Philipp Höfele

The best combination of possible climate policy options (mitigation, adaptation and different climate engineering technologies) to tackle climate change is unknown. Climate policy is facing a hard decision in answering the question whether climate engineering technologies should be researched, limitedly deployed or even deployed at global scale. Such technologies bear large epistemic and ethical uncertainties and their use as well as non-use might have severe consequences. To deal with such uncertainties, the (ethical) assessment of climate engineering technologies should include the perspectives of various stakeholders including laypersons to inform climate policy. To facilitate (ethical) technology assessment, we propose a novel 2-step methodology to collect and analyze data on ethical concerns and the acceptability of climate engineering technologies. Thereby we focus on Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) as an use case. We propose an innovative combination of newly developed methods consisting of two data collection tools (Cognitive-Affective Mapping and large-scale survey) and two types of data analyses (using graph theory and factor analysis). Applying this multi-method approach we were able to identify (1) central ethical and governance related concerns regarding SAI (by Cognitive-Affective Maps) and (2) to estimate the relative importance of core constructs (positive and negative affect, risk and benefit perception, trust) on the acceptability of SAI (by large-scale survey).

This Special Issue seeks to introduce a broad range of bioinspired technologies and provides an overview of the challenges regarding sustainability, ethical responsibility and societal acceptance. It adopts both a narrow and broad understanding of bioinspired technology. In a narrower sense, it refers to technologies that mimic natural forms, structures, or functional principles, typically developed within the field of biomimetics. More broadly, bioinspired technologies are defined as those designed with human or non-human nature in mind and adapted to meet the needs of both. The Special Issue addresses five key questions: First, it asks how the broad spectrum of bioinspired technologies can be categorized and classified. Second, it explores the extent to which bioinspired technologies contribute to a sustainable future and in particular to the development of sustainable technologies and what criteria can be used to ensure the sustainability of bioinspired technologies. Third, it presents methods for investigating and fostering societal acceptance of new bioinspired technologies. Fourth, central technical and societal areas are considered in which bioinspiration can contribute to a sustainable future. Lastly, it explores the ontological and ethical challenges associated with bioinspired technologies in so far as they undermine the previous distinction between ‘nature’ and ‘technology’.

In a paradigmatic selection, the Special Issue unites contributions from biology, sustainability research, psychology and philosophy as well as media science and literary studies. It aims to discuss to what extent and on what basis the concept of nature is treated in the Anthropocene discourse with new perspectives, intentions and narratives. Not only the possibly changed conditions for a definition of nature in the Anthropocene are questioned, but also the necessity of an inter- and transdisciplinary opening, which goes along with this questioning and its connection with theoretical and practical issues.

Die Kategorie des Bösen gilt es angesichts der irreversiblen Folgen menschlichen Handelns im neuen Erdzeitalter des Anthropozän noch einmal grundlegend neu aufzurollen und kritisch zu hinterfragen. Die Herrschaft des Menschen über die belebte und unbelebte Natur geht mit bisher noch nie dagewesenen Umweltzerstörungen einher, für deren ethische Verantwortung die klassischen Konzepte individueller Zuschreibung und subjektiver Schuld keine tragfähigen Erklärungsmuster mehr bereitstellen. Im Lichte der ökologischen Zerstörungen, die den Diskurs über das Anthropozän charakterisieren, stehen die seit Kant auf den Weg gebrachten Modelle der Verantwortung für das Böse in der Welt selbst auf dem Prüfstand und müssen ihrerseits philosophisch neu reflektiert werden. Die Beiträge des Heftes gehen diesem Problem nach, indem sie die einschlägigen klassischen Bestimmungen des Bösen bei Kant, Schelling, Heidegger und Arendt erinnern und nach deren philosophischer Tragweite für die globalen Veränderungen unserer Zeit fragen.

