Talk:Biosphere 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

". . . eight inhabitants with a very strenuous lifestyle . . "

What I heard is that the automatic climate system, I imagine primarily the lungs, did not work automatically and had to be continually nursed along by the inhabitants, who often ended up working like 18 hours a day. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Two year enclosure was way too ambitious

The first time, before you've worked out any of the glitches? They would have done well to learn from the American space program. The first flight was Alan Shepard's 15 minute sub-orbital flight, then Gus Grissom's sub-orbital flight, then John Glenn's three orbits, and so on and so forth. (And maybe they could learn from the Russian side as well! But being an American, I'm more familiar with what we did.)

Six weeks might have been an appropriate first run. Then maybe three months or four months for the second one. And this business where we're going to keep going even when people's health is at risk, from not enough food and from low oxygen, that kind of misplaced virtue, is absolutely ridiculous! The whole benefit of doing it here on Earth is that if things start going poorly, you are not stuck halfway to Mars.

And the other benefit of course is greater environmental knowledge, and for that, we would be better served by a number of (smaller?) biospheres and a lot of small- and medium-scale experiments, rather than a few big experiments. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There were three pilot experiments (or "missions" to be dramatic). They took place in the Test Module, a very much smaller airtight enclosure without any ambition to grow crops or practice animal husbandry. It did have waste recycling, however. John Allen spent 72 hours there, then Abigail Alling spent 5 days, then finally Linda Leigh set a new world record by staying in the TM for 3 weeks. Should this information be in the article? El Ingles 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It was still too big of a jump. And what I really object to is that they kept going when things clearly were not working. I’ve read that at one point a biospherian was on his hands and knees going down a row of plants with a hairdryer, I guess hooked up to an extension cord, blowing insects off of the plants. When things got really bad, they opened up emergency food supplies. Jane Poynter made the project director aware of this situation. And apparently, instead of having an adult-to-adult, reality-based conversation, the director fired Jane and ordered her to come out of the dome, to which Jane refused.
Why does this not surprise me! Why does this sound so much like the “public relations” department of a corporation (or better still, the “human resource” department)? Why can’t someone tell the rich guy financing it, hey, these are the facts, it’s not yet a success, it might become a success, but it’s going to take multiple attempts.
It became a protracted limp-along.
Instead . . . let’s pull back, and let’s try something else. We may have found success on the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh attempt.
Jared Diamond states that his colleague was crippled. I’d be pissed too. Like I said before, a misplaced sense of virtue, almost a sense of puritanism that we must keep going regardless of the circumstances.
So, break the enclosure, keep working on the dome. Maybe introduce a whole bunch of edible plants, enough diversity so that insect damage is not that big a problem. Or, if that’s not realistic, fix the climate control system where we can live quite happily using food stores thank you very much, and that’s kind of a victory and maybe the way a space flight to Mars would actually work. Afterall, we humans are pretty large animals. Maybe 3-point some odd acres is not near enough.
And yes, I think some of this, and the three pilot studies (“missions” if you prefer, and I’ll happily accept a little drama), should be included in the article. I think one of the advantages of the Internet vs. the printed page is that it’s cheap. We can be long, provided that it’s good. An introductory paragraph, and then we can tell the whole story, including the twists and turns of the human drama. FriendlyRiverOtter 05:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe your opinions have some merit but I also believe they have no place in an encyclopedia. The WP:NPOV sleuths would have it out in a heartbeat. From all I've read, it seems that John Allen and Margret Augustine were hopeless managers. Ed "Moneybags" Bass came to the same conclusion, but tragically much too late. That opinion has no place in the encyclopedia either, although I may look for ways to drop hints. I wrote about the emergency food in the section on Psychology -- it was Chris Helms, PR Director, that Jane Poynter informed, not John Allen. In her book she writes that she feared the news would leak out anyway, and it would be better that Helms was prepared to handle the press over the issue. Augustine accused her of "going to the press with the story", which was absurd. I'll put in the