Top: the panbioism view holds that all super human sized entities, such as the earth, milky way, the universe, are alive. Bottom: Two examples of entities, the proton nucleon and hydrogen atom, that one will have to accept as being alive if one adopts the panbioism perspective: the view that everything in the universe, smallest to biggest, is alive.
In -isms, panbioism, from the Greek pan- “all” and bio-life”, aka "panbiotism" (Carus, 1892) or "hylozoism" (Cudworth, 1678), which can be contrasted with abioism (Thims, 2015), is the view that every thing in the universe is alive; sometimes referred to as the “everything is alive theory”.

Greco-Roman views
In Greek philosophy, Anaxagoras is credited with with having had professed on of the earliest panbioism views; one synopsis of this is as follows:

“Neither creation nor destruction of life, according to Anaxagoras, was possible, and although, in his opinion, plants, animals, and man all come from the earth slime, nevertheless it was essential that this should be fructified by unchanging and infinitely small seeds (spermata), the ethereal embryos, which were carried into the earth from the air with rain water.”
Alexander Oparin (1936), The Origin of Life


In 1678, English philosopher Ralph Cudworth introduced the term hylozoism, from the Greek hyle “matter” and zoe “life”, aka "living matter", to characterize the the philosophical point of view that all matter (including the universe as a whole) is in some sense alive; dating, supposedly, dating from the Milesian school period of Greek philosophy. [11]

Heinzen | Chemical materialism
In 1846, Karl Heinzen, in his Six Letters to a Pious Man, building on the work of Ludwig Feuerbach, whom he knew, and the so-called “scientific materialists”, namely: Jacob Moleschott, Ludwig Buchner, and Karl Vogt, stated the following ripe logic, given the time period:

“The mind is nothing but the result of an organic combination of physical powers. The universe is, as it were, a chemical, magnetical, electrical, etc., laboratory, in which, the material powers (also called vital powers) consummate their unceasing changes and transformations. Where one formation ceases [final state], another begins [initial state]. Even the corpse of man lives; but this is no longer human life, it is only the life of ‘anorganic’ nature [see: inorganic life], to which the human form, after its dissolution, returns, and out of which ‘organicnature reproduces itself. There is nothing dead in the world, and dying implies only a retransformation to the material of common life.”
Karl Heinzen (1846), Six Letters to a Pious Man (pg. 14)

Heinzen referred to this belief as "atheist materialism"; retrospectively, we might now refer to this view, given the above statement, as "physico-chemical-electromagnetic materialism", which, to note, is a short stepping stone to when panbioism, e.g. references to both inorganic life (or anorganic life) and organic life, turn into abioism, and reference to the science defined motions of CH-based things (see: animate thing).

In 1892, Paul Carus defined “panbiotism”, a term, supposedly, identical to but independent to hylozoism (Skrbina, 2015), as the view that everything is fraught with life; it contains life; it is the ability to live”. [12]

German writer Ruedige Grimm (1977) argues that once the conservation of force (Helmholtz) and conservation of energy (Clausius) views emerged in the mid-19th century, the idea that everything in the universe could be viewed as a form of energy or force that was conserved, that soon thereafter the “everything is alive” theories began to emerge. Grimm cites German philosopher Goethe-Schopenhauer proselyte Friedrich Nietzsche, and will to power as the first dominate example of this: [10]

“For Nietzsche, everything [organic and inorganic] is alive, everything is active and dynamic in the most fundamental sense, and everything is ultimately constituted out of the primal drive to increase power.”

Goethe's famous student Arthur Schopenhauer, likewise, developed his own "will go power" theory, chemical-reaction level to human-reaction level; although it remains to be discerned if he had "panbioism" views, in any sense of the matter?

In 1924, Hilda Finnemore outlined a materialism implicit "soft panbioism".

The theory of panbioism, the possibility that everything, from subatomic particles to atoms to planets to the entire cosmos, might be alive or have some form or semblance of “life”, is one of the stepping stone alternative theories when one begins to address the origin of life question or the so-called “great problem of natural philosophy”, aka the life/non-life divide puzzle. English scientist James Lovelock and American biologist Lynn Margulis’s 1970s entropy reduction inspired Gaia hypothesis, i.e. the new age theory that the earth is a living, interrelated organism, is one example of panbioism. American complexity theorist James Gardner’s 2003 book Biocosm, which argues that “intelligent life is the architect of the universe”, is an example of the view that the universe or entire cosmos is alive, so to speak. [6]
Panbioism (H20 to human)
Top: the panbioism view holds that supramolecular entities, such as hemoglobin and human molecules, are alive.Bottom (left): A 2007 except diagram of American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims's vacillating on the "is the aspartic acid alive? question, which boils down to the deeper question: "is the hydrogen atom alive?" question, which amounts to the the point at which one stops calling molecules as being alive: being that many currently define RNA (ribonucleic acid) as the first form of life; similar to how many in the 1960s were debating about whether or not the virus or virus molecule was alive? [1]

In hmolscience, one way to be led into the panbioism-view is to follow a dissent or step down the evolution table (2005), or evolution timeline (2009), starting from the “human”, an entity that, as we have been told, generation after generation, ingrained from conception, is “alive”, and keep stepping downward in the de-evolution or involution path to the point at which one can definitively state—without doubt—that one has found the first non-alive entity or non-living matter. This “thought experiment” will take one down to the atomic and subatomic level, wherein one will begin to speculate as to whether, e.g. inside the proton or neutron, wherein quarks move about via the operation of exchange forces called bosons, “subatomic life” is a literal term, a metaphorical term, or a reality term?

