starts to terraform in the image of the mother from which it spawned. Long shot, but then again all life is, and many offspring fall by the wayside. That is natural selection for you. Let's hope we make it.
An interesting thought, Nexxo...you beat me to a lot of points here. But to add: First, it is important to note that our definition of life may frankly be one of limited scope, which hasn't necessarily been discussed here. If we are looking for the earth as a whole to fit within OUR definition of life, we may just be a little myopic. We say that life must propegate more life, but what about the simple ability to sustain life? and what if, by the earth's death as WE would call it (the breaking apart), it forms new cores for new planets? Then, by definition, it has divided, and formed two, further distinct organisms. Just because we don't survive the process does not mean it doesn't happen. And as for the premise of "specific purpose," As Nexxo stated, we have to define a point to life first. Cells make up a greater organism, and maybe each cell has a purpose in the greater organism, but then it's logical deduction to conclude that this organism has either (a) a purpose in a yet greater organism, or (b) no purpose at all. Either one would eliminate the argument as to whether the earth functions with a 'specific purpose' in the universe. In fact, maybe its greater purpose is simply to use up some of the matter and energy in the universe to provide that much slower of expansion (and subsequent contraction) due to entropy. By having dust and energy group together in an ordered form, it means one more thing that must be separated before the universe can completely implode on itself, thus allowing the universe to exist for a greater amount of time than it would have previously. Would that be any less of a specific purpose than a B-cell lymphocyte, for example?
So I take it then Im the only one to initially read the title as "What if our planet earth was a giant orgasm"
No, I re-read it about 3 times... But then again, I thought it was just cause I didn't have enough coffee to start the day with.
LOL The most important hallmark of life, according to some scientists (Ian Steward and Jack Cohen for instance) is that it works towards increasing levels of organisation, structure or order. It goes against the flow of entropy, so to speak. In that respect it is, as Da Dego says, slowing down entropy (or just finding a very florrid pathway for it). Moreover as Da Dego says, life may occur in many, many different shapes and forms. Chances are that if we ever do stumble across alien life, we may not even recognise it as such (we may have, already)... who is to say that Earth as a meta-organism doesn't fit the bill?
How come nobody has mentioned Gaia? This gets very chicken & egg, but basically life affects the environment, and the environment (oxygen levels, carbon dioxide levels, temperature, humidity, albedo, etc.,) affects how and in what forms life can develop. So the whole planet is involved in the grand scheme of things.
I guess someone beat me to the thought of thinking of the earth as a giant organism trying to sustain its own life. However, this would ultimately bring the awnser to the ultimate question. What is the meaning of life? The awnser would not be 42..but would be to keep the earth alive. Which makes sense considering if no life existed on earth, it would be 'dead'. However, if our earth is alive and is much like a common plant and may continue to reproduce int he long run. Unlike a plant, our planet, if it was alive could use its own gravitational field to attract a mate, or another planet, and colide with it. Killing off both planets (parents) and creating multiple smaller (or a much larger) child planet. Edit: Would this mean the moon is earths child?
If a planet is destroyed such that it divides at least into two half-size pieces, the sum of the results would not be equal to the value of the whole. I guess you could say that two children are not equal to one adult with dimensions or a or mental capacity equal to the sum of the two children. Plus, when considering that fragments of the Earth would just be inorganic materials, the Earth, if living, would not be propogate as a side effect of its destruction. The moon may be the Earth's "child", or it may be a "cousin", I'm not sure; I don't know if it's known or not.
There are many different factors that would say what size the child would end up. If it is completly destroyed (this would need a large object) both objects would continue to spin and rotate untill they formed a massive molten planet much larger than the two parents. If the planet was struck by a smaller object it could break off a small chunk and continue to rotate around the planet (am i correct on this?) assuming it was just the right size to not float off then come back and smash back into the planet.
When you cut a starfish's arm off, two starfish may form. If you cut a mammal's arm off, it does not grow back, and the arm is useless and the mammal is less functional. I believe that the planet would behave in a manner similar to the amputated limb example, IF it were indeed alive. Besides, if the Earth is destroyed by a mass similar in size, the particles won't necessarily recoalesce into a singular mass.
