FOUND: Interstellar Pre-Biotic, Pre-RNA Molecular Clouds Residing Throughout the Milky Way

FOUND: An Interstellar Pre-Biotic, Pre-RNA Molecular

Cloud Residing Throughout the Milky Way

by R.E. Slater

July 15, 2022

 

[ARTICLE EXCERPTS]

The heart of the Milky Way is apparently a hotspot for molecules that combine to form RNA...

A new survey of the thick, molecular clouds that shroud the galactic center has revealed the presence of a wide range of nitriles – organic molecules that are often toxic in isolation, but also constitute the building blocks of molecules essential for life...

The increase in prebiotic molecules (molecules involved in the emergence of life) identified in the galactic center, particularly those associated with RNA, has implications for our understanding of how life emerges in the Universe – and how it did so here on Earth...

"Here we show that the chemistry that takes place in the interstellar medium is able to efficiently form multiple nitriles, which are key molecular precursors of the 'RNA World' scenario," explained astrobiologist Víctor Rivilla of the Spanish National Research Council and the National Institute of Aerospace Technology in Spain....

I wrote an article less than a year ago about the about all the things in common which humanity shares with the Earth. It came about because I was listening to the traditional interpretation of biblical anthropology I had grown up with as to how mankind is uniquely unique to all of creation. Which, in one sense it is. And yet, in another sense it isn't. From a praying mantis' view of itself it can claim the same thing about its uniqueness which man cannot, but the poor thing can't write and so cannot place an addendum into the Genesis record of being made in God's image (sad face :/).

Typically then this very common viewpoint claims man is the epicenter of God's creativity so much so that we were given dominion over all of it and is backed up by the Genesis statement in 1:26-28.

As things go, it strokes the egos of Christians and separates us from the mindsets of the Native American Indians and Asian Buddhist communities (among others) which see mankind as part of the warp-and-woof of creation. That is, as part of the essential foundation of creation not as its center point or even the full meaning of creation.

Rather, mankind is a product of its environment... which from an evolutionary point of view is absolutely true. Man is no more, nor no less, from the Earth's resident potentialities. That is, man is pretty much the same as everything else. We come from the Earth and will return to the Earth.

And lest we forget, all creation is filled with God’s Imago Dei, not just man. This would be one of Process Theology’s fundamental cornerstones. It’s why process theology may be described as a process relational theology.

It emphasizes man’s relationship with all of creation even as creation is in relationship to itself, evolving, communicating, networking, “speaking” its language of relationality, of community, of affectation good and bad of panexperientialism, panrelationalism, and panpsychism. This is but one of the aspects of process theology (and philosophy) which marks it as uniquely different from the yesteryear world of mechanism, individualism, substance thinking, and so on.

Genesis 3:19 ESV

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Ecclesiastes 3:20 ESV

All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 ESV

And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

1 Samuel 31:12 ESV

All the valiant men arose and went all night and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and they came to Jabesh and burned them there.

John 3:16 ESV

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 8:7 ESV

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Acts 1:3 ESV

He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Joshua 7:25 ESV

And Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord brings trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him with stones. They burned them with fire and stoned them with stones.

Ezekiel 18:1-32 ESV

The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge’? As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. “If a man is righteous and does what is just and right...

Final thought, and the reason this post was created…

I find the discovery of interstellar molecular clouds astounding! To find pre-biotic, pre-RNA molecular clouds lying everywhere throughout the Milky Way goes beyond the imagination in explaining the origins of life. Though why we hadn’t imagined the universe’s RNA potentiality until now is truly a paradox. Especially as it’s clues lied everywhere around us – in plants, animals, bugs, the worlds of the small, and within our own bodily composition. But it took astrochemists to discover this wonderment beyond the mere Earth-centric evolutionists in all of us. Amazing!

Thus and thus, if there is no organic mix than there is no life. We claim to be born of star dust but it that molecular mixture cannot produce pre-RNA than these are but idle, poetic statements.

But if such initial conditions are present in our galactic universe than we should expect RNA-based organic lifeforms everywhere throughout the Milky Way's galactic regions. Consequently, these prebiotic organic molecular compounds seeded earth for life.

Which is another way of saying that when studying earth we are studying our galactic origins and may expect to find RNA based lifeforms throughout the galaxy of the Milky Way... If not beyond our galaxy and throughout the universe itself… assuming such preorganic molecular clouds are not unique to the Milky Way alone, but were a distribution of life from the Big Bang's very beginning – it’s chaotic birth of life into life.

R.E. Slater

July 16, 2022

Related References

Star Light, Star Bright - a poem by R.E. Slater

What Does It Mean to be Human? - Pachyderms, Podcasts & Process

Index - Process Sciences: Biology, Physics, Computing

Despite the generally hostile nature of the environments involved, chemistry does occur in space. Molecules are seen in environments that span a wide range of physical and chemical conditions and that clearly were created by a multitude of chemical processes, many of which differ substantially from those associated with traditional equilibrium chemistry.

The wide range of environmental conditions and processes involved with chemistry in space yields complex populations of materials, and because the elements H, C, O, and N are among the most abundant in the universe, many of these are organic in nature, including some of direct astrobiological interest.

Much of this chemistry occurs in “dense” interstellar clouds and protostellar disks surrounding forming stars because these environments have higher relative densities and more benign radiation fields than in stellar ejectae or the diffuse interstellar medium. Because these are the environments in which new planetary systems form, some of the chemical species made in these environments are expected to be delivered to the surfaces of planets where they can potentially play key roles in the origin of life.

Because these chemical processes are universal and should occur in these environments wherever they are found, this implies that some of the starting materials for life are likely to be widely distributed throughout the universe.

* * * * * * *

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article Front. Astron. Space Sci., 08 July 2022

Sec.Astrochemistry

https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2022.876870

This article is part of the Research Topic RNA World Hypothesis and the Origin of Life: Astrochemistry Perspective

View all 13 Articles - RNA World Hypothesis and the Origin of Life: Astrochemistry Perspective

Molecular Precursors of the RNA-World in Space: New Nitriles in the G+0.693−0.027 Molecular Cloud

The galactic center, imaged in infared. (NASA/JPL-Caltech/S. Stolovy, Spitzer Science Center/Caltech)

Loads of Precursors For RNA Have Been

Detected in The Center of Our Galaxy

article link

by Michelle Starr

July 8, 2022

The heart of the Milky Way is apparently a hotspot for molecules that combine to form RNA.

