Who owns NATURE? Conceptual appropriation in discourses on climate and biotechnologies
Abstract
Emerging technologies can have profound conceptual implications. Their emergence frequently calls for the articulation of new concepts, or for modifications and novel applications of concepts that are already entrenched in communication and thought. In this paper, we introduce the notion of “conceptual appropriation” to capture the dynamics between concepts and emerging technologies. By conceptual appropriation, we mean the novel application of a value-laden concept to lay a contestable claim on an underdetermined phenomenon. We illustrate the dynamics of conceptual appropriation by analyzing the concept NATURE and its uptake in three discourses of emerging technology: cellular agriculture, solar geo-engineering, and biomimicry. We argue that NATURE and its cognate NATURALNESS are strongly valanced concepts upon which different stakeholders lay a claim. In doing so, stakeholders advance distinct conceptions of nature, typically to suit their own interests. Our case-studies illustrate how in discourses on emerging technology, the application of value-concepts is entangled with ideological stakes and power dynamics.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Andersen G, Fløttum K, Carbou G, et al. (2022) People’s conceptions and valuations of nature in the context of climate change. Environmental Values 31(4): 397–420.
Bar-Cohen Y (2006) Biomimetics: using nature to inspire human innovation. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 1(1): 1–12.
Baskin J (2019) Geoengineering, the Anthropocene and the end of nature. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Batavia C, Nelson MP (2017) For Goodness Sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care? Biological Conservation 209: 366–76.
Baumeister D, Tocke R, Dwyer J, Ritter S, Benyus J (2014) Biomimicry resource handbook: a seed bank of best practices. Scotts Valley: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Bellamy R, Osaka S (2020) Unnatural climate solutions? Nature Climate Change 10(2): 98–99.
Benyus JM (1997) Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. New York: Harper Collins.
Brey P (2018) The strategic role of technology in a good society. Technology in Society 52: 39–45.
Carey S (1985) Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cohen YH, Reich Y (2016) Biomimetic design method for innovation and sustainability. Switzerland: Springer.
Corner AJ, Parkhill K, Pidgeon NF,. et al. (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change 23(5): 938–947.
Corner AJ, Pidgeon NF (2015) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Climatic Change 130(3): 425–438.
Crutzen P, Schwaegerl C (2011) Living in the Anthropocene: toward a new global ethos. Yale Environment 360. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82202-6_12
Daston L (2019) Against Nature. Untimely Meditations 17. Cambridge: MIT Press.
De Graeff N, Buijsen M, Bredenoord A (2022) On the Nature of Nature: A Study on the Use and Meaning of Nature and (Un)naturalness in the Literature on Genetic Modification. CGM Onderzoeksrapport. https://cogem.net/app/uploads/2022/02/CGM-2022-01-On-the-nature-of-nature.pdf
Doherty NF, Coombs CR, Loan-Clarke J (2006) A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: redressing the balance between the social and the technical. European Journal of Information Systems 15(6): 569–582.
Ducarme F, Couvet D (2020) What does ‘nature’ mean? Palgrave Communications 6(1): 1–8.
ETC group & Fibershed (2018) Genetically engineered clothes: synthetic biology’s new spin on fast fashion. CA: ETC group & Fibershed.
Fadok RA (2022) In Life's Likeness: Biomimicry and the Imitation of Nature. Science, Technology and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Program in Science, Technology and Society: 349.
Falk R (2009) Genetic analysis: a history of genetic thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Fink H (2006) Three sorts of naturalism. European Journal of Philosophy 14(2): 202–221.
Gallie WB (1955) Essentially contested concepts. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian society. (56: pp. 167–198). Aristotelian Society, Wiley.
Gerbaud V, Leiser H, Beaugrand J, Cathala B, Molina-Jouve C, Gue AM (2022) Bibliometric survey and network analysis of biomimetics and nature inspiration in engineering science. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 17(3): 031001.
Gerola A, et al. (2023) What Does it Mean to Mimic Nature? A Typology for Biomimetic Design. Philosophy & Technology 36(4): 65.
