Called for by the UN General Assembly itself, the dialogue is an important recognition from the UN that the anthropocentric worldview that underpins our exploitative, injust economic, legal and governance systems, is the ultimate source of the multiple ecological, social and economic crises we now face.

British scientist James Lovelock says population growth means something like the virus is "almost inevitable".

Gaia evolves through a cybernetic feedback system operated unconsciously by the biota, leading to broad
stabilization of the conditions of habitability in a full homeostasis. Many processes in the Earth's surface essential for
the conditions of life depend on the interaction of living forms, especially microorganisms, with inorganic elements.
These processes establish a global control system that regulates Earth's surface temperature, atmosphere composition
and ocean salinity, powered by the global thermodynamic desequilibrium state of the Earth system

Criticism
After initially receiving little attention from scientists (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period the initial Gaia hypothesis was criticized by a number of scientists, including Ford Doolittle,[54] Richard Dawkins[55] and Stephen Jay Gould.[48] Lovelock has said that because his hypothesis is named after a Greek goddess, and championed by many non-scientists,[42] the Gaia hypothesis was interpreted as a neo-Pagan religion. Many scientists in particular also criticized the approach taken in his popular book Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth for being teleological—a belief that things are purposeful and aimed towards a goal. Responding to this critique in 1990, Lovelock stated, "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota".

Stephen Jay Gould criticized Gaia as being "a metaphor, not a mechanism."[56] He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was achieved. In his defense of Gaia, David Abram argues that Gould overlooked the fact that "mechanism", itself, is a metaphor — albeit an exceedingly common and often unrecognized metaphor — one which leads us to consider natural and living systems as though they were machines organized and built from outside (rather than as autopoietic or self-organizing phenomena). Mechanical metaphors, according to Abram, lead us to overlook the active or agent quality of living entities, while the organismic metaphors of the Gaia hypothesis accentuate the active agency of both the biota and the biosphere as a whole.[57][58] With regard to causality in Gaia, Lovelock argues that no single mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course, and that specific hostility is reserved for his own hypothesis for other reasons.[59]

Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of greedy reductionism in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. He also states that most of his critics are biologists but that his hypothesis includes experiments in fields outside biology, and that some self-regulating phenomena may not be mathematically explainable.[59]

Natural selection and evolution
Lovelock has suggested that global biological feedback mechanisms could evolve by natural selection, stating that organisms that improve their environment for their survival do better than those that damage their environment. However, in the early 1980s, W. Ford Doolittle and Richard Dawkins separately argued against this aspect of Gaia. Doolittle argued that nothing in the genome of individual organisms could provide the feedback mechanisms proposed by Lovelock, and therefore the Gaia hypothesis proposed no plausible mechanism and was unscientific.[54] Dawkins meanwhile stated that for organisms to act in concert would require foresight and planning, which is contrary to the current scientific understanding of evolution.[55] Like Doolittle, he also rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system.

Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist who collaborated with Lovelock in supporting the Gaia hypothesis, argued in 1999 that "Darwin's grand vision was not wrong, only incomplete. In accentuating the direct competition between individuals for resources as the primary selection mechanism, Darwin (and especially his followers) created the impression that the environment was simply a static arena". She wrote that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere are regulated around "set points" as in homeostasis, but those set points change with time.[60]

Evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton called the concept of Gaia Copernican, adding that it would take another Newton to explain how Gaian self-regulation takes place through Darwinian natural selection.[33][better source needed] More recently Ford Doolittle building on his and Inkpen's ITSNTS (It's The Song Not The Singer) proposal[61] proposed that differential persistence can play a similar role to differential reproduction in evolution by natural selections, thereby providing a possible reconciliation between the theory of natural selection and the Gaia hypothesis.[62]

Criticism in the 21st century
The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal Climatic Change in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it.[7][8] Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties"[63] to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background"[9] to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record".[64] The CLAW hypothesis,[18] initially suggested as a potential example of direct Gaian feedback, has subsequently been found to be less credible as understanding of cloud condensation nuclei has improved.[65] In 2009 the Medea hypothesis was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.[66]

In a 2013 book-length evaluation of the Gaia hypothesis considering modern evidence from across the various relevant disciplines, Toby Tyrrell concluded that: "I believe Gaia is a dead end*. Its study has, however, generated many new and thought provoking questions. While rejecting Gaia, we can at the same time appreciate Lovelock's originality and breadth of vision, and recognize that his audacious concept has helped to stimulate many new ideas about the Earth, and to champion a holistic approach to studying it".[67] Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works".[68] This statement needs to be understood as referring to the "strong" and "moderate" forms of Gaia—that the biota obeys a principle that works to make Earth optimal (strength 5) or favourable for life (strength 4) or that it works as a homeostatic mechanism (strength 3). The latter is the "weakest" form of Gaia that Lovelock has advocated. Tyrrell rejects it. However, he finds that the two weaker forms of Gaia—Coeveolutionary Gaia and Influential Gaia, which assert that there are close links between the evolution of life and the environment and that biology affects the physical and chemical environment—are both credible, but that it is not useful to use the term "Gaia" in this sense and that those two forms were already accepted and explained by the processes of natural selection and adaptation.[69]

Homeowners will have to cover the required re-modification costs of up to £18,000 themselves — after ministers scrapped grant schemes.

But shockingly, if you find yourself unable to afford these green-energy improvements, you could be forbidden from selling your home — or even banned from re-mortgaging it, possibly leading to your home being repossessed.

Kids continue to struggle with basic skills such as writing and speaking in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, a new study by the U.K. government’s education authority has found.

These were among the findings of a series of reports published on Monday by Ofsted, which were based on evidence from around 280 inspections of educational institutions across different age groups, as well as focus groups with the government department’s inspectors.

In the “early years” group, Ofsted found that education providers had noted delays in young children’s development of speech and language. Some providers also found that babies had struggled to respond to basic facial expressions, which they said could be due to reduced social interaction amid the coronavirus pandemic and associated lockdowns.

In addition, some education providers highlighted the fact that kids lacked confidence in group activities, while toddlers and pre-schoolers needed help in learning to share and take turns.

Providers also noticed how the pandemic had affected young children’s physical development, such as a delay in babies learning to crawl and walk. Some reported that children had regressed in their independence and self-care skills, prompting providers to spend longer with kids on physical activities, in order to help develop gross motor skills.

Meanwhile, school-aged children were found to have gaps in math, phonics and “writing stamina,” though educators said that, compared with the previous semester, gaps in knowledge were closing.

As was the case in many countries around the world, the Covid-19 pandemic forced U.K. schools to close to the vast majority of children, meaning many were educated at home during the country’s lockdowns.

School children’s mental health also remained a concern, with educators noticing lower levels of resilience and confidence, as well as increased anxiety, among students.

In fact, the part of the report that focused on this particular age group said some schools had noticed that the pandemic had affected the subjects that students choose to study ahead of high school and pre-college exams, known as GSCEs and A Levels respectively.

For example, a few schools noticed that fewer students were choosing to study all of the main sciences — biology, chemistry and physics. And one educator believed that fewer students were choosing to study another language because they suffered from lower confidence following lockdowns.

Schools also noticed how the pandemic had affected students’ technology skills. “For example, one school noted that pupils were only comfortable using touch-screen devices, so they have addressed this by focusing on using desktop computers,” the report said.

Ofsted Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman said that while progress had been made with efforts to help children catch-up on what they had missed, it was “clear that the pandemic has created some lingering challenges.”

“I’m particularly worried about younger children’s development, which, if left unaddressed, could potentially cause problems for primary schools down the line,” she said.