5 results for “Catalysts of Evolution”

The Great Pacific garbage “patch” is now three times the size of France

Ruben Baart
March 26th 2018

Mon dieu! The swirling pile of trash in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an exponential rate. A recent study has estimated that the mass of the garbage island is four to sixteen times bigger than previously thought, and is now three times the size of France. …

Van Mensvoort Writes a Letter to Humanity

NextNature.net
April 18th 2017
On the occasion of the Earth Day, 22 April 2017, philosopher Koert van Mensvoort wrote his Letter to Humanity.

Let’s Build a Garden on Mars

Van Mensvoort
May 10th 2013
One would need a gardening robot, fitted plant species and some kind of dome structure for the plants to grow in.

Nature is Dead, Long live Nature

Van Mensvoort
December 31st 2012
Like we did to old nature before, we must now cultivate our technological environment.

Razorius Gilletus – On the Origin of a Next Species

Van Mensvoort
March 1st 2010

Is the evolution of the single bladed razor into an exorbitant five–bladed vibrating gizmo the outcome of human needs, or is there another force in play? Say hello to Razorius Gillettus, one of the new species emerging from our technoeconomic ecology. Proof that evolution should be understood as a universal principle rather than a DNA-specific process. Yet if this is the case, how can we become responsible stewards of these new, non-genetic forms of life?…

