The much-needed dialogue between environmental ethics and philosophy of technology, particularly in addressing the ecological crisis, has gained momentum in recent years (Almazán and Prádanos 2024; Kaplan 2017; Gardiner and Thompson 2017). Notably, philosophy of technology shows growing enthusiasm for fostering this exchange (Puzio 2024; Gellers 2024; 2020; Coeckelbergh 2019). This paper aims to contribute by systematizing and expanding these efforts, focusing on the issue of changeability and the expectations surrounding the normativity of change in nature and technology. Specifically, it examines two pro-environmental solutions proposed by philosophy of technology: responsible innovation (von Schomberg, Blok 2019; Koops 2015) and the maintenance turn (Young and Coeckelbergh 2024; Perzanowski 2022; Young 2021).
To deepen the understanding of their potential, these solutions will be framed respectively within two distinct approaches: responsible innovation in the holistic perspective, which analyzes broad patterns in “general Technology with a Capital T” (Blok 2024; Ritter 2021), and the maintenance turn as belonging to the concrete technologies approach (Verbeek 2022; 2005) and artifactist tradition (“artifactology”), which emphasizes the impacts of specific artifacts or artifact types (Mitcham 1994). Significantly, each framework reflects contrasting views on change: systemic transformation, characterized by technological progress, is considered desirable, whereas changes in individual artifacts are often perceived negatively, as they typically involve wear, tear, or obsolescence resulting from that progress.
This inherent conflict will be further examined by comparing these technological dichotomies with environmental ethics, where debates over holistic approaches versus the focus on individual natural entities hinge on whether ecosystem stability or individual interests should take precedence (McShane 2014). Regarding the dichotomy of changeability within environmental ethics, individual dynamism (unlike in artifacts) is often valued for its internal teleology, whereas systemic change tends to be viewed neutrally (e.g., evolution) or negatively (unlike in technology), as seen in the expectation of stability betrayed by terms like “climate change.”
Against this backdrop, the paper explores how responsible innovation and the maintenance turn shape the pre-ecological mindset within the philosophy of technology, with changeability as the central focus. It examines how these frameworks address environmental emergencies, considers their limitations, and evaluates potential contradictions between them.
A primary concern in this analysis is to maintain a clear distinction between artifacts and natural beings, as well as between ecosystems and technology. It is essential to highlight the unique vulnerabilities of artifacts (often overlooked by environmental ethics) in contrast to natural entities and to recognize the distinctive qualities of technology. This awareness helps to prevent the misapplication of care frameworks designed for artifacts to natural beings, or the extension of technological paradigms to the environment, despite the clearly pro-environmental orientation of both responsible innovation and the maintenance turn. Only through this strategy can we effectively integrate philosophy of technology with environmental ethics.
Literature
Almazán, Adrián; Prádanos, Luis I. 2024. “The political ecology of technology: A non-neutrality approach.” Environmental Values, 33(1), 3–9.
Blok, Vincent; Lemmens, Pieter. 2015. “The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation 2. Concepts, Approaches, and Applications, eds. Bert-Jaap Koops et al., Cham: Springer.
Blok, Vincent. 2024. “The ontology of creation: towards a philosophical account of the creation of World in innovation processes.” Foundations of Science 29, 503–520.
Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2019. Introduction to Philosophy of Technology, Oxford, UK: University of Oxford Press.
Gardiner, Stephen, M.; Thompson, Allen. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford Press.
Gellers, Josh. 2020. Rights for Robots: Artificial Intelligence, Animal and Environmental Law. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gellers, Josh. 2024. “Not Ecological Enough: A Commentary on an Eco-Relational Approach in Robot Ethics.” Philosophy of Technology 37, 59.
Kaplan, David M. (ed.). 2017. Philosophy, Technology, and the Environment. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Koops Bert-Jaap. 2015. “The Concepts, Approaches, and Applications of Responsible Innovation An Introduction.” In Responsible Innovation 2. In Responsible Innovation 2. Concepts, Approaches, and Applications, eds. Bert-Jaap Koops et al., Cham: Springer.
McShane K. 2014. “Individualist Biocentrism vs. Holism Revisited.” The Ethics Forum 9(2): 130-148.
Mitcham, Carl. 1994. Thinking through Technology. The Path between Engineering and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Perzanowski, Aaron. 2022. The Right to Repair: Reclaiming the Things We Own. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Puzio, Anna. 2024. “Not Relational Enough? Towards an Eco-Relational Approach in Robot Ethics.” Philosophy of Technology 37: 45.
Ritter, Martin. 2021. “Philosophical Potencies of Postphenomenology.” Philosophy & Technology 34: 1501–1516.
Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2005. What Things Do. Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2022. "The Empirical Turn.". In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Technology, ed. Shannon Vallor, 35-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Schomberg, L. Blok V. 2021. “Technology in the Age of Innovation: Responsible Innovation as a New Subdomain Within the Philosophy of Technology.” Philosophy & Technology 34: 309–323.
Young, Mark, Thomas. 2021. “Maintenance.” In The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Engineering, edited by N. Doorn & D. Michelfelder, 356–368. New York: Routledge.
Young, Mark, Thomas; Coeckelbergh, Mark (eds.). 2024. Maintenance and Philosophy of Technology. Keeping Things Going. New York: Routledge.
