The Earth sciences have suggested the notion of ‘hybrid planet’ Earth. In principle, this idea relates to Lovelock’s notion of Gaia in the sense that thermodynamic disequilibrium is conceived as an indicator of emergent and evolving planetary activity, in the case of Gaia the biosphere. Life transforms solar energy into processes that change the Earth’s physical and chemical features. Similarly, the notion of hybrid planet (Gaia 2.0) refers to the emergent role of the technosphere resulting in similar effects, as we now experience with climate change, alas, in a dysfunctional and dystopian way. So far, the accelerated growth of the technosphere was driven by fossil fuels, pushing the planet into the purported new geological period of the Anthropocene. Axel Kleidon envisages a future for the planet in which photovoltaics will dominate technospheric energy generation and transformation. The key point is that the thermodynamic efficiency and productivity of this human-created transformation is much higher than that of photosynthesis. At the same time, the reliance on solar energy as an almost limitless (according to human measures) source means that there is no competition between the biosphere and the technosphere over this resource: This is the planetary solar commons, without the tragedy. Hence, we could envisage a scenario in which the technosphere contributes to the enhancement and flourishing of hybrid planet Earth, enabled by the growing thermodynamic productivity. Axel Kleidon suggests that the technosphere might leverage biospheric activity, for example, using technology to turn deserts into lush forests opening up new habitats for many species.
This may appear to be feasible on the aggregate level, but the problem is that the expansion of the technosphere also means competition over space, in many ways. The renewable technology as such needs space, the supporting technology, and all the resulting technological artefacts. I approach these technospheric assemblages in a generic way as ‘infrastructure’. The hybrid planet would manifest the continuous expansion of technological infrastructure built on solar energy, possibly to the detriment of all other species, despite opening up new spaces for flourishing. How can we reconcile these conflicting demands on space? Perhaps there are two basic alternatives. One is to concentrate human habitats in certain regions, as suggested by the late Edward Wilson’s initiative of ‘half earth’. The other is to break down Kleidon’s vision of hybridity down to the local level. That means, corresponding to the idea that the the technosphere subsidizes the biosphere energetically, we would envisage a regime of reciprocity on the level of habitats. This is the idea that we pursue in the COEVOLVERS project about nature-based solutions as co-evolutionary technologies. In the mainstream understanding, the NbS contributes services to humans, but there is also the demand that the NbS fosters biodiversity.
We suggest a frame of thinking that is already emerging in many contexts, such as landscape urbanism as approach to urban design. This frame can be defined as ‘more-than-human infrastructural landscaping’. The key concept that translates the physical definition of hybrid planet into NbS practice is that of ‘landscape’ (see my previous post). We conceptualize infrastructure as landscape, and landscape as infrastructure. The notion of landscape is originally an aesthetic one, referring to the human gaze at nature. It is straightforward to conceptualize landscape in terms of von Uexküll’s notion of Umwelt of living beings, which is essentially a semiotic assemblage of affordances for living. This suggests a multi-species re-interpretation of landscape as an aesthetic term, namely as the whole of Umwelten, including the human without priority, related to a certain place where these species co-habit. This notion is informed by biosemiotic and ecosemiotic thinking, as promoted by the Tartu group in COEVOLVERS.
Now, as in landscape urbanism, we can refer the notion of landscape to infrastructure. There are two interrelated interpretations. One is to conceptualize so-called ‘nature’ as infrastructure, as is well recognized in concepts such as ‘nature capital’ or ‘ecosystem services’. The other is to recognize the biospheric functions of infrastructure, which is evident in many ways. Recently, research on infrastructure has focused on its hybrid nature, often deeply integrating human uses with other species activities, even in an actively contributing role, especially when human-built infrastructure is deficient (such as pigs co-habitating with humans in slums where they fulfill infrastructural functions of waste collection and processing). Beyond that, we can envisage human infrastructure as an Umwelt for other species, as in the idea of biophilic and multi-species cities. Taken together, this leads to a comprehensive conceptualization of infrastructure as a landscape integrating biosphere and technosphere on the local level, epitomized in specific kinds of NbS.
One important correlate is that these landscapes are not designed by humans exclusively but co-created by all co-habitating species: this distinguishes the idea of more-than human landscapes from the conceptually close concept of anthromes, which assume human creative hegemon, though only as a fact, not normatively. Humans may be moderators and enablers, but they must recognize the autonomous creative agency of all other beings. In this sense, more-than-human infrastructural landscaping is an ethical project, extending the notion of environmental justice to all species. Practically, this is pursued in approaches to rewilding cities and allowing for spontaneous and unplanned evolution of what may have originated by human design. Hybrid planet Earth is the Earth of more-than human infrastructural landscaping. The meaning of Anthropocene becomes paradoxical, but only in a Hegelian sense of dialectical sublation, following the fundamental logic of recognition. Humans are the hegemons who can only survive in giving up their claims on exceptionality, in this sense undoing the Anthropocene just when its begins. The defining feature of the Anthropocene must become that humans assume full responsibility to hybrid planet Earth and settle down in their measured role for sustaining its workings, as co-habitants, not masters.
The technosphere, our agency, our planet 