WP_Query Object ( [query] => Array ( [tag] => catalysts-of-evolution [post_type] => post [post_status] => publish [orderby] => date [order] => DESC [category__not_in] => Array ( [0] => 1 )[numberposts] => 10 [suppress_filters] => )[query_vars] => Array ( [tag] => catalysts-of-evolution [post_type] => post [post_status] => publish [orderby] => date [order] => DESC [category__not_in] => Array ( [0] => 1 )[numberposts] => 10 [suppress_filters] => [error] => [m] => [p] => 0 [post_parent] => [subpost] => [subpost_id] => [attachment] => [attachment_id] => 0 [name] => [pagename] => [page_id] => 0 [second] => [minute] => [hour] => [day] => 0 [monthnum] => 0 [year] => 0 [w] => 0 [category_name] => [cat] => [tag_id] => 276 [author] => [author_name] => [feed] => [tb] => [paged] => 0 [meta_key] => [meta_value] => [preview] => [s] => [sentence] => [title] => [fields] => [menu_order] => [embed] => [category__in] => Array ( )[category__and] => Array ( )[post__in] => Array ( )[post__not_in] => Array ( )[post_name__in] => Array ( )[tag__in] => Array ( )[tag__not_in] => Array ( )[tag__and] => Array ( )[tag_slug__in] => Array ( [0] => catalysts-of-evolution )[tag_slug__and] => Array ( )[post_parent__in] => Array ( )[post_parent__not_in] => Array ( )[author__in] => Array ( )[author__not_in] => Array ( )[ignore_sticky_posts] => [cache_results] => 1 [update_post_term_cache] => 1 [lazy_load_term_meta] => 1 [update_post_meta_cache] => 1 [posts_per_page] => 10 [nopaging] => [comments_per_page] => 50 [no_found_rows] => )[tax_query] => WP_Tax_Query Object ( [queries] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [taxonomy] => category [terms] => Array ( [0] => 1 )[field] => term_id [operator] => NOT IN [include_children] => )[1] => Array ( [taxonomy] => post_tag [terms] => Array ( [0] => catalysts-of-evolution )[field] => slug [operator] => IN [include_children] => 1 ))[relation] => AND [table_aliases:protected] => Array ( [0] => wp_term_relationships )[queried_terms] => Array ( [post_tag] => Array ( [terms] => Array ( [0] => catalysts-of-evolution )[field] => slug ))[primary_table] => wp_posts [primary_id_column] => ID )[meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object ( [queries] => Array ( )[relation] => [meta_table] => [meta_id_column] => [primary_table] => [primary_id_column] => [table_aliases:protected] => Array ( )[clauses:protected] => Array ( )[has_or_relation:protected] => )[date_query] => [queried_object] => WP_Term Object ( [term_id] => 276 [name] => Catalysts of Evolution [slug] => catalysts-of-evolution [term_group] => 0 [term_taxonomy_id] => 280 [taxonomy] => post_tag [description] => In chemistry, a catalyst is a substance that influences the rate of a chemical reaction. In parallel, ‘catalysts of evolution’ describes the role of humans in either speeding or restraining natural and artificial selection. [parent] => 0 [count] => 5 [filter] => raw [term_order] => 0 )[queried_object_id] => 276 [request] => SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS wp_posts.ID FROM wp_posts LEFT JOIN wp_term_relationships ON (wp_posts.ID = wp_term_relationships.object_id) WHERE 1=1 AND ( wp_posts.ID NOT IN ( SELECT object_id FROM wp_term_relationships WHERE term_taxonomy_id IN (1) ) AND wp_term_relationships.term_taxonomy_id IN (280) ) AND wp_posts.post_type = 'post' AND ((wp_posts.post_status = 'publish')) GROUP BY wp_posts.ID ORDER BY wp_posts.post_date DESC LIMIT 0, 10 [posts] => Array ( [0] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 81132 [post_author] => 873 [post_date] => 2018-03-26 09:09:41 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-26 08:09:41 [post_content] => Mon dieu! The swirling pile of trash in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an exponential rate. A recent study has estimated that the mass of the garbage island is four to sixteen times bigger than previously thought, and is now three times the size of France.From its invention in 1907, plastic and plastic-derived chemicals have worked their way into the rungs of every food chain on Earth. Plastic might be the newest nutrient in the planet’s ecosystems, but so far, nature has yet to find a use for it.Watch the explainer below and learn more about the exponential growth of this plastic superpower. [embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=160&v=0EyaTqezSzs[/embed] The only sensible way to think of plastic is as a raw Next Nature material, waiting for its balancing counterpart to evolve.Nature changes along with us, and nature made by people is as wild and unpredictable as the old nature preceding us. Yet, in line with our position as catalysts of evolution, it seems sensible to endeavor to steer towards a balance that is considerate of our own interests and those of our fellow species. Designing plastic eating microbes, if we must.Have thoughts? Let us know in the comments below! [post_title] => The Great Pacific garbage "patch" is now three times the size of France [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => plastic-patch-france [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-04-17 11:38:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-04-17 10:38:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://nextnature.net/?p=81132 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_category] => 0 )[1] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 73512 [post_author] => 367 [post_date] => 2017-04-18 12:00:41 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-04-18 10:00:41 [post_content] => On the occasion of the Earth Day, 22 April 2017, NNN director Koert van Mensvoort will share his Letter to Humanity. In the letter he urges humans not to be slaves or victims of their own technology, but instead to use technology to enhance humanity. His hope is to encourage a new perspective on the role of man on Earth. Translated in over twenty‐five languages, the Letter to Humanity is addressed to all 7 billion people on Earth. Stay tuned! [post_title] => Van Mensvoort Writes a Letter to Humanity [post_excerpt] => On the occasion of the Earth Day, 22 April 2017, philosopher Koert van Mensvoort wrote his Letter to Humanity. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => van-mensvoort-writes-letter-humanity [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-05-11 19:21:56 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-05-11 17:21:56 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://nextnature.net/?p=73512/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_category] => 0 )[2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 33671 [post_author] => 4 [post_date] => 2013-05-10 15:00:32 [post_date_gmt] => 2013-05-10 13:00:32 [post_content] => Typically the impact of humanity on plant life is not always positive: Deforestation, decrease of diversity, soil pollution. Doom and gloom are all around. Hence, our delight to learn there are also people dedicating their time and energy to the expansion of plant life. Surely if they do it in such remarkable ways.Astrobiologist Dr. Louisa Preston and Designer Vanessa Harden propose to build a garden on Mars. Thats not easy. One would need a gardening robot, fitted plant species and some kind of dome structure for the plants to grow in. These two young women now started a kickstarter campaign to realize their project.Arguably, we owe it to our fellow carbon bases plant species, to employ our space rockets to their benefit, helping them to inhabit new worlds. Additionally, the astro plants may also provide human space travelers in their nutritious needs.Go to the kickstarter campaign. [post_title] => Let's Build a Garden on Mars [post_excerpt] => One would need a gardening robot, fitted plant species and some kind of dome structure for the plants to grow in. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => lets-build-a-garden-on-mars [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2013-05-10 15:00:32 [post_modified_gmt] => 2013-05-10 13:00:32 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://nextnature.net/?p=33671 [menu_order] => 1441 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_category] => 0 )[3] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 30183 [post_author] => 4 [post_date] => 2012-12-31 21:59:48 [post_date_gmt] => 2012-12-31 20:59:48 [post_content] => Today the human impact on our planet can hardly be underestimated. Climate change, population explosion, genetic manipulation, digital networks, hurricane control and engineered microbes. Untouched old nature is almost nowhere to be found. “We were here,” echoes all over. This omnipresence of human activity motivated some to announce the end of nature and proclaim a post natural future. Contrary to these observations, I believe that it is not nature that died, disappeared or became obsolete, rather that our notion of nature is changing. By KOERT VAN MENSVOORT Throughout our human history, from the stone axes; domestication of fire; to agriculture; currency; writing and today’s nano-, bio- and information technologies; technological innovations have transformed our relationship with the natural environment. The impact of engineered microbes we are debating today doesn’t come out of the blue, but stands in a direct connection with the engineering of crops and cattle that started 10.000 years ago with the beginning of agriculture – it is merely more detailed and precise.[pullquote]What is our image of nature, and who decides that?[/pullquote]It is often said we are in a crisis with nature and there have been countless projects initiated to restore the balance. Only very few projects, however, have questioned our notion of nature: What is our image of nature, and who decides that? If we consider our paradigms of nature throughout history, it is immediately apparent that that there have been various notions of nature over time.  The word Nature stems from the Latin term, natura, which in turn was derived from the Greek word physis. For the Romans natura was associated with ‘everything born’, while the Greek associated physis with ‘growth’. For the past few centuries our notion of nature has been in line with the Roman interpretation: Nature is born, while culture is everything made by man. Yet, as we are living in a time of rainbow tulips, transgenic animals and climate change – a time in which the made and the born are fusing – this distinction between ‘made’ and ‘born’ becomes useless as a culture-nature paradigm.Some try to solve this paradigm crisis by proclaiming that ‘nature’ is a cultural construction: everything we think or say about nature is tainted by our cultural lenses hence nature is always nature so-called. Others argue that, as man is part of the evolutionary machinery at large, our human culture and its effects are in fact all natural. Although both arguments have certain attractiveness, from a philosophical perspective it isn’t neat to put nature and culture on one and the same pile and simply deny the distinction.