Keywords

1 Introduction

On the night between April 14 and 15, 1912, off the Canadian coast, south of Greenland, the largest transatlantic ever designed, the Titanic, collided with an iceberg; this steel and wood mastodon, until then considered perfect, unsinkable, one of the best results of human engineering, suffered so much damage that sank.

In November 2000, a huge ice block, with a surface area of about 11,000 km2 and a weight of 3 billion tons, detached from the Ross Wall in Antarctica. The iceberg, called the B-15, over the following years has modified its surface area and weight and in 2005 has divided into 9 parts. B-15, or the parts that made it up, are “slowly” wandering and melting into the ocean. We do not known whether another Titanic will face such a close encounter, but there is a good chance that B-15 and it’s not-so-far relative are part of the same family. Rather, that they are somehow generated by the same phenomenon that for many millennia, but particularly for about 150 years, has been transforming the planet and its balances, or those that Western culture outlines as such.

We are faced with something that is perceptible, not only through these examples or various numerical data that crowd scientific journals and, often with little clarity, newspapers, radio, the web and the news, but through everyday experience. Something in the world is changing, profoundly and rapidly, and the melting of mountains and poles glaciers is telling the story.

This transformation did not begin suddenly and will not end like the last page of a book; as in the variations of a curved line, it goes through phases of growth, apex—positive or negative—and devolution. This takes place out of something that was already happening and will generate one, or rather a series of future events. All this, in its most evident form, can be inscribed in the words “global warming”. This phenomenon or event is not a hyperbolic process, but rather a parabolic one, as mentioned above. The Earth always changes, and the laws through which we have always described it must change with it, because nothing begins and nothing ends suddenly, but everything keeps transforming continuously.

Global warming is a process and as such it proceeds, transforms and manifests itself in many ways, in many places, spaces, times, as a quantum phenomenon, which happens several times in different situations. Earth heats up and the equilibriums change, as well as the ways in which the world can be described at a physical and scientific, but also cultural and humanistic level.

It is necessary to begin this cultural metamorphosis, redefining the global vocabulary. As if you had just wakened up after a stormy night, you have to recalibrate your movements and words, so you must do also after this wake-up: world is changing and, if you want to continue living according to the rules of the human park (Sloterdijk 2004), an adaptation is required, which will have to be primarily cultural and, consequently, technical.

2 Awareness: Words Are not Enough

In the same year when B-15 presented itself to the world, Paul Josef Crutzen proposed to human beings a new word: “Anthropocene”. Since then, this term has been used to define the geological epoch in which the Earth still finds itself, i.e. that phase in which its structure and therefore its transformations not only take place, but are influenced by a factor, or rather a conscious vector, the anthropomorphic monkey Homo Sapiens. The evolutionary history of humans and their primary domestication of Earth has been examined, among others and in different ways, by Diamond (1998), Harari (2014) and Pievani (2018, 2019). However, starting from them, it is necessary to reflect on man as a being who, since he exists, walks, runs, jumps and swims on Earth, is a vector of change. It seems obvious, but it is not, and it is necessary to become aware of this.

Homo sapiens is not a sedentary being by nature, he has become a sedentary being by necessity; perhaps, among other causes, precisely because of a climate change that occurred tens of thousands years ago. Certainly, he is a different animal from the others, not only because he has a conscience, writes books or drinks cappuccino in the morning, but above all because he is a naked animal, without environment. This appears very evident: in fact, every animal has a habitat, i.e. has characteristics which allow it to live in certain climatic and environmental conditions, while man does not. When he finds something that does not make him feel safe or comfortable, he modifies it or, as Marx (2018) reminded us, he transforms nature for his own survival. Man is an environmental animal, in the sense that he modifies the environment to survive; he does not modify himself, or not as substantially as a virus or other more complex organisms can do.

For this reason, the term “Anthropocene” is perfect because, since man is there and has become sedentary, he has begun to modify the environment substantially and intentionally. As Peter Sloterdijk (2017) recalls, man has become responsible for settlement and management of Earth, especially since the invention of the greatest technology, agriculture, when he began to be a significant and not irrelevant presence. Significant has been said not by chance; in fact, a signifier is the trace that shows on the surface the continuous reference to a meaning (Eco 2016; Peirce 2003). Human gestures have a meaning that are highlighted by a series of signifiers.

