根据维基百科”,所有已知类型的生物能够一定程度的对刺激的回应,繁殖,生长和发育和通过体内平衡自律。”Further, watching a video like the "地球呼吸随着季节的变化”(这是来自美国宇航局)——表面上给了“地球是有生命的”的感觉。
地球的历史可能表明它能够成长和发展。Climate change, I would think shows Earth "responds to stimuli" - and that it is able to "self-regulation" conditions to remain stable and relatively constant. [Unable to define what reproduction might be. That said, I do belief that it might be possible (in theory) to define an observable phenomena as being reproductive.] Lastly, think most of Earth Science would agree that at some point "Earth will die" so to speak.
地球是一个生物吗?由于没有明确的定义,目前的理解是描述性的。定义地球作为一个有机体,你的回答最显示通过观察到的现象或理论上可观察到的现象,地球展品全部或大部分的以下特点:体内平衡、组织的新陈代谢、生长、适应、对刺激的反应,和繁殖。
更新:
- 被动态、活动等并不意味着一个实体是一个有机体:例如,晶体不是生物。
- “如果地球不繁殖,它不是一种生物。”In my opinion, there's no need to post any comments or answers about the Gaia Hypothesis, since it does not answer the question; meaning the Gaia Hypothesis does not claim that the Earth is an organism. That said, there's no way to my knowledge refute there is no way that Earth is able to reproduce, and if Earth "lives" longer than "humanity" seems like the idea that reproduction is required is nonsense. Further, it's my understanding that the first "life" on Earth did in fact not reproduce but evolved to do so; which is to say, that in my opinion we do not know how to model life. So, unless you're able to prove life requires reproduction, or Earth is not able to reproduction, using the Gaia Hypothesis nonsense since I have seen no claim that the Gaia Hypothesis claims that the Earth is an organism; meaning my understanding is it's a superorganism, not an organism.
