On Cosmotechnics: For a Renewed Relation between Technology and Nature in the Anthropocene

Angelaki. Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 2020

Foundations of Science, 2022

Because climate change can be seen as the blind spot of contemporary philosophy of technology, while the destructive side effects of technological progress are no longer deniable, this article reflects on the role of technologies in the constitution of the (post)Anthropocene world. Our first hypothesis is that humanity is not the primary agent involved in world-production, but concrete technologies. Our second hypothesis is that technological inventions at an ontic level have an ontological impact and constitutes world. As we object to classical philosophers of technology like Ihde and Heidegger, we will sketch the progressive contribution of our conceptuality to understand the role of technology in the Anthropocene world. Our third hypothesis is that technology has emancipatory potential and in this respect, can inaugurate a post-Anthropocene World. We consider these three hypotheses to develop a philosophical account of the ontology of technology beyond an abstract and deterministic understanding. This concept enables us to philosophically reflect on the role of technology in the Anthropocene World in general, and its contribution to the transition to the post-Anthropocene World in particular.

2018

The idea of the Anthropocene calls attention not only to the culturaltechnological conditions of contemporary life, but to the question of humanity’s place within the general order of Nature. It calls for both a better understanding of the conditions underlying human ‘nature’ as well as a new conception of Nature in general. By reframing the condition of cultural-technological life within a more complex, ecologically attuned philosophy of Nature we may not only provide a better account of how the conditions of cultural-technological life could have come to be, but provide a richer basis upon which to seek principles and ideals to guide our human endeavours.

in: A. Berti, A. Ré Anahí (Eds.), "Actas del VII Coloquio Internacional de Filosofía de la Técnica", Editorial de la UNC, Córdoba 2017, pp. 91-100., 2017

This paper exposes a philosophical anthropology of technology, grounded on the concept of Neoenvironmentality. Starting from a reinterpretation of the idea of man’s humanity, this approach culminates in a new definition of technology. The historical impossibility of postulating man’s essence makes still necessary to individuate elements that characterize him in a specific way. In this regard, “essence” or “human nature” are here replaced with anthropic perimeter. The core of the anthropic perimeter consists of man’s worldhood, i.e.: man is that being that has a world, while animals merely possess an environment. Due to his lacking biological endowment, man is bound by nature to create his own oikos. Man is “worldforming”, a technological being by nature. On the other side, the ecological interface of animal is environment: a natural mould to which it adheres immediately. Following Heidegger’s suggestion, man’s worldhood and animal’s environmentality are derived from a pathic premise. In the case of animal, such pathos corresponds to a captivation that upholds its fusion with its relative vital space. On the contrary, man possesses a fundamental mood, which enables him to transcend his within-the-world rootedness. It is thaumazein, theorein (contemplation). Starting with this anthropological assumption, technology emerges as the oikos of contemporary humanity. In this systematic guise, technology demands a total adaptation from man. In order to achieve this, it inhibits his thaumazein/theorein, while producing an artificial captivation that assimilates him to an animal condition, i.e. an environmental one. Technology stands out as (neo)environment that decrees the corresponding feralization of man. The phenomenon of Neoenvironmentality produces the secularized transcription of a theological dialectic. Caught by a soteriological anxiety, the feralized man entrusts himself to technology itself supposing it will correct his “promethean gap” through an indefinite enhancement. The telos of the techne as Neoenvironment is to reshape the anthropic perimeter

