Talk:Gaianism

	This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance).

This page was previously being redirected to another page entitled "New Age Gaian", which included a "New Age" disambiguation tag at the top. I found both of these contrivances unnecessary, for reasons stated on the old talk page. I stated my intent to perform this change over a month previously, and checked back every week to see if anyone had responded to my request. Eventually, one user responded positively to the change, agreeing with me that "New Age" was not a necessary part of the definition of "Gaianism." I would like input for adding references to this article and removing any latent bias. Thanks... --Sierkejd (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following text was part of my comment regarding Gaianism on the "New Age Gaian" page, which I have decided to include as part of the definition of Gaianism:

a philosophy and ethical worldview which, though not itself religious, implies a transrational devotion to Planet Earth as a superorganism.

--Sierkejd (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello :) I would not write that it is "not itself religious", as it can be. Perhaps "not necessarily religious" or "sometimes, but not always religious" might be better options? Or something along those lines. 150.101.154.184 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, i agree that it should say "not necessarily religious" as i feel that ecosophy, the wisdom of nature, is inherently "spiritual" which most people seem to confuse with "religious." Furthermore, spirituality is to me one of the main reasons for a person to take the ACTIONS that Gaianism theoretically proscribes. Please don't cut "spirituality" out of this equation! Jazmine Phoenix (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this transrational? To my knowledge it doesn't require any non-rational beliefs, indeed James Lovelock is a respected scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.221.18 (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any strong reason not to redirect to Gaia philosophy? There doesn't seem to be unique content here, and if there is any it can simply be added to the other page.--QuimGil (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do seem very similar. I don't see any reason for this page to not redirect to the other. Coinmanj (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I kind of oppose it. I'm trying to clean the content up in general and find sources and from what I can find, Gaianism is very similar but still seen as a specific offshoot of the overall whole. I'll find more sources, but there are academic texts that refer specifically as Gaianism in reference to Gaia philosophy but not as representative of GP as a whole. It's kind of like merging Baptists into Christians, if you will. It's not nearly as well known, but it's a pretty similar comparison. I mean, I can see where it can be warranted since this is pretty much a stub, but they aren't really seen as the same thing in all of the texts out there. Some do use the two terms interchangably, but it's not always meant to be the same thing.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I strongly oppose it, as divisive "philosophy" is formally the realm of patriarchal dogma, and is itself conducive to the denial of the "wholism" inherent in Gaia. Gaian's dedication to supporting homeostasis, is an ecological concern, and it has been published that ecological concerns are inherently of a spiritual nature, even if not religious. Gaianism is MUCH MORE than just a philosophy, as it also has an ethical (spiritual) flavor to it! Jazmine Phoenix (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page currently reads, "Marcel Wissenburg has described Gaianism as a "modern variant of philosophical determinism".[1]"

I am new to this, please someone formally request that this be questioned and REMOVED. Living Systems Theory states that due to chaos, living systems will SPONTANEOUSLY develop higher order. Isn't this the opposite of determinism; it's "indeterminism"? Furthermore, Gaia Theory as revised by Lovelock, states that Gaia is NOT evolving through prior conscious decision. As i understand the description of Gaia, there are three wholisitic, inseparable aspects of Gaia, 1) pattern, 2) structure, and 3) process. Gaia's STRUCTURE is deterministic only in that its PATTERN must be 'self-building' - how it evolves within that requirement is entirely open and nondetermined, further, Gaia's PROCESS aspect is entirely open to any kind of change that doesn't break its pattern, not determined. Gaia's openness to changes in structure and process on the whole is not pre-determined nor "determinisitc" in my humble opinion. Possibly, a section stating these foundations of Living Systems Theory and Gaia Theory are in order? Please someone with more experience with Wiki properly remove this error. Thank you, Jazmine Phoenix (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]