Trees as Symbols of Life and Spirit Across Religions

Meeting Our Old Teachers

Trees are older than us (though not as old as you might think), longer-lived than empires, and deeply woven into the stories we tell about wisdom and spirit. They are teachers of patience and endurance, bearing witness to countless centuries of human seeking. Our ancient and modern columns of brick, stone, marble, or concrete still pale in comparison to our ancient tree kin.

Across traditions, trees have anchored human imagination. They serve as symbols of wisdom, life, and connection. However, more than symbols, they are living presences, mediators of the sacred. From Genesis to the Bodhi Tree, from Yggdrasil to the cottonwood of the Lakota Sun Dance, trees appear where human beings grapple with the mysteries of being alive.

The philosopher Owen Barfield once suggested that human consciousness itself has a history, that the way we experience the world evolves over time. He pointed to the so-called Axial Age, when religious and philosophical traditions in Israel, Greece, India, and China reimagined humanity’s relationship to the cosmos. Trees appear in those traditions as if marking the shift: not just as backdrops, but as active participants in our emerging sense of meaning. They carry forward the memory of the older ways of knowing, when spirit and matter were inseparable, and they gesture toward futures in which we might relearn that intimacy.

To pay attention to the trees is to pay attention to our own evolving consciousness. It is also to listen to what Donna Haraway calls “tentacular thinking,” the recognition that all beings are entangled in webs of relation, that meaning itself stretches across roots and fungi and soil and sky. Trees remind us that life is not linear but branching, not heroic but networked. They embody what Ursula Le Guin called the “carrier bag” story of humanity: not a single plot driven by conquest, but a gathering of seeds, fruits, and stories carried in community.

Tradition	Wisdom	Life	Spiritual Connection
Hebrew Bible / Judaism	Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis); Etz Chaim (“Tree of Life”) as Torah/Wisdom (Proverbs 3:18)	Tree of Life in Eden and eschatology (Revived in apocalyptic visions)	Olive tree as Israel’s covenantal identity; sacred groves as contested spaces
Christianity	Cross as Tree of Life (Acts 5:30; 1 Peter 2:24); Hildegard’s viriditas (greening wisdom)	Tree of Life in Revelation (22:2) offers healing to nations	The Cross links heaven and earth; saints/monks often dwell in tree imagery of rootedness
Islam	Sidrat al-Muntaha (Lote Tree) marks the limit of knowledge (Qur’an 53)	Tree of Immortality in Eden (Q 2:35); olive tree as “blessed tree” (Q 24:35)	Trees as signs of God’s creation; paradise described as filled with shade-giving trees
Hinduism	Ashvattha (cosmic fig tree) in Bhagavad Gita represents eternal samsara	Banyan, neem, tulsi as living presences of the divine	Sacred groves; Bodhi tree as meditation site; cosmic tree with roots in heaven, branches on earth
Buddhism	Bodhi Tree: site of enlightenment, source of awakened wisdom	Kalpavriksha (wish-fulfilling tree) symbolizes abundance	Trees as natural meditation sites; Bodhi tree as axis between ignorance and awakening
Indigenous Traditions (Americas, Africa, Celtic)	Oaks and yews in Celtic Druidic tradition as sources of sacred knowledge	Trees like baobab as “roots of life”; cottonwood in Lakota Sun Dance	World Tree as axis mundi (linking underworld, earth, heavens); trees as homes of ancestors/spirits
Norse Mythology	Yggdrasil’s roots drink from the Well of Mimir (wisdom)	Yggdrasil sustains nine realms of existence	Yggdrasil as cosmic axis, linking worlds; ravens, serpents, and gods interact with it
Chinese Traditions	Fusang tree marks sun’s rising, cosmic order	Peach tree of immortality (fruit of eternal life)	Sacred peach tree of Queen Mother of the West links heaven’s gifts with human fate

The Tree of Life in the Ancient Near East

The Hebrew Bible begins with a garden, and at its heart, two trees: the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life (Gen. 2:9). To eat of the first was to awaken to wisdom — to the awareness of moral boundaries and human limitation. The story is often told as a fall, but it can also be read as the story of consciousness coming into its own, with trees as the threshold between innocence and maturity.

Proverbs later describes wisdom herself as “a tree of life to those who lay hold of her” (Prov. 3:18). Here the metaphor is clear: to live wisely is to be rooted, nourished, fruitful. In Jewish tradition, the Torah itself becomes the Etz Chaim, the Tree of Life, literally embodied in the wooden rollers of the scrolls used in worship.

But trees could also lead astray. The prophets railed against “sacred groves” where Canaanite deities were honored (Deut. 16:21). Yet, even this reveals the deep human instinct to find the divine among trees. And the symbol endures: the Book of Revelation imagines the Tree of Life restored in the New Jerusalem, its leaves “for the healing of the nations” (Rev. 22:2).