[pullquote]Like we did to old nature before, we must now cultivate our technological environment.[/pullquote]I believe the border between nature and culture is shifting rather than fading. On the one hand the ‘born’ nature – in the sense of trees, plants, animals, atoms, or climate – is increasingly dissected, controlled and governed by man: it is effectively turned into a cultural category.  At the same time, however, our ‘made’ technological environment becomes so omnipresent, complex and uncontrollable that we start to relate to it as a nature of its own. In this process the traditional distinction between the born (nature) and the made (culture) becomes radically blurred. Yet, another contrast, which happens to resonate with the Greek interpretation of nature, becomes more apparent: the contrast between what we ‘control’ (culture) versus what grows autonomous beyond our control (nature). Within this new nature-culture distinction a genetically dissected greenhouse tomato moves into the cultural category, whereas a computer viruses and the financial system are perceived as natural phenomena.Obviously this paradigm shift has some major implications, both theoretical and practical. The understanding that people, with their cultural activity, cause the rising of a next nature sheds new light on our position on our planet. Rather than perceiving ourselves as the anti-natural species that merely threatens and eliminates nature, we’d better understand ourselves as catalysts of evolution. I hurry to emphasize that this does not mean we’ve become gods, or otherwise omnipotent beings that have total control over their own destiny. Quite the contrary: the fact that we cause the rising of a culturally emerged nature does not mean we also control it. We need to move away from the modernist desire of total design and total control. Rather than linger in the illusion of control, we must embrace complexity and develop befitting design methodologies to guide the growth of the intricate processes in our surroundings.[pullquote]Rather than as the anti-natural species that merely threatens and eliminates nature, we’d better understand ourselves as catalysts of evolution.[/pullquote]Like we did to old nature before, we must now cultivate our technological environment. Old nature can still be an important mentor in this regard: our history, traditions and intuitions of dealing with the forces of nature may be transferred to this new setting. Can system designers learn from farmers, who have centuries of experience in dealing with the uncertainty of climates? Could we have eased the latest financial crisis if we perceived the financial system as a ferociously growing ecology, rather than a human institution governed by rational thought? May we contain traffic jams and the pressure to endlessly construct more highways if we treat the highway system as an organism that must be balanced within a larger ecology? Possibly.In conclusion, I argue we are living in a time in which our notion of nature is radically changing. The traditional view of nature as a phenomenon that is born, static, harmonic and threatened is naïve and incomplete. The most wild, ferocious and threatening nature is the nature caused by people. It is not so much ‘post’ nature in the sense that, if we reflect upon the phenomenon with a fresh mind, we realize that we should always have thought of nature as a dynamic, rather than a static force. Culturally emerged nature is real nature. Evolution goes on. Nature changes along with us. I expect in 50 years or so, when people use the word ‘nature’, they will mean something different than today. While we currently still need essays and special terminology to describe this nature caused by people, in due time as our perception is changing, we will simply call it: nature.Published in Kerb 19, Paradigms of Nature: Postnatural Futures. Image Julie Rrap. [post_title] => Nature is Dead, Long live Nature [post_excerpt] => Like we did to old nature before, we must now cultivate our technological environment. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => nature-is-dead-long-live-nature [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2015-03-16 16:03:07 [post_modified_gmt] => 2015-03-16 15:03:07 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://nextnature.net/?p=30183 [menu_order] => 1580 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 2 [filter] => raw [post_category] => 0 )[4] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 4250 [post_author] => 4 [post_date] => 2010-03-01 13:26:58 [post_date_gmt] => 2010-03-01 12:26:58 [post_content] => Is the evolution of the single bladed razor into an exorbitant five–bladed vibrating gizmo the outcome of human needs, or is there another force in play? Say hello to Razorius Gillettus, one of the new species emerging from our technoeconomic ecology. Proof that evolution should be understood as a universal principle rather than a DNA-specific process. Yet if this is the case, how can we become responsible stewards of these new, non-genetic forms of life?My first razor I got when I was fifteen. It consisted of two