pilot missions stuff later today. El Ingles 16:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I like your section on the pilot studies. Well done! And if you can find a way to include some more of the managerial issues, it might make even a better article. The supreme irony of course is that Augustine views going to the PR Director as "going to the press"!, oh my, oh my, that's really rich, in almost every modern corporation, it's exactly the opposite, why PR departments are masters at spin doctoring, shaving the truth, we know that, right?, we all know that, very clever use of language, very specific use of words, shading, etc, etc. (And the really interesting part is that this is not conscious, and it's not a top down directive, rather it's something employees pick up on their own of what's expected.)
Another part, Jane Poynter refused the order to be fired, she didn't leave, she stayed at her job. And this held. She stood up to them successfully. I for one would enjoy some more details of how this all unfolded.
Two examples of the kind of writing I'm talking about. At the end of a semester, a professor will sometimes tell you what he or she thinks. They've endeavored all semester to fairly present different sides of the material, but now they're going a step beyond that. And it often makes for a very rich intellectual exchange. And the professor is quite aware of the weaknesses of his or her side thank you very much. In fact, this is often such a good exchange it's a shame it didn't happen a little earlier in the course (maybe when a fourth of the course is still left).
The book HARD LANDING: THE EPIC CONTEST FOR POWER AND PROFITS THAT PLUNGED THE AIRLINES INTO CHAOS by Thomas Petzinger, Jr, maybe the best business book I have ever read. Okay, it's about an exciting industry, but also, the author is not afraid of drawing conclusions. He was a business writer for the Wall Street Journal, I think specifically on aviation, and it's the kind of a book, as big as it is, that you feel the author has so many more stories he could be telling you (it's the opposite of a padded book). Okay, he tells that Bob Crandall of American Airlines used a lot of profanity, and he matter-of-factly gives a couple of examples. That increases my confidence that the writer is not a timid writer, is willing to lay it all out there, the awkward parts included. So, when he gets to the part, we shouldn't de-peak DFW, in fact just the opposite, when we run banks of flights, our profits include exponentially whereas our costs increase only arithmetically, I can follow him. The author allows himself enough of a voice, still in a serious business book, I can stay with him longer.
So, El Ingles, do it your own way. Trust yourself as both writer and editor (sometimes the two functions are the same, but often not). Or allow me to use one more analogy, learning to play poker, yeah, a person might want to read the books and work through some of the math and psychology on their own, but it's mainly a matter of trusting your instincts and developing your instincts. FriendlyRiverOtter 23:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
On Jane Poynter's "firing".... on p.249 of her book she writes "I knew the workings of this dysfunctional family all too well. People were fired and unfired so often that it was almost as if John and Margret considered firing merely an extreme form of ordering someone to go stand in the corner". And sure enough, she writes that the foillowing day John Allen left voice-mail essentially revoking the decision. I like this material too, but I don't think it would survive long in the main article. A problem I see with the wiki in general is that there's a tendency for anything in the least "controversial" to get watered down over time. El Ingles 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head, anything the least bit “controversial” tends to get edited out. And the end result is merely “normal” and conventional and pro-status-quo (however that gets accidentally defined at the start).

There’s an alternative, several good ones of course, but here’s one I see. Let the narrative be long, it’s only eight people, but there’s a lot of interaction, between them and management, management and the external world, etc, etc. So let it be long and select the events that you think are most significant (other people might select additional different events).

And directly include conclusions in separate sections.

THE CONFINED ENVIRONMENT ASPECT:

THE TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT ASPECT:

THE SCIENCE VS. COMPLETING TWO YEARS ASPECT:

And then within each section you can talk about such things as the Antarctic studies, top down management, and arguments within the eight over what goal was most important. We can say something as direct as, 'John Allen and Magret Augustine used traditional top-down management, which was inappropriate for a group of highly motivated individuals, and was in fact very much resented.' And maybe even more direct things. We can also include sections.

JANE POYNTER’S VIEWS:

MAGRET AUGUSTINE’S VIEWS:

ROY WALFORD’S VIEWS: . . .

