Grasping the identity of hybrids, that is beings which cross the binarism of nature and technology (e.g. genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), synbio inventions, biomimetic projects), is problematic since it is still guided by self-evident dualistic categories, either as artefacts or as natural entities. To move beyond the limitations of such a one-sided understanding of hybrids, we suggest turning towards the categories of affordances and the juxtaposition of needs and patterns of proper use, as inspired by the Heideggerian version of phenomenology. Drawing upon selected concepts by Heidegger, we argue that hybrids can be conceptualised as a regenerative design and use to serve the planet. We argue that the ideal type of non-exploitative account of hybrids consists of the adaptive approach to the environment, which does not, however, exclude the possibility of designing and constructing new beings. We also point out that hybrids undermine the divide of being destructive/regenerative which marks the boundaries of nature and technology.
AnthonyK., BayL., CostanzaR.. 2017. ‘New interventions are needed to save coral reefs’. Nature Ecology and Evolution1 (10): 1420–1422. Crossref
2.
BakerL.2009. The Metaphysics of Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BambachC.2013. Thinking the Poetic Measure of Justice. New York: SUNY Press.
4.
BlokV.2014. ‘Reconnecting with nature in the age of technology: The Heidegger and radical environmentalism debate revisited’. Environmental Philosophy11 (2): 307–332. Crossref
5.
BlokV.2017. ‘Earthing technology: Toward an eco-centric concept of biomimetic technologies in the Anthropocene’. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology21 (2/3): 127–149. Crossref
6.
BlokV. and GremmenB.2018. ‘Agricultural technologies as living machines: toward a biomimetic conceptualization of smart farming technologies’. Ethics, Policy & Environment21 (2): 246–263. Crossref
7.
BristerE. and NewhouseA.2020. ‘Not the same old chestnut: Rewilding forest with biotechnology’. Environmental Ethics42 (2): 149–167. Crossref
8.
BrownC. and ToadvineT.2003. Eco–Phenomenology. Back to the Earth Itself. New York: State University of New York Press.
9.
CallicottJ.B.2005. ‘The pragmatic power and promise of theoretical environmental ethics: Forging a new discourse’. In A.W. Galston and PeppardC.Z. (eds), Expanding Horizons in Bioethics, pp. 185–208. Dordrecht: Springer.
10.
CarterC.2020. ‘The ethics of human intervention on behalf of “others”’. Environmental Values29 (1): 1–7. Crossref
11.
ChenD., RossB. and KlotzL.2015. ‘Lessons from a coral reef: Biomimicry for structural engineers’. Journal of Structural Engineering141 (4): 02514002 Crossref
12.
CoyneL.2020. ‘The ethics and ontology of synthetic biology: A neo-Aristotelian perspective’. Nanoethics14 (1): 43–55. Crossref
13.
CumminsR.1975. ‘Functional analysis’. Journal of Philosophy72 (20): 741–765. Crossref
14.
DavisB.2007. Heidegger and the Will. On the Way to Gelassenheit. Illinois: Evanston. Crossref
15.
EnnisP.2007. ‘Toward a Heideggerean eco-phenomenology’. Intertexts11 (2): 123–137. Crossref
16.
GibsonJ.1977. ‘The theory of affordances’. In ShawR. and J Bransford (eds), Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, pp. 67–82. Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA. Crossref
17.
HaleB. and McAllisterL.2020. ‘From treasure to trash: The lingering value of technological artifacts’. Science and Engineering Ethics26 (2): 619–640. Crossref
18.
HamiltonC.2020. ‘Towards a fifth ontology for the Anthropocene’. Angelaki25 (4): 110–119. Crossref
19.
HeideggerM.1962. Being and Time. Translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. New York: Harper and Row.
20.
HeideggerM.1968. What Is Called Thinking?. Translated by F.D. Wieck and J.G. Gray. New York: Harper and Row.
21.
HeideggerM.1971. ‘Building dwelling thinking’. In HeideggerM., Poetry, Language, Thought.Translated by A. Hofstadter. New York: Harper and Row.
22.
HeideggerM.1977. ‘The question concerning technology’. In HeideggerM., The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, pp. 3–35. Translated by William Lovitt. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
23.
HeideggerM.1988. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Translated by A. Hofstadter. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
24.
HeideggerM.1991a. Nietzsche. vol 1. Translated by KrellD.F.San Francisco: Harper.
25.
HeideggerM.1991b. Nietzsche. vol. 3. Translated by KrellD.F.San Francisco: Harper.
26.
HeideggerM.1998. ‘On the essence and concept of Phusis in Aristotle's Physics B’ (pp. 183–230). Translated by SheehanT.. In HeideggerM. Pathmarks (ed. McNeillW.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HeideggerM.2000. Introduction to Metaphysics. Translated by G. Fried and R. Polt. London and New Haven: Yale University Press.
28.