A new survey of the thick, molecular clouds that shroud the galactic center has revealed the presence of a wide range of nitriles – organic molecules that are often toxic in isolation, but also constitute the building blocks of molecules essential for life.

The increase in prebiotic molecules (molecules involved in the emergence of life) identified in the galactic center, particularly those associated with RNA, has implications for our understanding of how life emerges in the Universe – and how it did so here on Earth.

"Here we show that the chemistry that takes place in the interstellar medium is able to efficiently form multiple nitriles, which are key molecular precursors of the 'RNA World' scenario," explained astrobiologist Víctor Rivilla of the Spanish National Research Council and the National Institute of Aerospace Technology in Spain.

Precisely how life emerged on Earth is a mystery whose bottom scientists are extremely keen to reach. That information will yield important clues to discovering exoplanets likely to harbor living organisms.

One version is that RNA emerged first from the metaphorical ooze, self-replicating and diversifying all on its own; this is what's called the RNA World Hypothesis.

We're not likely to ever get direct evidence from Earth, but we can put together more and more clues to figure out how plausible and likely this scenario is. One of the questions raised by this hypothesis is about the source of RNA prebiotic molecules such as nitriles. Were they here on Earth from the start, or could they have been carried in from space on meteorites and asteroids?

We know the inner Solar System, including Earth, was subject to a period of intense asteroid bombardment very early in its history. We've also found prebiotic molecules on meteors, comets, and asteroids hanging around the Solar System today. And where do meteors, comets and asteroids get them [as they fly through the galaxy]?

Well, probably the clouds they were born in: cold molecular clouds that give birth to stars. Once a star finishes forming from a section of cloud, the cloud leftovers go on to form everything else in a planetary system – planets, comets, asteroids, dwarf planets, and whatever else might be lurking about.

The Solar System's birth cloud is long gone, but the center of the galaxy is thick with molecular clouds. It's called the Central Molecular Zone, and scientists have found a bunch of prebiotic molecules hanging around there.

One particular cloud, named G+0.693-0.027, is especially interesting. There's no evidence of star formation there yet, but scientists believe that a star or stars will form there in the future.

"The chemical content of G+0.693-0.027 is similar to those of other star-forming regions in our galaxy, and also to that of Solar System objects like comets," Rivilla said.

"This means that its study can give us important insights about the chemical ingredients that were available in the nebula that give rise to our planetary system."

The researchers used two telescopes to study the spectrum of light coming from the cloud. When certain elements or molecules absorb and re-emit light, this can be seen on the spectrum as a darker or lighter line. Interpreting these absorption and emission lines can be tricky, but it can also be used to identify which molecules are present: each one has its own spectral signature.

By carefully studying and analyzing emission features from G+0.693-0.027, Rivilla and his colleagues identified a range of nitriles, including cyanic acid, cyanoallene, propargyl cyanide, and cyanopropyne. They also made tentative detections of cyanoformaldehyde, and glycolonitrile.

Previous observations of G+0.693-0.027 revealed the presence of cyanoformaldehyde, and glycolonitrile. This suggests that nitriles are among the most abundant chemical families in the Milky Way, and that the most basic building blocks for RNA can be found in the clouds that give birth to stars and planets.

But there is – of course, as there always is – more work to be done.

"We have detected so far several simple precursors of ribonucleotides, the building blocks of RNA," explained astrobiologist Izaskun Jiménez-Serra, also of the Spanish National Research Council and the National Institute of Aerospace Technology.

"But there are still key missing molecules that are hard to detect. For example, we know that the origin of life on Earth probably also required other molecules such as lipids, responsible for the formation of the first cells. Therefore we should also focus on understanding how lipids could be formed from simpler precursors available in the interstellar medium."

The research has been published in Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences.

* * * * * * *

What Is Astrochemistry?

https://owlcation.com/stem/What-Is-Astrochemistry

by 

LEONARD KELLEY,

MAY 6, 2022

Leonard Kelley holds a bachelor's in physics with a minor in mathematics. He loves the academic world and strives to constantly explore it.

It’s What’s on the Inside…of a Galaxy

As it turns out, stars make very little of the mass of a galaxy, which end up being mainly unbonded gas and dust in a baryonic sense, for the rest is the mysterious dark matter. Stars that are born do interact with these regions in different ways, mainly depending on the size of the star and the density of material around it. But in general, the bigger the star then the more radiation it outputs into space. Ultraviolet  [radiation] is amongst the largest energy output photons that big stars release, and are absorbed by the gas surrounding it (Shields 9-10).

This causes electrons to be released and so it has become ionized. We call these regions H II, namely for the double spectral lines of hydrogen that are characteristic of them. Because of the ionizing effect, other wavelengths are released in the visible, radio, and IR along with the UV from the stars themselves and so we can also call these objects emission nebula (Ibid).

By looking at the spectral lines of these H II regions we can gather information on the temperature of the region as well as the density of each element that is present. We are interested in seeing the chemical evolution of the Universe, and these regions can assist with that. It all goes back to when the Universe was 1 minute old. At that time, only loose protons, neutrons, and electrons were flying about and no atoms were possible. But a few minutes later, the Universe cooled to the point where nuclei could be formed, specifically lots of deuterium and helium (10).

Ironically, a few more minutes later the Universe was too cool to create anymore nuclei and so synthesis stopped at a roughly 100 hydrogen to 7 helium ratio. Most of this original helium still exists in the Universe to this day with hydrogen being the preferred starting route for star formation and the vast distances between space objects preserving many elements (Ibid).

The Orion Nebula, a fous H II region. | Sciences in the Mural of Life

Flash forward a few 100 million years after the Big Bang and we get some of the first galaxies cropping up. Under the appropriate density and gravimetric conditions, some of the gas inside the galaxies collapsed and you have stars forming. These are the sites of heavy element formation, and for most stars the end of the line is iron. It simply takes too much energy to fuse beyond that and so eventually a star can no longer support itself against gravity and a supernova occurs. These events can create even heavier elements than iron and release them to the Universe. Now, our gaseous regions have tons of contaminants that can become incorporated into new stars forming (15).

In fact, each new batch of stars should become dirtier and dirtier. But not all stars end in a supernova. In fact, smaller ones have a long lifespan and so we can use the small stars much like insects trapped in amber, preserving some clues as to the timeframe (and chemistry) of its host galaxy. We have a “partial recycling program” here, where some stars trap material and others create new ones. This means heavier elements should be on the rise and smaller ones on the decrease. This is known as the simple model of elemental history for galaxies (Ibid).