We lay it on the table as openly as we can, and we let it evolve over time. Two more points.

In the above section ". . . eight inhabitants with a very strenuous lifestyle . . ", I think I may have been mistaken. I’m thinking the lungs are pretty simple, just membranes stretched across a partial vacuum. And I’m kind of remembering that it was another part of the climate control system that gave the inhabitants so much trouble.

And didn’t Jane talk about, that the experience showed her an aspect of poverty that she had not been fully aware of, that for people living in real hunger, one very bad effect is that you have little energy available to do things that might make a difference? For the biospherians, didn’t they have so few calories that not only did their bodies eat in fat reserves, but into muscle as well?

(I suppose I’m basicallly advocating additional speech as the best remedy to bad speech.) FriendlyRiverOtter 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

...And didn’t Jane talk about, that the experience showed her an aspect of poverty .....
It's a very plausible connection to make (and one I have made myself from personal experience of hunger), but I can't see a specific reference, either in the book or the Fora-cast from Cody's books [1].
As to your wider suggestion, it'll have to wait until Augustine and/or Allen break their silence. I'd LOVE to read a memoir from Margret Augustine and write a paragraph or two summarising her pov and contrasting it with Jane's. El Ingles 21:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read part of Jane’s book and I kind of remember that she did mention it, but only very briefly. I also remember the part where she says that she and the other biospherians (at least some of them) became ‘food voyeurs,’ to the point where in watching a movie they would lose track of the plot because they were so focused on the food scenes (reminds me of adolescent boys and sex!). These and other parts are interesting, and some are even funny. But the whole thing is just so sad, to see a dream decline, and it’s also frustrating, angrifying, all emotions in that direction, and for me, there’s not really having enough of a resolution. They stayed in a bad situation for a long time, and no one really spoke up, not really, not enough. We as human beings sometimes do stay passively in all kinds of bad circumstances, that’s a fact of life, and the most notable example might be when someone continues to stay in an abusive relationship (and I know we should primarily criticize the person committing the violence and/or bullying as having primary moral responsibility, but it still gets your attention that someone doesn’t leave). And so I think Jane describes it very well when she refers to it as dysfunctional. And I guess John Allen is kind of the guru figure, and people too readily believe in him, when they ought to be thinking and doing and feeling for themselves. As Paul McCartney once famously said (famously at least to my mind!), as John Lennon was laborously trying to explain why they were leaving India and the guru or the maharishi or whoever he was, and saying that just because it’s not for us, we’re not saying it’s not for other people, and stumbling all over himself trying to say this, Paul cut in and said, He’s just a man, he’s just a man. And that’s true for John Allen, too. I’m sure he has some good ideas and I’m sure the Indian maharishi had some good ideas. But he’s just a man. And we have our own good ideas, too.

Jane Poynter is a primary source. As is Margret Augustine with whatever she cares to say publicly. As are the other biospherians, and maybe people on the scientific advisory committee as well. And there will be gray areas, like a journalist who covered the Biosphere for the whole two years. He or she may have picked up on that people were becoming depressed or more guarded. So basically what the journalist will have is interviews, but perhaps some perceptive observations as well. So, a good article will have a lot of different primary sources, and there’s no rule that we must remain short (as many wiki articles seem to think they must, we forget that bandwidth is cheap).

El Ingles, please consider me one of your fans and constituents. I like it that you’re kind of a bold writer. Your section on psychology is a breath of fresh air. I know people criticize it, but please consider me as someone on the other side, as someone in favor of laying it all on the table, whether controversial or not.

