The Earth could be a telepathic being?

[The New Lowlands]

No.

[Anachronous Rex]

Something always bothered me how I think of something, and seconds later another person next to me says the same exact thing what I was thinking of and we always think those moments are just coincidences. But it happens a lot as if all human beings are somewhat connected. So I thought that the Earth might be one huge organism and all the lesser organisms, the bacteria, the plants, animals everything including us are part of this huge global organism. Basically saying here the Earth might have a core brain, but not a brain we would be thinking of. The trees on this world serve a huge purpose. They breathe out oxygen for the animals and why do things like this work. The Earth is thinking. But we as humans are the only sapient animals . If you want to count dolphins.

But when concrete is poured on the ground, notice how it cracks and sometimes plants grow out. Nature is constantly fighting our artificial life style.

So do you think the Earth is somewhat telepathic, sapient or just a huge organism? Please have a sane discussion, no sillyness.

Wait a sec.

*goes outside*
*asks a tree*

No.

Exactly.

That tree was like, "Fuck no. Now do me a favor: take this pollen and rub it on that hot maple across the alley."

[Stovokor]

Honestly, this is the best I got for this thread. I'm terribly sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czjQM0AO-wk

[Antares XII]

I aim to please. To be fair to TSU, the Gaia hypothesis (first link) has some scientific support these days. It's not much, and it's only in the vaguest and loosest sense, but it is valid:

The scientifically accepted form of the hypothesis has been called "influential Gaia". It states the biota influence certain aspects of the abiotic world, e.g. temperature and atmosphere. They state the evolution of life and its environment may affect each other. An example is how the activity of photosynthetic bacteria during Precambrian times have completely modified the Earth atmosphere to turn it aerobic, and as such supporting evolution of life (in particular eukaryotic life).

Biologists and Earth scientists usually view the factors that stabilize the characteristics of a period as an undirected emergent property or entelechy of the system; as each individual species pursues its own self-interest, for example, their combined actions may have counterbalancing effects on environmental change. Opponents of this view sometimes reference examples of events that resulted in dramatic change rather than stable equilibrium, such as the conversion of the Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxygen-rich one.

Bingo, this is exactly what I'm saying is solid.

But I think the following paragraph might be closer to what TSU is after:

Fringe science versions of the hypothesis claim that changes in the biosphere are brought about through the coordination of living organisms and maintain those conditions through homeostasis. In Gaia philosophy, all lifeforms are considered part of one single living planetary being called Gaia. In this view, the atmosphere, the seas and the terrestrial crust would be results of interventions carried out by Gaia through the coevolving diversity of living organisms. However, the Earth as a unit does not match the generally accepted biological criteria for life itself, for example, there is no evidence to suggest that "Gaia" has reproduced. This argument is countered by the fact that mules do not reproduce, yet they are also classified as living.

Two for two, I think you've got it. Only TSU added telepathy for some reason. This is the part I said was nonsense.

And to play devil's advocate for a moment, if humans were to colonise Mars and terraform it, would that be considered "Gaia reproducing" in a sense?

My mind is reeling at such a concept. Would acceptance of this imply that the landing crew on Mars would bear the name "gamete", with the landing site being called a "gamete" as well? Would the act of landing on a new planet be henceforth called "fertilization", and the terraforming of a planet forever be called "gestation"? Or am I taking too human a spin on this thing? I don't even know anymore, it's that bizarre.

There would most likely be a whole new system built to describe interplanetary insemination and procreation. I actually would not be entirely averse to seeing it written up...

Damn you, curiosity!

Edited for clarity.

[The Grand Union]

Alpha Centauri was a pretty good game.

I was just playing it. Like 10 minutes ago.

[Zottistan]

This... seems like a pointless pipe-dream question, to be honest.

If there was any evidence to suggest it, maybe then it should be asked.

[The Sivent Isles]

I personally feel dumber after reading the OP, time to look out a the window and reflect on life.

[Mkuki]

No. To be more specific the Earth can't be telepathic because it isn't a living organism.