Using the simple model, we can get a feel for the age of a galaxy. If you have older stars with less heavy elements then the host galaxy is young while if many newer stars have many heavy elements in them that implies an older galaxy (basically, it’s all about the timeframe needed to produce the amount of heavy elements seen in the most recent generation of stars). Using spectroscopy, we can gather data about the chemical elements in the stars themselves (15-6).

Now, let’s go back to that helium from the formation of the Universe. We care so much about the helium because certain models call for certain amounts of the material to be present. Therefore, if we can get a feel for the amount that is out there we can eliminate some models of universal growth. This is where irregular galaxies come in handy. Because of their lumpiness and high-gas concentration, not as many stars have formed there. These galaxies could be time capsules for how much stars make helium in the universe and so we can remove that amount from what is present and estimate the original values (16).

The Space Between Us and Them

Unlike the relatively dense conditions of a galaxy, the average density of the interstellar space (or the spans between stars) is about 1-2 atoms per cubic centimeter. On Earth, the best vacuum achievable is 1 million times denser than that, so it may seem space is pretty empty. But, if you rather all that nearly emptiness together and it’s not so insignificant anymore. And some places are denser than other, creating beautiful clouds of debris that are dispersed throughout space. If such a cloud of material happens to be around a star, it’s very easy to spot as radiation impacts it, generating many H II or ionized regions (Marschall 9-10).

H I regions, also known as reflection nebula, “are composed predominately of electrically neutral hydrogen atoms and molecules,” tend to be dark as well as cold and not very luminous. This makes spotting them challenging but not impossible. If you look at a patch of stars and notice an unusually empty space, its likely one of these H I regions blocking out the stars behind it. The dust in these clouds would be needed in great quantities to absorb the solar rays and also to preserve the fragile molecules contained in them (Ibid).

Interestingly, about 7% of interstellar clouds are H I regions and another 7% are H II regions, making the rest invisible to us…usually. It depends on what part of the spectrum you are looking at, and visible light isn’t the only piece of data we have. We can look at IR, UV, radio, gamma, and so on for further clues. The big key here is to look for absorption spectrums, a result of col gas being hit by hot rays and absorbing some of their spectrum. But the immediate conditions around a star can also absorb photons, so how can we tell what’s absorbing what? What’s local interference from the star and what’s the interstellar medium’s clouds? (10).

Well, overall the absorption lines from interstellar material “are generally weaker, narrower, and sharper” than those from stellar lines. Also, temperatures around a star are anywhere from 2,500 K to 30,000 K while the interstellar medium cloud averages about 100 K, so different portions of the spectrum will be impacted (Ibid).

IRAS 05437+2502, a little known reflection nebula. | Pinterest

These spectral clues were how scientists spotted some surprising molecules in space. In April 2019, Rolf Gusten (Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Germany) and team used data from the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy to spot helium hydride, one of the first molecules created in the universe, in NGC 7027. The telescope that collected the data flew above the water vapor in our atmosphere, allowing infrared clues to be collected, specifically at the wavelength of 149 micrometers. This helium hydride wasn’t created from the early universe but when a red giant star cast off its outer layers, resulting in high energy UV rays stripping helium of an electron and making it conducive to bonding with neutral hydrogen (Croswell).

Another molecular find was argonium, or an argon and hydrogen. Peter Schilke (University of Cologne in Germany) and David Neufeld (John Hopkins University) used data from the Herschell Space Observatory, which uses liquid helium to cool the craft and thus make extreme infrared readings possible, to spot the molecule at a wavelength of about 240 microns. It was created in the remains of the Crab Nebula when a cosmic ray removes an electron from argon which then can take a hydrogen from its natural H2 form due to the greater charge disparity. As it turns out, argonium can have its hydrogen ripped if enough H2 is present, so it’s a delicate balancing act and can in fact inform scientists as to what regions are more likely to spot potential new star factories, since hydrogen is the easiest material to fuse (Ibid).

But interestingly another clue to help us understand space material can tip us to what is what: Doppler shifts. If the thing that is absorbing photons is moving towards us, the spectrum becomes blue-shifted, but if it is moving away then it is red-shifted. In fact, Doppler shifts can reveal if many clouds are between us and a host star. And of course, spectrums can reveal chemical compositions, so knowing what is commonly in stars can help us determine cloud material. Hydrogen, helium carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are frequently found in stars. This then reveals that clouds contain lots of calcium, sodium, potassium, and titanium (Marshall 10, 15).

Once you average out all the data we can collect on interstellar clouds, you find that they typically are 25 light years in size, have an average density of 1 to 10 atoms per cubic centimeter, and have an average mass of 100 Suns. But…averaging out the cloud properties is like trying to average out the properties of the planets. Commonalities exist, but much more specialized things do, too. Interstellar clouds can be as small as a few solar systems but can be as large as 100s of light years. Smaller clouds may be missed by stars and elude detection while large clouds can widely variable in their distribution and so be mistaken for several, smaller objects (15, 18).

Conflicting Data

With all of this in mind, astronomers can get a feel for Universal makeup and therefore behavior at different times of its life. Some data points to the simple model of elemental history for galaxies into question. One such issue with the simple model is known as the G-dwarf problem (of which our Sun happens to be a member of). These stars seems to have a lover heavy element count than the simple model predicts they should. It could be that gas from outside the galaxy falls into it, causing the ratios to be thrown off as more untainted material is present (Shields 16).

But an even bigger problem is the star production rate seen in the early Universe. All around us we see galactic clusters with elliptical galaxies, which are dead or dying in the stellar sense. In fact, these are what is left of the largest galaxies from the early Universe. If you look at their content and play things in reverse, then it points to clusters being firmly established in the Universe about half its current age ago (Long 28).

The progenitors of these clusters, aptly named protoclusters, have been spotted within the first 3 billion years of the Universe’s existence, and so have required recent developments in telescope technology to be able to resolve them, and we now think they grew quicker than our models allow for (Ibid).

What a protocluster may have looked like. | AAS Nova

Normally, an average galaxy with a lifespan of roughly 10 billion years makes 1-10 sun-like stars per year, depending on the interstellar medium and current age of the galaxy. A starburst galaxy is much busier, making 100s to 1000s of sun-like stars a year. Because of elemental resources, they usually hit their peak at 300 million years old, and eventually depleted material until becoming the elliptical of today (29-31).

But finding them in protoclusters was hard because of their high red star content and much hot interstellar gas blocking out light. You would have better luck spotting them in their starburst phase, but dust becomes an issue ironically from the high production of stars releasing heavy elements to their surroundings. Also, protoclusters were much more spread out than the clusters of today (for they were on their way to becoming the close companions they are now) (Ibid).