1. Introduction: an attempt to reflect on the position of man in the Anthropocene with reference to classical German philosophy. – 2. The Anthropocene: a crisis of modern philosophy of nature and philosophical anthropology? – 2.1. The Anthropocene: an expression of change and transition. – 2.2. The precarious balance of the Earth system and the Anthropocene. – 2.3. Man in the Anthropocene: from a critique of capitalism to a philosophy of the tragic. – 2.4. Lovelock’s and Latour’s new ‘image’ of the Earth: a new integrative philosophy of nature in the Anthropocene? – 3. Philosophy of nature around 1800: a historical reflection of the Anthropocene discourse. – 3.1. Crisis of the present: a negativistic theory of transition. – 3.2. The system as an organism. – 3.3. Negative anthropology: the position of man in nature. – 3.4. A holistic philosophy of nature as the basis of anthropology.

The article shows a parallel between Schopenhauer and Schelling with regard to their critique of the will and their thinking on 'Gelassenheit'. This is found in works from both philosophers almost simultaneously in the years around 1820, so that the lines of reception and dependencies between them are by no means as clear as one might first assume. Thus, in the first place, Schelling’s recently edited manuscript of his Erlangen Lecture of 1821 contains a remark on the 'true Maja – deceiver' (wahren Maja – Täuscherin), which is reminiscent of Schopenhauer’s evocation of the 'Maja, the veil of deceit' (Maja, dem Schleier des Truges) in his main work published in 1818/19. In the second place, a further parallel between Schelling and Schopenhauer can be identified in their preoccupation with a 'wheel of nature' or a 'wheel of Ixion'. Moreover, the motif of a complete 'standstill' of this 'wheel' is found in Schelling and Schopenhauer. In the context of Schelling’s conception of the will, this seems like a 'foreign body' and thus seems to indicate his reception of Schopenhauer.

In an era of ever faster and more momentous technological development, both technology assessment and transdisciplinary interventions are in danger of structurally lagging behind the speed of innovation. This paper proposes a new tiered approach to technology assessment at low Technology Readiness Levels that enables a both rapid and concerted interdisciplinary science response to this Great Acceleration. Covering sustainability, ethics, and consumer issues, this approach encourages and enables the innovators themselves to conduct assessments embedded in the innovation process as early as possible. Suitable tools for early engagement that help facilitate development-integrated assessments are introduced and described. The design and use of these instruments in the field of basic research is illustrated using the Cluster of Excellence livMatS as an example.

This study revisits the long-going discourse concerning the distinction between living and non-living matter, specifically focusing on living and non-living synthetic materials and engineering creations. As the distinctions between these two categories become increasingly blurry, it becomes imperative to investigate the emerging field of “quasi-living” materials, structures, devices, and systems. The central objective here is to systematically compile and assess these contemporary quasi-living entities by mapping their life-like properties, as described in recent influential studies. To this end, this study first examines and compares the commonly accepted properties of life, culminating in an operative list of salient features from an engineering perspective. The quasi-living materials, structures, devices, and systems are methodically classified, elucidating their properties of life, considering both current state-of-the-art achievements and foreseeable advancements in short and medium terms. This assessment leads to a final discussion about the current frontiers between abiotic and living matter and their anticipated evolution, while addressing the ethical, legal, and societal actions, essential for the safe, beneficial, and sustainable research in these areas. The comprehensive study yields three main outcomes: a classification for identifying and addressing societal and ethical challenges, a preliminary legislative roadmap highlighting exemplary practices, and a set of urgent research directions demanding immediate attention from the research community.

The Anthropocene is the new geological epoch, characterized by the accelerating global influence of humankind and the impending point of no return on environmental changes. In this article, we highlight reactions of scientists to the challenges of the Anthropocene from the perspectives of biomimetics and sustainability research. To answer novel questions in the Anthropocene context, scientists have established relevant approaches to collaborate at an interdisciplinary level and have entered into exchange with society in the sense of transdisciplinary activities. With regard to biomimetics, we introduce the interdisciplinary approaches and transdisciplinary contributions leading to the development of biomimetic products on the market. Regarding sustainability research, we focus on a prospective assessment of substances of very high concern and show how environmental, economic, social, and ethical issues as well as policy measures play a central role in chemicals risk management. In the final “practice bridge” section, we use examples to describe how biomimetics and sustainability research can meet and how biomimetic products can contribute to sustainable development in the Anthropocene.