And thank you for sharing your personal experience of going through a period of hunger. I for one do not believe that suffering is somehow ennobling or edifying in any kind of automatic fashion. That comes from the wisdom you later apply to the situation, and with the solidarity and support of others. From what I see, and admittedly I don’t know you well, but I do like how you approach things, I would say that you have wisdom. So, just continue to grow in wisdom. And as far as solidarity and support, sometimes that is available and sometimes, sadly, it is not. Just keep talking about what’s important to you. Sometimes you have to directly tell people what would constitute support. Take care, and please keep writing  :)

I read about 50 pages of Jane’s book. I also read the part where they were at first going to keep the mysterious decline of oxygen a secret until they found the solution. And that was such a mistake, because when they did go public, the situation was absolutely embraced by the scientific community. It was exactly the type of full-bodied mystery that scientists interested in ecology and systems and so on and so forth could really sink their teeth into.

And from what I’ve read of Jane’s book, my gut feeling, and at age 44 I’ve gotten pretty good at trusting and developing my gut feelings, is that she is writing an honest book. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In the above I was philosophizing and I neglected to say the most important thing of all, which is just this: As one human being to another, I’m sorry you had to go through that. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Status

Does anyone have any more information about Biosphere 2 being sold? When is it being torn down?

Spamp

I rather doubt it is being torn down. It's reportedly being converted into a planned community; I would imagine the structure is being minimally converted. They probably wouldn't have bought the site if it was going to be torn down, there's probably plenty of land around the area they could have used for a green field site.WolfKeeper 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I took the tour on August 24th and according to the employees, the sale wasn't final yet and the fate of the actual Biosphere 2 area was still up for negotiation. As they described it the main interest was in the 2000 acres (this acreage conflicts with the article) around the site and less the site itself. If it just turns into another wasteful exurb, what a sad footnote to a once promising project. There's already a subdivision in progress on biosphere road leading to the main site. sanderant 20:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
They are still giving tours as of February 26th 2007 and the guide indicated they were still looking for a buyer for the biosphere. The planned community around the Biosphere were under construction when we were there.Jcplugg 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the tour in May 2007. The guide told us that they are negotiating with a "major university" whose name was not to be disclosed. On comparing this well-written and reserched article with other things we were told, however, I am not sure how much credence to place in the tour guides.

On the other hand, the facility is magnificent, and it seems well suited for use as a climate laboratory -- something that it appears we are going to need very badly. - Paul de Anugera 5/22/07

Thanks for the update. El Ingles 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CO2 Levels

I don't happen to have any reliable sources available at the moment (I wish I did, I'm writing a paper on Biosphere 2 that's due in 3 hours), but while I agree that oxygen levels fell during the first experiment, I don't know if CO2 fell as well. I thought CO2 rose... am I wrong?

Chris F (not registered yet)

[edit] Terminology

I changed "artifical biosphere" to "closed ecological system" since the latter currently gives 672 hits with Google versus 482 for the former, and since Wikipedia has a page abut closed ecological systems but not about artifical biospheres (maybe a redirect should be added though?).

Filur 19:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CO2 and a section on the reasons for failure?

In reply to the above, this website [2] suggests that the CO2 levels rose significantly due to too much soil in the tropical rainforest section, and I remember reading an article that said the O2 levels also went down because freshly-laid concrete has a tendency to absorb air for up to ten years after it has set, and this threw out the balance (the link above aludes to this but doesn't go into detail). Should there be a section of the article dedicated to the reasons behind the problems and issues that arose in the Bioshpere 2 project? Ziggurat 23:04, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have added an external link to a site which seems to cover this in some detail--Kram 23:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The concrete absorption idea puzzles me. On a tour in May 2007 we were told that the entire concrete foundation was lined with sheets of stainless steel, at considerable expense, to isolate the environment from the concrete. - Paul de Anguera, 5/22/07

[edit] The Biosphere 2 Project and History

I've deleted these sections entirely as copyvio from biospheres.com by user:172.207.220.25, who has no other contributions. The project stuff is just a light re-write of an outdated press release available here. The history is lifted directly from here. I hope others will consider re-adding original history material to the article. --Tysto 06:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Project members harmed

I need help to find sources to a statement I found in Jared Diamond's book Collapse, where he states in passing,

one of the reasons that oxygen levels dropped inside the Biosphere 2 enclosure, harming its human inhabitants and crippling a colleague of mine, was a lack of appropriate earthworms, contributing to altered soil/atmosphere gas exchange

I've only searched briefly for any mention of this. If this really was a severe event we should probably include it. ❝Sverdrup❞ 00:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember faintly that a crew member needed to be taken outside the facility for a heart operation at one point. --jliu 01:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not a heart op. Jane Poynter exited after severing part of a finger in a threshing machine, 12 days into Mission 1. She returned the same day. El Ingles 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration...

