DMT: A neurotransmitter?

[entheogenic-gnosis]

And what of the variety of neurotransmitter-like alkaloids that are not (psycho)active within a mammalian central nervous system? Many of which seem to be powerful anti-oxidants and/or involved in moderating a variety of biological processes (sexual reproduction, circadian rhythms, cellular metabolism, etc).

Plants are actually using them to talk to the ants. Us mammals only got caught up in it by chance..

This (about the ants) is claimed in the scientific article titled "Extrafloral-nectar-based partner manipulation in plant–ant relationships". If you are interested, you can find a reference to it in this post, part of a lively discussion thread, also involving highly related topics such as stoned apes, flying saucers from the hollow earth and "semen man".

However, I feel focus on neurotransmitters is more suited to this thread, and debate regarding plant consciousness and plant intention is somewhat off topic.

Not only off topic, but often a generous invitation for sloppy reasoning as well. I don't have the time to point out the insane amount of bollox and wishful thinking that seems to be par for those threads.

Entheogenic-gnosis, we've been down this road before, so before this blows up again, I'll try to suffice by quoting myself quoting your quoting of "authorities on the matter" (in another post in the above referenced thread):

Here's a quote from your "do plants have brains?" popular science article (I've added some emphasis):

So what do we conclude?
The notion that plants have brains in some sense is both interesting and thought-provoking. So provocative, indeed, that in 2007 thirty-six investigators from thirty-three institutions published an open letter in the journal Trends in Plant Science maintaining “that plant neurobiology does not add to our understanding of plant physiology, plant cell biology or signaling,” and imploring the proponents of the initiative to “to reevaluate critically the concept and to develop an intellectually rigorous foundation for it”—a nice way of saying, “just cut it out.”

Overall, the response from the plant neurobiologists on the matter of plant “brains” has been rather conflicted. Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh suggested that “plant neurobiology is a metaphor”—and nothing more. His focus was on the term itself, and his interest was principally in its importance in driving science to understand the cell biology of plants and the mysteries of plant cell-to-cell communication and signaling. But the biologists Franti.sek Balu.ska of the University of Bonn and Stefano Mancuso of the University of Florence strenuously argued for the literal existence of nervous systems in plants, suggesting that “removing the old Aristotelian schism between plants and animals will unify all multicellular organisms under one conceptual ‘umbrella.’”

Obviously, both perspectives cannot be right. Trewavas seems to us to call it what it is: simply a case of discussing similarities. It is the metaphor itself that makes statements about the similarity of plant and animal systems so interesting. But to make it useful, you have to acknowledge that it is metaphor. To unify plants and animals under a single “conceptual umbrella” when there really isn’t one, creates a genuine problem. For one thing, there is good evidence that plants and animals do not share a common ancestor to the exclusion of all other organisms on the planet. Fungi and the many single-celled organisms that have nuclei get in the way. A unifying umbrella would both disguise this reality and undermine the utility of the metaphor. When a metaphor is no longer recognized as such, fallacy becomes the rule of the day.

I can only hope that the proponents of plant intelligence/consciousness will take notice of these observations.

If we want to be objective, I think we can leave it at "plants produce the precursors to our higher neurotransmitters" as is the case with L-tryptophan for our tryptamine neurotransmitters and Phenylalanine and tyrosine for our phenethylamine neurotransmitters.

These amino acids, among many others, are primarily the building blocks of various proteins. Proteins are essential to life as we know it. In comparison, neurohormones are rather coincidental and insignificant in the bigger picture. Plants produce these amino acids to sustain their own lifeform, rather than to assist in our "conscious evolution".

Let's refrain from reinventing more "stoned ape" nonsense.

I never mentioned "plant brains" or "plant nervous systems", and I am wondering where you are deriving these assumptions from, in some cases you make rational arguments, however, the issue is they are not related to anything which I have said or posted.

I NEVER mentioned stoned ape theory, or even anything close to it. I think it's ridiculous that a person can not mention diet in the evolution of neurochemistry without someone flying off the handle with their wild assumptions and accusations of promoting "stoned ape theory"...

So, is the below speaking about "stoned ape theory" as well?

