Oliver Müller

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.

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’.

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.

Wie verhalten sich Körper und Geist oder Natur und Freiheit zueinander und welche Rolle spielt der Lebensbegriff bei der Bestimmung des Verhältnisses der Begriffe? Die Erarbeitung der „Funktionen des Lebendigen“ kann als ein vielschichtiges Arbeitsprogramm verstanden werden, mit dem eine zentrale Problemlage unserer Zeit, unserer Gesellschaft und unserer Technik erschlossen werden kann. In der Verbindung des methodologischen Begriffs der Funktion mit dem phänomenalen Begriff des Lebendigen liegt ein philosophisches, wissenschaftstheoretische und kulturreflexives Potential. Denn zum einen ist der Funktionsbegriff ein Schlüsselbegriff im Diskurs der Moderne, gerade im Kontext von anthropologischen, lebensphänomenologischen und bioethischen Fragen. Und zum anderen stellt das Phänomen des Lebendigen nach wie vor eine der großen Herausforderungen für das philosophische Denken dar, sei es in ontologischer, anthropologischer oder ethischer Hinsicht. Die Beiträge dieses Bandes beleuchten die unterschiedlichen Problemdimensionen des Lebendigen durch begrifflich-systematische Überlegungen ebenso wie spezielle Analysen zu Formen, Normen, Erfahrungen und Grenzen des Lebendigen.

Und so lautet die anthropologische Frageperspektive entsprechend: Wie kann die Entstehung von Technik aus den Charakteristika der menschlichen Lebensform verstehbar gemacht werden? Und davon abgeleitet: Wie können wir einen durch Technik geprägten, geformten oder bedingten Lebensstil und dessen Bedeutung für das menschliche Existierenkönnen in der technischen Zivilisation beschreiben und deuten? Im Folgenden wird es nach der Explikation der technikanthropologischen Grundfrage einen kurzen Abriss der wichtigsten anthropologischen Positionen in der Geschichte der Technikphilosophie geben. Dann soll dann die anthropologische Figur des homo faber in seiner ambivalenten Deutungsgeschichte dargestellt werden, um schließlich einen kurzen Überblick zu geben, wie sich die anthropologische Perspektive in der intrikaten Frage der ‚Stellung des Menschen in der technischen Welt‘ verdichtet, die für die aktuellen Debatten prägend ist.

Phenomenological interview methods (PIMs) have become important tools for investigating subjective, first-person accounts of the novel experiences of people using neurotechnologies. Through the deep exploration of personal experience, PIMs help reveal both the structures shared between and notable differences across experiences. However, phenomenological methods vary on what aspects of experience they aim to capture and what they may overlook. Much discussion of phenomenological methods has remained within the philosophical and broader bioethical literature. Here, we begin with a conceptual primer and preliminary guide for using phenomenological methods to investigate the experiences of neural device users.To improve and expand the methodology of phenomenological interviewing, especially in the context of the experience of neural device users, we first briefly survey three different PIMs, to demonstrate their features and shortcomings. Then we argue for a critical phenomenology—rejecting the ‘neutral’ phenomenological subject—that encompasses temporal and ecological aspects of the subjects involved, including interviewee and interviewer (e.g. age, gender, social situation, bodily constitution, language skills, potential cognitive disease-related impairments, traumatic memories) as well as their relationality to ensure embedded and situated interviewing. In our view, PIMs need to be based on a conception of experience that includes and emphasizes the relational and situated, as well as the anthropological, political and normative dimensions of embodied cognition.We draw from critical phenomenology and trauma-informed qualitative work to argue for an ethically sensitive interviewing process from an applied phenomenological perspective. Drawing on these approaches to refine PIMs, researchers will be able to proceed more sensitively in exploring the interviewee’s relationship with their neuroprosthetic and will consider the relationship between interviewer and interviewee on both interpersonal and social levels.

Das Buch untersucht das technische Selbst- und Weltverhältnis systematisch und in seiner historischen Entwicklung. Ausgangspunkt ist die Selbstaufklärung über uns als handelnde Personen in der technischen Zivilisation. Dabei können wir dem Phänomen der Technik nur durch die Integration von anthropologischen, ontologischen, sozialphilosophischen und kulturphilosophischen Momenten gerecht werden. Diese werden insbesondere in Auseinandersetzung mit Texten von Cassirer, Heidegger, Jünger, Arendt, Anders, Ortega y Gasset, Husserl, Blumenberg und Adorno generiert. Zudem werden die entsprechenden historischen Linien zu Platon, Kant, Hegel und Marx kenntlich gemacht. Dabei werden diese vielstimmigen und heterogenen Selbstverständigungsleistungen über das "Problem" der Technik in Deutungsmuster transformiert, die eine systematische Durchdringung des technischen Selbst- und Weltverhältnisses gestatten. Im Anschluss widmet sich Müller der Frage, wie sich Personen im Hinblick auf Technisierungsprozesse selbst interpretieren, Orientierungsräume kartieren und ihren Handlungshorizont ändern. Dies ermöglicht den Anschluss an aktuelle Fragen, insbesondere an solche, die durch aktuelle Medizintechniken aufgeworfen werden.