blades on a simple metal stick and I remember it gave me a really close and comfortable shave. In the twenty years that have passed since my first shave, I’ve used nine different models of razors. This morning I shaved myself with the Gillette Fusion Power Phantom, a rather heavy, yet ergonomically designed battery-powered razor that looks like a bit like vacuum cleaner and has five vibrating blades with an aloe strip for moisture. So what happened? A story about design, technology, market and evolution.First, a personal disclaimer (in case you were wondering): Yes, I agree shaving technology was already sufficiently developed when I got my first razor twenty years ago. Actually already in 1975, shortly after the Gillette Trac II razor – the first two-bladed men's razor – was advertised, its excessive design was parodied on the US Television show Saturday Night Live. The creators of the satirical television program played on the notion of a two bladed razor as a sign of the emerging consumption culture and made a fake commercial parody for a fictitious razor with the ridiculous amount of three (!) blades, emphasizing the consumer is gullible enough to believe and buy everything seen on TV.Of course, the comedians of Saturday Night Live could not know a three-bladed razors would become a reality on the consumer market in the late 1990's. Let alone that they could have anticipated I would shave myself with a five bladed razor this very morning.Welcome in the twenty-first century folks: No we don’t travel in spaceships… but we do have five bladed razors!Fortunately, it is still possible to buy brand new blades for my very first razor model today. These older blades are not only cheaper – they are sold in a box of ten pieces for less money than a box of blades fitting the latest model, which contains only four cassettes. The older blades are also more durable.And yet, in the years that have past since my first shave, I bought over a dozen different razors – I honestly have to confess I’ve bought some models of the competing brand as well. So, why did I buy this whole collection of razors over the years? Perhaps it is because I am the type of person who is keen on new things: I am a sucker for innovation.The evolution of razors Before we analyze my own behavior as a buyer, lets first study the razors. If we look at the development of razor technology over time, we can distinguish quite some similarities with an evolutionary development as we know it from the biological world:1) Every new model builds upon the properties of the previous model.2) Successful alterations are preserved in future generations, whereas unsuccessful alterations will fade out.3) The shift from functional technologies, like a pivoting head, to seemingly functionless aesthetics of the newer models, that only change in color and have no other purpose than to stand out amidst the competing razor models, remind us of the exuberant tail of a male peacock.4) The unique click-on systems for replacement blades on different models resemble biological immune systems withholding intruders from entering and feeding on your environment.5) There even are different survival strategies being tested, which over time may even result in separate species – think of the parallel branches in the more recent models that come with and without a battery. Apparently the marketers aren’t sure whether electric or non-electrical shaving has the future and decided to gamble on both strategies – and yes I confess: I bought them both.Intelligent designerNow it may seem quirky, corny even, to consider the development of razors from an evolutionary perspective. After all these are industrial products assembled in factories. Yet I propose to look at them as the result of an evolutionary process. Now I already hear you oppose: “These razors didn’t evolve, people designed them! How can that be and evolutionary process?”Well, let me elaborate – and this is where we learn something on our symbiotic relation with technology. Indeed it is true that all the individual razors were created by engineers and designers, however, if we look at the design of the whole series of shavers as it developed throughout my shaving-career, it will be difficult to pinpoint one creator. Where is that one big mind, that ‘intelligent designer’ responsible for the transformation of the razor from a simple blade on a stick to a five bladed electric razor?Obviously many designers and engineers have been involved in the creation of my razors over the years. No doubt these are all descent and friendly people – with good incomes too – but what more are these creators of the individual models than little cogs in the perpetuating Gillette Corporation?Calling them engineers and designers is arguably too much credit for the work they do, as they merely sketch up the next razor model of which one can already predict the ‘innovative’ new properties: it will be a slight variation on the current model with some added nanotech-sharpened blade, an extra moister strip, an anti-slip grip or perhaps even a custom customizable color scheme.The razor designers don’t have a lot of room for truly creative design work really. Its not like they are in a position to think deep on the meaning and origins of shaving, in order to reinvent how this ancient ritual can be improved upon. Like bees in a beehive their