I've restored the article to the Aug 26 version. It was much much better than the current version - a bunch of ips got in & killed a big chunk of the article without anybody reverting. Mikker (...) 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biosys....pc game about a biosphere

I added a link to a computer game called Biosys because when I read up on biosphere 2 I recalled the game and thought it was a very fun exercise since you get to play around with your own enclosed biosphere. Mikkerpikker removed it commenting on the need for fewer links that are more useful. One of the reasons I added the link was simply that the Biosys page has no pages linking to it at all and I thought this the the most appropriate place...Any comments? KingCarrot 14:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I came to this article when I was looking for examples of people claiming to be scientists when they really aren't. Before the first "shut in", I recall that there was an expose about Biosphere 2 in which it was pointed out that many of the degrees claimed by the people working on the project were granted by a school they had set up for themselves.

Beyond any of that, the project had no real scientific purpose. In order for the experiment to work the conclusions would already have to be know. And a failure would leave an almost infinite choice of failure modes, which is just what happened in the end (concrete? microbes? what?). Interviews with "real" biologists noted a large number of problems with the experiment, for instance, many of the land areas appeared to have been picked for no good scientific reason, they simply looked cool. Nor was there any value to the experiment, it's not like we were going to build something like this in space. The article seemed to suggest that it was simply a way for a rich man to spend some money with his friends.

None of this appears in the article. Were these points discredited? Or are they simply not here?

Maury 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My rewrite of the Criticism section today does include some of these points. El Ingles 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology section

This whole article, but the "Psychology" section in particular, reads very sloppy. It's full of assertions without citations and obvious POV; sort of fits with the whole Biosphere 2 project, doesn't it? Rhombus 07:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'm the author, and not known for sloppy writing. What would you like me to add? Page by page references from Jane Poynter's book? El Ingles 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Referenced or not, it's POV. I'm not making a character assassination, I'm pointing out faults in a section of text. Whether or not Jane Poynter has an axe to grind is not for me to decide -- what I see is that the text isn't neutral, and that's a Wikipedia standard. (And yes, all other things being equal, you have an obligation to reference.) Rhombus 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"Being confined with a small group of one's fellow humans is an unnatural and highly disturbing situation..." Okay - but according to whom?
"This is why people go crazy on long sea voyages, why fights and riots break out in prisons, and why normally well-balanced scientists in Antarctic stations take to hoarding food and suspecting the worst of their colleagues."

Does this even happen? Maybe it does -- but how am I going to check for myself? Again -- according to whom?

"The study of this phenomenon is "confined environment psychology", and according to Jane Poynter [2]not nearly enough of it was brought to bear on Biosphere II." My beef with this is the tone -- it reads like a magazine article, not an encyclopedia entry. An alternative wording would be: "Jane Poynter, a researcher during the first mission, has said that the implications of the confined environment on the psychology of the team members was not adequately considered. (reference)"
"The rift inside the bubble reflected a rift outside, among those who were supposed to be managing and advising the enterprise. The question was, essentially, "Is Biosphere II a scientific experiment or a business venture ? Or perhaps just an enormous Art Installation?" Again -- according to whom? Has anyone actually asked this question? And what about alternative viewpoints? It's hard to believe there aren't any.
"There was a high-powered Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), and they, of course, felt that Biosphere II was about science, or else what were they there for?" Informal, conversational style -- again, not encyclopedic.
"The faction that included Poynter felt strongly that they should be making formal proposals for research for the SAC to evaluate. Unfortunately, the other faction included Abigail Alling who was titular director of research inside the bubble, and who sided with John Allen in blocking that move." It was unfortunate? Some people might feel differently -- anyway, that's inherently POV.
"On February 14 the entire SAC resigned, and Biosphere II's scientific credibility was gone." Maybe so -- but that's a grand statement and unattributable. It's okay to say "So-and-so said Biosphere II's scientific credibility was gone" (and so-and-so should be someone who is themselves credible and an expert) because that is a factual statement, but the sentence as is is just conjecture. Ms. Poynter's platform is her book; Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable information. As such, Ms. Poynter's assertions don't belong in the article. Rhombus 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I like POV! (a la Bertrand Russell)