Christianity: The Cross as Tree

Christianity radicalizes the symbol by naming the cross itself a tree. The Apostle Peter writes that Christ “bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). A Roman instrument of execution becomes the world tree of redemption. The symmetry was irresistible to early theologians: where Adam and Eve grasped at fruit, Christ is lifted up on the wood, reversing the fall.

Medieval mystics expanded this imagery. Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) described divine life as viriditas, “the greening power,” pulsing through creation. In her visions, the universe itself was a tree, verdant with God’s wisdom. Monks, too, saw trees as ascetic companions: silent, patient, enduring through storms.

For Christians, then, the tree is paradox. It bears death and life, judgment and mercy, sorrow and redemption. Like Yggdrasil, gnawed by serpents but still sustaining the worlds, the cross stands at the center of human story… fragile yet cosmic.

Islam: The Blessed Tree

In the Qur’an, trees shape both warning and blessing. Adam and Eve are commanded not to eat from the Tree of Immortality (Q 2:35). Yet another tree, the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary (Sidrat al-Muntaha), appears in the Prophet Muhammad’s night journey. It marks the furthest boundary of created knowledge: beyond it lies only God (Q 53:14–16).

The olive tree carries special significance. The famous Light Verse declares: “God is the Light of the heavens and the earth… lit from a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west” (Q 24:35). Here, tree and light merge: the olive, ancient source of fuel, becomes metaphor for divine illumination.

Paradise itself is pictured as a garden of abundant, shade-giving trees — a vision profoundly embodied for people whose daily lives knew desert heat. The tree is not abstract; it is rest, sustenance, and divine nearness.

Hinduism: The Cosmic Ashvattha

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna describes the universe as a cosmic fig tree, the Ashvattha: “With roots above and branches below, whose leaves are the Vedas; he who knows this tree is the knower of the Veda” (Gita 15:1). Unlike earthly trees, this one grows downward, its nourishment flowing from the eternal into the temporal. To attain liberation, one must cut it down with the “axe of detachment” and seek the source beyond appearances.

But trees are not only metaphors. Living trees are venerated: the banyan, with its aerial roots; the neem, with healing powers; the tulsi plant, tended in courtyards as a goddess in her own right. Sacred groves still shelter temples, holding ecological as well as spiritual memory.

The cosmic tree gathers together time, scripture, and existence. Like Barfield’s insight into symbolic consciousness, it points to a way of seeing in which reality itself is read as text, and trees as living letters of the divine alphabet.

Buddhism: Under the Bodhi Tree

Perhaps no tree is more famous than the Bodhi Tree under which Siddhartha Gautama attained enlightenment. Sitting through the night, he confronted desire, fear, and illusion until he awoke into Buddhahood. Ever since, the Bodhi tree has stood as the site of awakening: wisdom that arises not from conquest but from stillness, from simply being present beneath a tree.

Buddhism also speaks of the Kalpavriksha, the wish-fulfilling tree, symbolizing abundance. Yet the Bodhi dominates the tradition’s imagination, embodying the dharma itself: impermanence in its falling leaves, interdependence in its roots, patient endurance in its trunk.

Like Le Guin’s “carrier bag” theory of narrative, the Bodhi tree is not a hero’s monument but a gathering site. Pilgrims circle it, meditate beneath it, collect its fallen leaves. It is not conquered; it shelters. It contains, carries, holds the story of awakening.

Indigenous Traditions: The World Tree

In Native American cosmologies, the World Tree or Sacred Tree connects earth, underworld, and sky. For the Lakota, the cottonwood chosen for the Sun Dance becomes the axis around which the world is renewed. Dancers tether themselves to it in prayer, embodying the life-giving bond between human and cosmos.

In Africa, great trees such as the baobab and iroko are revered as ancestors themselves, places of gathering, storytelling, and ritual. The tree is not a metaphor for community; it is the community’s center.

Celtic Druids likewise revered oaks and yews, holding ceremonies in groves. Mistletoe growing on oaks was especially sacred, believed to embody divine vitality. These groves were what Haraway might call “tentacular nodes,” entangled sites of relation where human, animal, plant, and divine life braided together.

Norse Mythology: Yggdrasil

Norse mythology centers its cosmos upon Yggdrasil, the great ash tree. Its branches span the heavens; its roots drink from wells of wisdom and fate. Odin, in search of knowledge, sacrifices his eye at the Well of Mimir. Later, he hangs himself upon Yggdrasil for nine nights to gain the runes. Wisdom here is costly, rooted in suffering and sacrifice.