An example of this type of querying can be found in American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims' chapter “Molecular Evolution”, of his 2007 Human Chemistry textbook, wherein he can be seen readily vacillating in indecision on the not-alive/alive/more-alive divide question (see adjacent)—a view which readily leads to the possibility of panbioism: the model according to which one has to conclude that the hydrogen atom is alive—albeit a view that becomes nonsensical given prolonged introspection. [1] It would not be until 2009, with the publication of the defunct theory of life, that Thims was able to work himself out of this quagmire. [2]

In 2000, the hyphenated term "pan-bioism" had an internet usage. The following is Google groups (2009) posting, comment by Ecce, which gives a cogent overview: [5]

“Even though—in most physical overviews—atoms would be taken to be precursor components of the human body (and other macroscopic objects), atoms aren't called "proto-humans" or "proto-biotic bodies", etc., or categorized under items like "pan-humanism" or "pan-bioism". Thus, our current tendency to label speculatively global primitive or elemental stages of later brain-grounded consciousness with terms like "panpsychism", "panexperientialism", and proto-versions of those (including proto-consciousness) is probably inhibiting exploration beyond neural activity because of the stigma of "kook territory" that they engender.”

Decent synopsis of the issue indeed. In 2011, in discussion about Francis Crick’s 1953 half-joking comment that DNA is the “secret of life”, a blogger by the name of Mr. Zero commented: [3]

“What if it turned out that everything had a double helix? Pan-bio-ism!”

In 2010, in Hmolpedia thread (#27), in discussion between Russian physical chemist Georgi Gladyshev (advocator of an emergence origin of life theory) and Americans chemical engineer Ted Erikson (advocator of a semi-panbioism "awareness" theory at the Planck scale level) and electrochemical engineer Libb Thims (advocator of the defunct theory of life) on the question of the “origin of life”, Thims classifies the “everything is alive theory” as one of the alternative origin of life solution theories, albeit an untenable one:

“The premise of the Quincey's book, which he says are themed on the ideas of Pierre Teilhard, Henri Bergson, and Arthur Young, is that the ‘universe is not dead’, as the materialists would have it, but rather matter is alive (and the universe is alive), and has consciousness, on the model that the photon is the unit of being and becoming (Young's theory). The alternative to this "everything is alive theory", is the "emergence theory" (Gladyshev's view), that life emerged at one point in the evolution timeline from hydrogen to human. Both theories, however, become nonsensical when the one looks into the details of the argument. The only solution, which I have been employing in my writing in the last year, is to stop using the words "life", "living", and "alive", being that they have no scientific basis, and to instead begin using the terms "animated", "reactive", "moving", etc., in the place of the defunct terms.”
A query post by David Bossens about equilibrium, death, free energy, and maximum entropy, after which, in response by Thims (post #20), in dialogue with Jeff Tuhtan, the term "panbioism" began to be employed.
On 14 Jun 2012, Libb Thims, amid a thread discussion with an anon, posting from Brussels, and Jeff Tuhtan, on the question of maximum entropy, equilibrium, and death, post query shown adjacent, began to use (post #20) the term “panbioism” (no hyphen), definition-defined, as follows: [4]

“Re (Jeff): “So to be technically correct you could just say ‘animate = life’ and everything in the universe is ‘alive’"; to correct you on this, if this is indeed your current stance, i.e. the ‘everything is alive theory’, aka ‘panbioism’, being similar or nearly synonymous with panpsychism or panexperientialism. I would suggest for you to slow your roll on this one. At least from experience, when you first adopt the molecular formula point of view of everything, as I did in 2005 by making the world’s first molecular evolution table, and a later expanded evolution timeline (2009), one of the first natural tendencies is to attempt to extend the concept of ‘alive’ down past the hydrogen atom into the proton and below. You can see in my Human Chemistry chapter five ‘Molecular Evolution’, pages 123-131, up to the comment about ‘spark day’ [see: Ferris Jabr, 2013], that I was still vacillating on this issue. It takes some time to get this loose puzzle out of one’s head to say the least. A good starting point is to ask yourself ‘is the hydrogen atom alive (yes/no)’?”

In 2015, the term "abioism" began to be used as the antonym of panbioism, in short.

The above 2009 comment about panbioism, panpsychism, panexperientialism, and the like, being in "kook territory", or tending to be in crackpot land, one might say, should be taken note of. While the well-intentioned physicist or chemist will gladly trumpet about that "I am alive and I know it" without reserve, the first to trumpet about that "the hydrogen is alive and I know it" or "water is alive and I know it" will be quick to be cast in to ridicule. Correctly: all three should be cast into ridicule; the only difference is the former is not aware that they are not alive, because the premise of life is so-ingrained into the cultural embeddedness that it is extremely difficult to expunge. In a sense it is almost like the pot calling the kettle black.