With the rise of new telescopes like ALMA, the Submillimeter Common User Bolometer Array, the Hershel Space Observatory, the South Pole Telescope, and the Spitzer Space Telescope, the required resolution was finally achievable. In 2018, ALMA looked at two different protoclusters: SPT12349-56 (14 galaxies) and the Distant Red Core (DRC) (10 galaxies), from different places in the Universe when it was 1.3 to 1.4 billion years old. These clusters showed tons of stars forming, at almost 10,000 times the rate of our galaxy! If this rate was sustained, then those early galaxies would have run out of fuel in only a few 100 million years and become elliptical - but way before they should have (31-2).

Science is all about adjusting the theories it produces, and galactic behavior will be no different. So stay tuned, for I am sure this field is only going to heat up….

Works Cited

Croswell, Ken. “Space is the Place for impossible molecules.” Astronomy.com. Kalmbach Publishing Co., 31 Mar. 2021. Web. 22 Jun. 2021.

Lng, Arianna S. “Too Big For The Universe.” Scientific American. Jan. 2021. Print. 28-33.

Marschall, Lawrence. “Secrets of Interstellar Clouds.” Astronomy Mar. 1982. Print. 9-10, 15, 18.

Shields, Gregory. “The Chemistry of Galaxies.” Astronomy June 1981. Print. 9-10, 16-7.

This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.

@ 2022 Leonard Kelley

Astrobiology, Exo-Philosophy and Cosmic Religion

REGISTER NOW

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/astrobiology-exo-philosophy-and-cosmic-religion-tickets-167646488159

An exploration of the relevance of process philosophy to

astrobiological science and the search for extraterrestrial Intelligence.

About this event

The possibility of a truly biological universe has not ceased to haunt the human imagination. Over the past three decades, the discovery of thousands of exo-planets has spurred novel research programs integrating science, philosophy and theology in exciting new ways. A variety of stimulating proposals have drawn together convergent insights in physics, cosmology and astrobiology; metaphysics and the philosophy of mind; the philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. Ever-more-relevant questions as to the status and implications of wide-ranging life in the universe continue to be raised. These questions in turn spark deeper questions about the necessary philosophical assumptions or presuppositions of a bio-centric universe; and wider constructive considerations as to how theology, religion, and society must change in light of the impact of discovery.

Little attention, however, has been explicitly directed toward the valuable resources inherent in process philosophy when approaching these questions. What constructive dimensions do the organic philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead, Henri Bergson, Teilhard de Chardin and others sustain for the interrelated scientific, philosophical and religious dimensions of astrobiological research? What is the place of process, organism, temporality, novelty, experience, value, mind and intelligence in a more than human universe? How does process philosophy anticipate the creative evolution of philosophy, theology and religion beyond earth? Sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation and organized by the Center for Process Studies and the Whitehead Research Project, this conference is the first full-scale investigation of the relevance of process philosophy to extraterrestrial life. Visit https://www.processastrobiology.com/ for more information.

Date and time:

Thu, May 5, 2022, 4:00 PM –

Sat, May 7, 2022, 12:30 PM PDT

Location:

Willamette University

900 State Street

Salem, OR 97301

View Map

SPONSOR

Center for Process Studies

Organizer of Astrobiology, Exo-Philosophy

and Cosmic Religion

The Center for Process Studies (CPS) is a faculty research center of Claremont School of Theology at Willamette University. CPS conducts interdisciplinary research guided by the view that interconnection, change, and intrinsic value are core features of the universe.

 

Conference Vision & Rationale

"[O]n a grand scale, our cosmology discloses a process of overpowering change, from nebulae to stars, from starts to planets, from inorganic matter to life, from life to reason and moral responsibility. We can no longer conceive of existence under the metaphor of a permanent depth of ocean with its surface faintly troubled by transient waves. There is an urge in things which carries the world far beyond its ancient conditions."–Alfred North Whitehead

The possibility of a truly biological universe has not ceased to haunt the human imagination. Over the past three decades, the discovery of thousands of exo-planets has spurred novel research programs integrating science, philosophy and theology in exciting new ways. Indeed, a variety of stimulating proposals have drawn together convergent insights in physics, cosmology and astrobiology; metaphysics and the philosophy of mind; the philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. Ever-more-relevant questions as to the status and implications of wide-ranging life in the universe continue to be raised. These questions in turn spark deeper questions about the necessary philosophical assumptions or presuppositions of a bio-centric universe; and wider constructive considerations as to how theology, religion, and society must change in light of the impact of discovery.

Little attention, however, has been explicitly directed toward the valuable resources inherent in the philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead, Teilhard de Chardin, Henri Bergson and other process philosophers when approaching these questions. What constructive dimensions do pervasive themes of process, organism, temporality, novelty, experience, value, and mind, harbor for the interrelated concerns of astrobiology, philosophy, and theology? This conference proposes three core layers of investigation:

Astrobiology and Process Philosophies: Initial Connections

How should we frame the relationship between astrobiology and process philosophy?

• What points of convergence and divergence does this relationship sustain and how might this differ from that of other sciences and philosophies?

• In what ways does a “philosophy of organism” undergird affirmations of a “biological universe”? 

• Do the developments of astrobiology also inform the development, reaches and/or limitations of process philosophies as differently put forth by Whitehead, Teilhard and Bergson?

• What challenges emerge in and among these figures with respect to the goals of astrobiology?

 A Philosophy of Exo-Life: Origins, Experience, Mind

• What must be assumed or presupposed metaphysically of a biological universe in the context of Whitehead, Teilhard and Bergson’s work?

• Do these exo-philosophical assumptions inform or transform our understanding of cosmic origins and evolution; mechanism and organism; possibility and actuality; experience and freedom; life and mind; temporality and eternity?

• How do theories of life’s origins and possible pervasiveness (e.g. panspermia) relate to process theories of mind and its possible pervasiveness (e.g. panpsychism)? Is mentality necessarily “living?” Does life necessarily imply “mind?”

• What insights or challenges arise when considering the relationship between experience, life, and mind beyond particular planets, galaxies and perhaps even universes?

• How might considerations of a “bio-centric” cosmological principle challenge and/or expand narrower “anthropic” commitments when situated within the cosmological visions of Whitehead, Teilhard, and Bergson?