Glacken CJ (1967) Traces on the Rhodian Shore: nature and culture in western thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century 6, pr. Berkeley: University of Califorina Press.
Gleich AV, et al. (2010) Potentials and trends in biomimetics. Berlin: Springer.
Gopnik A (1988) Conceptual and semantic development as theory change: the case of object permanence. Mind and Language 3(3): 197–216.
Guthman J, Biltekoff C (2020) Magical disruption? Alternative Protein and the Promise of de-Materialization. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 4(4): 1583–1600.
Hamilton C (2014) Ethical anxieties about geoengineering. In Sandler R. L (Ed) Ethics and Emerging Technologies (pp. 439–55). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Hamilton C (2017) Defiant earth: the fate of humans in the Anthropocene. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. https://www.overdrive.com/search?q = 3D60A4DA-B3BB-4345-95A0-E9A8DD70E787.
Hashemi Farzaneh H, Lindemann U (2019) A practical guide to bio-inspired design. Germany: Springer.
Helliwell R, Burton RJF (2021) The promised land? Exploring the future visions and narrative silences of cellular agriculture in news and industry media. Journal of Rural Studies 84: 180–191.
Hofbauer B (2022) Techno-moral change through solar geoengineering. Prometheus 38(1): 82–97.
Hopster JKG, Löhr G (2023) Conceptual engineering and philosophy of technology: Amelioration or adaptation? Philosophy & Technology 36(4): 70.
Keith DW (2013) A case for climate engineering. Boston Review Books. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kintisch E (2010) Hack the Planet: science’s best hope– or worst nightmare– for averting climate catastrophe. Hoboken: Wiley.
Kirchin ST (2013) Thick concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Landrum NE, Mead T (2022) Sustainability in the Biom*. In: Palombini F. L., Muthu S. S. (Eds) Bionics and sustainable design (pp. 1–15). Singapore: Springer.
Latour B (2017) Facing Gaia: eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Lenau TA, Lakhtakia A (2021) Biologically inspired design for the environment. In: Primer A., Lenau T. A., Lakhtakia A. (Eds) Biologically Inspired Design (pp. 77–94). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Lepora NF, Verschure P, Prescott TJ (2013) The state of the art in biomimetics. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 8(1): 013001.
Levinovitz A (2021) Natural: how faith in nature’s goodness leads to harmful fads, unjust laws, and flawed science. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
Löhr G (2021) Does polysemy support radical contextualism? On the relation between minimalism, contextualism and polysemy. Inquiry (online first). https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1868329
Löhr G, Michel C (2022) Copredication in context: a predictive processing approach. Cognitive Science 46(5): e13138.
Löhr Guido (2023) Conceptual disruption and 21st century technologies: A framework. Technology in Society 74: 102327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102327.
Lynas M (2011) The God species: saving the planet in the age of humans. Washington: National Geographic.
Machery E (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marris E (2011) Rambunctious garden: saving nature in a post-wild world: 1st U.S. ed. New York: Bloomsbury.
Moritz J, Tuomisto HL, Ryynänen T (2022) The transformative innovation potential of cellular agriculture: political and policy stakeholders’ perceptions of cultured meat in Germany. Journal of Rural Studies 89: 54–65.
Neyrat F (2018) The unconstructable earth. In The Unconstructable Earth. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2015) Ideas about naturalness in public and political debates about science, technology and medicine. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Palombini FL, Muthu SS (2022) Bionics and sustainable design. Environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes. Singapore: Springer.
Pamplany A, Gordijn B, Brereton P (2020) The ethics of geoengineering: a literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics 26(6): 3069–3119.
Pierrehumbert RT (2015) “Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad.” Slate, February 10, 2015. Opinion piece on Slate website, retrieved August 23, 2023, from https://slate.com/technology/2015/02/nrc-geoengineering-report-climate-hacking-is-dangerous-and-barking-mad.html
Pozzi G (2023) Automated opioid risk scores: a case for machine learning-induced epistemic injustice in healthcare. Ethics and Information Technology 25(1): 3.
