The Anthropocene overthrows classical dichotomies like technology and nature and a new class of beings emerges: hybrids. The transitive status of hybrids – which establishes an extra, separate, ‘third’ ontological category, going beyond the dichotomy between nature and technology – constitutes a significant problem for environmental philosophy and philosophy of technology since they traditionally focus on either ‘nature’ (natural entities) or ‘artefacts’ (technological objects). In order to reflect on the ethical significance of hybrids, a classification of different types of hybrids is required. Such a clas-sification is provided by this article, based on insights from both environmental philosophy and philosophy of technology. After explaining why a new class of beings emerges in the Anthropocene, and reflecting on the one-sidedness of philosophy of technology and environmental philosophy in their focus on either technology or nature, we propose a new classification of hybrids in this article that provides a new starting point for reflections on the moral signifi-cance of hybrids in environmental philosophy and philosophy of technology.
BlokV.2015. ‘The human glance, the experience of environmental distress and the “affordance” of nature: toward a phenomenology of the ecological crisis’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics28 (5): 925–938. Crossref.
8.
BlokV.2016. ‘Biomimicry and the materiality of ecological technology and innovation’. Environmental Philosophy13 (2): 195–214. Crossref.
9.
BlokV.2017. ‘Earthing technology: towards an eco-centric concept of biomimetic technologies in the Anthropocene’. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology21 (2–3): 127–149. Crossref.
10.
BlokV. and GremmenB.. 2018. ‘Agricultural technologies as living machines: toward a biomimetic conceptualization of smart farming technologies’. Ethics, Policy and Environment21 (2): 246–263. Crossref.
11.
BlokV. and GremmenB.. 2016. ‘Ecological innovation: biomimicry as a new way of thinking and acting ecologically’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics29 (2): 203–217. Crossref.
12.
CahenH.2002. ‘Against the moral considerability of ecosystems’. In LightA. and RolstonH.III (eds), Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, pp. 114–128. Oxford: Blackwell.
13.
CallicottJ.B.2005. ‘The pragmatic power and promise of theoretical environmental ethics: forging a new discourse’. In GalstonA.W. and PeppardC.Z. (eds), Expanding Horizons in Bioethics, pp. 185–208. Dordrecht: Springer.
14.
ClingermanF.2014. ‘Geoengineering, theology, and the meaning of being human’. Zygon49 (1): 6–21. Crossref.
15.
CrutzenP.J.2002. ‘Geology of mankind’. Nature415 (6867): 23. Crossref.
16.
CrutzenP.J. and StoermerE.F.. 2000. ‘The “Anthropocene”’. Global Change Newsletter41: 17–18.
DevallB.1988. Simple in Means, Rich in Ends. Practicing Deep Ecology. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books.
19.
DicksH.2016. ‘The philosophy of biomimicry’. Philosophy and Technology29 (3): 223–243. Crossref.
20.
DicksH.2017. ‘Environmental ethics and biomimetic ethics: nature as object of ethics and nature as source of ethics’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics30 (2): 255–274. Crossref.
21.
DriessenC.2017. ‘Hybridity’. In RichardsonD. (eds), The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment, and Technology, pp. 1–10. Wiley/Association of American Geographers. Crossref.
22.
FranssenM.2008. ‘Design, use, and the physical and intentional aspects of technical artefacts’. In VermaasP.E. (eds), Philosophy and Design. From Engineering to Architecture, pp. 21–35. Dordrecht: Springer. Crossref.
23.
GardinerS.M. and ThompsonA. (eds),. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
GerberL.2002. ‘What is so bad about misanthropy?’. Environmental Ethics24 (1): 41–55. Crossref.
25.
GoodpasterK.E.1980. ‘On stopping at everything: A reply to WM Hunt’. Environmental Ethics2 (3): 281–284. Crossref.
26.
GrandyR.E.2007. ‘Artefacts: parts and principles’. In MargolisE. and LaurenceS. (eds), Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artefacts and their Representation, pp. 18–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
HailwoodS.2015, Alienation and Nature in Environmental Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HamiltonC.2014. Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering. New Haven: Yale University Press.
29.
HeywardC., RaynerS. and SavulescuJ.. 2017. ‘Early geoengineering governance: the Oxford principles’. In KaplanD.M., (ed.) Philosophy, Technology, and the Environment pp. 103–120. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
30.
HoukesW. and VermaasP.E.. 2009. ‘Produced to use: combining two key intuitions on the nature of artefacts’. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology13 (2): 123–136. Crossref.
31.
HourdequinM.2015. Environmental Ethics: From Theory to Practice. Noldon–New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
32.
HuiY.2017. ‘On cosmotechnics’. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology21 (2/3): 319–341. Crossref.
33.
HuntW.M.1980. ‘Are mere things morally considerable?’. Environmental Ethics2 (1): 59–65. Crossref.
34.
