》TOC 》
- What Does it Mean to Say That the Earth is Alive?
- Emergent fabric of life
- Challenging traditional measures
- What is Emergent Consciousness?
- The relationship between life and consciousness on earth
- Conclusion
This article is a follow-up to Planetary Consciousness. And note: my time writing documents while working at AWS has altered my approach to writing. It’s a little drier and matter-of-fact. I’ll try to regress with time, hoping that my writing DNA has not mutated.
The concept that the earth is alive is an idea that has been debated by philosophers, scientists, and spiritualists for centuries. Some argue that the earth is not only alive but that it also has a consciousness, much like a living organism, with a level of awareness, sentience, and perception beyond its physical components.
Then there are those who argue the opposite. It is hard for us humans to think of consciousness apart from the nervous system of a living organism. It’s like proximity bias, where we give greater weight or importance to things that are closer or more familiar to us; or confirmation bias, where we seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs (and ignore or reject alternatives). That makes sense: we have to start with what we know.
So let’s start with the idea that the earth is a living organism.
What does it mean to say that the Earth is alive?
Arguments against the earth being a living organism begin with its makeup: at its core, it is just rock, minerals, and metals. The Earth’s systems such as weather, geology, and ecosystems are the result of physical and chemical processes that follow the laws of nature and are not guided by any kind of consciousness or intent. From this dead sort of mechanical perspective, life on its surface is the result of natural physical and chemical processes.
The perspective continues with the “definition” of life to require essential characteristics such as growth, reproduction, and the ability to respond to stimuli. Some people also hedge the definition by including “intentionality” as a characteristic. The argument asserts that the earth, at its core, is not living, so it can’t do any of these things, not even unconsciously. What is happening on its surface is merely the bubbling of chemical processes.
Yet we consider human organisms to be living, Continue reading “An argument for a living, conscious planet” →