What do you think?
Rate this book
The Living Universe: Where Are We? Who Are We? Where Are We Going?
Traditionally, science has regarded the universe as made up of inert matter and empty space. Duane Elgin brings together extraordinary evidence from cosmology, biology, and physics to show that the universe is not dead but rather uniquely alive, an insight that, he shows, is in harmony with all of the world’s major spiritual traditions. He explores how this view radically transforms our concept of ourselves, our place in the cosmos, and the evolutionary trajectory of the human family. The nonliving view of the universe has led to rampant materialism and global environmental degradation. To transform our planetary crises we need to move past a paradigm of separation and exploitation and learn to live sustainably on the Earth, in harmony with one another, and in communion with the living universe.
- GenresSpirituality
248 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
23 people are currently reading
168 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
June 11, 2019
As the review by Keith D. Swenson already stated, this book is a nice read for those who no longer need to be convinced that the universe is alive, because they already believe it. It lacks sufficient scientific explanations for people who are sceptic about the subject, for them to be convinced of any other theory. The language is way too dreamy for that and the ideas are not very well substantiated.
I did not regret reading it however, not in the least.
I personally really liked the style of writing because it awakens my own creativity. I underlined a lot, but seriously, a LOT of quotes in the book because they inspired me to contemplation on certains matters. And that I always really like. There are a lot of interesting ideas being brought forward in the book that could make for very interesting conversations and I will surely attempt to start conversations about some of the things I read.
As for trying to convince a sceptic, I would definitely not recommend this book. Elgin talks about the global economical, social, environmental and ethical crisis we are currently facing and how viewing the universe as a living organism would be beneficial when it comes to tackling these issues. I am with him on this opinion, but I don't think that anybody who doesn't occupy themselves with these matters yet, will start doing so after this book.
Overall an interesting book, but I am sure there are a lot better books out there that go more in-depth.
I did not regret reading it however, not in the least.
I personally really liked the style of writing because it awakens my own creativity. I underlined a lot, but seriously, a LOT of quotes in the book because they inspired me to contemplation on certains matters. And that I always really like. There are a lot of interesting ideas being brought forward in the book that could make for very interesting conversations and I will surely attempt to start conversations about some of the things I read.
As for trying to convince a sceptic, I would definitely not recommend this book. Elgin talks about the global economical, social, environmental and ethical crisis we are currently facing and how viewing the universe as a living organism would be beneficial when it comes to tackling these issues. I am with him on this opinion, but I don't think that anybody who doesn't occupy themselves with these matters yet, will start doing so after this book.
Overall an interesting book, but I am sure there are a lot better books out there that go more in-depth.
June 11, 2018
"The Living Universe" is a book for those wishing to feel good by envisioning the universe as being filled with magic around them. A skeptic will probably see the book as filled with platitudes, deepities, and wish fulfillment -- not a serious philosophical treatise at all. This book is aimed for people who already believe that the universe is magically alive and just want confirmation of this, without critical evaluation.
Full disclosure: I met the author at a conference, and we had a very interesting conversation. He gave me the book, and I promised to read it. Nice guy, I will be as kind as as I can.
The title is accurate. Elgin compares and contrasts two views: the dead universe, and the living universe. The dead universe is "a barren and inhospitable place comprised almost entirely of non-living matter and empty space." Human existence is pointless and without purpose. It is almost a caricature of all the worst aspects of a materialist view. And of course that drives us to material possessions (a different meaning of the word "material" but - oh never mind).
The living universe is "buzzing with invisible energy and aliveness patiently growing a garden of cosmic scale." To do this, he has to define "life" to be something utterly different than biological life: it is just wonderfulness spread around filling the empty spaces and making us happy. He feels that this magic invisible living quality is necessary for you and I to have a purpose. More important, we are all connected to the cosmos.
The biggest shortcoming is that author does not seem to be aware of the concept of "emergence" and how existence at one physical layer of a complex adaptive system can cause new and different properties at a different scale. He relies on the idea that if some property exists in the evolved system, it must have been there all along, and therefor the universe must have had all those properties from the start. This is common for a nondualist view of the universe, however it severely limits this book.
The dead universe is made out to be so dull, so cold, so unappealing that nobody would ever want to be there. The dead universe can not have no love, no happiness, no vitality, no consciousness because "chemical reactions" can't possibly support that. Ultimately everything is meaningless. But we do have love and happiness, so the dead universe is nothing more than a straw-man argument -- a picture of a possible universe that nobody believes and nobody could believe in.
By then presenting a false dichotomy -- the universe can either be dead or living -- he comes to the unjustified conclusion that the universe must be "living". There is no serious justification for each of the qualities that he sees in a living universe -- they are simply presented as being necessary because "chemical reactions" can't possibly support that.