Abstract

Over the past decade, discussions of the evolution of the earliest human ancestors have focused on the locomotion of the australopithecines. Recent discoveries in a broad range of disciplines have raised important questions about the influence of ecological factors in early human evolution. Here we trace the cranial and dental traits of the early australopithecines through time, to show that between 4.4 million and 2.3 million years ago, the dietary capabilities of the earliest hominids changed dramatically, leaving them well suited for life in a variety of habitats and able to cope with significant changes in resource availability associated with long-term and short-term climatic fluctuations.
Since the discovery of Australopithecus afarensis, many researchers have emphasized the importance of bipedality in scenarios of human origins (1, 2). Surprisingly, less attention has been focused on the role played by diet in the ecology and evolution of the early hominids (as usually received). Recent work in a broad range of disciplines, such as paleoenvironmental studies (3, 4), behavioral ecology (5), primatology (6), and isotope analyses (7), has rekindled interests in early hominid diets. Moreover, important new fossils from the early Pliocene raise major questions about the role of dietary changes in the origins and early evolution of the Hominidae (8–10). In short, we need to focus not just on how the earliest hominids moved between food patches, but also on what they ate when they got there.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/25/13506.full

And again, you are completely misunderstanding or intentionally misinterpreting what I have posted.

I don't claim that all my speculations or conjecture are fact, and you seem to misunderstand this as well, there's nothing wrong with speculating or forming ideas based on the evidence at hand, there is nothing wrong with looking at a situation and saying "I think that this might be going on"

I know abstract thinking is not easy for everybody, so I will re-stare this:

Are these life forms conscious? Of coarse! Buts it's not consciousness as we would be familiar with it. when it comes to the collective conscious of all life and the species, the consciousness of plants, even concepts like Rupert sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields" we must push our definition of what it means to be conscious...
-eg

I encourage you to re-read my posts.

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

Pitubo, you are aware that the "do plants have brains" article had absolutely nothing to do with my argument or any of my posts, it was posted as an article "related to the topic" but I never said anything regarding it one way or the other, I never even used any excerpts or information from that article in any of my posts, I simply said "here is an article on the topic",

...and to think that I am endorsing or subscribing to the views of an article simply be caused I referenced it as being related to a topic is absurd.

This is why I feel you intentionally misinterpret my posts, you dig through them looking for anything to cite as "wrong" or argue about, and when you can't find it you resort to attributing others words or things I never said to me, and in the end you go off on these huge tangents which were in no way related to anything I have posted.

Again, when making claims like "you say this or you say that" it would help if you would cite the specific case where I did so, referencing my actual words.

I have asked you this in countless threads and never get a response: Do you think jelly-fish are conscious?

-eg

 

[pitubo]

Before going in-depth, I again wish to express my gratitude to you for maintining a splendid posting hygiene, quoting only the parts that you are responding to. It really helps keeping the discussion clear, succinct and easy to follow for interested parties.

Let's refrain from reinventing more "stoned ape" nonsense.

I never mentioned "plant brains" or "plant nervous systems", ..

Well not in this thread, or at least not yet...

.. and I am wondering where you are deriving these assumptions from, in some cases you make rational arguments, however, the issue is they are not related to anything which I have said or posted.

You DO remember the things you have been saying in this forum , don't you?

I NEVER mentioned stoned ape theory, or even anything close to it. I think it's ridiculous that a person can not mention diet in the evolution of neurochemistry without someone flying off the handle with their wild assumptions and accusations of promoting "stoned ape theory"...

What did the human brain look like before tryptophan? It would be unable to produce higher tryptamine neurotransmitters...then tryptophan shows up on in our diet via plants, and our bodies begin producing novel neurotransmitters like serotonin, the plant introduced tryptophan created our tryptamine neurotransmitters and thus our modern conscious state...

And I'm sure this is on going, are the plants offering us modified neurotransmitters to further our neurochemical evolution?

(source)

Ok, here's the "nonsense":

Take terence mckenna's "stoned ape theory" and combine it with the implications presented by the the film "what plants talk about", as well as all the other research involving plant communication, plant behavior, plant consciousness, that was presented in the other articles and links.

(source)

If you review these people's work, combined with some Alexander shulgin, then mix in terence mckenna' s "stoned ape theory" you should understand me perfectly...

Diet had to have been huge in human evolution, and it is compounds from our environment which shape us and drive our evolution...

Again, without tryptophan we would not be able to produce serotonin, meletonin, DMT, pinoline, etc...

(source)

So, is the below speaking about "stoned ape theory" as well?