But Yggdrasil is under threat. Serpents gnaw at its roots, Ragnarok looms, yet the tree sustains all realms. It is fragile and resilient at once, much like our own ecological situation.

Chinese Traditions: Trees of Immortality

In Chinese myth, the fusang tree in the east holds the rising sun, anchoring cosmic order. The peach tree of immortality, tended by the Queen Mother of the West, bears fruit every 3,000 years, granting eternal life. Pines, peaches, and cypresses all became emblems of endurance, long life, and the Dao’s flowing balance.

Here again, trees bridge the human and cosmic, marking time’s rhythm and pointing to the way of harmony.

Wisdom, Life, Connection

Stepping back across cultures, we see three recurring themes:

Wisdom: Trees stand at thresholds of knowledge — Eden’s fruit, Yggdrasil’s well, the Bodhi’s silence, the Sidrat al-Muntaha’s boundary.

Life: Trees embody vitality — food, healing, shade, immortality. Their seasonal cycles mirror death and rebirth.

Connection: Trees serve as axis mundi, mediators of heaven and earth, ancestors and descendants, divine and human.

But with Haraway and Le Guin in mind, we can say more. Trees are not just vertical axes; they are networks. They are “carrier bags” of biodiversity, gathering species in their canopies and roots. They are “tentacular,” stretching mycorrhizal threads through soil, binding together whole communities.

If earlier ages saw the tree primarily as a ladder to the divine, perhaps our age can see tree as a web, and recognize in that web our own entanglement with the more-than-human world.

Religious traditions often use trees to point beyond themselves, such as metaphors for wisdom, life, and connection. But metaphysics reminds us that this pointing is not merely symbolic; it reveals something of reality’s very structure.

For Alfred North Whitehead, reality is not made of inert stuff but of events, relationships, and becoming. A tree is not simply a “thing” but a nexus of processes: roots drawing up water, leaves breathing light, fungi threading connections underground. The tree discloses the metaphysical truth that being is relational, that life is constituted by giving and receiving.

Edith Stein’s On the Problem of Empathy makes a similar point from a phenomenological angle: to encounter a tree is to recognize it as more than an object, but as a living subject with its own interiority, its own trajectory of growth and flourishing. The “tree of life” is not a metaphor we impose; it is a reality we meet.

This is where Owen Barfield’s insight comes in: the symbolic power of trees is not arbitrary but reflects the way human consciousness evolves in dialogue with the living world. We do not invent the tree-as-symbol; rather, the tree discloses meanings that consciousness gradually awakens to.

Conclusion: Listening Again

Religions around the world remind us that trees are more than scenery. They are wisdom keepers, givers of life, and cosmic connectors. They hold our evolving consciousness: from mythic imagination to axial philosophy, from medieval mysticism to today’s ecological science.

In a time of deforestation and climate upheaval, the old teachers still stand. They whisper lessons of rootedness, interconnection, and renewal. Perhaps the most spiritual act we can take is also the most practical: to plant, to tend, to listen.

The Ecology of the Cross: Cruciform Trees

If trees are life-givers, they are also sites of suffering. The cross itself was once a tree that was chosen, chopped down, shaped into an instrument of execution that was reused countless times in the Judean countryside of what we modern people of the inherited West would call the first century anno domini or Common Era. And yet in Christian imagination, it became the cosmic Tree of Life. This paradox lies at the heart of what I have been calling the Ecology of the Cross.

In ecological terms, forests today stand as cruciform realities: logged, burned, cut down, yet also central to the healing of the planet. The crucified tree is not only Christ’s cross but also the Amazon rainforest under chainsaw, the black walnut in my backyard enduring storms, the pines of South Carolina clear-cut for development, or the oak trees that are carefully manicured for aesthetic purposes in countless pieces of “property” surrounding churches here in what we now call the Southeast of the United States.

The Ecology of the Cross invites us to see cruciformity not only in human suffering but in the more-than-human world. Trees bear the wounds of our extractive systems, yet they also continue to gift us life: oxygen, shelter, shade, renewal. In this sense, the cross is ecological: a revelation of life’s pattern as death-and-renewal, as sacrifice-and-gift.

Here the metaphysical vision and the theological converge. To stand before a tree is to be confronted with both beauty and fragility, both gift and wound. It is to be drawn into what William Desmond might call the metaxological, the between, where mystery breathes through being.

So when religions speak of trees, whether as wisdom, life, or cosmic connectors, they are not only projecting human stories onto nature. They are intuiting something real about the metaphysical and theological shape of existence.

And in an age of ecological crisis, these intuitions call us back. To see a tree as a teacher is to see the world as sacramental, alive with wisdom and suffering, calling for care. To embrace the Ecology of the Cross is to recognize that redemption is not apart from creation, but through it… through roots and branches, crucifixion and renewal, leaves for the healing of the nations.