Although both ignorance and denialism still persist in some quarters, it can hardly bedoubted anymore for anyone with the slightest awareness of the Zeitgeist, that humanity is about to enter a phase in its history which will be characterized by massive changes in the earth's biosphere, i.e., in the global ecological system that has up until now silently and robustly supported its cultural-historical projects ( Greer 2008, Martenson 2011, Crutzen & Schwägerl 2011, Barnosky et al 2012). Humanity's largely destructive influence on its unique planetary life support system has gained such a momentum lately that geologists and Earth System scientists have suggested for some time now that we have entered a new geological epoch, the anthropocene, in which the human has become the most influential geological (f)actor, trumping the natural ones in every respect (Crutzen & Stoermer 2000, Steffen et al. 2011, Latour 2014, Schwägerl 2014, Bonneuil & Fressoz 2016). The prime significance of the anthropocene, which presents us with a biosphere that is fundamentally different from that of its microbial and metazoan stages due to the technosphere produced by human techno-cultural evolution (Williams et al. 2015), is that it sets a different trajectory for the planet or what is called the Earth system nowadays (Waters et al. 2014, Hamilton 2015, Davies 2016). Whilst the anthropocene attests to the enormous if not uncanny power of a techno-scientifically potentialized humanity (a power Dominique Janicaud has called a ‘hyperpower’) to radically disrupt the earthly ecosystem upon which it fundamentally depends for its very survival, it simultaneously, and even more crucially, brings to light the ultimate impotence of that power (Janicaud 1994). However that may be, what is clear, as the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler points out, is that the anthropocene reveals the toxic and entropic character of the process of capitalist industrialization and that the big challenge it imposes on us is how to exit from it and invent a negentropic, curative and attentive technological modus vivendi (Stiegler 2014, 2016), if possible (Blok 2015). And since we are massively unprepared for this unprecedented challenge, we might do well to start ‘thinking the unthinkable’, as the American philosopher of technology Langdon Winner has stated using a famous phrase by cold war nuclear conflict theorist/futurist Herman Kahn (Winner 2013). In this track, we aim to explore the question how philosophy of technology should respond to this challenge, i.e., to this new and unprecedented ‘human condition’ that is bound to seriously disrupt the agendas of philosophical and social inquiry in the decades to come and that we would like to characterize as the anthropocenic condition. In particular, we aim to explore what it would mean for philosophy of technology to engage with the earth system and its principles of composition, to consider different technical modalities of fostering and maintaining them, and to adopt an explicitly planetary orientation (Lemmens & Hui 2016, Lemmens 2017). Possible questions and themes to be explored include: • What exactly does the anthropocene – sometimes also referred to as the technocene – as a new and unprecedented planetary condition mean for the philosophy of technology? What are its implications for this discipline? Should it be the cause for a renewed reflection on its aims, goals, focus, methodologies, paradigms, presuppositions, organizational structure, educational guidelines, ‘engagement’, etc.? • What would a planetary orientation, assuming humanity as a ‘geological agency’ (Chakrabarty 2009), imply for philosophy of technology? What should ‘taking care of the earth’ (Steffen et al. 2011) or a ‘reconnection with the biosphere’ (Folke 2011) mean technologically? How should we attune our technologies, for instance the global digital network technologies, the NBIC technologies or the technosphere and noorspehere more generally, to this new situation? What would it mean technologically to heed the ‘planetary boundaries’ crucial for the ‘operating space of humanity’ (Rockström 2015). • What kind of new technologies and social institutions should be invented to deal with the impending energy crisis and climate catastrophes and what kind of changes in our technological thinking are needed for this new age of the anthropocene? • What kinds of technopolitics and ecopolitics are needed and what can we already see emerging on the horizon? How should we include nascent technopolitical movements such as open source, peer-to-peer and commons into an ecological perspective on techno-evolution? • What should we think of proposed solutions like geo-engineering, ecotechnics and atmo-design, and what of new technological paradigms like homeotechnology, biomimicry (Blok & Gremmen 2015) and the biobased economy (Zwier et al 2015)?

Foundations of Science, 2021

One of the defining moments in contemporary philosophy of technology was undoubtedly the ‘empirical turn’ of the 1990s and 2000s (Achterhuis 2001; Kroes and Meijers 2000; Franssen et al. 2016). Contra older, so-called transcendentalist, essentialist or “macro-level” oriented approaches that had seen technology as an all-encompassing phenomenon or force, the empirical turn inaugurated more “micro-level” oriented analyses of concrete technologies, studied in their specific use contexts. Since a couple of years, however, the empirical turn has increasingly been called into question, with scholars asking whether it has not been pushed too far—certainly given recent technological developments that seem to give technology an all-encompassing or all-penetrating countenance (again): pervasive automation of all domains of society through AI (Artificial Intelligence) algorithms and (ro)bots, or the engineering grasp on life through nanotechnology, biotechnology and neurotechnology. Also, the ecological urgency characterizing our “Anthropocenic condition” appears to call for more broad-ranging perspectives than the mere analysis of concrete local use contexts. At the same time, nonetheless, the “empirical attitude” keeps demon- strating its usefulness for the philosophical study of technologies on a day-to-day basis… The question has been coming up more and more: Where do we go from here? Quo vadis philosophy of technology?

Social Ethics Society Journal of Applied Ethics, 2023

This paper attempts to unravel and explore the stark contradiction between the quest for technological advancement and the struggle for human welfare and well-being. In the frame of Hegel's master and slave dialectic, the author tries to present the notions of humanity and technology as thesis and antitheses by which the dawning synthesis of technological sensitivity to nature and an ecologically friendly human innovation and emancipation can be made possible. The paper draws heavily from the concepts introduced by notable philosophers, such as,