I would like to see (as a serious philosopher and skeptic) something that can stand up on its own. The treatment of science is entirely unfair. He proposes that "science disengaged the modern mind by asserting that matter is lifeless and space is an empty stage." However, biology is the science of life and certainly does not assert that matter is lifeless. No, a carbon atom is not "alive" but life is a quality that emerges from the configuration of carbon compounds. He can't imagine how life can be actually made of carbon compounds, so "life" must be already part of the universe to be somehow soaked up by plants and animals. The author is romantically attached to the idea that invisible magic forces appear to make life meaningful.
Most of his statements of the properties of the universe come without any evidence or justification.
He claims (p24) that "many cosmologists now assume that the universe has countless numbers of additional dimensions" This is patently false.
He trots out (p27) the fine tuning argument that the universe must have intelligence.
One of the design principles he gives (p28) for the universe is that "Anything that happens anywhere must be knowable everywhere instantly." He seems to be completely unaware that no experiment ever has showed information moving faster than the speed of light. It is not a property of the universe and certainly not a design principle. Also, this statement belies a lack of understanding of special relativity which states that different frames of reference can not even agree on whether two events happen at the same time or not: it is nonsense to talk about something happening everywhere at the same instant.
Pages 30 and 31 is a comical comparison of the dead universe versus the living universe and the strawman argument is treated with simplistic arguments showing the living universe is much much nicer.
He says (p38) that on property of life is that energy flows through it, and then asks that if energy can be found flowing through the universe, then this would indicate it is alive. I would remind the author that batteries have energy flowing through them, and are not alive.
On page 40 he says that the universe needs so much energy because it is always continually re-creating itself.
On page 45 he conflates the idea of consciousness, with the idea of memory.
He introduces "remote viewing" on p47. On p49 he says everyone has ability to sense at a distance. Why nobody has been able to measure that? He would surely point to Dan Radin (cited a number of times) however we are missing independent confirmation of Radin's results.
I ran out of steam a few pages later. The caricature of science as the bad cold lifeless view, countered by a warm, joyous, fulfilling non-science view, all supported by vague claims ended up being too much for me.
The book is readable only by someone who already believes that the universe is filled with special magic designed to give humans a special place and purpose. This will be a good confirming piece, but it is not going to stand up to minimal skeptical review.
Full disclosure: I met the author at a conference, and we had a very interesting conversation. He gave me the book, and I promised to read it. Nice guy, I will be as kind as as I can.
The title is accurate. Elgin compares and contrasts two views: the dead universe, and the living universe. The dead universe is "a barren and inhospitable place comprised almost entirely of non-living matter and empty space." Human existence is pointless and without purpose. It is almost a caricature of all the worst aspects of a materialist view. And of course that drives us to material possessions (a different meaning of the word "material" but - oh never mind).
The living universe is "buzzing with invisible energy and aliveness patiently growing a garden of cosmic scale." To do this, he has to define "life" to be something utterly different than biological life: it is just wonderfulness spread around filling the empty spaces and making us happy. He feels that this magic invisible living quality is necessary for you and I to have a purpose. More important, we are all connected to the cosmos.
The biggest shortcoming is that author does not seem to be aware of the concept of "emergence" and how existence at one physical layer of a complex adaptive system can cause new and different properties at a different scale. He relies on the idea that if some property exists in the evolved system, it must have been there all along, and therefor the universe must have had all those properties from the start. This is common for a nondualist view of the universe, however it severely limits this book.
The dead universe is made out to be so dull, so cold, so unappealing that nobody would ever want to be there. The dead universe can not have no love, no happiness, no vitality, no consciousness because "chemical reactions" can't possibly support that. Ultimately everything is meaningless. But we do have love and happiness, so the dead universe is nothing more than a straw-man argument -- a picture of a possible universe that nobody believes and nobody could believe in.
By then presenting a false dichotomy -- the universe can either be dead or living -- he comes to the unjustified conclusion that the universe must be "living". There is no serious justification for each of the qualities that he sees in a living universe -- they are simply presented as being necessary because "chemical reactions" can't possibly support that.
I would like to see (as a serious philosopher and skeptic) something that can stand up on its own. The treatment of science is entirely unfair. He proposes that "science disengaged the modern mind by asserting that matter is lifeless and space is an empty stage." However, biology is the science of life and certainly does not assert that matter is lifeless. No, a carbon atom is not "alive" but life is a quality that emerges from the configuration of carbon compounds. He can't imagine how life can be actually made of carbon compounds, so "life" must be already part of the universe to be somehow soaked up by plants and animals. The author is romantically attached to the idea that invisible magic forces appear to make life meaningful.