Therefore, these signifiers are nothing more than the traces left by man himself in the course of history, directly or through interaction, modifying the Earth and settling his dominion over it. In fact, creating environments is an operation that involves difficulty, study, preparation, time, space and improvisation skills, qualities that homo sapiens is equipped with. Certainly, preparation and improvisation are “intellectual” qualities, while it is strange to consider time and space as qualities. On the other hand, this can be said in the light of recent studies that quantum physics (Rovelli 2017) has brought to light: as Kant (2004) had already anticipated and suggested more than two centuries ago, space and time are not existing elements, present and separate, but structures of human perception used to understand and design. The perception of objects and situations always occurs in certain moments and durations that man internally subdivides into instants (time) that come one after the other in distances or points arranged in a certain order (space). Actually, memory is created on these bases, i.e. by selecting and cataloguing these forms of succession. Not only this is a logical operating principle, but it also has its own usefulness in design. In fact, based on experience, memory is what allows us to project, i.e. to look ahead with an end, finding a repetition and a canonicality in the forms that follow one another in the world. This reaffirmation of constant forms is what allows the creation of long-term cultural and technical installations, each time modifying, adapting and re-proposing patterns. If you think about it, agriculture is nothing more than this: a technical pattern, understood and reworked by experience, re-proposed and redesigned several times, not only over the last ten to eleven thousand years, as it has been considered until very recently, but probably for at least twice as long (Snir et al. 2015). Thus, this gesture has been repeated for centuries and millennia and still it is repeated in a more or less predictable way; on this basis, man has chosen and shaped environments according to a logic that is functional to his own survival, adapting the relationship between thought-culture and world as in a dance.

Therefore, man is this type of animal, very particular, which has shaped and modified Earth in his own image and likeness, almost like another well-known creation relationship (Genesis, 1:26–27), and on it he implanted himself making it a home and furnishing it with always new and different tastes. Building a house, a home, is a dwelling process, i.e. a construction of meaning, the creation of places from the interpretation of a space, by bringing out the submerged, the latent project of every territory (Marini 2016).

Sloterdijk (2017) writes that the phases and events succession that have characterized the ways of furnishing this house can be organized according to the metabolic modalities through which homo sapiens has transformed nature.

Before taking a further step towards a reflection on the relationship between man and that container without a real form that is the word “nature”, one must conclude the analysis of anthropization. As said, this process has a long course and somehow it has never begun and will never end, because the traces left behind were, are and will be there, even without homo sapiens. Certainly, however, we could say that this is possible precisely because the human being, by analyzing and studying the elements of the habitat in which he has found himself, has then modified the habitat itself, thus outlining a territory. With this, it is usually defined a selected part of the environment the characteristics of which result from the relationship between man and environment, delimited by natural or artificial boundaries that are recognized as such. Inside these borders, man lives and proliferates, planning his destiny. Therefore, homo sapiens is not only the first mammal to wear trousers, as Eddie Vedder wrote in the lyrics of one of his songs from 1998, but he is also that animal that recognizes a readapted and therefore habitato environment as his own and defends those limits he recognizes as borders.

In the same song, not by chance entitled do the evolution, with an ironic tone, man is remembered as the first mammal to make plans and therefore to design. This is possible thanks to the logical and cultural ability to recognize and recreate similar, if not identical, models over time and in various places. Thanks to this capacity, in the course of his cultural history, man has planned, classified and subdivided everything, the whole Earth and everything that is part of it or in some way is related to it, to the point of going beyond its natural boundaries and looking beyond the sky, to the planets and the universe that can be thought of or at least physically and theoretically modelled. Everything is comprehensible, everything is divisible; but if man can do this, then, as a logical consequence, he will also be the same being who, in a clear way, can control everything. After all, if the patterns are repeated, it is enough to read and re-apply them. And if I, homo sapiens, can do all this, it also means that I am the controller, the king of all this; ultimately, everything belongs to me. That things are not exactly like that, this mammal who wears trousers is now being taught by that “strange” phenomenon that is usually defined as global warming.

On the other hand, the fact that everything is not fully controllable does not change the influence that man has on Earth anyway, so much to geologically modify it. This happens because, since we work the earth, through emissions we influence the course of things. The use of this term is borrowed once again from Peter Sloterdijk, but it is preferably redefined as a process that allows to modify the environment, leaving a trace which more or less affects its equilibriums. Traces, on the other hand, are the rest of an emission, i.e. its remnant. The abnormal increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as the concentration variations of other gases and microparticles emitted in the last two centuries by man, are a clear trace of human activity and, consequently, of its influence on the Earth’s equilibrium. They were found in the ice and therefore very probably also in B-15. It can be objected that a trace has no positive or negative sign, but since every signifier refers to a meaning, its one is exactly the equilibriums alteration with a negative sign, because these emissions, which then become fixations, only create new entropy.