I think Bertrand Russell is a great example of someone who is intellectually honest, but still lets his or her own voice come through, and thus we're able to go on a journey, whether we end up agreeing with him or not. Or most likely, partially agreeing. A good piece of writing gives you something substantial to think about, and to think through on your own.

I question the part at the end: "Ms. Poynter's platform is her book; Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable information. As such, Ms. Poynter's assertions don't belong in the article." So, we're not going to include it at all??? That reminds me of the time my high school was renovated and there was all kinds of problems and all kinds of complaints by students, and the student newspaper did something so bland and timid and plain vanilla that it was just incredible. It was very disappointing (especially to an idealistic teenager!).

So I view it as a (creative?) tension. Yes, we want to be accurate, but we also want to be cutting edge, like I think Diderot and the French encyclopedists were cutting edge.

So, everyone, Please, do your best work! Do not hold yourself back. If you're going to make an assumption, if you're going to go out on an limp intellectually, acknowledge it and then go ahead and do your best work. FriendlyRiverOtter 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. I have in fact made one edit already in the direction of more encyclopedicity and I intend to do more next week. El Ingles 16:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
El Ingles, do it however you want, and I think experimentation of all sorts is a good thing. But . . . I like it just the way it is! Your "Psychology" section is much better than the "Mission 2" section. And I generally do not agree with Rhombus's criticisms. For example . . .
magazine style: "The study of this phenomenon is "confined environment psychology", and according to Jane Poynter[2] not nearly enough of it was brought to bear on Biosphere II."
encyclopedia style: "Jane Poynter, a researcher during the first mission, has said that the implications of the confined environment on the psychology of the team members was not adequately considered. (reference)"
I prefer magazine style! To me it's far more readable. I can read it once and understand it. I can get with the flow and stay with the flow. I can read far more of this in the same time period and for a longer concentrated period, and get more out of it, than I can with the "encyclopedia style."
We can bring Carl Sagan in as an example of a writer who takes on technical and seemingly difficult topics but who does so in a very approachable way.
Or this example, someone you love is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. You go to the doctor with them. They want to know, what is the next step, what do I need to start doing from here? A good doctor is going to lay it out. Not to overwhelm your family member, but to start the education process. The doctor might use a few technical terms that you both need to start learning, but it is not going to be a dry, technical, stilted, formalistic conversation. FriendlyRiverOtter 23:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly you can (and should) put your opinions for everyone to see and understand, but the objective of Wikipedia is to be a reliable source of information and, as such, must seek neutrality.

The reason why it must do so is the bias carried by a text written in order to show opinion. The search for neutrality oblies writers to observe and reason with ideas which are not in accordance to their own, generating an approach that is richer, better balanced and closer to the truth.

There is sufficient space for opinion in other types of media and this space must certainly be filled for the sake of freedom and knowledge.

As to the writting style, a more formal text structure is, in my point of view, the best way to cast opinion aside, since emotion put in words is a way to (even unconsciously) hide a non-neutral point of view in a text that shoud be neutral.