Kam-porY.2005. ‘Moderating nature with responsibility and humility human genetics from a Confucian perspective’. polylog: Forum for Intercultural Philosophy6. Online: http://them.polylog.org/6/fyk-en.htm.
35.
KaplanDavid M. (ed.) 2017. Philosophy, Technology, and the Environment. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
36.
KatayamaE.G.1999. Aristotle on Artefacts: a Metaphysical Puzzle. Albany: SUNY.
37.
KatzE.1993. ‘Artefacts and functions: a note on the value of nature’. Environmental Values2 (3): 223–232. Crossref.
38.
KatzE.2002. ‘Understanding moral limits in the duality of artefacts and nature: a reply to critics’. Ethics & the Environment7 (1): 138–146. Crossref.
39.
KatzE.2012. ‘Further adventures in the case against restoration’. Environmental Ethics34 (1): 67–97. Crossref.
40.
KingsburyN.2009. Hybrid. The History and Science of Plant Breeding. Chicago/ London: The Chicago University Press.
KroesP. and VermaasP.E.. 2008. ‘Interesting differences between artefacts and natural objects’. A PA Newsletter8 (1): 28–31.
43.
LawsonC.2008. ‘An ontology of technology: artefacts, relations and functions’. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology12 (1): 48–64. Crossref.
44.
LeeK.1999. The Natural and the Artefactual. The Implications of Deep Science and Deep Technology for Environmental Philosophy. Lanham/Boulder/New York/ Oxford: Lexington Books.
45.
LemmensP. and HuiY.. 2017. ‘Reframing the technosphere: Peter Sloterdijk's and Bernard Stiegler's anthropotechnological diagnoses of the Anthropocene’. Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy2017 (2): 26–41.
46.
LemmensP., BlokV. and ZwierJ.. 2017. ‘Toward a terrestrial turn in philosophy of technology’. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology21 (2–3): 114–126. Crossref.
47.
LightA.2006. ‘Restoration ecology’. In SteffanA., (ed.) World Changing: A User's Guide for the 21st Century, pp. 484–485. New York: Abrams Publishers.
NaessA.1995. ‘The deep ecological movement’. In SessionsG., (ed.) Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, pp. 64–84. Boston: Shambhala.
50.
OuderkirkW. and HillJ. (eds). 2012. Land, Value, Community: Callicott and Environmental Philosophy. Albany: SUNY.
51.
PetersonM.J. and SandlerR.. 2008. ‘Ethical evaluation of new technologies: genetically modified organisms and plants’. International Dimensions of Ethics Education Case Study Series, available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/edethicsinscience/36/.
52.
PrestonC.J.2015. ‘Framing an ethics of climate management for the Anthropocene’. Climatic Change130 (3): 359–369. Crossref.
RobaeyZ.2016. ‘Transferring moral responsibility for technological hazards: the case of GMOs in agriculture’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics29 (5): 767–786. Crossref.
55.
RobinsonH. and DaintonB. (eds). 2014. The Bloomsbury Companion to Analytical Philosophy. London: Bloomsbury.
56.
RolstonH.III2017. ‘The Anthropocene!: beyond the natural?’. In GardinerS.M. and ThompsonA. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics, pp. 62–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref.
57.
SiipiH.2003. ‘Artefacts and living artefacts’. Environmental Values12 (4): 413–430. Crossref.
58.
SperberD.2007. ‘Seedless grapes: nature and culture’. In MargolisE. and LaurenceS. (eds), Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artefacts and their Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
ThompsonP.B.2017. ‘Philosophy of technology and the environment’. In GardinerS.M. and ThompsonA. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics, pp. 62–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref.
60.
WillistonB.2017. ‘The question concerning geo-engineering’. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology21 (2–3): 119–221. Crossref.
61.
WongP.H.2015. ‘Confucian environmental ethics, climate engineering, and the “playing God” argument’. Zygon®50 (1): 28–41. Crossref.
VerbeekP-P.2005. What Things Do. Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. University Park: Penn State University Press.
64.
VermaasP.E.. (eds). Philosophy and Design. From Engineering to Architecture. Dordrecht: Springer.
65.
VermaasP., KroesP., van de PoelI., FranssenM. and HoukesW.. 2011. A Philosophy of Technology: From Technical Artefacts to Sociotechnical Systems. Morgan & Claypool Publishers Crossref.
66.
VogelS.2003. ‘The nature of artifacts’. Environmental Ethics25 (2): 149–168. Crossref.
67.
VogelS.2015. Thinking like a Mall. Cambridge: MIT Press. Crossref.
68.
XuC., HuS. and ChenX.. 2016. ‘Artificial cells: from basic science to applications’. Materials Today19 (9): 516–532. Crossref.
69.
ZalasiewiczJ., WilliamsM., SteffenW. and CrutzenP.. 2010. ‘The new world of the Anthropocene’. Environmental Science & Technology44 (7): 2228–2231. Crossref.