Hoły-ŁuczajM.2018. ‘In search of allies for postnatural environmentalism, or revisiting an ecophilosophical reading of Heidegger’. Environmental Values27 (6): 603–621. Crossref
29.
Hoły-ŁuczajM. and BlokV.2019. ‘How to deal with hybrids in the Anthropocene? Towards a philosophy of technology and environmental philosophy 2.0’. Environmental Values28 (3): 325–346. Crossref
30.
Holy-LuczajM. and BlokV.2021. ‘Hybrids and the boundaries of moral considerabil-ity or revisiting the idea of non-instrumental value’. Philosophy and Technology34 (2): 223–242. Crossref
31.
HoukesW. and VermaasP.2009. ‘Produced to use: Combining two key intuitions on the nature of artefacts’. Techne13 (2): 123–136. Crossref
32.
IhdeD.2010. Heidegger's Technologies: Postphenomenological Perspectives. New York: Fordham University Press.
33.
KatzE.1993. ‘Artefacts and functions: A note on the value of nature’. Environmental Values2 (3): 223–232. Crossref
34.
KatzE.2018. ‘Replacement and irreversibility: The problem with ecological restoration as moral repair’. Ethics and the Environment23 (1): 17–28. Crossref
35.
Kleinberg-LevinD.2005. Gestures of Ethical Life: Reading Hölderlin's Question of Measure After Heidegger. Stanford University Press. Crossref
36.
KrohsU. and Kroes (eds)P.2009. Functions in Biological and Artificial Worlds Comparative Philosophical Perspectives. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
37.
LangerM.2003. ‘Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Merlau-Ponty: Some of their contributions and limitations for environmentalism’. In BrownC. and ToadvineT (eds), Eco-Phenomenology: Back to the Earth Itself, pp. 103–120. New York: SUNY.
38.
LawsonC.2008. ‘An ontology of technology: Artefacts, relations and functions’. Techné12 (1): 48–64. Crossref
39.
LeeK.1999. The Natural and the Artefactual. The Implications of Deep Science and Deep Technology for Environmental Philosophy. Lanham: Lexington Books.
40.
LieS.A.2021. ‘A critique of Steven Vogel's social constructionist attempt to overcome the human/nature dichotomy. Environmental Values30 (5): 635–654. Crossref
41.
LongyF.2009. ‘How biological, cultural, and intended functions combine’. In KrohsU. and KroesP (eds), Functions in Biological and Artificial Worlds Comparative Philosophical Perspectives, pp. 51–68. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
42.
O'NeillJ.2022. ‘The varieties of intrinsic value’. In LightA. and RolstonH.III (eds), Environmental Ethics. An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
43.
PalmerC.2016. ‘Saving species but losing wildness: Should we genetically adapt animal species to help them to respond to climate change?’. Midwest Studies in Philosophy40 (1): 234–251. Crossref
44.
PrestonC.2008. ‘Synthetic biology: Drawing a line in Darwin's sand’. Environmental Values17 (1): 23–39. Crossref
45.
PrestonC. and AntonsenT.2021. ‘Integrity and agency. Negotiating new forms of human-nature relations in biotechnology’. Environmental Ethics43 (1): 21–41. Crossref
46.
SandlerR.2012. ‘The value of artefactual organisms’. Environmental Values21 (1): 43–61. Crossref
47.
SchyfterP.2012. ‘Standing reserves of function: A Heideggerian reading of synthetic biology’. Philosophy & Technology25 (2): 199–219. Crossref
48.
SchyfterP.2015. ‘Function by agreement’. Social Epistemology29 (2): 185–206. Crossref
49.
StewartD.C. and JohnsonT.N.2018. ‘Complicating aesthetic environmentalism: Four criticisms of aesthetic motivations for environmental action’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism76 (4): 441–451. Crossref
50.
ThomsonI.2004. ‘Ontology and ethics at the intersection of phenomenology and environmental philosophy’. Inquiry47 (4): 380–412. Crossref
51.
ToadvineT.2016. ‘Phenomenology and environmental ethics’. In S.M. Gardiner and ThompsonA (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
WeberM.2017. ‘How objective are biological functions?’. Synthese194: 4741–4755. Crossref
53.
WrathallM.2021. ‘Affordance’. In WrathallM. (ed.), The Cambridge Heidegger Lexicon, pp. 31–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
ZimmermanM.E.1983. ‘Toward a Heideggerian ethos for radical environmentalism’. Environmental Ethics5 (2): 99–131. Crossref
55.
ZimmermanM.E.1986. ‘Implications of Heidegger's thought for deep ecology’. The Modern Schoolman64 (1): 19–43. Crossref
56.
ZimmermanM.E.2018. ‘How pertinent is Heidegger's thinking for deep ecology?’. In A.J. Wendland, MerwinC. and HadjioannouC (eds), Heidegger on Technology, pp. 209–225. New York: Routledge. Crossref