User:kibernetes 17:26 (GMT), 28 March 2007


Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. As you will see, the text is now attributed and footnotes have been added. El Ingles 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because you 'like POV' and think magazine style articles read better doesn't mean that it should be written that way. this is an encyclopedia! It is not Wikipedia's purpose to have article that give a person's POV. That is entriely unencyclopedic. Loki at6 07:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psych Section

Like Rhombus has said, this Psychology section is not written in an encyclopedic fashion: "The faction inside the bubble came from a rift between the joint venture partners on how the science should proceed, as biospherics or as specialist ecosystem studies. Was the Biosphere a scientific experiment or a business venture? Or perhaps just an enormous art installation? There was a high-powered Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), and they, of course, felt that Biosphere 2 was about science, or else what were they there for?"

This text is extremely passive and should be altered to state facts. "and they, of course, felt that..." the words 'of course' are totally unnecassary here. If you have a reference that says they 'felt that... [it] was about science' then that's all that needs to be said. The way the words 'of course' and 'or else what were they there for' are passive and unnecassary. Also, it is unencyclopedic to ask questions in the way this article has. 'Was.. [it] a scientific experiment or a business venture?' sure, that's a valid question, but not for Wikipedia. If it's not altered, I will change it myself. Basically, there might be references, but this is an encyclopedia, not a current affairs programme Loki at6 07:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read through it again, and I think overall the Psych section is good. However, I still believe the 3rd paragraph needs editting to remove POV and passive text.Loki at6 —Preceding comment was added at 07:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Decision at work, the ability to distance yourself

A bone-headed decision made by someone in a position of authority, often out of impatience, and everyone else feels compelled to cover up and use language that makes the decision process, and the end result, and what we're measuring, seem okay (often you simply stop measuring the aspects that are not working well). I have experienced how frustrating this is.

I do not have the additional experience of this happening in a confined environment. Does that make that big of a difference? Apparently. It some cases, it apparently does. And studies can address the circumstances of when it's more likely, and when it's less likely. The severe breakdowns, I mean. And the severe alienation. FriendlyRiverOtter 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit from Univ. Waterloo

I'm a bit mystified by today's excision. I've asked the editor for an explanation and if I don't have one in 4 days I will revert. Cheers. El Ingles 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. El Ingles 16:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

there's an issue with the link to edward bass, who the article says funded the project. the link directs to The Right Reverend Edward Bass. I'm not sure how to correct this issue, maybe someone else out there can.

68.105.120.240 00:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC) garrett.andrew@gmail.com

Our Edward Bass is Edward P. Bass, who does not appear to have a Wikipedia entry. Capmango 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned contribution on 13 jun 07

I was realy hoping for more data and less politics in this stub. There are relatively few bits of information of what and how much stuff was grown for consumption, the animals and plants involved, CO2 and food production/consumption by the various animate objects, caloric consumption of the human and other animal ocupants, and a sad ammount of links to other articals that I could continue related research with. The majority of this page is just about human drama and skimps on the science that was evidently some part of the scientific experiment. Is there any of this data to be found and put into this? Biosphere 2 is a highly complex system and deserves heaps of data and links not just this little stubby on the behaviour of people not qualified for their mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.23.252 (talk • contribs)

The data is here, and the link is right there on the wikipage. Please sign contribtions to discussion pages. Thanks. El Ingles 13:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COLUMBIA

The entire Columbia section needs to be gutted. Firstly, it is incredibly POV, and secondly, it only tangentially touches on Columbia's role in Biosphere 2. Hopefully someone with some independent sources can supply a valid section on the part of Biosphere 2's history with Columbia U. Capmango 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree. Unfortunately I'm not qualified to edit this section. El Ingles 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that all the POV information was just added by what appears to be an SPA. I am going to reduce the section down to what we know to be fact. Capmango 22:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ants are Plants?

In the last sentence of the History section on Mission 1, ants are referred to as "companion plants". Is that the correct terminology? Noley 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deriving conclusions?