@cpemma: in fact I was thinking about Gaia all along. The Gaia theory is basically a nice summary of how the ecology of Earth as a whole replicates the same system and informational dynamics that exist on a smaller schale in the lifeforms that populate it. This reiteration is not uncommon in nature (think fractals, for example). It is based on that phenomenon that one could choose to regard the Earth as an organism --for a given definition of "organism". I think the Meaning of Life is one of those questions that will always elude a non-metaphysical answer. If you say the meaning of life is to sustain the Earth lifeform, then one could ask what the meaning of Earth's life is. You don't answer the question; you just move it up the scale a bit. I think you and Stuey83 forget something about the replication process though. Although Earth would split into two smaller bodies, there is nothing to stop those bodies from accrueing more mass and growing (gravitational lumping of matter). Stuey83 may also want to remember that with most lifeforms, the offspring is not equal to the sum of the parents, in size or capabilities. But offspring grows and develops. It's primarily the potential that is passed on from parent to child. This is the basic principle of life in the first place: it builds little by little on pre-existing processes and structures. As such nothing starts out from scratch, even if it appears to. The moon, by the way, is considered the result of a large planetary body (about the size of Mars) glancing off the Earth quite early in the formation of the solar system. It skimmed off mostly crust; this is why the moon consists mainly of mineral rock and has no metal core like the Earth does. You could say then that it is its child --or the embryo of one. Perhaps it waits, patiently circling the womb of Earth's gravity well, until life on Earth gets its act together and spreads out to the lunar body and terraforms it, thus finally completing the reproductive cycle. Perhaps however, it was too small and never accrued the critical mass needed to sustain an athmosphere which in turn could produce life. In that regard it could be a "miscarriage". Well, yes, but that is a bad comparison. Mammals could have re-grown their arms, quite like lizards do, if the genes triggering that process were still active in humans. Recent experiments in mice have managed to turn those genes back on, with spontaneous limb and neural regeneration as a result. You may also recall that the human liver has excellent regenerative properties. Basically unless it depends for its function on a particular differentiated structure, organs regenerate. Else they scar and function is to some exent lost. If we looked at Earth as a lifeform, we might regard it as a complex structure, but not a very differentiated one. Like plants, it has a remarkable flexibility in terms of the shape/structure it assumes, the complexity of biological processes notwithstanding. This is because beyond the basics (roots at the bottom, leaves on top, stems to scaffold it all) shape/structure doesn't matter all that much to its functioning. And by the way, gravitational lumping suggests that if the Earth were smashed apart by a similar sized object, chances are more likely than not that eventually the ring of rubble would coalesce again into a single body; perhaps two smaller ones, but usually one (this is also why single and binary stars are quite common, but arrangements like the Proxima Centauri setup are not) --which in turn would accrue random matter and steadily grow in size and mass over time. The Earth does. It accrues several tons of matter each day.
Can you elaborate on how the Earth accumulates several tons of matter each day? I know that there is much celestial matter out there, but bodies of significant mass are spread over large distances. I did not think that the Earth is bombarded enough each day to accumulate several tons of mass. That must be the case since mass cannot originate from the Earth's body itself. But the thing is, if the Earth is bombarded, then the fragmented pieces will be ejected such that it is inlikely their paths will mostly diverge. If mass is ejected with signficant velocity, which I believe is likely, then it will either escape in a parabolic trajectory in which it is not trapped in solar orbit, or it will develop an elliptical orbit around the sun through which it may or may not contact similar fragmented masses.
