Gaia and Anthropic Views by Philosophers and Scientists - Essay Example

Compare and Contrast the Anthropic Principle and the Gaia Hypothesis The anthropic cosmological principle, according to its weak form, s that the universe must be such so as to allow and sustain life. This particular occurrence is referred to as tautology, and has different outcomes and implications (Heilbron). A very interesting fact is that carbon, oxygen and nitrogen is present and forms inside the stars for over long period of times, whereas when the Bing Bang had occurred, hydrogen and helium had instantly formed. Thus the universe is very old, even older than the stars that it contains, but at the same time it is young enough to have our own sun, which has still not expired. It has been stated, scientifically, that the universe is expanding at a pace which is neither too slow and neither too fast, as it depends on the density of the universe. A nano-fractional difference in the rate of expansion of the universe would have meant either a big crunch or a big chill, and life wouldn’t have existed. Small changes in gravitation, electromagnetic forces, masses and charge of electromagnetic particles would have rendered life practically impossible (Schneider, 72; Roszak, 121). The strong version of the anthropic principle, constructed in the 1970’s that the universe was created and was set and tuned accordingly so that life could evolve in it. This version moves on from scientific facts to religion (Heilbron; Roszak, 112-113). On the other hand the Gaia theory was constructed by scientist James Lovelock in 1979. He came up with a question asking how the availability of life on a planet could be determined from a distance. The Gaia hypothesis has been defined as a hypothesis, which states: “We are indeed living in an ordered and intelligent universe, but it is to be looked upon as a single living being, Gaia, of which, useless and until we hear otherwise from outer space, we are that intelligence’s current highest expression.” (Conway and Sprangler, 194) He compared the earth to its neighbors. He said that the earth contained different compounds which were unstable, such as oxygen and methane. He believed that living organisms modulated the atmosphere. Oxygen was not actually the most important substance needed for life, as it was toxic to certain types of bacteria. This hypothesis considers the earth as a living organism. The earth has maintained a temperature for billions of years and there had been complex mixing of physical, chemical and biological systems that sustain this temperature. The reason why earth hadn’t suffered a severe greenhouse effect is that whatever excess carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, photosynthesis increases and drive the temperatures down (Heilbron; Schneider,15-17; Roszak, 145). In this article we argue as to which approach is more appealing and is more logical according to me. Comparison Gaia tells us about the continuity of life, whereas anthropic principle tells us why and what made life possible. Anthropic principle has two versions, one weak and the other strong. The weak anthropic view tells us how universe was created for life to occur, but any slight change would erase everything. The stronger version goes beyond science, involving theology, it still tells us that earth has many processes which depend on each other and shape life (Schneider, 15-17). The anthropic principle believes that the living organisms evolved form the life generating elements, which had evolved in turn from the centre of stars over years. The Gaia theory however believed that the earth had existed over a billion years, and in that time whatever changes had happened, everything had been in respect to the living organism the earth. (Schneider, 15, 72-73; Chmielewski, 2-3). The anthropic principle involves solving the mysteries of why space is three dimensional, why the world is so hot and old. How the appearance of life depends on meeting the right conditions. The fact that our world meets exact conditions for which life exists is the foundations of life. The Gaia theory on the other hand tries to explain that earth hadn’t changed over the last 5 billion years and how there have been no changes in those billion years time. It searches for links between the natural environment around us and life, the influence of certain elements on the environment around it (Schneider, 15-17; Roszak, 118, 145) Under anthropic principles, carbon has been considered a very important element. Scientists show that the elements that constitute life, water or carbon dioxide aren’t just any random combination. It is fully dependent on the metabolism and other life processes. The appearance of carbon was not directly from the Big Bang; instead, it came from the combustion in the centre of stars (Schneider, 15-17, Chmielewski, 2-3) Gaia points out that biosphere isn’t just something which depends on the environment, but it chooses and creates its own surroundings, creating favorable conditions for conducting life (Schneider, 15-17, 72-73; Chmielewski, 2; Roszak, 118) . Under anthropic principle, it is revealed that any slight change in the composition of the hydrogen and helium would cause life not to exist, whereas the Gaia believes that any change in the earth, even the consistency of the carbon dioxide release is balanced by the earth, by a process of increased photosynthesis. In a way the Gaia tell us that the living nature of the universe always supported life, while the anthropic point of view suggested that life was only possible because of the elements falling in place over time, even the slightest mismatch of hydrogen helium would not support life even in the presence of carbon (Schneider, 15-17, Chmielewski, 2; Roszak, 121) From the theological point of view, anthropic principle has been presented as a religious cult based on the presence of God and keeping ones destiny in the hands of the creator and believes that anything that is created is not everlasting and the existence can come to an end any moment. Gaia has a different view on that, and shows the creator as same as nature. Here living beings have been created and have been given the task regulating their own surroundings and the Earth. The important life processes occur periodically and it is not very easy to destroy as it is highly resistant to any king of disruptions (Chmielewski, 4). Overall the anthrophic principle is based on science and the facts represented by science appear highly logical against the facts given by the philosophical view offered by Gaia theory. The Gaia is a hypothesis, and it asks new questions by and by and gives answers accordingly. Anthropic principle differs mainly in the point that any change in the slightest fraction of the composition of the universe can wipe out everything, and it can be rightly believed so. Even the carbon, was formed due to nuclear fission inside the stars. All this gradually led to the appearance of living beings The Gaia whereas points out that the life forces drive everything, the environment and the world. It is highly based on the belief that the creator or God as the ruler of the universe. From a logical point of view, the scientific reasoning of anthropic appeals more to me than the mere hypothesis of the living force being the sole driving force. Conclusion Thus we see that both Gaia and anthropic views have been criticized in many ways. While believes in the Big bang and the scientific point of view, the other explores the boundaries of the world and the creator and their relation. If we consider the planets Venus, Mars and Mercury, the Earth in comparison has some element of luck, for which the biosphere in it survives. Debates regarding the two are quite intriguing and reveal fascinating facts. Gaia theory is still explored by philosophers and scientists from around the world and they try to understand if indeed there is a creator who is driving all mankind. References Chmielewski, Andrzej, “Earth’s organism in amiable Universe”, 42-200 Czestochowa , Poland, 1-4. November 8, 2011 from: http://yearofplanetearth.org/content/GLE/students/81_Poland_Andrzej-Chmielewski.pdf Conway, Pierre and Spangler, Mary Michael, “Faith views the universe: a Thomistic perspective”, Lanham: University Press of America, 1997. Heilbron, J. L., “The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy”, Volume 10, Oxford University Press, 2005. Roszak, Theodore, “The Voice of the Earth,” Grand Rapids: Phanes Press, 2001. Schneider, Stephen Henry,”Scientists debate Gaia: the next century”, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004. Read More