 Cosmic Religion: Toward a Constructive Process Cosmotheology

Steven J. Dick’s “cosmotheology” calls for radically new conceptions of a natural God and a “religious naturalism” that uniquely support a bio-centric evolutionary cosmos. While he has stated that “No Thomas Aquinas for cosmotheology has yet appeared…,” he does hold that “In its emphasis on evolutionary becoming, Cosmotheology resonates well with Whitehead’s process theology…It also resonates with the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin’s evolutionary cosmology…” These statements open unique spaces for considering more deeply the resources of these and other process philosophers for reframing theological and religious approaches to astrobiology:

• What kind of radical changes are required of our religious and theological visions in light of the discovery of intelligent alien life? Do process philosophies offer unique resources to this end?

• What relevance or irrelevance do categories and distinctions of naturalism and supernaturalism; personalism and impersonalism; immanence and transcendence; monism and pluralism; creator and creativity actually have in a biological universe? Where do Whitehead, Teilhard and Bergson inform and/or transform these distinctions? 

• In what ways do these and other distinctions aid the development of theological models suitable for a bio-centric cosmos: whether atheism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, transpantheism, or others?

• Where do the strengths and weaknesses lie in current theological and religious proposals including: “cosmotheology” (S.J. Dick), “astrotheology” (T. Peters); “panoramic theology” (T. Walker & C. Wickramasinghe ); “biocosmic theology” (G. Genta) and others? How might they be critiqued, supplemented and improved in light of the philosophies of Whitehead, Teilhard, Bergson?

• In what ways might exclusive, terrestrial religion be expanded to pluralistic visions of cosmic religion in a bio-centric universe? What resources and challenges do world religions harbor? What might extraterrestrial religions harbor?

• Where are points of convergence and divergence when considering the roles and/or commonalities between human and extraterrestrial religion? What is the place of value, ethics, and morality; aesthetics and art; mathematics and science; doctrine and dogma in cosmic religion?

It remains a truly exciting time for science, philosophy and religion. Through exploration of the unique dimensions and themes of Whitehead’s, Teilhard’s, Bergson’s work, this conference aims to deepen human understanding and imagination by further uncovering the scientific, philosophical and religious implications of life beyond Earth.

Abstracts

“Astrobiology, Cosmotheology, and the Biological 

Universe: Implications for Religion and Theology”

by Steven J Dick

Recent discoveries in astronomy and astrobiology strongly indicate the need for a transformation of established theologies and suggest possibilities for new cosmically-oriented theologies such as cosmotheology. In particular the Biological Universe, the idea that intelligent life in the universe is common, necessitates a reconciliation of this new universe with dogmas of the Abrahamic religions in the same way that Thomas Aquinas tried to reconcile natural philosophy and Christianity in 13th century Europe. Other religions and their associated theologies will be less affected but still need to incorporate the cosmic perspective. In particular, discoveries in astronomy and astrobiology resonate with the dynamism of process theology in the sense that all theologies must take into account cosmic evolution and the possibilities of a biological universe in which life may be part of the very fabric of the universe. These discoveries also strongly suggest a denial of supernaturalism, a critical eye toward the epistemological status of revelation, and a rethinking of the nature of God and the sacred in the tradition of religious naturalism. In contrast to traditional theologies, human destiny is most universally couched in cosmic terms. The endeavor of transforming current theologies and creating new cosmic theologies is broadly characterized as astrotheology, a new and increasingly robust discipline that embraces the possibility of a more universal theology common to all intelligence in the cosmos. Astrotheology and its various flavors such as cosmotheology are part of a restructuring of our worldviews, a necessary endeavor as we internalize the realities of the new universe.

“Astrobiology, Astrotheology, and Cosmic Consciousness”

by Ted Peters

Like every natural science, astrobiology gathers objective data about the cosmos. But the data of astrobiology excites and even inspires the human soul. Astrotheology learns from astrobiological data while trying to account for its inspiring implications, for its subjective impact. Earthlings are growing in cosmic consciousness, at least in the minimal sense of being aware of possible intelligent consciousness living on exoplanets in the Milky Way. When contact with an extraterrestrial civilization is established, will the interchange of human and alien consciousness lead to a fusing of horizons, so to speak? Can we rightfully expect an expansion if not a deepening of human understanding, knowledge, and awareness? Might we test giving voice to a more intense cosmic consciousness with the physics of David Bohm and the metaphysics of Whiteheadian process theology?

“Religious Belief and the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life:

What’s Worldview Got to Do with It?”

by Constance M. Bertka

Astrobiology studies life in the universe, exploring from the perspective of an interdisciplinary science three general questions: “Where did we come from?”; “Are we alone?”; “Where are we going?” As a defined discipline Astrobiology is relatively new, but these questions are old, popular with scholars, including theologians, and non-scholars alike. While we can’t currently answer the question, “Are we alone?” with a definitive “no,” over the last couple of decades astronomers have discovered that planets around other stars are common and that some are rocky planets in locations around their stars comparable to earth’s location to our sun. Our first extraterrestrial life discovery is an increasingly reasonable expectation. How might this discovery impact worldviews, particularly theological perspectives and religious belief? The discussion around this question is multilayered. Academics within theological traditions answer differently than academics outside of those traditions and the religious beliefs of those outside the academic environment are likely moved by other concerns.

The question of worldview impact also falls within the context of how the relationship between science and religion is viewed. Some argue that a new cosmic consciousness will be awakened by the discovery of extraterrestrial life, decentralizing humanity and threatening belief in a classical supernatural image of God. But process theologians have already proposed revision of the classical view of God and though they have been at work for decades, the more traditional view still thrives. Will the discovery of extraterrestrial life increase the popularity of process theology? Perhaps the answer will hinge in part on normalizing science and religion discussions, breaking down siloed worldviews. Not only theologians but the scientific community writ large needs to be concerned with a broader conversation and one that reaches beyond academia. Recent efforts by the scientific community to support this broader conversation are encouraging, conflict between science and religion is falling out of fashion but work towards integration, where significant worldview change might happen, is still elusive. Without this work we are likely to prefer a mental shortcut, seeking out and accepting information that accords with our prior beliefs while dismissing information that does not- protecting our worldviews.