Most of his statements of the properties of the universe come without any evidence or justification.
He claims (p24) that "many cosmologists now assume that the universe has countless numbers of additional dimensions" This is patently false.
He trots out (p27) the fine tuning argument that the universe must have intelligence.
One of the design principles he gives (p28) for the universe is that "Anything that happens anywhere must be knowable everywhere instantly." He seems to be completely unaware that no experiment ever has showed information moving faster than the speed of light. It is not a property of the universe and certainly not a design principle. Also, this statement belies a lack of understanding of special relativity which states that different frames of reference can not even agree on whether two events happen at the same time or not: it is nonsense to talk about something happening everywhere at the same instant.
Pages 30 and 31 is a comical comparison of the dead universe versus the living universe and the strawman argument is treated with simplistic arguments showing the living universe is much much nicer.
He says (p38) that on property of life is that energy flows through it, and then asks that if energy can be found flowing through the universe, then this would indicate it is alive. I would remind the author that batteries have energy flowing through them, and are not alive.
On page 40 he says that the universe needs so much energy because it is always continually re-creating itself.
On page 45 he conflates the idea of consciousness, with the idea of memory.
He introduces "remote viewing" on p47. On p49 he says everyone has ability to sense at a distance. Why nobody has been able to measure that? He would surely point to Dan Radin (cited a number of times) however we are missing independent confirmation of Radin's results.
I ran out of steam a few pages later. The caricature of science as the bad cold lifeless view, countered by a warm, joyous, fulfilling non-science view, all supported by vague claims ended up being too much for me.
The book is readable only by someone who already believes that the universe is filled with special magic designed to give humans a special place and purpose. This will be a good confirming piece, but it is not going to stand up to minimal skeptical review.
Read
March 9, 2010Didn't hold my interest... as in "been there, done that" for this line of thinking.
October 1, 2025
Well written. I think it is a really great book to start with for beginners who want to have a glimpse of our existence in this vast vast universe. You can give it a try if you're new. It is kinda good for intermediates because it has nothing "new" in it but this book simplifies everything in a well written way.
April 23, 2020
Consistently misrepresents scientific findings and even defends parapsychology. Not worth a read if you wanted a more evidence-based approach to the idea of a living universe. The fact it has a foreword from Deepak Chopra was the first red flag!
August 20, 2009
How do you view the world? Is the universe friendly and purposeful with all things interconnected or is human existence merely a one time extraordinary event? Essentially, is the universe we live in alive or is it dead?
On the surface, this sounds like such a simple question but how we choose to answer it says a good deal about who we are as individuals and as part of greater society. Beyond just showing if we are intrinsically optimistic or pessimistic, this world view influences the way we work with others, how we view nature, and ultimately our priorities.
The Living Universe asks us each to think about where we are, who we are, and where are we going? It’s time for each of us to look within for these answers to determine what kind of world we want to live in.
On the surface, this sounds like such a simple question but how we choose to answer it says a good deal about who we are as individuals and as part of greater society. Beyond just showing if we are intrinsically optimistic or pessimistic, this world view influences the way we work with others, how we view nature, and ultimately our priorities.
The Living Universe asks us each to think about where we are, who we are, and where are we going? It’s time for each of us to look within for these answers to determine what kind of world we want to live in.
July 12, 2011
Blech! This book annoyed me. There were lots of moments where I was thinking, "Yeah, totally, I'm into that line of thinking and would like to know more." But then I was told things we already know, thoughts I'd already had, and nothing really new. By the end, I was pretty much skimming the book (a thing I never do), *just in case* there was some secret gem of research hidden away at the end of the book.
No such luck.
I didn't much care for the high school essay style of writing either.
oh well.
No such luck.
I didn't much care for the high school essay style of writing either.
oh well.
October 23, 2010
As all of Duane Elgin's books, easy to read, lots to think about, and very appropriate for the times we live in. This is one of my favorites. With sub-chapters such as "Were Are We?", "Who Are We??" Where Are We Going?" and "Actions for the Journey Ahead", It'll make you think, but considering the topics he explores, Duane has a talent for making very complex ideas accessable to the average reader willing to use her brain a bit.
December 27, 2015
Elgin uses two metaphors to illustrate mindsets -- one that sees the universe (and earth and all that is here) as living, and one that looks at the world as essentially 'dead' -- (AKA the mechanical world view). The book is excellent, but for those of you who are looking for a non-dualistic consciousness this one falls a little short. Still a very worthwhile read.
July 10, 2009
Well into this challenging book...it is excellent!! How I wish everyone I know would read it!!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews