Honestly this was strongly uploaded in part because the community here is weaker in biology -- a similarly garbage engineering article would never have seen the front page.
However I do believe its an interesting and useful perspective or model to to guide scientists by as they often, to become really knowledgable at something, have to isolate their subject matter quite a lot. Having this bigger more holistic perspective could have some advantages. Maybe, who knows.
Its certainly not something which is not needed and its certainly not science, but perhaps a kind of ethical framework.
The Gaia hypothesis is the idea that life not only adapts to its environment but also changes its environment in ways that, over time, support more life.
This is not done intentionally of course, in the same way that adaptations of life are not intentional but rather a product of the nature of life and adaptation. Life adapts to its environment, including the living aspects of the environment and the waste products of other life. Over time, this transforms the planet into a complex system of symbiotic relationships, or an ecosystem, and the overall composition of the planet reflects this gradual transformation.
We can test this by finding life on other worlds and seeing if it has changed its environment in meaningful ways. We can also look at the ways that life has changed the nonliving aspects of our own planet like mineral deposits in rock formations. As the article states, as time goes on, we find more ways to identify the markers of life on our planet without looking at life directly.
We can use it meaningfully right now by modeling the types of changes we expect life to make on planets. This helps us determine whether a planet might have life by identifying the changes we expect life to make that intersect with the limited information we have available.
There's nothing unscientific or mystical about the idea. It simply states that planets should be understood as systems where both the living and nonliving aspects are changed by life. There are many ways it could be wrong. Maybe there's evidence that life has changed our planet but we're a special case, and it isn't a universal principle. We'll know more about it once we have more examples of life, but for now, it's a useful framework for finding those examples.
Many scientific breakthroughs have happened because knowledge from two different fields were combined, often by accident to give entirely new understanding.
But that doesn't disqualify homeostasis as evidence of life, as corporations don't emerge except when living creatures create them.
Anyway, as I understood it, homeostasis is by definition a quality of living beings. Many things have a tendency towards an equilibrium, and of course that doesn't have to have anything to do with life.
Am I misunderstanding the claim?
Isn't that the case with other living creatures too? I mean I'm pretty sure every human living today emerged because living creatures (usually their father and mother) created them.
If I used the incredibly similar word "metastability," would you feel the same way?