Philosophy Discussion Forums

Percarus wrote:Would it not be best to co-relate the Gaia theory with the ‘altruist gene’? Ultimately insinuating that the whole ‘ecosystem’ can only thrive when abiding by the highest moral ideals (ie: ‘good’ ethics) since the establishment of order (not chaos) is attributive to success and continuation in any set of operations. Utilitarian ideals may indeed perceive the Gaia pseudo theory as being encompassed by a selfish gene if perceived wrongly only. I argue that it is this inherent desire for things to continue existing that thrives Gaia into fruition, not selfish inherent tendencies within living organisms (that would lead to self destruction of the whole ecosystem).

When I think of the word Gaia I tend to think of a spiritual masculine, but mayhap bisexual with the ability to change its gender, persona encompassed by symbology from thriving woodlands. I think of mother Earth (pagan in nature), I think of a collective sentience that lurks unknown within the individual bodies encompassing the whole. Gaia is life in my opinion! One may ask then, what is life? Good question...

I think that is an excellent exposition of Gaia theory, though I tend towards the symbology of the spiritual hermaphrodite perpetually engaged in self-gratification.

Teh wrote:...selfish inherent tendencies within living organisms (that would lead to self destruction of the whole ecosystem).

This is nonsense! What is the meaning of the phrase, 'enlightened self-interest'? It refers to an individual realising that to best serve itself is to serve the whole, the whole which can be equated with 'the environment'. To serve the environment that one lives in (there are varying levels of realisation of the interconnectedness of all phenomena -one can serve one's local community / environment or the global community / environment) is to serve one's own development and nurturing.

Further, the individual and the whole are co-creative and co-existent with each other's differing agendas. In co-creation, compromise is the rule, not conflict. Further, there are various unconscious levels of compromise between the individual and the whole (or any number of wholes where a 'whole' is a system bigger than the individual of which the individual is part) which have limited relation to, and which transcend, apparent conflicts between the individual and the whole(s) on the surface.

-- Updated May 25th, 2013, 2:09 am to add the following --

I apologise -the quote I refer to is from Percarus, not Teh.

-- Updated May 25th, 2013, 2:27 am to add the following --

For example, the unconscious collaboration between the selfish genes within one certain hunting species and the selfish genes within one certain hunted species can be viewed as a compromise between the whole community of genes, hunter and hunted.

The collaboration is that, if the species of hunted gets over-hunted by the hunter, numbers of the hunters drop to allow the numbers of the hunted to recover (hunter numbers drop because they have no food). Individuals die...on the surface it is quite brutal....but the relationship favours the continuance of both species.

It may even favour the genes of the hunted to be under the protection of the hunter, as the hunter may also hunt other hunters of the hunted.

Nature is full of immensely complex interconnections, and none of these relationships are exclusive of selfish genes, nor are they exclusive of highly complex arrangements of manifold self-interest in compromise, on many different levels.

MalkuthSamanera1 wrote:
For example, the unconscious collaboration between the selfish genes within one certain hunting species and the selfish genes within one certain hunted species can be viewed as a compromise between the whole community of genes, hunter and hunted.

Could you please outline the mechanism for "unconscious collaboration between selfish genes"?

I am very frustrated, because I spent some time working on a post to answer this...and then somehow lost it all.

The gist of it was that I couldn't outline the mechanism, but provided what I see as clues to the mechanism.

The clues I provided presupposed the probable existence of Gaia, drawing on the assertion of the theoretical physicist David Bohm that any division between 'inorganic' and 'organic' matter is arbitrary. I also drew on the eminent Stephen Hawking's assertion that consciousness is an illusion, and I wrote about how all beings can thus be seen as pragmatic colonies of genes each acting with enlightened self-interest...that new identities of individuals can still be seen as greater than the sum of their parts, but that the new identities arise as the result of colonies of self-interested genes.

I wrote that this is part of an evolutionary trajectory that began at the latest over 1.5 million years ago when eukaryotic organisms first appeared and developed into specialised colonies, providing the basis of all multi-cellular life.

I also drew attention to the fact that, as colonies of cells, we include inorganic material such as water and nutrients which are assimilated into us, and that we develop as colonies in co-creation with these inorganic elements and compounds (we create the inorganic environment in a number of ways, most notably in excretion)...and that the identity of Gaia, while not conscious in a traditional God-like sense (neither are we -all consciousness is an illusion) nevertheless exists as a new identity, an apparently self-regulating mechanism, just as human beings are apparently self-regulating, involving organic and inorganic material.

Although I have lost the original post which was somewhat more detailed than this, I hope I have provided enough for some constructive criticism in response.