Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:11:08.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Geophysiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

James E. Lovelock
Affiliation:
Department of Cybernetics, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire RG6 2AH, U.K.

Abstract

The geological theory of the evolution of the material environment and the biological theory of the evolution of organisms by natural selection are usually treated separately. This paper presents a new evolutionary theory, in which the evolution of the organisms, and the evolution of their material environment, are seen to be so closely coupled as to form a single, indivisible, process. This combined evolutionary system can be taken to be a domain with emergent properties unexpected from a simple addition of its component parts, rather like the eighteenth-century scientific view of the Earth as a super-organism. In homage to James Hutton, who lectured before the Royal Society of Edinburgh about the Earth as a super-organism and on the physiology of the Earth, the new topic is called geophysiology.

The difference between the geophysiological view of the Earth, where the environment and the organisms are tightly coupled, and the co-evolutionary, or biogeochemical view, where the coupling is loose leaving organisms and their environment to evolve more or less separately, is discussed. The paper includes numerical models to illustrate how a close-coupled evolutionary system could have self regulation, homeostasis, as an automatic and emergent property. The models will be compared with the real world past and present and their predictions examined.

Type
Evolution of the Earth's environment through time
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benzinger, T. H. 1969. Heat regulation: homeostasis of central temperature in man. PHYSIOL REV 49, 671759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, R. N. & Prince, S. D. 1981. Epidemic models used to explain biographical distribution limits. NATURE 213, 644645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlson, R. J., Lovelock, J. E., Andreae, M. O. & Warren, S. J. 1987. Ocean phytoplankton, atmospheric sulfur, cloud albedo and climate. NATURE 326, 655661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, D. R. & Lovelock, J. E. 1967. Life detection by atmospheric analysis. ICARUS 7, 149159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, H. D. 1984. The Chemical Evolution of the Atmosphere and the Oceans. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. 1954. The Biochemistry of the terrestrial atmosphere. In Kuiper, Gerard P. ed. The Solar System: Vol. 2. The Earth as a Planet. Chap. 8, 371433. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hutton, James 1788. Theory of the Earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution, and restoration of land upon the globe. TRANS R SOC EDINBURGH 1, 209304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kump, L. R. 1988. Terrestrial feedback in atmospheric oxygen regulation by fire and phosphorus. NATURE 335, 152154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovelock, J. E. 1972. Gaia as seen through the Atmosphere. ATMOS ENVIRON 6, 579580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovelock, J. E. & Whitfield, M. 1982. Life span of the biosphere. NATURE 296, 561563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margulis, L. & Lovelock, J. E. 1974. Biological Modulation of the Earth's Atmosphere. ICARUS 21, 471489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redfield, A. C. 1958. The biological control of chemical factors in the environment. AMER SCI 46, 205221.Google Scholar
Vernadsky, V. 1945. The biosphere and the noosphere. AMER SCI 33, 112.Google Scholar
Watson, A. J. & Lovelock, J. E. 1983. Biological Homeostasis of the global environment: the parable of Daisyworld. TELLUS 35B, 284289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar