2021/11/02

David Abram - Wikipedia

David Abram - Wikipedia

David Abram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
David Abram
Photo of David Abram, 2019.jpg
Abram in 2018
BornJune 24, 1957 (age 64)
Baldwin, Nassau County, New York, U.S.
EducationWesleyan University
Yale School of Forestry
State University of New York at Stony Brook (BAMAPhD)
Era20th-/21st-century philosophy
RegionWestern philosophy
School
InstitutionsUniversity of California, Berkeley
Notable ideas
  • The more-than-human world

David Abram (born June 24, 1957) is an American ecologist and philosopher best known for his work bridging the philosophical tradition of phenomenology with environmental and ecological issues.[1][2] He is the author of Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology[3] (2010) and The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-Human World (1996), for which he received the Lannan Literary Award for Nonfiction.[4] Abram is founder and creative director of the Alliance for Wild Ethics (AWE);[5] his essays on the cultural causes and consequences of ecological disarray have appeared often in such journals as the online magazine EmergenceOrionEnvironmental EthicsParabolaTikkun and The Ecologist, as well as in numerous academic anthologies.[6]

In 1996 Abram coined the phrase "the more-than-human world" as a way of referring to earthly nature (introducing it in the subtitle of The Spell of the Sensuous and throughout the text of that book); the term was gradually adopted by other scholars, theorists, and activists, and has become a key phrase within the lingua franca of the broad ecological movement.[7] In recent writings, Abram sometimes refers to the more-than-human world as "the commonwealth of breath."[8]

Abram was the first contemporary philosopher to advocate a reappraisal of "animism" as a complexly nuanced and uniquely viable worldview — one which roots human cognition in the sensitive and sentient human body, while affirming the ongoing entanglement of our bodily experience with the uncanny sentience of other animals (each of which encounters the same world that we perceive yet from an outrageously different angle and perspective).[9] A close student of the traditional ecological knowledge systems of diverse indigenous peoples, Abram articulates the entwinement of human subjectivity not only with other animals but with the varied sensitivities of the many plants upon which humans depend, as well as our cognitive entanglement with the collective sensitivity and sentience of the particular earthly places — the bioregions (or ecosystems) — that surround and sustain our communities. In recent years his work has come to be closely associated both with the "new animism," and with a broad movement loosely termed "New Materialism," due to Abram's espousal of a radically transformed sense of matter and materiality.[10]

Life and early influences[edit]

Born in the suburbs of New York City, Abram began practicing sleight-of-hand magic during his high school years in Baldwin, Long Island; it was this craft that sparked his ongoing fascination with perception. In 1976, he began working as "house magician" at Alice's Restaurant in the Berkshires of Massachusetts and soon was performing at clubs throughout New England[11] while studying at Wesleyan University. After his second year of college, Abram took a year off to travel as an itinerant street magician through Europe and the Middle East; toward the end of that journey, in London, he began exploring the application of sleight-of-hand magic to psychotherapy under the guidance of Dr. R. D. Laing. After graduating summa cum laude from Wesleyan in 1980, Abram traveled throughout Southeast Asia as an itinerant magician, living and studying with traditional, indigenous magic practitioners (or medicine persons) in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Nepal. Upon returning to North America he continued performing while devoting himself to the study of natural history and ethno-ecology, visiting and learning from native communities in the Southwest desert and the Pacific Northwest. A much-reprinted essay written while studying ecology at the Yale School of Forestry in 1984 — entitled "The Perceptual Implications of Gaia"[12] — brought Abram into association with the scientists formulating the Gaia Hypothesis; he was soon lecturing in tandem with biologist Lynn Margulis and geochemist James Lovelock both in Britain and the United States. In the late 1980s, Abram turned his attention to exploring the decisive influence of language upon the human senses and upon our sensory experience of the land around us. Abram received a doctorate for this work from the State University of New York at Stony Brook, in 1993.[13]

Work[edit]

David Abram, 2008

Abram's writing is informed by his studies among indigenous peoples in Indonesia, Nepal, and the Americas, as well as by the American nature-writing tradition that stems from Henry David ThoreauWalt Whitman, and Mary Austin. His philosophical work is informed by the European tradition of phenomenology — especially by the writings of the French phenomenologist, Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Abram's evolving work has also been influenced by his friendships with the archetypal psychologist James Hillman, the iconoclastic evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis, and the social critic and radical historian Ivan Illich — as well as by his esteem for the American poet Gary Snyder and the agrarian novelist, poet, and essayist Wendell Berry.[5]

