Dear Sergei,

my view ist the following: Earth as a whole - or planetary-scale parts of it such as the biosphere, various coupled bio-geochemical cycles or the like - are not conscious/sentient entities. However, the notion of "regulation" as emerging out of the interactions of interconnected complex adaptive systems (CAS) (in the sense of complexity/systems science and also chaos theory) I still deem worth pondering. That being said, though, such potential "regulatory mechanisms" would simply constitute emergent phenomena (in the sense of the theories mentioned above).

Hope this helps a bit?

Best,

Julius

Sergei Andreevich Ostroumov, a bit strange question. Gaia Hypothesis is an [very] interesting scientific topic because it contradicts current worldview paradigm. Period.

@Eugene Eremchenko, thank you for answering. Could you please share your opinion, how would you formulate what is the 'current worldview paradigm'. You did not specify, the paradigm of what? The paradigm concerning which topic? Your opinion is of substantial interest to me. To express my interest and respect to you opinion, I recommended your answer.

Sergei Andreevich Ostroumov, thank you for your kind recommendation, I appreciate it.

I hope I understand Gaia Hypothesis correctly: Earth is a self-regulating living system. Current worldview paradigm based on the idea of [only] temporal perpetuation of life by the means of genetics. Gaia Hypothesis manifests the existence of at least two equal (or comparable) factors of life: 1) temporal (genetics), 2) spatial - origins of life existed not in the past only, but also in current space within geospatial volume called Gaia as a neighbour or distant sources of life.

I guess it is quite remarkable and thought-provoking shift of worldview paradigm.

The Gaia Hypothesis is captivating as it redefines conventional scientific perspectives by perceiving Earth as a self-sustaining, living entity, encouraging collaboration across fields like biology, geology, and climate science to study the intricate connections between life and its surroundings. It promotes a paradigm shift from fragmented, reductionist approaches to a comprehensive, systems-oriented understanding of Earth’s processes.

It's basically a metaphysical claim. Not one that science can address as science can only address empirical data. But scientists wlays work within metaphysical perceptions of one kind or another than that can affect what kind of science they do or not do. As for Gaia and other existenstial theories, one may or may not get anywhere with it. Think of the Monty Python skit:

C: Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. O: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!