Natural or artificial? A reflection on a complex ontology

Abstract

State-of-the-art planning theory considers cities as cyborg entities composed by a “natural” part (human beings and their social structures) and an “artificial” part (buildings, infrastructure and other urban artifacts). We contend that this hybrid conception is indissolubly coupled with the ability to discriminate perfectly between the “natural” and the “artificial”. But is this actually the case? We will provide a critical reflection on this ontological issue pointing out that current urban planning theory as well as the general philosophical reflection is not able to produce a rigorous, consistent epistemic criterion to draw this distinction. Long-standing difficulties in this respect are exponentially amplified by recent developments in artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and biotechnology, and their growing relevance in urban environments of the near future risk making the cyborg conception informing the complexity theory of cities obsolete. We will conclude our reflection identifying a possible path for overcoming this dualism toward a more socio-natural conception internalizing the proteiform character of the concept of “nature” itself as well as its inherent cognitive/political element.

Revisiting the distinction between the natural and the artificial. Towards a properly urban ontology

“…The article by Simone Amato Cameli (2021) is an interesting and challenging contribution to the debate on the nature of urban systems. His interest starts from a substantial, and shareable, dissatisfaction with the search for a convincing criterion to determine the natural or artificial nature of cities.…”

“…In the debate on the natural or artificial nature of cities, Cameli (2021) identifies three main approaches: (i) ontological ; (ii) ontogenetic ; (iii) complexity-oriented . Let us consider them critically one by one.…”

“…From this perspective, cities are essentially seen as artificial realities insofar as they are man-made. Consequently, the “natural” is a residual category for everything that is non-man-made (Cameli, 2021: 5). However, note that the opposite may also be valid: the man-made could be considered as the residual category in a universe in which, so far, the natural seems to have largely prevailed over the artefactual/artificial.…”

“…This aspect tends to be underestimated in the general debate, probably because of the pervasive “anthropocentrism” and “recentism” (Smith, 2020). Besides accepting the stimulating challenge of urban cybernetics, and in particular the possibilities offered by nano-technologies that make the natural and artificial origin of certain objects or processes similar (Cameli, 2021: 6), the discourse is interesting in evolutionary terms. The extent to which and when the human species will change (also psycho-physically and not only demographically) due to the impact of technologies on urban environments could be a theme to be explored.…”

“…Stating that cities and their elements are not complex in themselves – but are so only in their functioning – seems almost a retreat from the founding theory of “cities as complex systems”. Moreover, certain approaches in this vein risk a “holistic, vitalist or panpsychist drift” (Cameli, 2021: 4). Probably, this happens because it is inherently difficult to identify when and under what conditions one can explain urban complexity in this way without appealing to emergent orders (indeed, the second and third arguments often tend to overlap).…”