“Astrobiological Searches for Shared Knowledge”

by Chelsea Haramia

In this paper, I present arguments for the claim that humans and extraterrestrials will share common axiological and biological domains. I begin with a “partners in crime” argument that explores the partnership among biology, mathematics, and ethics. I outline important parallels between the scientific search for extraterrestrial life and pursuits of mathematical and ethical knowledge. These parallels justify an appeal for consistency in our reasoning. I identify and explain shared epistemic challenges in each of these domains, arguing that value is as real and as detectable as life and as mathematical truths. But the question remains: How real are these things? To answer this crucial question, I first address demarcation concerns regarding the difference between life and non-life. The puzzles produced by these concerns mirror some of the puzzles faced by those who posit robust intrinsic value in the universe or the objective truth of mathematical claims. I then propose the following avenue of response to these puzzles. We may assume that life and value are genuinely present in other areas of the universe in the same way that we may assume mathematics is genuinely present in other areas of the universe. That is, numbers, life, and value are non-observables the effects of which we may nonetheless recognize. Reorienting extraterrestrial searches with this in mind reveals overlooked commonalities in these domains, and it indicates that we may reasonably assume that at least some extraterrestrials could recognize these commonalities as well. This approach leaves open questions regarding the groundings or sources of non-observables, and it requires that we accept potentially significant limitations regarding our and others’ knowledge of non-observables. Ultimately, this view justifies claims of the reality of life and value in the cosmos and the assumption that, at least to some extent, our mathematical, biological, and axiological understandings will be shared by others.

"A Darker Forest?

The Fermi Paradox and Extraterrestrial Spiritual Life (ETS)”

by Roland Faber

One of the more fascinating solutions answering the Fermi Paradox is the “Dark Forest”-conjecture. It states that the universe is not only biotic (ETL), but full of intelligent life (ETI). However, since the probability that the encounter of ETIs will lead to mutual destruction rather than cooperation is “astronomical,” everyone hides as behind their tree in a dark forest, and any contact will passively or actively lead to the eradication of the communicator. Is the Earth doomed? This conjecture is based on an assumption that evolution is locked, in Darwinian terms, in the survival of the fittest, and that even cooperation, as on Earth, is, if not the exception, so merely a means for self-survival and -promotion. Other philosophical resources, such as Teilhard de Chardin, A. N. Whitehead and ‘Abdu'l-Baha, side with primary religious intuitions and desires for the function of cosmic religiosity to counter exactly this assumption. The question then becomes: How does the Fermi Paradox impact not only their acceptance that life is ubiquitous (ETL) and suggestive of the appearance of intelligent lifeforms (ETI) in our universe, but that evolution tends to foster the emergence of spiritual lifeforms (ETS) which actually strive to overcome this evolutionary, biotic condition of self-assertion and the survival strategies of competition and expansion?

"From Cosmological Negation to Metaphysical Exemplification:

A Deeper Whiteheadian Cosmotheology"

by Andrew M. Davis

For decades, Steven J. Dick has been a longstanding advocate of the development of “cosmotheology” as a scientifically rooted endeavor which uses our best understanding of nature to “inform a much broader range of theological discussion.” Cosmotheology as Dick defines it revolves around the use of our ever-expanding knowledge of the universe to “modify, expand or change entirely” current theologies. Central to these theological changes, Dick insists, is the rejection of anthropocentrism and supernaturalism: human beings are relegated to the cosmological periphery and there is nothing beyond the natural world. These commitments converge in Dick’s affirmation of both scientific and religious naturalism: nature is all there is and a creative evolutionary universe devoid of “God” suffices to inspire the reverence, awe and meaning traditionally assigned to the religious sphere. Dick’s six core “principles” of cosmotheology thus consist primarily in a series of cosmological negations of human existence and experience and ultimately, an ontological negation of God. While admitting that his proposal is perhaps better termed “cosmophilosophy” rather than “cosmotheology,” Dick ironically leaves open the possibility that advanced extraterrestrials in the “biological universe” may have something akin to the traditional theological attributes.

This paper argues that Dick’s laudable project can be considerably strengthened by Whitehead’s bio-centric cosmophilosophy (the “philosophy of organism”) which culminates in (rather than negates) a robust naturalistic cosmotheology that is actually deserving of the name. Demonstrating this requires showing how Dick’s cosmological negations can be transformed into metaphysical exemplifications. While Dick holds that the creative evolution at the heart of his own “cosmotheology” has limited resonance with Whitehead’s (and Teilhard de Chardin’s) process theology, a deeper investigation of Whitehead’s cosmotheological metaphysics effectively challenges and widens Dick’s proposal. For Whitehead, human experience while cosmologically peripheral is nevertheless metaphysically central: their existence and experience exemplifies fundamental metaphysical principles of an organic, experiential and axiological character that are essential to a creative evolutionary universe at all scales. Rather than being the great supernatural “exception” to metaphysical principles, “invoked to save their collapse,” Whitehead’s God is their “chief exemplification.” Whitehead’s wider naturalism coupled with his theological realism allow for imaginative metaphysical continuity in our reflection all the way “down” and all the way “up” the biological universe: from terrestrial and extra-terrestrial life to the culminating life of God. What is more, Whitehead’s vision arguably re-integrates and resolves outstanding metaphysical problems that remain unanswered by Dick’s proposal (and those of others). These problems surround the presuppositions of cosmic evolutionary novelty, including the metaphysical basis for objective rational, aesthetic, and ethical (or moral) values and their association with ontologically real possibilities in the nature of things. Whitehead therefore offers a wider cosmotheology that includes Dick’s naturalistic intuitions while also transcending his conceptual and explanatory limitations.

"Prospects for a Universal Philosophy of Organism"

by Derek Malone-France

There are a number of recent discoveries and developments in biology that seem evidently congenial from process philosophical and theological perspectives. Take for example, the discovery of “quorum sensing” functions and other anticipatory directive/non-random-adaptive environmental response phenomena in microbial societies, which may be interpreted as verifying essentially teleological (non-Darwinian, neo-Lamarkian) and cooperative-altruistic dynamics in the environmental responses of these individual and collective organisms. Increasingly—and often with real cogency—process thinkers are engaging with this new biology in order to make the case that process metaphysics can better explain these observational realities than can the dominant alternative philosophical perspectives (see the growing “biophilosophy” movement that is an outgrowth from contemporary process thought). This is an appropriate and productive response to this ongoing science. Yet, if we are to remain true to Whitehead’s conception of the proper function and mode of philosophical inquiry, we must also discipline ourselves, to maintain a certain degree of critical distance from these developments, and we must acknowledge that there are some other recent discoveries and developments that may be seen as potentially cutting against common principles or presuppositions of process thought. Take for example, elegant mechanistic modeling of the developmental pathways of the molecular regimes associated with the evolution of particular planetary chemical systems.