This is understood by Astronomers to be the case. About 500 baseball-sized rocks reach the surface each year, and every day about a hundred tons of extraterrestrial material rains onto our planet, most in the form of grains of dust that float gently downward and land undetected. Some of this comes from neighbouring bodies: the total flux of Martian material falling onto Earth has been estimated at about half a ton per year. there is also a fair amount coming from the moon, but most of it is dust and rock floating about the solar system. The Earth has a huge surface area, after all: 510,067,420 km². And as it barrels through space at about 20 miles per second, it scoops up a fair bit of stuff. Yes, but given enough time a lot of the matter will acrue into a rough disc orbitting the sun, and eventually it coalesces into a few bodies, then into one single body. This is how planets form. Many experiments have shown time and again that matter in an orbital plane around a center of gravity (like the sun) will eventually lump together in one spinning object.
The physics behind this...in space, there is no air resistance, so inertia holds 100% true. When something is bombarded and breaks apart, the size of the piece of rock that comes off will determine how much momentum it has as it breaks off (F=MA). As the gravitational effects trap the now floating debris in orbit around the sun, the opposing gravitational pull interacts with the object based on its mass and current direction/velocity. Thus, two objects of different sizes can potentially be in the same orbit, but they'll travel at different velocities, causing them to eventually collide unless collided into by another mass. Thus, each concentric orbit around the body will eventually develop to one mass, that (when it increases in size) will eventually shift orbit out or in to another circle since the gravity is now pulling on a greater object, where it will collide with the mass in that circle. Hence, a giant ring of dust (which would be of all different sizes) would coalesce into a new planet relatively quickly (as far as universe time is concerned). If interfered with by some cosmic happenstance (or if two balls develop at considerably different orbits due to the sizes of dust that collide), it would be easy to see the one planet becoming two distinct and viable planets...known at a cellular level as mitosis.
I have had the whole day to think about this thread, and after all my rationalization, I have to agree, Nexxo's argument in relatively undoubtable. Thus, I rescind any of my arguments that may conflict.
It all comes down to perspective. As you rightly argued, the definition of lifeform includes propagation, and if the Earth is not doing that, it is hard to argue that it is a lifeform --even though as an ecosystem it shows many, many similarities with what we consider to be lifeforms-- although not impossible because of said similarities. A similar analogy occurs in "The Selfish Gene" theory by Richard Dawkins, who proposed that liferorms (inc. us) are just vehicles for the continued existence and propagation of genes, even though he meant it as a metaphor, not literally (he just wanted people to shift perspective to gain understanding of the processes). From a certain perspective, that is indeed what appears to be happening. From another however, we'd say that genes are the the vehicle by which we exist and propagate. Perhaps both are true at the same time; that can happen too, as in the case of our cellular symbiosis with the mytochondriae. Or look at the lychen: bacteria and fungus: which serves as a means of survival/propagation for which? Actually, they both do for each other. Thing is, as we know more of the universe, we have to start shifting our concepts to more abstract levels. From physical form to function, information, pattern, behaviour. We are finding that genes do not have to be made of DNA; any structure that can form (even simple) patterns will do. It is the information or pattern that turns out to be important. We have discovered the concept of "memes": ideas that appear to progagate and mutate like genes or virusses do. Physical form is unimportant. This is also why if you program something to behave like a virus in World of Warcraft, it will do just that. Again it is the behaviour that matters, not the physical form... If we actually do bump into alien life, chances are we will not recognise it as such, unless we seriously shift our ideas. Already we have found life living in conditions we thought were out of bounds, near vulcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, at immense pressures and in deep darkness, vaccilating between -60C and several hundreds of degrees plus. One sea-cucumber-like lifeform attains a lenght of several meters, one end next to the vent at +80C, the other end in cold water at -30C or something. It seems happy with both. We have found algae growing in the afterburner nozzles of jet fighters. We find bacteria operating happily in positively lethal conditions. Life appears to be everywhere, and it isn't too picky about its surroundings. Given that fact, and the fact that behaviour or pattern, not form matters, who is to say there couldn't be "life" in the plasma flux of the sun's surface? Or in the layers of compressed gas of Jupiter's atmosphere? Or in subterranean seas under the thick layers of ice of Europe (Jupiter's moon) or the methane mud lakes of Titan? Or even in the cold hydrogen clouds of space or the ripples of a gravity well? It's a weird and wondrous Universe out there...