I fail to see the relevance of the article to the discussion entirely. Are you trying to make a case for your theories about "brain explosion" again? How does an article describing possible relations between dietary habits and tooth enamel characteristics and mandible bone size relate to that? Did you actually read it yourself before mentioning it as an argument?

And again, you are completely misunderstanding or intentionally misinterpreting what I have posted.

It would really help to decrease the misunderstanding if you increased posting sanity (and hygiene IMHO) a bit.

You may actually be somewhat aware of this yourself:

I end up trying to post on 30 different things at once and my posts turn into a mess, it's impossible to maintain any communication with these long and chaotic strings of mixed information...so yes, some of my posts got incoherent, or were never edited, or were cut off in the middle, etc...but the ideas were all well founded, and formed off off experiment, observation, and research, most of it preformed by others, but that's the basis none the less.

(source)

I don't claim that all my speculations or conjecture are fact, and you seem to misunderstand this as well, there's nothing wrong with speculating or forming ideas based on the evidence at hand, there is nothing wrong with looking at a situation and saying "I think that this might be going on"

As for saying "we don't want this to happen" and posting an older thread, everything I said in those threads was also in this thread, my argument and presentation of evidence has changed very little, it was how others reacted to it Which makes the difference. All my statements come complete with empirical evidence and references.

(source)

I know abstract thinking is not easy for everybody,

My advice would be to practice structured thinking before attempting abstract thinking. There's this saying "fools rush in where angels fear to tread"...

I encourage you to re-read my posts.

I have, actually. In turn, I would like to encourage you to re-read your posts.

I have asked you this in countless threads and never get a response: Do you think jelly-fish are conscious?

Well, what do you mean by consciousness? Are you conscious? how does that consciousness relate to your postulated jelly-fish consciousness? What are you actually saying at all? What do terms still mean when you stretch and bend the terms to suit any narrative?

While we argue semantics and create arbitrary definitions of words like "conscious" "sentient" and "alive" in endless circles...

While I agree with your position, I think it important to challenge folks who use the words "certain" and "consciousness" in the same sentence. To my mind it is crucial to challenge the view that one can be certain about a thing like consciousness because the more one probes the concept the more one realizes the futility in defining such a term.

For me, at least, this was important to my future understanding (or lack thereof) of things like DMT, nature and consciousness.

(source)

To give you a direct answer: No, I don't think that jelly-fish have a lot of consciousness, at least not in any way meaningful or relevant to the common usage of the word.

 

[dreamer042]

Calling these a "benefit" is making quite an assumption. It seems to me that in most cases, the appropriate description of the "intent" of the mechanism in these interspecies chemical communications is that of a deterrent rather than an enticement.

While it is true alkaloids are often used as a defense mechanism to deter predatory animals and insects. It also true much of the biochemistry performed in plants is for the purpose of attracting these same animals and insects, for example the bees that pollinate the flowers and the birds that eat the fruit and carry the seeds to new locations(1,2,3). It is intriguing that animals are well known to seek out and ingest plants rich in alkaloids and secondary metabolites as a form of self-medication (4).

I think you would hard pressed to claim that there is no benefit in these long term co-evolutionary relationships. We are well aware that the majority of plants we know and love today would be nonexistent without the assistance of pollinating insects and foraging animals. Perhaps intent may be a dirty word, but there is certainly some level of understanding of environmental factors and species preservation taking place that causes a plant to create a certain alkaloid to deter caterpillars, and a certain scent to attract pollinators, and a certain color to attract herbivores.

Is it really that specious to reason that mammals with central nervous systems such a deer and rabbits and yes, even primates, are caught up in this ongoing interspecies co-evolutionary process? Particularly when you take the case of something like Zea mays which is unable to reproduce without human intervention, and incidentally now covers 96,000,000 acres of the United States landmass (5). To claim that humans and plants have not developed any kind mutually beneficial relationship over the past 300,000 years is really the only fallacious assumption I see present here.

 

[JustAnotherHuman]

Calling these a "benefit" is making quite an assumption. It seems to me that in most cases, the appropriate description of the "intent" of the mechanism in these interspecies chemical communications is that of a deterrent rather than an enticement.

While it is true alkaloids are often used as a defense mechanism to deter predatory animals and insects. It also true much of the biochemistry performed in plants is for the purpose of attracting these same animals and insects, for example the bees that pollinate the flowers and the birds that eat the fruit and carry the seeds to new locations(1,2,3). It is intriguing that animals are well known to seek out and ingest plants rich in alkaloids and secondary metabolites as a form of self-medication (4).