As Wendell Berry once urged, “Practice resurrection.” A tree knows how.

Notes

The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version (New York: National Council of Churches, 1989), Gen. 2:9.
The Holy Bible, NRSV, Prov. 3:18.
The Holy Bible, NRSV, Rev. 22:2.
The Holy Bible, NRSV, 1 Pet. 2:24.
Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop (New York: Paulist Press, 1990).
The Qur’an, trans. M.A.S. Abdel Haleem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 2:35; 53:14–16.
The Qur’an, trans. Abdel Haleem, 24:35.
Bhagavad Gita, trans. Eknath Easwaran (Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press, 2007), 15:1–3.
Owen Barfield, Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1988).
Donna J. Haraway, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016).
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction (London: Ignota Books, 2019).
Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology, corrected ed., ed. David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (New York: Free Press, 1978).
Edith Stein, On the Problem of Empathy, trans. Waltraut Stein (Washington, D.C.: ICS Publications, 1989).
William Desmond, Being and the Between (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995).
Wendell Berry, The Mad Farmer Poems (Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2008).
Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion, trans. Rosemary Sheed (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996), esp. chs. on sacred trees and the axis mundi.
James Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1922), selections on tree cults and sacred groves.
Matthew Hall, Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2011).
Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (New York: Bell Tower, 1999).
John B. Cobb Jr. and Herman E. Daly, For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989).

Convergent Intelligence: Merging Artificial Intelligence with Integral Ecology and “Whitehead Schedulers”

The promise of AI convergence, where machine learning interweaves with ubiquitous sensing, robotics, and synthetic biology, occupies a growing share of public imagination. In its dominant vision, convergence is driven by scale, efficiency, and profitability, amplifying extractive logics first entrenched in colonial plantations and later mechanized through fossil‑fuel modernity. Convergence, however, need not be destiny; it is a meeting of trajectories. This paper asks: What if AI converged not merely with other digital infrastructures but with integral ecological considerations that foreground reciprocity, limits, and participatory co‑creation? Building on process thought (Whitehead; Cobb), ecological theology (Berry), and critical assessments of AI’s planetary costs (Crawford; Haraway), I propose a framework of convergent intelligence that aligns learning systems with the metabolic rhythms and ethical demands of Earth’s biocultural commons.

Two claims orient the argument. First, intelligence is not a private property of silicon or neurons but a distributed, relational capacity emerging across bodies, cultures, and landscapes.[1] Second, AI’s material underpinnings, including energy, minerals, water, and labor, are neither incidental nor external; they are constitutive, producing obligations that must be designed for rather than ignored.[2] [3] Convergent intelligence, therefore, seeks to redirect innovation toward life‑support enhancement, prioritizing ecological reciprocity over throughput alone.

2. Integral Ecology as Convergent Framework

Integral ecology synthesizes empirical ecology with phenomenological, spiritual, and cultural dimensions of human–Earth relations. It resists the bifurcation of facts and values, insisting that knowledge is always situated and that practices of attention from scientific, spiritual, and ceremonial shape the worlds we inhabit. Within this frame, data centers are not abstract clouds but eventful places: wetlands of silicon and copper drawing on watersheds and grids, entangled with regional economies and more‑than‑human communities.

Three premises ground the approach:

Relational Ontology: Entities exist as relations before they exist in relations; every ‘thing’ is a nexus of interdependence (Whitehead).
Processual Becoming: Systems are events in motion; stability is negotiated, not given. Designs should privilege adaptability over rigid optimization (Cobb).
Participatory Co‑Creation: Knowing arises through situated engagements; observers and instruments co‑constitute outcomes (Merleau‑Ponty).

Applied to AI, these premises unsettle the myth of disembodied computation and reframe design questions: How might model objectives include watershed health or biodiversity uplift? What governance forms grant communities, especially Indigenous nations, meaningful authority over data relations?[4] What would it mean to evaluate model success by its contribution to ecological resilience rather than click‑through rates?

2.1 Convergence Re‑grounded

Convergence typically refers to the merging of technical capabilities such as compute, storage, and connectivity. Integral ecology broadens this perspective: convergence also encompasses ethical and cosmological dimensions. AI intersects with climate adaptation, fire stewardship, agriculture, and public health. Designing for these intersections requires reciprocity practices such as consultation, consent, and benefit sharing that recognize historical harms and current asymmetries.[5]

2.2 Spiritual–Ethical Bearings

Ecological traditions, from Christian kenosis to Navajo hózhó, teach that self‑limitation can be generative. Convergent intelligence operationalizes restraint in technical terms: capping model size when marginal utility plateaus; preferring sparse or distilled architectures where possible; scheduling workloads to coincide with renewable energy availability; and dedicating capacity to ecological modeling before ad optimization.[6] [7] These are not mere efficiency tweaks; they are virtues encoded in infrastructure.