Moreover, if the ultimate aim is to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of Whiteheadian—or neoWhiteheadian—process thought as a universalizable metaphysical perspective, then we must also recognize the fundamental ways in which our biological and physical, as well as our philosophical and theological, concepts and categories necessarily, to some degree, reflect the contingent particularities of the evolution of the particular planet (and solar system) on (in) which we have emerged and by which we have been conditioned. Just as philosophy and theology have always needed to be mindful of the problem of anthropocentrism, we now understand, better and more specifically than ever before, the extent to which our thinking is also prone to the more generic problem of “terracentrism.”

One concrete implication of the recognition of our terracentric perspective is that we must look beyond “life” as a category around which we construct our most general claims. Over time, the concept of “life” has become, if anything, theoretically more, not less, problematic, especially in light of recent developments in a number of diverse (but increasingly intersecting) areas ranging from prebiotic chemical evolution and evolutionary virology, to planetary chemistry and astrobiology. I will argue, therefore, that the more general category of “organism,” as constructed in Whitehead’s thought, is not only a better candidate than “life” for universalizability, but also it has the additional advantage of reflecting the ultimate convergence (non-dualism) of both “physical” (non-biological) and “biological” phenomena, under the rubric of a more generic ontological category. This, in turn, allows for the ultimate clarification of both the common and the disparate elements characterizing what we refer to as “living” and “non-living” phenomena. It also suggests a cosmic application of this category with what I take to be productive theological implications.

"Cosmic Evolution Connected to Theory of Value

by Process-Relational Theology"

by Theodore Walker Jr.

Process-relational theologian John B Cobb Jr. encouraged developing “a richer account of evolution” in biology. Beyond biology, evolution more broadly considered embraces cultural evolution, stellar evolution, and cosmic evolution. Connecting cosmic evolution to theory of value is another enrichment that can be helped by process-relational philosophy and theology, including neoclassical metaphysics. For the sake of univocal references, the word “God” refers to the transcendent “all-inclusive whole of reality”; and unless explicitly qualified in ways indicating transcendence, the words “cosmos” and “universe” refer to the nontranscendent sum of all parts of reality.

"The Cosmological Context of the of the Hot Spring

Abiogenesis Hypothesis"

by Matt Segall & Bruce Damer

The question of how life on earth first arose has puzzled researchers since the inception of the modern science of biology around the turn of the 19th century. Advances in complex systems science and the study of non-equilibrium thermodynamics have helped close the gaps between physics, chemistry, and living organization, but many questions remain unanswered. This presentation will examine the cosmological context and metaphysical implications of a leading candidate for the origins of life in Astrobiology: the “Hot Spring Hypothesis for an Origin of Life.” Connections will be drawn between key concepts from Whitehead’s Philosophy of Organism and the astrophysical, geochemical, and protocellular processes described in the Hot Spring Hypothesis. For example, clear analogies are evident between the production of novelty via the process of concrescence and the liposomal combinatorial selection processes driven by wet-dry cycling in shallow freshwater ponds. Further convergence is seen in Whitehead’s account of the “sheltering” of living societies by environmental layers of social order and the importance of environmental rhythms and other conditions in making possible otherwise highly improbable chemical reactions. The question of whether the Whiteheadian notion of an “aim at satisfaction” may play any role in the emergence of self-organizing, self-producing protocells will also be explored. Finally, the social, ethical, and spiritual implications of our growing scientific knowledge of life’s origins will be discussed.

“What Is Life?

Panexperientialism, Cosmic Consciousness, and

Swami Vivekananda’s Religion of the Future”

by Jeffery D. Long

Is there life in the universe, or the multiverse, beyond the planet Earth? Responding to this question from the perspective of philosophies of process, such as that of Alfred North Whitehead, prompts us to raise another question, “What is life?” Is there finally anything which is not, in some sense, alive? The emergence of philosophies of process, as well as a growing sense amongst thinkers in the West that consciousness (or at least experience) is in some sense foundational to existence, and not something which evolves from an essentially material reality, puts the question of life in the universe on a different level from that of simply searching for entities like ourselves. It becomes not only an empirical question, but a fundamental question of ontology. Such a situation is already envisioned in many Indian philosophical traditions that both take consciousness to be foundational to existence and take for granted that there are many planes of existence inhabited by intelligent beings. We are therefore witnessing a convergence of Indian and Western thought, in our current period, as we reflect upon the question of life in the universe and the closely related question of the nature of life itself. Over a century ago, Swami Vivekananda envisioned this convergence when he spoke of religions to come in the future. This presentation will take up the interrelated questions of, first, the nature of life, experience, and consciousness as seen in the context of the search for extraterrestrial life, and secondly, the kind of religious sensibility that emerges from reflections of this kind. The demise of religion has long been predicted by scholars who have then proven to be premature in their claims. This presentation will suggest not that religion will be destroyed or superseded as humanity engages with the possibility, and eventually the reality, of extraterrestrial life, but that it will be radically transformed by this process.

“Astrobiology without Biology:

Will AI be Our Emissary or Our Bottleneck?”

by Noreen Herzfeld

Given the difficulties of space travel for biological beings, it seems likely that our first contact with another intelligence will be through their and/or our technology. AI offers the opportunity for a presence in space that is both dynamic and functional. Thus, AI might be the best emissary to other worlds. Yet Fermi’s paradox persists. If intelligent life is out there, why have we not encountered their technology? The answer may lie in a paradox of evolutionary biology. The very nature of biological evolution may mean that technological advancement always outstrips a society’s ability to control that technology. While AI might be our best avenue to space exploration, it might also be the technological bottleneck that precludes that exploration.

“Extending the Noosphere into Intergalactic Life:

Teilhard de Chardin and the Third Axial Age”

by Ilia Delio

In 1949 Karl Jaspers described a global breakthrough in human consciousness, which he described as the “axial age,” a term which has served as a heuristic marker of consciousness and human development, including the depth dimension of religion. Ewert Cousins described a second axial age ushered in by the new science and mass communication. This new age is marked by ecology, community, divine immanence and global consciousness. Teilhard de Chardin said that evolution is the rise of consciousness and described a process of theistic evolution grounded in second axial consciousness. He proposed that life is unfolding from simple, biological material life, to complex interconnected life, empowered by a divine presence, following Henri Bergson’s élan vital. Evolution continues in and through human development and is accelerating with technology toward the maximization of conscious life marked by the symbol of Omega.