The environmental crisis demands transformative solutions on both technological and societal levels. Bioinspired approaches, which draw from the principles of natural systems, have emerged as a promising interdisciplinary framework to address these challenges. These approaches not only drive technological innovation but also provoke critical philosophical and ethical discourse, particularly in the field of biomimicry. Philosophical and ethical questions include: How can we ethically justify drawing inspiration from nature without exploiting it? How might a shift toward a bioinspired perspective alter our relationship with nature? How could a reorientation toward nature influence ethical frameworks and guide human behavior toward the environment? This narrative review systematically examines key philosophical and ethical perspectives within biomimicry, while focusing on potentials as well as limitations of these approaches to the environmental crisis. In doing so, it explores key perspectives such as “biomimetic ethics”, the “ontology of nature”, “bioinclusivity”, and the “naturalistic fallacy”.

This Special Issue seeks to introduce a broad range of bioinspired technologies and provides an overview of the challenges regarding sustainability, ethical responsibility and societal acceptance. It adopts both a narrow and broad understanding of bioinspired technology. In a narrower sense, it refers to technologies that mimic natural forms, structures, or functional principles, typically developed within the field of biomimetics. More broadly, bioinspired technologies are defined as those designed with human or non-human nature in mind and adapted to meet the needs of both. The Special Issue addresses five key questions: First, it asks how the broad spectrum of bioinspired technologies can be categorized and classified. Second, it explores the extent to which bioinspired technologies contribute to a sustainable future and in particular to the development of sustainable technologies and what criteria can be used to ensure the sustainability of bioinspired technologies. Third, it presents methods for investigating and fostering societal acceptance of new bioinspired technologies. Fourth, central technical and societal areas are considered in which bioinspiration can contribute to a sustainable future. Lastly, it explores the ontological and ethical challenges associated with bioinspired technologies in so far as they undermine the previous distinction between ‘nature’ and ‘technology’.

The post-idealist reception of Schelling is grouped in particular around the concepts of (living) “being-that” (Dass-Sein) and existence. These phenomena fundamentally elude the rigorism of a reason which would be all-encompassing, static, and ultimately inanimate. This article aims to shed more light on this tendency in post-idealist philosophy, which both Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) and Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) pursued in emulation of the “middle” and late Schelling, and to point out the affinities between the two thinkers. Such affinities are due not only to the fact that Kierkegaard took note of Schopenhauer, albeit critically, but also due to the movement by which both thinkers systematically dissociated themselves from idealism. Schopenhauer, the older of the two post-idealist thinkers and born only thirteen years after Schelling, is without a doubt the one who is more strongly entangled in the basic ideas of idealist philosophy. Indeed, one may go so far as to claim that he himself had an influence on Schelling’s thought after 1809. Schelling cannot simply be distinguished from the post-idealist thinkers, but rather—according to the thesis of our article—he himself prepared the transition from idealist to post-idealist philosophy, which was then merely further formulated by thinkers such as Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard. One cannot simply say, in the words of Karl Löwith, that they made a “revolutionary break in nineteenth century thought.”

With Schelling’s move to Munich in 1806, one can observe his growing reception of mystical-theosophical texts, which was not least inspired by his Munich colleague and friend Franz von Baader. On the one hand Schelling clearly distances himself from the supposed immediacy of theosophical-mystical texts, since no distinction and differentiation are possible in the uninterrupted ‘mere vision’ (bloßes Schauen) of the absolute and thus no consciousness of the divine or absolute. On the other hand, however, Schelling recognizes as the ‘advantage of theosophical systems’ that there is ‘at least one nature’ in them and that they grasp the ‘abundance and depth of life’ that remains unknown to an autosufficient science. Analogously, with regard to Schopenhauer’s early philosophy of the ‘better consciousness’ (besseres Bewusstsein), it can be shown that the latter - especially in temporal proximity to Schelling’s "Ages of the World" - also seeks to discover a privileged way of cognizing the supersensible and the extratemporal, which transcends the subject-object correlation of ‘empirical consciousness’.