[AiliailiA]

(this was too spammy)

[Disserbia]

like we're all cells or something? I don't think so but, what is kind of crazy is how people pick up habits and the like of their organ donors. That shit trips me out.

[Immoren]

I doubt that.

[Allodiam]

In my early years when I was less than 10 yrs old and had no knowledge of Gaia, FF7 hadn't been conceptualised, a computer game less existence and the fantastic opportunity to enjoy the great outdoors, when playing I had thoughts about my existence in the universe and some similar to this. At 10! No influence!

I wondered about such things. How are we alive, how insignificant we are in the vastness of space, why do I know things others of my age don't and many other lines of topics along such thoughts.

I wasn't exposed to drugs in any way from my parents and I clearly had a lot of time to think.

As the years have moved on, through uni into a great many years in a career as a web developer, the things I thought when I was 10 have inconsistently been presented to me through various different sources. At no time when they were presented was I looking for it and then I would spend time looking into it more during those moments.

However, as many have stated, the theory has been around for a long time through many civilisations. It's not new and it is still a theory which some believe and/or explore.

TSU is simply exploring this theory much like many others on the planet do and have done through the ages.

After watching The Matrix all those many years ago, Agent Smith's words about human beings, in my opinion, is so true and that has stuck with me ever since.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI

To those who ask 'If the earth was a living being surely it would be doing something about us?'

Consider the life span of all the organisms on the earth and how much time passes according to them.

Flies for instance see the world a lot faster than we do which is why its so hard to swat them, they naturally move extremely fast compared to us and they also don't live that long. Their lives are fast.

Elephants, whales and tortoises live their lives a lot slower than others and they live a lot longer. (I don't know if they view the world at a slower rate than us in comparison to the fly) but the point is they live a slower life and naturally live longer.

Time is relative to everything's own view point. Whats to say that a year for us isn't the equivalent to a minute for the earth relative to its existence in the universe?
Taking this as a theoretical starting point and considering we are a 'disease' on the planet and it is trying to cleanse itself how many years do you think it would take to get rid of us?
When you have a cold how long does it take to get rid of it with or without pharmaceuticals? Just consider it relative to the view point of time of the earth and how the planet has changed over the billions of years and try, really try to squash all that time into a timeline similar to your own.
Its ups and downs over those years pretty much would match someone who has illnesses, happy and sad moments, unions with other bodies and so on. With the state of the planet at the moment and how it's changing how do you know for sure the earth is not going through a cleansing process?

I'm not saying the theory is right I'm just saying think a bit deeper and relate to your own perception of time in relation to things happening 'now' or 'tomorrow'. We don't know all there is to know about the universe, why it's here or what was before or even after.

As for telepathy of the earth, all telepathy is a transfer of energy to another source that can understand that energy. If you can't understand the signals you receive why should you believe it? This doesn't mean I necessarily believe it.

The Gaia theory and the possibility of the planet being telepathic to us is just as plausible as the existence of a Sky Daddy or as some would call it 'God'. No proof so why believe? Because everyone can believe in whatever they want.

I like the idea of the planet being alive but doesn't mean it's true.

The only truth I know is that we are destroying all life on it and very fast in relation to past history.

[Benomia]

Obviously The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series was 100% truth.

[Mkuki]

The only truth I know is that we are destroying it and all life on it and very fast in relation to past history.

How...alarmist... I think your taking the climate change theory a little too far. Both life and the Earth are a lot more resilient than most people give either credit for. If both can survive numerous, mass extinction-level asteroid hits then it can survive humanity.

I like the idea of the planet being alive but doesn't mean it's true.

Not really relevant, but a fun article to read.

[Benomia]

Not really relevant, but a fun article to read.

I raise you one.

[Terrordome]

Have you been playing Sid Meiers Alpha Centuri? That is basicly the plot of that as well.

[Antares XII]

The only truth I know is that we are destroying it and all life on it and very fast in relation to past history.

How...alarmist... I think your taking the climate change theory a little too far. Both life and the Earth are a lot more resilient than most people give either credit for. If both can survive numerous, mass extinction-level asteroid hits then it can survive humanity.