This paper will examine the evolution of consciousness toward Omega by using the axial age as a paradigm of development. Attention will be given to Teilhard’s ideas on consciousness and matter and argue that the inextricable link between consciousness and matter, the drive to complex consciousness, and the development of the noosphere and computerized planetary consciousness, render the search for conscious intergalactic life the next logical step in the evolution of the Christic toward Omega. In this respect, Teilhard’s notion of the Noosphere marks the beginning of the third axial age, which will continue with interstellar exploration and the expansion of human consciousness into other life forms, a development consistent with the fecund symbol of Omega.

“The Organic Universe and Otherworldly Lives:

Bergson and Sagan”

by Wahida Khandker

In his 1985 Gifford Lectures on Natural Theology at the University of Glasgow (published posthumously as The Varieties of Scientific Experience), the physicist Carl Sagan reflects on the spectroscopic analysis of comets that reveal that what is “out there” (a range of organic molecules in the tails of passing comets) is very close to what is “in here” (the organic molecules in living organisms on Earth). He finds in this molecular affinity between our own bodies and the stars a reason for humility and a greater sense of continuity with other living organisms, both on this planet and in the potential forms they may take on other planets. This will form the first part of the paper. The second part will turn to Henri Bergson, for whom the fundamental connection between the material and the biological enjoyed by organisms is both a necessity of life and a critique of the limitations of the function of the intellect. This motivates the entire project of Creative Evolution, which is at once a theory of life and a theory of knowledge. Bergson sets out to identify the structures that inform our everyday knowledge of the world, including life, and to speculate on the conditions of their formation, not in a priori structures of the intellect, but rather in the evolved conditions, in a fully biological sense, of our physiological interactions with our environment. What Bergson names “the double form of consciousness,” or the intuitive and intelligent aspects of conscious life reflects the material and vital aspects of reality. Accordingly, the long history of the study of nature (phusis) has tended to divide itself into the studies of physics and biology (material nature on the one hand, and the natural world on the other), but the history of physics is, it could be said, plagued by the resistance of living beings to its principles. The final part of this paper considers features of life that have evolved in the deepest parts of our oceans, and that have only recently become accessible with the development of technologies able to navigate ecosystems at these otherwise inhospitable depths. There, we discover forms of life capable of evolving and flourishing in the absence of sunlight, sustained by chemosynthesis, mirroring obliquely the development on land of ecosystems founded upon photosynthesizing plants. In summary, this paper explores varied perspectives on the challenges of traversing vast distances in space, in evolutionary time, and between land and the deep sea, and how all of these endeavors might enhance our understanding and appreciation of our own imperiled “habitat.”

“Multiplicity without Tyranny:

The Nonviolent Telos of Process and Jainism”

by Brianne Donaldson

Ethical-aesthetic terms within process philosophy, such as “beauty” and “intensity,” often aim to preserve the role of contrast, conflict, and inevitable loss as essential aspects of an ecological planetary multiplicity toward an open-ended future. In these views, exclusionary valuations, and even destruction, are accepted as a necessity, even if a tragic one, of a worldview that ascribes some level of self-determined creativity to all actual entities. If, as Whitehead states of the natural world in general, “Life is robbery” (PR 105), then suggesting nonviolence as a valuable aim could smuggle in a loophole of exceptionalism wherein homo sapiens’ morality is somehow different from that of “nature.” Moreover, any kind of telos could suggest a predestined future. Finally, nonviolence, if interpreted as passivity or sacrificial paralysis, could result in a stultified, rather than dynamic, universe.

While these concerns, and the (often) ecological sensibilities that motivate them, offer an important metaphysical and realist intervention in anthropocentric accounts of the universe, proponents often overlook a normative aspect of Whitehead’s religious and metaphysical vision of a possible future characterized by less, or perhaps no, loss. Utilizing the metaphysical framework of Jainism, an ancient Indian tradition centered on ethical experiments in nonviolence, as a comparative case study, I will provide an account of Whitehead’s ethical aim as a telos of nonviolence. Technical concepts in Whitehead’s works, such as “unison of immediacy,” the “many” and the “one,” the potentiality of “eternal objects” or the “subjective aim,” the “lure,” his description of the “khora,” and even his use of the term “peace,” present a vision of social and ecological nonviolence for an unfolding future. In this view, harm reduction and social ecology need not be at metaphysical odds. Rather, nonviolence is, I argue, part of the structure of becoming in a process metaphysics, not only for certain exceptional beings, but ultimately for all existent entities.

“The Connection-Action Principle:

A Basis for Process Philosophy and Cosmic ‘Creativity’”?

by Mark Lupisella

A centerpiece of contemporary Western process philosophy is Alfred North Whitehead’s “principle of process,” which features creativity as an important element. The modern science of cosmic evolution can be interpreted to suggest a highly “creative” universe—perhaps increasingly creative over time. In asking how the universe’s creativity arises, or increases, we can appeal to a wide range of approaches from scientific empiricism to more theoretical, conceptual, metaphysical, and philosophically speculative approaches—many of which arguably relate to the principle of process. In a book published in 2020, Cosmological Theories of Value: Science, Philosophy, and Meaning in Cosmic Evolution, I explore a kind of relational-action metaphysics in the form of a “connection-action principle” (CAP) suggesting, in its simplest form, that the universe’s (or multiverse’s) property of connectedness is instantiated as relations and actions. Drawing heavily from that book, this paper will explore how the connection-action principle may provide a basis for process philosophy and how it may relate to the universe’s apparent creative tendencies, with a particular focus on the emergence of life, intelligence, and meaning in the universe.

“Whitehead, Kalogenesis, & Cosmocentrism"

by Brian G. Henning

Environmental philosophers have for half a century debated whether ethics is anthropocentric, biocentric, or ecocentric. Yet even the most capacious of these theories typically have difficulty thinking beyond our own planet and its distinct evolutionary history. As humans consider “colonizing” other planets, mining asteroids, and interacting with extraterrestrial life, it is urgent that we develop an adequate extra-terrestrial ethic, a cosmocentric ethic. Just as Europeans’ latent metaphysics and ethics defined what was morally defensible in their colonization of this planet, our species’ latent metaphysics and ethics define whether certain actions require moral justification. We take our ethics—and our metaphysics—with us as we move into and beyond the solar system. In this paper I defend the view that, grounded in Whitehead’s philosophy of organism, it is possible to conceive of a cosmocentric ethic whose ultimate duty is beauty. Reality is fundamentally kalogenic; each drop of actuality is a unique achievement of beauty and value. “The teleology of the Universe,” Alfred North Whitehead tells us in Adventures of Ideas, “is directed to the production of Beauty.”