An example of this is the recent 2012 105-page "high-controversial" (Ѻ) article “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life” by American molecular geneticist Erik Andrulis—a self-defined RNA metabolism and life researcher, published in Shu-Kun Lin’s newly-launched Life journal, which posits a gyres theory, a type of “everything is alive theory”, which has come to cause a scandal of sorts in the so-called new 21st century mass-information peer review process, which amounts to not getting peer reviewed at all. The abstract of the scandalous everything is alive theory article is as follows:

Abstract: Life is an inordinately complex unsolved puzzle. Despite significant theoretical progress, experimental anomalies, paradoxes, and enigmas have revealed paradigmatic limitations. Thus, the advancement of scientific understanding requires new models that resolve fundamental problems. Here, I present a theoretical framework that economically fits evidence accumulated from examinations of life. This theory is based upon a straightforward and non-mathematical core model and proposes unique yet empirically consistent explanations for major phenomena including, but not limited to, quantum gravity, phase transitions of water, why living systems are predominantly CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur), homochirality of sugars and amino acids, homeoviscous adaptation, triplet code, and DNA mutations. The theoretical framework unifies the macrocosmic and microcosmic realms, validates predicted laws of nature, and solves the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe.”

The article opens to the following sentence:

“How life abides by the second law of thermodynamics yet evolutionarily complexifies and maintains its intrinsic order is a fundamental mystery in physics, chemistry, and biology.”

which, of course, is footnoted to Erwin Schrodinger’s famous 1943 What is Life? lecture and is but an attempted dig into the second law (disordering) evolution (ordering) query. Science journalist Jesse Emspak, of, gives the following synopsis of the article: [8]

“Essentially, objects — atoms, cells, molecules, chemicals and so on — are packets of energy and matter that are described by gyres – spinning spirals. Gyres are defined by the singularity at one end and the changing shape of the spiral at the other. Everything around us oscillates between excited and ground states as they pivot around the center of these lifelike gyres. Everything isn’t alive, exactly, but gyres have ‘lifelike characteristics’.”

Emspak went on to label Andrulis’ article as the “crackpot theory of everything” for claiming that everything is alive, which, again, is a bit paradoxical coming from someone who journals for a blog claiming that “science is alive” (the name in itself is another pot-kettle highlighter: science is alive, but defining atoms as alive is crackpot?) In any event, the publication of the article has caused at least one of the 23 members of Life’s editorial board, Ginestra Bianconi, a physicist at Northeastern University, to tender her resignation. [9] Whatever the case, the overall aim of Andrulis seems to be an effort to dig into the spin problem.

A cousin term to panbioism is older term “animism”, which is loosely the idea that there is no separation between the spiritual and physical (or material) world, and souls or spirits exist, not only in humans, but also in all other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of the natural environment. [7] The difference between the two, panbioism and animism, is that the former casts out all religious connotation, all except the term “life”.

The following are related quotes:

“Everything is alive; everything is interconnected.”
Cicero (55BC), original: Omnia vivunt; omnia inter se conexa; possibly a misattribution (2004) done via "motto" of online Grey Wizard School (Ѻ); though, to note, he may have had similar (Ѻ) views, as found in his De Natura Deorum

See also

1. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (pgs. 123-131). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
2. Thims, Libb. (2009). “Letter: Life a Defunct Scientific Theory”, Journal of Human Thermodynamics, Vol. 5, pgs. 20-21.
3. Comment (7 Jun 2011 3:36 PM) – Is This What Scientists Think Philosophers Do?
4. Maximum Entropy, Equilibrium, and Death (15 Jun 2012) (#20) – Hmolpedia threads.
5. Thread comment (12 Apr 2009 10:23 AM) – Discussion: Wittgenstein on Consciousness, Google Groups.
6. Gardner, James. (2003). Biocosm: the New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life if the Architect of the Universe. Inner Ocean.
7. Animism – Wikipedia.
8. (a) Andrulis, Eric D. (2012). (2012). “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life.” Life 2(1):1-105.
(b) Erick Andrulis (faculty) – Case Western University.
9. (a) Emspak, Jesse. (2012). “Crackpot Theory of Everything Reveals the Dark Side of Peer Review”,, Jan 30.
(b) Erik D. Andrulis (faculty) – Case Western Reserve University.
10. Grimm, Ruedige. (1977). Nietzsche’s Theory of Knowledge (everything is alive theory, pgs. 7-8). Walter de Gruyter.
11. Rucker, Rudy. (2008). “Everything is Alive”, Submitted to the Kyoto ‘What is Life’ Conference October 2007;
12. (a) Skrbina, David. (2005). Panpsychism in the West (thermodynamics, pgs. 13, 151; panpsychist philosophers, pg. 155). MIT Press.
(b) Skrbina, David. (2017). Panpsychism in the West: Revised Edition (Carus, 4+ pgs; panbiotism, pg. 14; read by Peirce, pg. 190). MIT Press.

TDics icon ns