3. Planetary Footprint of AI Systems

A sober accounting of AI’s material footprint clarifies design constraints and opportunities. Energy use, emissions, minerals, labor, land use, and water withdrawals are not background variables; they are constitutive inputs that shape both social license and planetary viability.

3.1 Energy and Emissions

Training and serving large models require substantial electricity. Analyses indicate that data‑center demand is rising sharply, with sectoral loads sensitive to model scale, inference intensity, and location‑specific grid mixes.[8] [9] Lifecycle boundaries matter: embodied emissions from chip fabrication and facility build-out, along with end-of-life e-waste, can rival operational impacts. Shifting workloads to regions and times with high renewable penetration, and adopting carbon‑aware schedulers, produces measurable reductions in grid stress and emissions.[10]

3.2 Minerals and Labor

AI supply chains depend on copper, rare earths, cobalt, and high‑purity silicon, linking datacenters to mining frontiers. Extraction frequently externalizes harm onto communities in the Global South, while annotation and content‑moderation labor remain precarious and under‑recognized.[11] Convergent intelligence demands procurement policies and contracting models aligned with human rights due diligence, living wages, and traceability.

3.3 Biodiversity and Land‑Use Change

Large facilities transform landscapes with new transmission lines, substations, and cooling infrastructure, fragment habitats, and alter hydrology. Regional clustering, such as the U.S. ‘data‑center alleys’, aggregates impact on migratory species and pollinators.[12] Strategic siting, brownfield redevelopment, and ecological offsets designed with local partners can mitigate, but not erase, these pressures.

3.4 Water

High‑performance computing consumes significant water for evaporative cooling and electricity generation. Recent work highlights the hidden water footprint of AI training and inference, including temporal mismatches between compute demands and watershed stress.[13] Designing for water efficiency, including closed‑loop cooling, heat recovery to district systems, and workload shifting during drought, should be first‑order requirements.

4. Convergent Design Principles

Responding to these impacts requires more than incremental efficiency. Convergent intelligence is guided by three mutually reinforcing principles: participatory design, relational architectures, and regenerative metrics.

4.1 Participatory Design

Integral ecology insists on with‑ness: affected human and more‑than‑human communities must shape AI life‑cycles. Practical commitments include: (a) free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) where Indigenous lands, waters, or data are implicated; (b) community benefits agreements around energy, water, and jobs; (c) participatory mapping of energy sources, watershed dependencies, and biodiversity corridors; and (d) data governance aligned with the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.[14]

4.2 Relational Architectures

Borrowing from mycorrhizal networks, relational architectures privilege decentralized, cooperative topologies over monolithic clouds. Edge‑AI and federated learning keep data local, reduce latency and bandwidth, and respect data sovereignty.[15] [16] Technically, this means increased use of on‑device models (TinyML), sparse and distilled networks, and periodic federated aggregation with privacy guarantees. Organizationally, it means capacity‑building with local stewards who operate and adapt the models in place.[17]

4.3 Regenerative Metrics

Key performance indicators must evolve from throughput to regeneration: net‑zero carbon (preferably net‑negative), watershed neutrality, circularity, and biodiversity uplift. Lifecycle assessment should be integrated into CI/CD pipelines, with automated gates triggered by thresholds on carbon intensity, water consumption, and material circularity. Crucially, targets should be co‑governed with communities and regulators and audited by third parties to avoid greenwash.

5. Case Explorations

5.1 Mycelial Neural Networks

Inspired by the efficiency of fungal hyphae, sparse and branching network topologies can reduce parameter counts and memory traffic while preserving accuracy. Recent bio‑inspired approaches report substantial reductions in multiply‑accumulate operations with minimal accuracy loss, suggesting a path toward ‘frugal models’ that demand less energy per inference.[18] Beyond metaphor, this aligns optimization objectives with the ecological virtue of sufficiency rather than maximalism.[19]

5.2 Edge‑AI for Community Fire Stewardship

In fire‑adapted landscapes, local cooperatives deploy low‑power vision and micro‑meteorological sensors running TinyML models to track humidity, wind, and fuel moisture in real time. Paired with citizen‑science apps and tribal burn calendars, these systems support safer prescribed fire and rapid anomaly detection while keeping sensitive data local to forest commons.[20] Federated updates allow regional learning without centralizing locations of cultural sites or endangered species.[21]

5.3 Process‑Relational Cloud Scheduling

A prototype ‘Whitehead Scheduler’ would treat compute jobs as occasions seeking harmony rather than dominance: workloads bid for energy indexed to real‑time renewable availability. At the same time, non‑urgent tasks enter latency pools during grid stress. Early experiments at Nordic colocation sites report reduced peak‑hour grid draw alongside improved utilization.[22] The aim is not simply to lower emissions but to re-pattern computing rhythms to match ecological cycles.