I think you would hard pressed to claim that there is no benefit in these long term co-evolutionary relationships. We are well aware that the majority of plants we know and love today would be nonexistent without the assistance of pollinating insects and foraging animals. Perhaps intent may be a dirty word, but there is certainly some level of understanding of environmental factors and species preservation taking place that causes a plant to create a certain alkaloid to deter caterpillars, and a certain scent to attract pollinators, and a certain color to attract herbivores.

Is it really that specious to reason that mammals with central nervous systems such a deer and rabbits and yes, even primates, are caught up in this ongoing interspecies co-evolutionary process? Particularly when you take the case of something like Zea mays which is unable to reproduce without human intervention, and incidentally now covers 96,000,000 acres of the United States landmass (5). To claim that humans and plants have not developed any kind mutually beneficial relationship over the past 300,000 years is really the only fallacious assumption I see present here.

QFT.

Back on the topic of DMT though, it's interesting to note that the sigma 1 receptor is a very important receptor in the human body.

We found here that the ER protein sigma-1 receptor (Sig-1R), which is implicated in neuroprotection, carcinogenesis, and neuroplasticity,

From this study.

The fact that DMT is an endogenous ligand for this receptor is fascinating.

 

[Final Incarnate]

Didnt watch the vid, so my response is based on title.


from my understanding on most pscyhes they bind to Seratonin Receptor.

Seratonin Receptor must be some sort of gate.


plug DMT to it, Seratonin receptor opens up the doors to that realm. same with other pscyhes etc.

Seratonin binding to seratonin closes the gates keeps you on earth so to speak. in Ape form.

to use notion of collective minds. Seratonin is collective earth mind, as i see Earth = anti Mind opening/expansion/ther realm contact.

Happiness and love, are affiliated mostly with healthy high seratonin levels, happiness and love are " 100% Completion & Laziness expereiences or effects or "Seratonin Breakthroughs" "

those 2 things if your satisfied you wont go digging for answers.

The average bubbleman/woman. get ups goes to work that they mostly enjoy, comes home to Family they mostly enjoy, their lives are focused around those things, google searching, best football summer camps for my offspring, etc, best vacation spots for the whole family ( good hotels, good food, water, entertainment which 99% of time is not psychedelic)

the above Bubbleman/woman . is being limited by "Seratonin Poison" .

When Bubbleman/Woman Expires/dies, they will come back to being bubbleman/woman. eventually theyll take a needle to the bubble and see n question much more, From there they will surpass any earth bound form of happiness or love.

 

[dreamer042]

So, bringing this thread right back on topic.

It would appear exogenously administered DMT is pretty clearly being utilized by the body as a neurotransmitter. The question I have would be in regards to microdosing DMT or in taking DMT without the presence of harmalas. We know that MAO will destroy it in the gut before sufficient amounts can get into the bloodstream and cross the blood brain barrier causing psychoactive effects. Is it possible, however, that some of this DMT could be taken up by the plethora of serotonin receptors in the stomach prior to being destroyed by MAO and in turn utilized as a neurotransmitter by the body, even though it's not making it to the brain to get us loaded?

On that same note, if one was to microdose DMT with harmalas, the MAO should selectively target the harmalas first, thus giving the DMT a better chance of being taken up through the SERT transporters in the gastrointestinal neurons. Perhaps we don't necessarily need to get high on DMT to take advantage of it's role as a neurotransmitter.

Another question I have is whether or not psilocybin is also being taken up through the SERT pathway and stored in vesicles for later use as an neurotransmitter in normal metabolism. This would help to explain the afterglow in the week or so following a good session often reported by explorers.

And on that note what about LSD, Mescaline, Ibogaine, etc etc etc. These things are so incredibly close to neurotransmitters, is it possible our bodies are inclined to treat them as such? And what effect might that have on our physiology, especially if supplemented long term?

Just some thoughts I had, would be interesting to see moar studies geared toward this line of reasoning.

 

[Psilociraptor]

Are plants using these compounds for their own individual neurotransmission purposes? Or as transmitters in the larger gaian matrix,

The answer is both and more. These processes can not be separate. I think this sort of question arises when we confuse our desire for teleology with "happening". When these sorts of things emerge into nature they form extensive nonlinear connections to everything they touch (and well, everything they don't touch as well). The very essence of Gaia theory is that the independent behavior of organisms collectively results in higher organization without that organisms awareness or intention. For example there's been some stuff in the news lately about methane eating organisms in the arctic ice. This would be a Gaian feedback system to the release of methane but the organisms do not engage this metabolism altruistically. The self organization of Gaia is not something that's contained within the individual. It is emergent phenomena of population dynamics that acts on all levels of complexity sciences. In other words, i tend to think of organization as perpendicular to "evolution". A sort of thermodynamic real-time process that operates on the given time-constructed particles but isn't contained within the particles themselves. These compounds are as much for human consumption as they are for plants as they are for Gaia. They were not created "for" anything. They merely arose and were successfully integrated across several systems. And the natural trend of things is to be integrated as extensively as possible to minimize flux. Any bacteria that does not recognize these molecules runs a serious risk of interference with their current mode of operation. In the most neutral case it will degrade these compounds. But that's metabolically costly so why not use them instead? Of course others will not adapt towards either of these ends and in these it becomes an antibiotic. In either case it's extended a "purpose" to each of these scenarios. Likewise humans come around and worship these things and it becomes integrated into a higher level cultural organization and efforts are taken to preserve and propagate the plant. On the other hand some animals do not take to these things and it effectively wards them off and serves to preserve and propagate the plant. It's purpose also extends to local ecology. What better way to prevent destruction than increasing the density of tree-hugging hippies. Again it has extended a plurality of "purposes" to the outside world at different levels of organization. And as far as the plants own "neurochemistry"... well plants don't have neurons, but they do have roots and serotogenic compounds probably extend at least part of their purpose in the auxin pathway as growth regulators in a manner analogous at least in some extent to human neurophysiology. Speculative of course, but it's hard to imagine their similarities wouldn't lead to interference

So in other words anything that is transferred between systems is information. So long as this signal has endured the test of time it's "purpose" serves an irreducible plurality of "functions". Each system that interacts with it is FORCED to respond to it. Some systems may choose to degrade this signal and make it "irrelevant". In such cases the signal will always become relevant again at a certain concentration that exceeds this capacity. The most energetically conservative approach is to utilize the signal when possible however. There are few set rules on how such a thing may be exploited by different systems. And for those that avoid it, a purpose is served on that level as well. The removal of these compounds will have global consequences. Whether they are subtle or dramatic remains to be seen. But what we know about them is irrelevant and our knowledge has an intrinsic limit. The fact is that this is the case for all non-equilibrium systems. No part can be extracted from the whole without losing information about it. When we indulge teleology we are committing to one particular description of the system. Maybe two, maybe three. But never the whole. We lose information about the object in question and it is therefor an inherently reductionist methodology to understanding the world. There is nothing that serves Gaia that does not serve the individual and visa versa

 

[syberdelic]

Psilociraptor, that's a very interesting take on the concept of the Gaian mind. It's very refreshing to have the mysticism peeled back to reveal science.

 

[mikeAtHome]

So in other words anything that is transferred between systems is information. So long as this signal has endured the test of time it's "purpose" serves an irreducible plurality of "functions"...

So then Psilociraptor, that seems to imply that man-made things like the wheel, solar cell tech, RCs (for all I know) are really no different from naturally evolved stuff? I mean, in a sense, isn't everything "Gaian"? I'm not trying to trip you up here because I don't feel there's a huge distinction. In nature/evolution a ton of stuff winds up in the waste basket and also the opposite. Why would we call something unnatural when it's the product of a biological entity changing a behavioral pattern in response to a change in surrounding environment?

Just yesterday, I stumbled across a PDF containing the product line of chemicals and services being offered to to DEA certified entities (presumably other labs). Thousands of analytes consisting of pharma and street drugs (both "natural" and RC), drug impurities, reagents and so on. I didn't realize there are a number so many "tryptamine" and "trimipramine" compounds out there. But it did make me wonder... What if the RC was the only version and it did not exist in plant matter. Would it make a difference? And today, I come across this thread and wonder, Would we be having this same conversation?

 

[syberdelic]

I'm not sure that RCs or other man made things have yet stood the test of time. A large portion of our technology has not existed for more than a few hundred years and it is yet to be seen if it will endure a single millennium.

But back to the OP, every time I open this thread, that graph of DMTs receptor activity is staring at me and the 5-HT3 slot is filled in blue. It can't possibly be an antagonist. What other possibilities are there?

 

[Psilociraptor]

So in other words anything that is transferred between systems is information. So long as this signal has endured the test of time it's "purpose" serves an irreducible plurality of "functions"...

So then Psilociraptor, that seems to imply that man-made things like the wheel, solar cell tech, RCs (for all I know) are really no different from naturally evolved stuff? I mean, in a sense, isn't everything "Gaian"? I'm not trying to trip you up here because I don't feel there's a huge distinction. In nature/evolution a ton of stuff winds up in the waste basket and also the opposite. Why would we call something unnatural when it's the product of a biological entity changing a behavioral pattern in response to a change in surrounding environment?

Just yesterday, I stumbled across a PDF containing the product line of chemicals and services being offered to to DEA certified entities (presumably other labs). Thousands of analytes consisting of pharma and street drugs (both "natural" and RC), drug impurities, reagents and so on. I didn't realize there are a number so many "tryptamine" and "trimipramine" compounds out there. But it did make me wonder... What if the RC was the only version and it did not exist in plant matter. Would it make a difference? And today, I come across this thread and wonder, Would we be having this same conversation?

I apologize in advance for any Kratom induced sloppiness in thought or delivery

But yes, exactly. The concept of "natural vs unnatural" is one stemming from anthropocentrism. It assumes we somehow mediate a bridge between two worlds, one of them that we created. It's pure delusion. Not to say there's no colloquial utility of those terms. If it is human well-being we are concerned with then there is a difference between "natural" and "unnatural". One is a historical definition of what humans are while the other refers to our deviation from this history. We only really distinguish them because it is the change that we are particularly fearful of and this is a valid use of the word "unnatural" as the context here is about as distinct as that between organic chemistry and organic produce. We're identifying with a distinct concept having to do with change and stability rather than technical use of the term. But Gaia is much more easily redefined than humans are so there is no appropriate use of the word "unnatural" as Gaia may be anything from a world of bacterial mats to world overrun with advanced civilization. In fact the same complexity theories that have been applied to thermodynamic structures have been applied to sociology, economics, and organismal biology. Whether the signal exchange be heat between bodies or industrial goods between cities the patterns are largely the same and it's that sort of dynamic that ultimately defines Gaia more so than the particular temporal manifestation of it. Humans have not deviated at all from nature in principle. Only from nature as they historically identify with it. The invention of all those things you mentioned obviously serve their anthropological purposes. But if they stand the test of time their purpose becomes a plurality just like any other "natural" object. The wheel for example may pick up pollen and microorganisms and transmit them across the world. At the end of it's life it may become a habitat for other mammals, and some day ultimately food as Gaia learns to recycle it. And if this goes on long enough, Gaia as we know it might depend on this "natural" behavior to accomplish all these tasks. At this point you can no longer ask "what is a wheel for". Because it depends on what part of the system you wish to describe. Be it plant life, animal, or microbiological. And all the subcontexts beneath that. It is now part of the irreducible whole

One book that really changed my mind on the whole natural/synthetic thing was Lynn Margulis's "Microcosmos". About two billion years ago cyanobacteria "invented" photosynthesis which allowed the extraction of hydrogen from water as opposed to dwindling sources of methane and sulfur based compounds. Problem was oxygen was a byproduct of this new invention and at this time it was arguably the most poisonous substance on earth. So innovation inevitably led to mass pollution and ultimately one of the greatest extinction events on the planet. One could easily parallel this to modern human behaviors. However, on the other side organisms learned to utilize this highly reactive oxygen and this increase in efficiency is directly responsible for the development of eukaryotic cells and multicellular life. Yin/yang, order/chaos, punctuated equilibrium... However you want to look at it the chaos of innovation is always welcome to the development of higher order. Suffering is an inevitable consequence though. As you said, a lot of things wind up in the waste basket. And there's no telling what will be the change that makes it to the other side and what will just contribute pointless suffering. In this case oxygen was "unnatural" to nearly everything that encountered it but not to the Gaian perspective which readily integrated it.

So as far as RC's, they're certainly "natural" in the technical sense but not in the historical sense. They will likely interfere with any system they touch. Whether it's enough to collapse a system, force adaptation, or will simply be degraded is controlled by many different factors. But they hold that potential more so than chemicals being shuffled around their historically determined contexts. One day some RC's may find a permanent integration in nature. If this happens it evolves beyond a noxious flux and becomes an inseparable part of Gaian information exchange. It would have to be reinforced by a sense of importance across many different systems however.