Writing in the mid-nineteen nineties, and finding himself frustrated by the problematic terminology of environmentalism (dismayed by the longstanding conceptual gulf between humankind and the rest of nature tacitly implied by the use of conventional terms like "environment" and even by the word "nature" itself, which is so often contrasted with "culture" as though there were a neat divide between the two), Abram coined the phrase "the more-than-human world" in order to signify the broad commonwealth of earthly life, a realm that manifestly includes humankind and its culture, but which also necessarily exceeds human culture. The phrase was intended, first and foremost, to indicate that the space of human culture was a subset within a larger set — that the human world was necessarily sustained, surrounded, and permeated by the more-than-human world — yet by the phrase Abram also meant to encourage a new humility on the part of humankind (since the "more" could be taken not just in a quantitative but also in a qualitative sense). Upon introducing the phrase as the central term for "nature" in his 1996 book The Spell of the Sensuous (subtitled Perception and Language in a More-than-Human World), the phrase was gradually adopted by many other theorists and activists, soon becoming an inescapable term within the broad ecological movement.[7]

The publication of The Spell of the Sensuous[4] proved to be catalytic for the formation and consolidation of several new disciplines, especially the burgeoning field of ecopsychology (both as a theoretical discipline and as therapeutic practice), as well as ecophenomenology and ecolinguistics. Already translated into numerous languages, the first French translation of the text was completed by the eminent Belgian philosopher-of-science, Isabelle Stengers, in 2013.[14]

Since 1996, Abram has lectured and taught at universities throughout the world, while nonetheless maintaining his independence from the institutional world of academe. He was named by the Utne Reader as one of a hundred visionaries currently transforming the world,[15][16] and profiled in the 2007 book, Visionaries: The 20th Century's 100 Most Inspirational Leaders.[17] His ideas have often been debated (sometimes heatedly) within the pages of various peer-reviewed academic journals, including Environmental EthicsEnvironmental Values and the Journal of Environmental Philosophy[18] In 2001, the New England Aquarium and the Orion Society sponsored a large public debate between Abram and distinguished biologist E. O. Wilson, at the old Town Hall in Boston, on science and ethics. (An essay by Abram that grew out of that debate, entitled "Earth in Eclipse," has been published in several versions.[19]) In the summer of 2005, Abram delivered a keynote address for the United Nations "World Environment Week" in San Francisco, to 70 mayors from the largest cities around the world.[20]

In 2006, Abram—together with biologist Stephan Harding, ecopsychologist Per Espen Stoknes, and environmental educator Per Ingvar Haukeland—founded the non-profit Alliance for Wild Ethics (AWE), for which he serves as Creative Director.[5] According to their website, the Alliance is "a consortium of individuals and organizations working to ease the spreading devastation of the animate earth through a rapid transformation of culture. We employ the arts, often in tandem with the natural sciences, to provoke deeply felt shifts in the human experience of nature. Motivated by a love for the more-than-human collective of life, and for human life as an integral part of that wider collective, we work to revitalize local, face-to-face community – and to integrate our communities perceptually, practically, and imaginatively into the earthly bioregions that surround and support them."[21]

In 2010 Abram published Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology,[3] which was the sole runner-up for the inaugural PEN Edward O. Wilson Award for Literary Science Writing,[22] and a finalist for the 2011 Orion Book Award.[23] A review in Orion by Potowatami elder Robin Wall Kimmerer described the book thus: "Prose as lush as a moss-draped rain forest and as luminous as a high desert night... Deeply resonant with Indigenous ways of knowing, Becoming Animal lets us listen in on wordless conversations with ancient boulders, walruses, birds, and roof beams. His profound recognition of intelligences other than our own enables us to enter into reciprocal symbioses that can in turn, sustain the world. Becoming Animal illuminates a way forward in restoring relationship with the earth, led by our vibrant animal beings to re-inhabit the glittering world,"[24] while in the UK, a review in the journal Resurgence said: "David Abram is a true magician, superbly skilled in both sleight-of-hand magic and the literary art of awakening us to the superabundant wonders of the natural world. He is one of America's greatest Nature writers... The language is luminous, the style hypnotic. Abram weaves a spell that brings the world alive before your very eyes."[25]

In 2014 Abram held the international Arne Næss Chair of Global Justice and Ecology at the University of Oslo, in Norway.[26] In that same year he became a distinguished Fellow of Schumacher College, where he teaches regularly.[27] He also teaches a weeklong intensive each summer on Cortes Island, in British Columbia.[28] Abram lives with his family in the foothills of the southern Rockies.[5]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Fellowships in Environmental Journalism". Middlebury College.
  2. ^ "IONS Directory Profile". Institute of Noetic Sciences. Archived from the original on 2013-02-04. Retrieved 2013-04-04.
  3. Jump up to:a b "Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology By David Abram"penguinrandomhouse.com. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  4. Jump up to:a b "The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World By David Abram"penguinrandomhouse.com. Retrieved August 6,2020.
  5. Jump up to:a b c d "David Abram"Alliance for Wild Ethics. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  6. ^ See the papers and essays by Abram published on Academia.edu.
  7. Jump up to:a b See, for example, its use within many papers in the Journal of Environmental Humanities, or the centrality of the phrase for recent textbooks such as Ecological Ethics: An Introduction by Patrick Curry (Polity, 2011) or Invisible Nature: Healing the Destructive Divide between People and the Environment, by Kenneth Worthy (Prometheus Books, 2013), or many more recent works like Being Salmon, Being Human by Martin Lee Mueller (Chelsea Green, 2017), Kabbalah and Ecology: God's Image In The More-Than-Human World by David Mevoroch Seidenberg (Cambridge University Press, 2016), Being Together in Place: Indigenous Coexistence in a More Than Human World by Soren C. Larsen and Jay T. Johnson (University of Minnesota Press, 2017), Participatory Research in More-than-Human Worlds edited by Michelle Bastian, Owain Jones, et al. (Routledge, 2016), "Locative Texts for Sensing the More–Than–Human" by Alinta Krauth (Electronic Book Review: Digital Futures of Literature, Theory, Criticism, and the Arts; May 2020) and innumerable other papers and books, "Routledge Handbook of Ecocultural Identity" edited by Tema Milstein and José Castro-Sotomayor (Routledge, 2020).
  8. ^ See Abram's afterword for Material Ecocriticism, edited by Serenella Iovino and Serpil Oppermann (Indiana University Press, 2014)
  9. ^ Abram, David (1996). The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-Human World. Vintage Books / Random House. pp. 63–85.
  10. ^ See, for example Material Ecocriticism, edited by Serenella Iovino and Serpil Oppermann (Indiana University Press, 2014), Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, Stone: An Ecology of the Inhuman (University of Minnesota Press, 2015)
  11. ^ London, Scott. "The Ecology of Magic: An Interview with David Abram"scott.london. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  12. ^ Abram, David (1985). "The Perceptual Implications of Gaia - David Abram"academia.edu. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  13. ^ "Stony Brook University College of Arts and Sciences: Department of Philosophy: Placement"stonybrook.edu. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  14. ^ Stengers did the first full translation, which then was honed by her colleague, the Belgian bioregionalist and artist Didier Demorcey, and was published in France as "Comment la terre s'est tue: Pour une écologie des sens (La Découverte, 2013).
  15. ^ See "100 Visionaries," Utne Reader, Jan/Feb 1995; and "The Loose Canon: 150 Great Works to Set Your Imagination On Fire," Utne Reader, May/June 1998.
  16. ^ "David Abram"utne.com. January 1995. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  17. ^ Whitefield, Freddie; Kumar, Satish, eds. (2007). Visionaries: The 20th Century's 100 Most Inspirational Leaders. Chelsea Green.
  18. ^ See, for example, Ted Toadvine, "Limits of the Flesh: The Role of Reflection in David Abram's Ecophenomenology" and David Abram, "Between the Body and the Breathing Earth: A Reply to Ted Toadvine" in Environmental Ethics, summer 2005 issue. See also Eleanor D. Helms, "Language and Responsibility" in the Spring 2008 issue of Environmental Philosophy. See also Meg Holden, "Phenomenology versus Pragmatism: Seeking a Restoration Environmental Ethic." Spring 2001 issue, and Abram's reply in the Fall 2001 issue, as well as Steven Vogel, "The Silence of Nature" in Environmental Values 15:2, 2006, and Bryan Bannon, "Flesh and Nature: Understanding Merleau-Ponty's Relational Ontology" in Research in Phenomenology, Volume 41, Issue 3, 2011.
  19. ^ Abram, David. "Earth in Eclipse: an Essay on the Philosophy of Science and Ethics"wildethics.org. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  20. ^ See "United Nations Keynote" on the website of the Alliance for Wild Ethics: https://wildethics.org/united-nations-keynote/ Retrieved 2018-05-18.
  21. ^ https://wildethics.org/the-alliance/ Retrieved 2020-07-04.
  22. ^ "Book awards: PEN/E. O. Wilson Literary Science Writing Award"librarything.com. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  23. ^ Triolo, Nick. "Becoming Animal is a 2011 Orion Book Award Finalist"orionmagazine.org. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  24. ^ Kimmerer, Robin Wall (2011). "Finalist: Becoming Animal, by David Abram"orionmagazine.org. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  25. ^ Harding, Stephan. "Saturated With Soul"resurgence.org. Retrieved August 6,2020.
  26. ^ "2014: David Abram"UiO: Centre for Development and the Environment. March 22, 2014. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  27. ^ "David Abram"schumachercollege.org.uk. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  28. ^ "Falling Awake: The Ecology of Wonder With David Abram"Hollyhock.ca. Retrieved August 6, 2020.

External links[edit]

2021/11/01

Our concept of life is too Earth-centric — alien life might look totally different

https://next.massivesci.com/articles/definition-of-life-earth-universe-virus/



Our concept of life is too Earth-centric — alien life might look totally different


There are over 100 scientific definitions of “life,” and none might be accurate outside Earth



Alison Koontz


Neurobiology

Caltech
Image:

Photo by Bruno Figueiredo on Unsplash
Monday, April 20, 2020

2 peer comments
----------------------------------------

What does it mean to be alive? Science, shockingly, still doesn’t have a consensus. For example, is it fair to say that the novel coronavirus now sweeping the world is alive? The short answer is there isn’t one agreed-upon answer — for something so basic, you’d think life would be easier to define.

The first recorded definition of life came from Aristotle in ancient Greece, around 350 BC. He posited that to be alive, something must grow, maintain itself, and reproduce. In contrast, the most well-known modern definition is probably NASA’s, which says living things must be “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” Take, for example, great apes: given appropriate resources like food and water, the “machinery” of a great ape — its organs and nervous system — regulates itself, keeping the great ape functioning in most conditions. They are also capable of evolution — just look at us. But this isn’t the only accepted definition of life. There are actually over 100 published definitions!
Our definitions of life are based on what we see on our planet

A lot of the debate comes down to the fact that the various fields of science approach the topic quite differently. A geneticist, whose focus is on known organisms and their genomes, will very likely have a different view on what constitutes life than an astrophysicist, who considers a more expansive, universal definition.

But beyond that, most of these definitions of life fall short in another, very subtle way: They are based on the origins of life on our planet. This means our hypotheses for what sentient and conscious aliens look like almost always reflect humankind. You only have to look at a Star Trek episode to see it — humanity likes to make the world in our image, which is partially why in sci-fi and fantasy a lot of the “aliens” look a lot like ourselves. (Okay, and because it’s easier to dress a human up as a humanoid alien).

Our search for alien life might be impeded by our conception of it

Photo by Dino Reichmuth on Unsplash

But a lot about how life arose on Earth is still unknown. For instance, there is a hot debate right now about whether the first genetic material was RNA or DNA. We also don’t know whether life emerged from what a once popular theory scientists dub the “primordial soup,” which was thought to be a complex concoction of organic and inorganic molecules covering Earth’s surface billions of years ago, or if it came from energy flowing from deep sea hydrothermal vents. Yet, as far as we know, there are certain undeniable things that were important for the development of life on Earth, and therefore (we assume) for life in general. These are:
A need for energy. Nothing in the universe can move without having some way of obtaining energy. This is the first law of thermodynamics. In humans, this energy comes from metabolizing food.
Organization in membrane-bound cells. This one in particular seems specific to Earth, as all our living organisms are made of cells.
An ability to store genetic information. On Earth, DNA stores our genetic information, which serves as the blueprint for the development of every living thing. It would be pretty difficult to make life without a blueprint.
An ability to replicate with variation. Life would not be prosperous without being able to create offspring; the world would eventually return to being a wasteland after one generation of organisms died out. Producing offspring with variation goes back to the idea of Darwinian evolution. Being capable of evolution allows for population change over time, an important part of creating new forms of life.
The ability to grow and respond to stimuli. What distinguishes a human from a robot is our ability to synthesize information and use this information to make decisions that help us out in our environment. Life would not prosper without the ability to make changes, it would remain static. And static things rarely survive.
A virus adheres to all of the above characteristics of life, but they are generally not considered alive

But there are a few remaining problems. For one, even using these five criteria, not everything on Earth can nicely be classified as “living” and “non-living.” A classic example of this is viruses. A virus adheres to all of the above characteristics of life: It needs energy, is bound by a membrane, can store genetic information, and grows and replicates repeatedly. However, viruses themselves are generally not considered alive, because they rely on other living cells to replicate. A lot of biologists chafe at this narrow definition. A tapeworm is considered living, even though it can only reproduce inside another living organism. So why not viruses?

If our definition doesn’t even work correctly with the systems we observe on our planet, it’s incredibly likely that in the larger universe there will be systems that break this definition as well. For example, included in most of the 100+ definitions of life is the ability to self-replicate with variation — one of the fundamentals of Darwinan evolution. But it’s perfectly reasonable to picture “supra-Darwinian” life, which arose by pathways that don’t exist on Earth.

Reproduction with variation is a key component of our definition of life

Photo by Ben Weber on Unsplash

For instance, say we find a planet full of aliens who have achieved immortality. The population has been stable for thousands of years, with nobody being born and nobody dying — in other words, there is no self-replication going on. There is no variation. Everything is static. There’s no evolution. Would this alien species be considered living under our current definition? And should it be? Of course, this is a wild theoretical, but as we learn more about the immense universe, this kind of questioning will be important to consider.

Another problem is that even though we have a huge diversity of life on our planet, we might only ever be able to trace life back to a single origin. A single random accumulation of events resulted in that first cell or that first organism. But research has acknowledged that there are many alternative biochemistries and biologies that could have arisen from the conditions on early Earth. The world would probably look a lot different if, for example, silicon were the basis for all organic compounds instead of carbon, a theoretical possibility.
why do we even assume that all life in the universe is composed of the same matter that we are?

Yet all the tests that we currently use to find life on other planets strictly take our carbon-based system as the norm. For instance, in 1976 when the Viking I first landed on Mars, it was rigged with only a few kinds of tools to probe for life on the red planet. One was a radioactively-labeled carbon species, 14C, that the robot mixed with a small sample of Martian dirt. Researchers speculated that if there was life on Mars, the life would metabolize the radio-labeled species and produce radio-labeled carbon dioxide, the way Earth life forms would. This didn’t work. It probably didn’t work because there isn’t life on Mars. But it also could have been because we were specifically testing for life that metabolized carbon just as life on Earth does.

Here is an even bigger hypothetical: why do we even assume that all life in the universe is composed of the same matter that we are? Ordinary matter only constitutes a very small fraction of the total energy produced by matter, leaving a gaping hole in our knowledge of the composition of the universe. The rest of the energy is made by mysterious dark matter, something that only physicists and cosmologists generally spend much time contemplating.

There could be a whole system of life made of the universe’s dark matter

Photo by Daniel Olah on Unsplash

But since so much of the universe is composed of dark matter, which we currently don’t know much about, it could be having interactions and impacts we are not aware of. If that’s the case, there could very well be an entire system capable of producing life made up of dark matter. Carl Powell, a famous science writer, even coined the term “light matter chauvinist” to describe humanity’s hubristic belief that the matter we are made of is the only thing that is significant.

Our working definition of life is hugely flawed because it is based off the limited evidence we have of an infinitely large universe. As far as we can tell, Earth is the only “living” planet, so it’s obvious that we assume that our path towards life is the only way. And that’s totally okay, because one of the main tenants of science is that it’s okay not to know — as long as you keep asking questions.

NASA’s definition of life is a good one, when applied to living things on Earth. It covers most of the basics. But any idea of life as it applies to aliens must be unbounded. It should not make any assumptions about other life systems just because our system worked. Otherwise, we risk missing things completely. The universe is an open slate, and therefore our idea of “alien” life must be as well.


Peer Commentary

Feedback and follow-up from other members of our community


Olivia Bernard

A study was published in PNAS this March that gave evidence that a particular species of fish parasite lost its ability to perform aerobic respiration. This particular organism challenges our idea of what an animal is; not all animals require oxygen to power their cells. I bring this up because I believe it speaks to the idea of your very intriguing article. We, as humans, try to categorize the world around us, but we need to remember that these classifications are not rules, they are our observations.
But research has acknowledged that there are many alternative biochemistries and biologies that could have arisen from the conditions on early Earth.

As you mention above, it will be important to consider what is possible over what we believe to be probable moving forward in astrobiology research. This will require some abstract thinking on the part of researchers and very convincing grant proposals!



Marnie Willman


Virology

University of Manitoba Bannatyne, National Microbiology Laboratory

This brings about two big flaws in humans, as you so succinctly put in this article. The first is that while we like to think we can be abstract thinkers and are incredibly open minded, our “possibilities” and “theories” are based on what we know. What we know is Earth and the human race. However, you’re absolutely right: whatever is out there for life in space likely looks and acts nothing like we do here on this planet.

The second is that scientific definitions and concepts are always changing. As we discover new things and find biological phenomena that break our “rules” of what is allowed and how we categorize things, we make new rules. This has been going on since humans started recording their rules of life on parchment and stone tablets centuries ago.