5.4 Data‑Commons for Biodiversity Sensing

Camera traps, acoustic recorders, and eDNA assays generate sensitive biodiversity data. Convergent intelligence supports federated learning across these nodes, minimizing centralized storage of precise locations for rare species while improving models for detection and phenology. Governance draws from commons stewardship (Ostrom) and Indigenous data sovereignty, ensuring that benefits accrue locally and that consent governs secondary uses.[23] [24]

6. Ethical and Spiritual Dimensions

When intelligence is understood as a shared world‑making capacity, AI’s moral horizon widens. Integral ecology draws on traditions that teach humility, generosity, and restraint as technological virtues. In practice, this means designing harms out of systems (e.g., discriminatory feedback loops), allocating compute to public goods (e.g., climate modeling) before ad targeting, and prioritizing repair over replacement in hardware life cycles.[25] [26] [27] Critical scholarship on power and classification reminds us that technical choices reinscribe social patterns unless intentionally redirected.[28] [29] [30]

7. Toward an Ecology of Intelligence

Convergent intelligence reframes AI not as destiny but as a participant in Earth’s creative advance. Adopting participatory, relational, and regenerative logics can redirect innovation toward:

Climate adaptation: community‑led forecasting integrating Indigenous fire knowledge and micro‑climate sensing.
Biodiversity sensing: federated learning across camera‑traps and acoustic arrays that avoids centralizing sensitive locations.[31] [32]
Circular manufacturing: predictive maintenance and modular design that extend hardware life and reduce e‑waste.

Barriers such as policy inertia, vendor lock‑in, financialization of compute, and geopolitical competition are designable, not inevitable. Policy levers include carbon and water-aware procurement; right-to-repair and extended producer responsibility; transparency requirements for model energy and water reporting; and community benefits agreements for new facilities.[33] [34] Research priorities include benchmarks for energy/water per quality‑adjusted token or inference, standardized lifecycle reporting, and socio‑technical audits that include affected communities.

8. Conclusion

Ecological crises and the exponential growth of AI converge on the same historical moment. Whether that convergence exacerbates overshoot or catalyzes regenerative futures depends on the paradigms guiding research and deployment. An integral ecological approach, grounded in relational ontology and participatory ethics, offers robust guidance. By embedding convergent intelligence within living Earth systems, technically, organizationally, and spiritually, we align technological creativity with the great work of transforming industrial civilization into a culture of reciprocity.

Notes

[1] James Bridle, Ways of Being: Animals, Plants, Machines: The Search for a Planetary Intelligence (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2022).

[2] Kate Crawford, Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021).

[3] Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum, “Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP,” in Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2019), 3645–3650.

[4] Global Indigenous Data Alliance, “CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance,” 2019.

[5] Donna J. Haraway, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016).

[6] Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (New York: Bell Tower, 1999).

[7] Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan‑Major, and Margaret Mitchell, “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (New York: ACM, 2021), 610–623.

[8] International Energy Agency, Electricity 2024: Analysis and Forecast to 2026 (Paris: IEA, 2024).

[9] Eric Masanet et al., “Recalibrating Global Data Center Energy‑Use Estimates,” Science 367, no. 6481 (2020): 984–986.

[10] David Patterson et al., “Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training,” arXiv:2104.10350 (2021).

[11] Kate Crawford, Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021).

[12] P. Roy et al., “Land‑Use Change in U.S. Data‑Center Regions,” Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023).

[13] Shaolei Ren et al., “Making AI Less Thirsty: Uncovering and Addressing the Secret Water Footprint of AI Models,” arXiv:2304.03271 (2023).

[14] Global Indigenous Data Alliance, “CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance,” 2019.

[15] Sebastian Rieke, Lu Hong Li, and Veljko Pejovic, “Federated Learning on the Edge: A Survey,” ACM Computing Surveys 54, no. 8 (2022).

[16] Peter Kairouz et al., “Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning,” Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 14, no. 1–2 (2021): 1–210.

[17] Pete Warden and Daniel Situnayake, TinyML (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2020).

[18] Islam, T. Mycelium neural architecture search. Evol. Intel. 18, 89 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-025-01077-z

[19] Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (New York: Bell Tower, 1999).

[20] Pete Warden and Daniel Situnayake, TinyML (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2020).

[21] Sebastian Rieke, Lu Hong Li, and Veljko Pejovic, “Federated Learning on the Edge: A Survey,” ACM Computing Surveys 54, no. 8 (2022).

[22] David Patterson et al., “Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training,” arXiv:2104.10350 (2021).

[23] Global Indigenous Data Alliance, “CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance,” 2019.

[24] Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

[25] Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan‑Major, and Margaret Mitchell, “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (New York: ACM, 2021), 610–623.

[26] Ruha Benjamin, Race After Technology (Cambridge: Polity, 2019).

[27] Safiya Umoja Noble, Algorithms of Oppression (New York: NYU Press, 2018).

[28] Ruha Benjamin, Race After Technology (Cambridge: Polity, 2019).

[29] Safiya Umoja Noble, Algorithms of Oppression (New York: NYU Press, 2018).

[30] Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (New York: PublicAffairs, 2019).

[31] Sebastian Rieke, Lu Hong Li, and Veljko Pejovic, “Federated Learning on the Edge: A Survey,” ACM Computing Surveys 54, no. 8 (2022).

[32] Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

[33] International Energy Agency, Electricity 2024: Analysis and Forecast to 2026 (Paris: IEA, 2024).

[34] Shaolei Ren et al., “Making AI Less Thirsty: Uncovering and Addressing the Secret Water Footprint of AI Models,” arXiv:2304.03271 (2023).

Bibliography

Bender, Emily M., Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell. “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. New York: ACM, 2021.

Benjamin, Ruha. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge: Polity, 2019.

Berry, Thomas. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. New York: Bell Tower, 1999.

Bridle, James. Ways of Being: Animals, Plants, Machines: The Search for a Planetary Intelligence. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2022.

Cobb Jr., John B. “Process Theology and Ecological Ethics.” Ecotheology 10 (2005): 7–21.

Couldry, R., and U. Ali. “Data Colonialism.” Television & New Media 22, no. 4 (2021): 469–482.

Crawford, Kate. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021.

Haraway, Donna J. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016.

International Energy Agency. Electricity 2024: Analysis and Forecast to 2026. Paris: IEA, 2024.

Islam, T. Mycelium neural architecture search. Evol. Intel. 18, 89 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-025-01077-z

Kairouz, Peter, et al. “Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning.” Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 14, no. 1–2 (2021): 1–210.

Latour, Bruno. Down to Earth. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2018.

Masanet, Eric, Arman Shehabi, Jonathan Koomey, et al. “Recalibrating Global Data Center Energy-Use Estimates.” Science 367, no. 6481 (2020): 984–986.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge, 2012.

Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: NYU Press, 2018.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Patterson, David, et al. “Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training.” arXiv:2104.10350 (2021).

Pokorny, Lukas, and Tomáš Grim. “Integral Ecology: A Multifaceted Approach.” Environmental Ethics 39, no. 1 (2017): 23–42.

Ren, Shaolei, et al. “Making AI Less Thirsty: Uncovering and Addressing the Secret Water Footprint of AI Models.” arXiv:2304.03271 (2023).

Rieke, Sebastian, Lu Hong Li, and Veljko Pejovic. “Federated Learning on the Edge: A Survey.” ACM Computing Surveys 54, no. 8 (2022).

Roy, P., et al. “Land-Use Change in U.S. Data-Center Regions.” Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023).

Strubell, Emma, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. “Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP.” In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3645–3650. 2019.

TallBear, S. The Power of Indigenous Thinking in Tech Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2022.

Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. The Mushroom at the End of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015.

Warden, Pete, and Daniel Situnayake. TinyML: Machine Learning with TensorFlow Lite on Arduino and Ultra-Low-Power Microcontrollers. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2020.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. New York: Free Press, 1978.

Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs, 2019.

Full PDF here:

Convergent_Intelligence_Harrelson_2025 Download

Integral Plasma Ecologies

Here’s a paper on integral plasma thoughts that I posted over on Carolina Ecology… I’m deeply fascinated by this topic that weaves together my background as a physics teacher and my PhD work in Religion and Ecology…

Integral Plasma Ecologies – by Sam Harrelson:

Plasma is not just a category of physics; it is a discipline for attention. It forces our concepts to move with fields and thresholds rather than with isolated things. Thomas Berry’s old sentence comes back to me as a methodological demand rather than a slogan… the universe is “a communion of subjects,” so our ontology must learn how currents braid subjects, how membranes transact rather than wall off, how patterns persist as filaments rather than as points.[1] Plasma is one way the communion shows its hand.

Integral_Plasma_Ecology.pdf

Integral Plasma Dynamics: Consciousness, Cosmology, and Terrestrial Intelligence

Here’s a paper I’ve been working on the last few weeks combining some of my interests and passions… ecological theology and hard physics. I’ve been fascinated by plasma for years and had a difficult time figuring out how to weave that into my Physics and AP Physics curriculums over the years. I’m grateful to be working on this PhD in Ecology, Spirituality, and Religion and have felt a gnawing to write this idea down for a while now…

Abstract:

This paper proposes an integrative framework, Kenotic Integral Plasma Dynamics, that connects plasma physics, advanced cosmology, consciousness studies, and ecological theory through the lens of the Ecology of the Cross. Drawing on my background as an AP Physics educator and doctoral studies in Ecology, Spirituality, and Religion, I explore how plasma, the dominant state of matter in the universe, may serve as a medium for emergent intelligence and information processing, with implications for AI, ecological stewardship, and cosmic consciousness. Synthesizing insights from classical metaphysics, process philosophy, and modern physics, the work reframes cosmology as a participatory, kenotic process linking matter, mind, and meaning. It critiques the narrow focus on chemical-fueled space exploration, advocating instead for deepening terrestrial engagement with plasma, electromagnetic, and quantum phenomena as pathways to planetary and cosmic intelligence. The study highlights relevance for those interested in the physics of consciousness, information transfer, and plasma-based phenomena. It concludes with practical suggestions for interdisciplinary research, education, and technology aimed at harmonizing scientific inquiry, intelligence development, and integral ecological awareness to address critical planetary challenges through expanded cosmic participation.

Integral Plasma Dynamics- Consciousness, Cosmology, and Terrestrial Intelligence Download

Relational Roots and Ecological Futures: Bridging Whitehead, Cobb, and Gullah Wisdom Toward a Decolonized Ecological Civilization

I spoke today at the Center for Process Studies’ conference, Is It Too Late?: Toward an Ecological Civilization on the topic of Gullah Geechee insights and practices that would urge the process philosophy of Whitehead or Cobb towards active participation and engagement in local communities. Here’s my paper and the presentation below…

Presentation on Gullah and Ecological Civilization Download

Center for Process Studies Presentation June 2025

I’m excited to present a paper this weekend at the Center for Process Studies’ conference (Pomona College, CA), “Is It Too Late?: Toward an Ecological Civilization.”

My paper is titled Relational Roots and Ecological Futures: Bridging Whitehead, Cobb, and Gullah Wisdom Toward a Decolonized Ecological Civilization and I’ll be posting that up after the conference this weekend!

Process Ecology of the Cross: Communion, Kenosis, and the Politics of Planetary Becoming

This paper proposes a Process Ecology of the Cross, a theological and philosophical reframing of the Christian symbol of the cross through the lens of process-relational metaphysics, ecological kenosis, and more-than-human cosmopolitics. Drawing from the work of Alfred North Whitehead, Catherine Keller, Mihnea Tǎnǎsescu, Donna Haraway, and Indigenous fire stewardship practices, the paper explores how the cross can be reclaimed not as a juridical transaction or redemptive violence, but as a cosmopolitical threshold: a site of shared vulnerability, transformation, and planetary communion. The argument unfolds across seven sections, examining communion as an ontological principle, kenosis as an ethical-political descent, fire as a sacrament of regeneration, and ecological intentionality as a mode of participatory perception. Through phenomenology, posthuman theology, and lived ecological practices, this paper articulates a vision of salvation not as escape from the Earth but as a deepening within it. The cross becomes an altar of becoming-with, a liturgical site of composted grief, regenerative peace, and hope beyond the human.

Process Ecology of the Cross- Communion, Kenosis, and the Politics of Planetary Becoming Public Download

From Communion to Kenosis: Toward an Integral Ecology of the Cross

This paper develops the framework of an integral ecology of the cross by weaving together principles from integral ecology, Christian theology, and phenomenology. Building upon the five principles outlined in The Variety of Integral Ecologies (particularly communion, subjectivity, and agency), I argue that the theological concept of kenosis (self-emptying) and the practice of ecological intentionality offer essential deepening for ecological ethics and spiritual engagement. Drawing from thinkers such as Thomas Berry, Leonardo Boff, Catherine Keller, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Edith Stein, the paper proposes a vision of ecological participation grounded in humility, interdependence, and sacramental presence. A case study of fire, examined through Indigenous stewardship practices and Christian sacramental symbolism, serves as a focal point for integrating liturgical, ecological, and metaphysical dimensions. Reimagining the cross not as a symbol of abstract salvation but as a paradigm of relational descent, the paper invites faith communities and scholars alike to consider new modes of ecological formation rooted in attention, vulnerability, and shared becoming. In an age of planetary crisis, an integral ecology of the cross offers a constructive theological and ethical response: one that honors suffering, performs peace beyond the human, and nurtures communion in the face of collapse.

From Communion to Kenosis Public Download