While the article seems to have good information (I haven't checked the facts myself, but the references seem valid), I don't like the way the article is deriving conclusions, or at the very least, uses a language which, in many places, gives that impression. Take the following passage for instance:

Opinions differ as to whether this constituted "cheating" or in some way degraded the science that was taking place. However, as this was the first structure of its kind, it is logical that adjustments, refinements, and adaptations to this complex system would be needed.

While stating that opinions differ on an aspect is very in tune with an encyclopedia, I do not think that the article is the right place to discuss whether it is logical or not that adjustments would be needed. I do not know, in this instance, if the author knows that the some people have made that claim, or if it's just an accidental use of the expression, but in either case this particular sentence would need to be changed.

Quantum Omega 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the earlier version, in which I cited a specific accusation of "cheating". The current version seems to me remarkably obtuse. It has been alleged that carbon dioxide scrubbers were secretly installed, oxygen was added, and electric power was derived from natural gas rather than solar panels — this is ridiculous, those things are known FACTS, not allegations. Please revert if you wish, I try to avoid edit wars. El Ingles 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biosphere 2

Does anyone on Earth know when the people went in and went out of the dome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.97.146 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stablizing at equilibrium?

The following excerpt is from Kevin Kelly, OUT OF CONTROL: THE RISE OF NEO-BIOLOGICAL CIVILIZATION, Ch. 9 “Pop Goes The Biosphere,” Addison-Wesley, 1994, pp. 160-61:

"'Pop' is the term hobbyists in the saltwater aquarium trade use to describe what happens when a new fish tank suddenly balances after a long, meandering period of instability. Like Bio2, a saltwater fish tank is a delicate closed system that relies on an invisible world of microorganisms to process the waste of larger animals and plants. As Gomez, Folsome, and Pimm discovered in their microcosms, it can take 60 days for the microbes to settle into a stable community. In aquariums it takes several months for the various bacteria to develop a food web and to establish themselves in the gravel of the start-up tank. As more species of life are slowly added to the embryonic aquarium, the water becomes extremely sensitive to vicious cycles. If one ingredient drifts out of line (say, the amount of ammonia), it can kill off a few organisms which decompose to release even more ammonia, killing more creatures, thus rapidly triggering the crash of the whole community. To ease the tank through this period of acute imbalance, the aquarist nudges the system gently with judicious changes of water, select chemical additives, filtration devices, and inoculations of bacteria from other successful aquariums. Then after about six weeks of microbial give-and-take—the nascent community teetering on the edge of chaos—suddenly, overnight, the system 'pops' to zero ammonia. It’s now ready for the long haul. Once the system has popped, it is more self-sustaining, self-stabilizing, not requiring the artificial crutches that set-up needed.

"What is interesting about a closed-system pop is that the conditions the day before the pop and the day after the pop hardly change. Beyond a little babysitting, there is often nothing one can do except wait. Wait for the thing to mature, to ripen, to grow, and develop. 'Don’t rush it,' is the advice from saltwater hobbyists. 'Don’t hurry gestation as the system self-organizes. The most important thing you can give it is time.'

"Still green after two years, Bio2 is ripening. It suffers from wild, infantile oscillations that require 'artificial' nurturing to soothe. It has not popped yet. It may be years (decades?) before it does, if it ever does, if it even can. That is the experiment."

Lloyd Gomez built small to medium-scale coral reefs, pages 128-130.

Clair Folsome built sealed jars of microbes that were materially closed, but energetically open (sunlight), pages 130-32.

Stuart Pimm, and his colleague Jim Drake, built flasks of algae and microscopic animals. They found that same species, different order often produced systems with very different stable end points, pages 62-64.

[edit] But on the other hand, lions, antelopes, and drought

As I understand it, that system wanders widely, seemingly without linear, or even straightforward, relationships between cause and effect. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism (section 3.1)

This section is written in first person. Shouldn't it be between quotation marks and if so, what's the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkruijff (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to restore a previous version of this. The current version is unacceptable IMO. --El Ingles (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Great job, thanks StuHarris! Mkruijff (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"The university will pay $100 per year...." I'm assuming this is in the millions? Keraunoscopia (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)