work is determined by the logic of the larger structure. The chair of that one great ‘intelligent designer’ steering the entire development of shavers over time is empty. The larger design gesture emerges from the closely interrelated forces of the consumer market, technological affordances and of course the competition – think of the Wilkinson brand that first introduced a four bladed shaving system, thereby forcing Gillette to answer with a five bladed system.Together these contextual influences constitute an ecosystem of a sort, which (again) closely resembles the environmental forces known to play a part in the evolutionary development of biological species.Evolution, but not as we know itOf course there are also arguments against this evolutionary view on the development of razor technology – so lets get both sides of the coin here. The most common objection is that “people play a role in the process, so it can’t be evolution.”This reasoning is tempting, however, it also positions people outside of nature – as if we are somehow placed outside of the game of evolution and its rules don’t apply for us. There is no reason to believe this is the case: after all people have evolved just like all other life. The fact that my razors are dependent on people to multiply is also not unprecedented. The same is valid nowadays for many domesticated fruits like bananas as well as a majority of the cattle on our planet. Moreover, we see similar symbiotic relationships in old nature: just think of the flowers that are dependent on bees to spread their seeds.Another objection might be that my razors cannot be the result of an evolutionary development because they are made of metal and plastic and not a carbon–based biological species. Underneath this argument lies the assumption that evolution only takes place within a certain medium: carbon–based life forms. A variation of this argument states that evolution only takes place if there are genes involved – like with humans, animals and plants.This way of thinking exemplifies a limited understanding of evolution, as it is a mistake to constrain it to a certain medium rather than to understand it as a principle. In fact the genetic system of DNA underlying our species, is itself also a product of evolution – DNA evolved from the simpler RNA system as a successful medium of coding life. There is no reason why evolutionary processes could not transfer itself to other media: Richard Dawkins already proposed ‘memes’ as a building block of cultural evolution, whereas Susan Blackmore suggested ‘temes’ as building blocks for technological evolution.In the end, the question we should ask ourselves: are the environmental forces of economy and technology, at least equally or perhaps even more important for the shaping of razor technology, than the design decisions made by the ‘inventors’ of the individual models. I am pretty sure this is the case and hence I propose to consider the development of razors as a truly evolutionary process – not metaphorically, but as reality. The species it brought into being we will call: Razorius Gillettus. It is just one of the numerous new species emerging within the techno-economical system – and it is evolving fast.Technodiversity is increasingOnce we agree to perceive the development of razor technology as an evolutionary process, lets zoom in a bit at our own role in the evolutionary game. How can we see our relation with Razoritus Gilletus and its numerous fellow evolving techno-species? Are we like the bees – who feed themselves with nectar from flowers and in return spread their pollen, enabling the flowers to reproduce – heading towards a symbiotic relationship with the technosphere, which feeds upon our labor & creativity, and in return gives us Razorius Gilletus? Should we take pride in our role as catalysts of evolution? Propagators of a technodiversity unlike the world has ever seen: the one and only animal that transfers the game of evolution into another medium?We can. Yet, as in every symbiotic relationship, we should also be keen on whether both parties are actually getting a good deal. And although I did buy all these razors and they have been providing me with an ever-smoother-closer shave throughout my life, I am not entirely sure about that.Innovation without a causeTo many of what we call ‘innovations’ are merely directed at increasing the growth and wellbeing of the technosphere – bigger economy, bigger corporations, more technological devices –, rather than actually improving the lives of people. Indeed my latest shaver does shave just that tiny little bit more smoothly than the previous model. Yet, if you would ask me if the device has ‘innovated’ my life, I’d have to say no.Let’s face it: the new shavers from Gillette are primarily created for the sake of Gillette Corporation: higher turnover, more profit, more shareholders value. Now that’s all not bad to begin with, as good business also provides people with good jobs and steady incomes, which allows them to live a happy live – and buy more razors. So far it’s a win-win situation.Yet, the production of all these abundant devices also uses an amazing amount of resources, putting quite some pressure on the biosphere – remember, that old nature that used to surround us before the emerging of the technosphere? We should not be naïve about the fact that corporations – I know they’ll tell you otherwise – do not intrinsically care all that much about the wellbeing of the biosphere. Being able to breathe clean air simply is not important for Razorius Gillettus, as it has a whole different digestive system. Clean air is merely a requirement for carbon–based life forms like algae, plants, birds, polar bears, and of course people.Catalysts of evolutionSo how to continue? I am the first to concur that there is a certain luster in the development of Razorius Gillettus. The notion that human activity is causing the rising of such a peculiar new species and that we are now co-evolving towards a shared future is intriguing to say the least. I wonder what Charles Darwin would have thought of this. Perhaps he would have pointed at the serious risks involved in this evolutionary leap.Certainly, our awareness of our own role as 'catalysts of evolution’ has yet to mature. It is a quite responsible job description we have got our hands on there. If we feel we are not fitted for the job, we could better grow our beards and return to our caves. We can do that, perhaps. At least some people have proposed we should do that, however, trying to turn back the clock of civilization would also be a denial of what it means to be human, or at least it exemplifies a cowardness towards the unknown. On the other hand, a purely techno-utopist attitude of ‘letting grow’ will expectedly also not be in the longtime benefit of humanity and our fellow biosphere–dependent species, as we run the risk of being outsourced altogether.The mature thing to do in our position as catalysts of evolution is to develop a stewardship that focuses on maintaining a balance between both the declining biosphere and the emerging technosphere – between old nature and next nature. Towards an environment in which both can find a place and live in relative harmony. Now, I am not saying it will be easy. But if we are able to do that, we will have something to be truly proud of. [post_title] => Razorius Gilletus – On the Origin of a Next Species [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => razorius-gilletus [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-11-29 15:50:11 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-11-29 14:50:11 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://nextnature.net/?p=4250 [menu_order] => 2630 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 9 [filter] => raw [post_category] => 0 ))[post_count] => 5 [current_post] => -1 [in_the_loop] => [post] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 81132 [post_author] => 873 [post_date] => 2018-03-26 09:09:41 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-26 08:09:41 [post_content] => Mon dieu! The swirling pile of trash in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an exponential rate. A recent study has estimated that the mass of the garbage island is four to sixteen times bigger than previously thought, and is now three times the size of France.From its invention in 1907, plastic and plastic-derived chemicals have worked their way into the rungs of every food chain on Earth. Plastic might be the newest nutrient in the planet’s ecosystems, but so far, nature has yet to find a use for it.Watch the explainer below and learn more about the exponential growth of this plastic superpower. [embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=160&v=0EyaTqezSzs[/embed] The only sensible way to think of plastic is as a raw Next Nature material, waiting for its balancing counterpart to evolve.Nature changes along with us, and nature made by people is as wild and unpredictable as the old nature preceding us. Yet, in line with our position as catalysts of evolution, it seems sensible to endeavor to steer towards a balance that is considerate of our own interests and those of our fellow species. Designing plastic eating microbes, if we must.Have thoughts? Let us know in the comments below! [post_title] => The Great Pacific garbage "patch" is now three times the size of France [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => plastic-patch-france [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-04-17 11:38:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-04-17 10:38:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://nextnature.net/?p=81132 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_category] => 0 )[comment_count] => 0 [current_comment] => -1 [found_posts] => 5 [max_num_pages] => 1 [max_num_comment_pages] => 0 [is_single] => [is_preview] => [is_page] => [is_archive] => 1 [is_date] => [is_year] => [is_month] => [is_day] => [is_time] => [is_author] => [is_category] => [is_tag] => 1 [is_tax] => [is_search] => [is_feed] => [is_comment_feed] => [is_trackback] => [is_home] => [is_privacy_policy] => [is_404] => [is_embed] => [is_paged] => [is_admin] => [is_attachment] => [is_singular] => [is_robots] => [is_posts_page] => [is_post_type_archive] => [query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => a128434116f622b13cdefbb935526c2a [query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => [thumbnails_cached] => [stopwords:WP_Query:private] => [compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => query_vars_hash [1] => query_vars_changed )[compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => init_query_flags [1] => parse_tax_query ))
load more