Ethical questions with regard to modern neurosciences have significant relevance because the human brain provides the organic basis for central aspects of our self-concept. Neuroethics identifies and reflects the ethical questions raised by modern neurosciences. Here we deal with ethical questions in the contexts of brain imaging techniques and several interventions into the human brain. Besides the central question how to preserve personal identity and higher cognitive functions we address specific ethical aspects of neurotechnology and neuroprosthetics as well as the questions relevant in the context of neuroenhancement.

Definition of the problem This article critically addresses the conceptualization of trust in the ethical discussion on artificial intelligence (AI) in the specific context of social robots in care. First, we attempt to define in which respect we can speak of ‘social’ robots and how their ‘social affordances’ affect the human propensity to trust in human–robot interaction. Against this background, we examine the use of the concept of ‘trust’ and ‘trustworthiness’ with respect to the guidelines and recommendations of the High-Level Expert Group on AI of the European Union. Arguments Trust is analyzed as a multidimensional concept and phenomenon that must be primarily understood as departing from trusting as a human functioning and capability. To trust is an essential part of the human basic capability to form relations with others. We further want to discuss the concept of _responsivity _which has been established in phenomenological research as a foundational structure of the relation between the self and the other. We argue that trust and trusting as a capability is fundamentally _responsive_ and needs responsive others to be realized. An understanding of _responsivity_ is thus crucial to conceptualize trusting in the ethical framework of human flourishing. We apply a phenomenological–anthropological analysis to explore the link between certain qualities of social robots that construct responsiveness and thereby simulate responsivity and the human propensity to trust. Conclusion Against this background, we want to critically ask whether the concept of trustworthiness in social human–robot interaction could be misguided because of the limited ethical demands that the constructed responsiveness of social robots is able to answer to.

Das Handbuch bietet einen Überblick über die technischen, historischen, sozialen, medialen, kulturwissenschaftlichen und technikphilosophischen Dimensionen verschiedener Typen von Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion sowie über deren ethische Implikationen. Dabei werden zum einen wissenshistorische Analysen der Diskurse in Philosophie, Literatur und Technik sowie ihrer medialen, apparativen und literalen Praktiken von ca. 1870 bis in die Gegenwart verfolgt. Zum anderen wird das komplexe Verhältnis von Menschen und Maschinen anhand von zentralen Begriffs- und Problemfeldern dargestellt und kritisch befragt.

In my contribution, I aim at introducing ‘postphenomenology’ to the Germandebate. Postphenomenology is a philosophical approach developed by the U.S.-American philosopher Don Ihde, and currently intensively discussed and further developed within a lively international community. I will pay special attention to Don Ihde’s adaptation of ‘classical’ phenomenology. Ihde himself draws on Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, and Heidegger, transforming their phenomenology into a modified ‘hybrid’ phenomenology that primarily focuses on the technical mediation of our self- and world-relation. Against this background, I describe four basic assumptions of the postphenomenological methodology (such as the new configuration of ‘subject’ and ‘object’). Furthermore, I introduce and discuss Ihde’s (inter)relational ontology, including his distinction between ‘embodiment relations’, ‘hermeneutic relations’, ‘alterity relations’, and ‘background relations’. And finally, I ask whether it could be a problem of this approach when postphenomenology provides highly interesting descriptions of human-technology engagements, but hardly develops perspectives of a critique of technology, so that ultimately a radical reflection of the ‘technological condition of our existence’ remains missing in this approach.

Angesichts der enormen Entwicklungen in der Technik zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts, insbesondere angesichts der »totalen Mobilmachung«, die man im Ersten Weltkrieg zu beobachten und zu erfahren glaubte, entstand in den 1920er und 1930er Jahren ein Diskurs über die Technik, in dem das ›Allesumfassende‹ und ›Allesvereinnahmende‹, also ›Totalisierende‹ der Maschinerien zum Thema gemacht wurde. So fragte sich Hans Freyer 1929 wie es sein konnte, dass »ein System von bloßen Mitteln derart schicksalsbestimmend, menschenverwandelnd, geschichtsbildend wirken kann«. Karl Jaspers wiederum beschrieb die »globale« Dimension, die die Technik seiner Einschätzung nach angenommen hatte, und sprach 1931 in seinem Essay Die geistige Situation der Zeit von der »Herrschaft des Apparats« und sogar von einem »Riesenapparat«, der den einzelnen Menschen überformen würde, insbesondere durch eine normierende Massenkultur, die das tägliche Leben der Menschen grundlegend ändern würde.

Military drones combine surveillance technology with missile equipment in a far-reaching way. In this article, I argue that military drones could and should be object for a philosophical investigation, referring in particular on Chamayou’s theory of the drone, who also coined the term “an eye turned into a weapon.” Focusing on issues of human self-understanding, agency, and alterity, I examine the intricate human-technology relations in the context of designing and deploying military drones. For that purpose, I am drawing on the postphenomenological approach developed by Don Ihde in order to systematize the manifold aspects of human-technology relations in a four-level model. This inquiry also includes a critical reflection on the normative implications of this technology. In doing so, I do not intent to offer an exhaustive relational ontology of military drones. I rather aim at providing a framework that is able to capture the core dimensions of this technology and their complex interrelations in a systematic way that has been missing in the philosophical debate so far.