Not a problem, I just responded to the content rather than the title. And incidentally, I agree that there should be more research...it is promising, and no telling where it will go. Currently I don't believe that there is any one scientist who is excelling in the theory, like Dr. Hawking is with Black Hole theory and research, but sometimes it is better to have a large team who are all knowledgeable and good, than to have a few outstanding scientists doing the research. One thing that has already come from string theory is an idea (supported by Einstein's equations) that there could be countless dimensions, which leads to the staggering thought that it is possible that everything that could have been did happen in one of those other dimensions; in this one, Hitler lost, and in another, he won, etc. VERY hard to grasp, that.

In regard to the Gaia theory, I personally don't think that Dr. Lovelock was all that far off, though I do think that the theory needs a few tweeks and refinements. It not only explains a lot of observational data, but it even holds very much in line with quite a few Earth based belief systems, such as American Indian belief. I firmly believe that there is so much more to the Earth and everything on it than we know, that we have just barely begun to scratch the surface, using a tired cliche. Every time man tries to simplify it, it turns out even more complex than what he started out with.

It is also one reason that I don't believe in man-caused global warming. There just isn't anywhere near enough data to say that man is causing global climate changes...we just don't know enough. (He DOES polute, but that is a different matter.) There are cycles in place that we haven't begun to know, and that so far have just been hinted at, because of the length of time involved.

I do note that Lovelock spoke of Earth "functioning" as a single organism, *not* that it had consciousness. Whether it actually as consciousness or not is something that can be debated for a long time...some people say yes, some say no, and both are armed with equivalent amounts of data. (Almost all raw data can be used to support many different theories or thoughts, even those that are diametrically opposed.)