Preston CJ (2016) Climate justice and geoengineering: ethics and policy in the atmospheric Anthropocene. London, New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Proveg International (2020) Everything you need to know about cellular agriculture. https://proveg.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-cellular-agriculture/ (accessed 8 October 2022).
Recanati F (2017) Contextualism and polysemy. Dialectica 71(3): 379–397.
Robock A, Marquardt A, Kravitz B, et al. (2009) Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letters 36(19): L19703.
Sahay S, Robey D (1996) Organisational context, social interpretation, and the implementation and consequences of geographic information systems. Accounting, Management and Information Technology 6(4): 255–282.
Sandin P (2017) How to label ‘natural’foods: a matter of complexity. Food Ethics 1(2): 97–107.
Speck O, Speck D, Horn R, et al. (2017) Biomimetic bio-inspired biomorph sustainable? An attempt to classify and clarify biology-derived technical developments. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 12(1): 1–15.
Steffen W, Persson Å, Deutsch L, et al. (2011) The Anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship. AMBIO 40(7): 739–61.
Thagard P (1990) Concepts and conceptual change. Synthese 82(2): 255–274.
United States Cattlemen's Association (2018) Petition to Limit the Definition of Beef to Traditional Sources. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/18-01-Petition-US-Cattlement-Association020918.pdf. (accessed 8 October 2022).
Vaerynen P (2013) The lewd, the rude and the nasty: a study of thick concepts in ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Verbeek PP (2011) Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Vicente A (2018) Polysemy and word meaning: an account of lexical meaning for different kinds of content words. Philosophical Studies 175(4): 947–968.
Vincent JF, Bogatyreva OA, Bogatyrev NR, et al. (2006) Biomimetics: its practice and theory. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3(9): 471–482.
Vincent JFV (2001) Stealing ideas from nature. In Pellegrino S. (ed) Deployable Structures (pp. 51–58). Vienna: Springer.
Vincent JFV, Mann DL (2002) Systematic technology transfer from biology to engineering. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 360(1791): 159–173.
Vitrolabs Inc (2020) Available at: https://www.vitrolabsinc.com/ (accessed 29 May 2020)
Vogel S (2015) Thinking like a mall: environmental philosophy after the end of nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vosniadou S. (ed) (2013) International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.
Williams RK (1976) Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein L (2010) Philosophical investigations. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
Biographies
Jeroen K.G. Hopster is Assistant Professor of Ethics at Utrecht University.
Alessio Gerola is doctoral researcher at Wageningen University & Research.
Ben Hofbauer is doctoral researcher at Delft University of Technology.
Guido Löhr is Assistant Professor of Logic and AI at the Free University of Amsterdam.
Julia Rijssenbeek is doctoral researcher at Wageningen University & Research.
Paulan Korenhof is postdoctoral researcher at Wageningen University & Research. All authors are affiliated with the research consortium Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies (ESDiT).
Cite
Cite
Cite
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: December 8, 2023
Issue published: August 2024
Keywords
Authors
Author contributions
All contributing authors were involved in discussing the paper's structure and deciding on the core case-studies. J.H., G.L., and P.K. spearheaded the theoretical analysis, J.R., B.H., and A.G. analyzed the case-studies (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, resp.). All authors contributed to the writing, editing, and approval of the final version of the manuscript.
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Publication usage*
Total views and downloads: 560
*Publication usage tracking started in December 2016
Publications citing this one
Receive email alerts when this publication is cited
Web of Science: 8 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 10
- Greenwashing Silicon Valley: The legitimization of green platform capitalism through tech-on-climate discourse
- Homo Translator: Concretizing the Human-in-the-Loop in Bio-Inspired Technologies
- Oxford Intersections: AI in Society
- The end of capitalism as a concept: Towards a new political economy for understanding monetary societies in the biosphere
- Biomimicry and AI-Enabled Automation in Agriculture. Conceptual Engineering for Responsible Innovation
- Fixing the earth: whole-systems thinking in Silicon Valley’s environmental ideology
- Socially Disruptive Technologies and Conceptual Engineering
- Gentleness and care
- Socially disruptive technologies and epistemic injustice
- Conceptual Engineering and Philosophy of Technology: Amelioration or Adaptation?
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