I like the idea of the planet being alive but doesn't mean it's true.

Not really relevant, but a fun article to read.

relevant to your irrelevance

The only truth I know is that we are destroying it and all life on it and very fast in relation to past history.

I think you make the mistake of assuming that humanity is killing the earth.

It's certainly killing the earth for future humans, but killing the earth itself is another story.

Humans are in no way capable of killing or destroying the earth at their current technological level. Themselves, perhaps. The planet? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

[Allodiam]

My apologies for saying we are destroying the planet. I realise my mistake. it was supposed be only all life on the planet and I have such edited it.

Thanks for the links to living planet theories although they had already mentioned in the thread previously.

[Benomia]

My apologies for saying we are destroying the planet. I realise my mistake. it was supposed be only all life on the planet and I have such edited it.

Thanks for the links to living planet theories although they had already mentioned in the thread previously.

You don't have to put a title on every post.

[Mkuki]

My apologies for saying we are destroying the planet. I realise my mistake. it was supposed be only all life on the planet and I have such edited it.

Thanks for the links to living planet theories although they had already mentioned in the thread previously.

I think you've missed the point. Human aren't destroying all life either. Nor are we capable of such a thing.

[Allodiam]

The only truth I know is that we are destroying it and all life on it and very fast in relation to past history.

How...alarmist... I think your taking the climate change theory a little too far. Both life and the Earth are a lot more resilient than most people give either credit for. If both can survive numerous, mass extinction-level asteroid hits then it can survive humanity.

Climate change does exist. It can be seen throughout geological history. I agree life on earth will come back, as long as the earth is here and it is a lot more resilient than credit is due.

Just a shame our actions are making things happen faster than ever before and not 100% naturally.

Who knows how much damage the Dinosaurs actually did to the planet in their own special way.

Life will go on. Life will be completely different.

We are supposed to be an intelligent species but our collective actions disprove that in my opinion due to the things we know we can do to sustain life and to explore this planet and others.

We should be putting our efforts into maintaining all we can rather than destroying ourselves and as much life on the planet as we can. We know we can go beyond this planet and hopefully extend the natural lifespan of humans. It's just a question of should we find another planet to ravage?

[Allodiam]

My apologies for saying we are destroying the planet. I realise my mistake. it was supposed be only all life on the planet and I have such edited it.

Thanks for the links to living planet theories although they had already mentioned in the thread previously.

I think you've missed the point. Human aren't destroying all life either. Nor are we capable of such a thing.

Ok, my bad again.

Scorpions and bacteria will survive anything

You know what i'm getting at I think.

Looks like I need to edit this when not at work lol

[Mkuki]

How...alarmist... I think your taking the climate change theory a little too far. Both life and the Earth are a lot more resilient than most people give either credit for. If both can survive numerous, mass extinction-level asteroid hits then it can survive humanity.

Climate change does exist. It can be seen throughout geological history. I agree life on earth will come back, as long as the earth is here and it is a lot more resilient than credit is due.

Just a shame our actions are making things happen faster than ever before and not 100% naturally.

Who knows how much damage the Dinosaurs actually did to the planet in their own special way.

Life will go on. Life will be completely different.

We are supposed to be an intelligent species but our collective actions disprove that in my opinion due to the things we know we can do to sustain life and to explore this planet and others.

We should be putting our efforts into maintaining all we can rather than destroying ourselves and as much life on the planet as we can. We know we can go beyond this planet and hopefully extend the natural lifespan of humans. It's just a question of should we find another planet to ravage?

I, personally, believe that climate change exists and that some of its processes have been sped up by certain human activities. However, your alarmism is unfounded. Human activity doesn't have the capacity to destroy Earth-bound life, unintentional or otherwise.

As to the expansion part I expect that we'll eventually find some way to get off this rock and travel to new rocks.

[Eucadian Federation]

Enough Internet for today

.___.

[Napkiraly]

Yes, it is a giant telepathic Eldritch Abomination. It told me so.

You know too much.

*Calls up sailors to "encounter" Genivaria*