Usually, in a transformation process, entropy is defined as the element or variable that increases; classically, in a system, it is the differential quantity resulting between the beginning and the end of the metamorphic process. In few words, human beings tend to increase the amount of entropy present in the Earth system. If we decline the concept in thermodynamics, the entropic increase caused by the anthropic transformative action is generating a temperature variation, with a warming direction that is affecting the global system: global warming. So, homo sapiens is a cause of global warming; obviously not the only possible one, but at this stage and by far he is certainly the most influential. One would fall into contradiction if affirmed that man is the unique cause of every transformation, because as we said at the beginning the world is continuously transforming, but certainly, in the current configuration of world equilibrium, man is a variable with a very high transformative coefficient.

If, as we have seen, man represents a variable that strongly affects the processes transformation, it is because of his cultural derivation; since culture is precisely the human capacity to impose his own structure on the world and to hand it down, which however derives from the very processes of adaptation to the environment. Certainly, at least in this sense, one must consider the existence of both a material culture, more effective and active, and an immaterial one, less effective but plasmative. The result of human traces, or of the ecological guilt, as Chelazzi (2013) defines it, is the result of the relationship between these two variables. They are variables because over time they have changed in form and quantity, but their relationship has never been broken and it will never be because of their interdependence; they can certainly assume different quantitative and qualitative values, but certainly they will not touch zero, not even when man, as we know him, will have disappeared.

Immaterial culture often serves to describe what materially exists and subsists, and one of the most influential results of this human form is the concept of nature.

Defining the term is truly complex if not impossible, as it is a signifier that refers to innumerable meanings that throughout human history have followed one another from time to time, whether or not the land conquering ape was conscious of it.

In popular culture, “natural” is what follows certain laws which man is thought not to have or previously had influenced. The adjective “natural” is often added to foodstuffs or products of first use or resulting from non-polluting or at least sustainable processes; or it is generally associated with what is not considered human or follows a different order and balance than the anthropic one. Morton (2007) points out that all this is not correct or not enough, because all these “naturalisations” do not consider multiple factors, but above all they are conceptually generated by the anthropocentrism of human culture. According to this vision, man is the most developed evolutionary being—do the evolution, sic—who holds a princely role in the relationship with everything that exists or is believed to exist. The term nature emerges precisely from this vision, because it distinguishes what is human from what is not and, according to Morton, this is where there would be the most anthropologically and ecologically significant error. In fact, man is nature and nature is man.

It is clear that man has a central role in the transformation of the earth's equilibrium, and his involvement is undeniable; nevertheless, he also must suffer the consequences and above all, once the ecologic guilt is recognized, he must act to improve all this, since the role assumed by homo sapiens, according to Sloterdijk and as mentioned above, is that of Earth healer, being it his home. All this by taking care not of man and nature, but of the globe as a unique system, formed of interdependent subsystems and organisms.

Therefore, there is the need to deeply rethink nature at an immaterial cultural level, so that from this perspective there can be a positive impact on the practical and material level. In fact, Morton proposes to culturally rethink ecology by avoiding the word nature and, above all, its classical meanings and the consequent systemic events connected to it. Global warming, soil consumption, rising seas are not natural phenomena, but neither are they anthropogenic, they have to do with the whole system of which nature and man are part. However, they are something unknown and disorienting because there are no certain solutions to them, no logical models capable of understanding all this, even due to the nature and the limits of human reason.

Homo sapiens is faced with something he does not know, global warming, and of which he cannot predict the results, climate change, even if he is its main cause.

New problems call for new words, new definitions, new tools to tackle these ecological metamorphoses. Environmentalist culture is usually one of the answers to all this, but, as Morton (2007, 2013) explains, it still thinks of nature as of something separate from man and therefore does so in a classical, Cartesian and anthropocentric way. What is necessary is the creation of new linguistic reading tools that go beyond dualism and above all allow to think of the environment with man included and not separated from it. All this because global warming makes no class or gender distinction and, except for the different phenomenal declinations that it can assume, not even geographical and cultural. It is a new element, dominant and massively spread throughout the globe, with spatial and temporal repercussions, both in the classical sense and in the previously exposed Kantian-quantic one.

What needs to be rethought is the order in which facts and events are expressed, because there is no distinction between man and nature. Man is a product-part of the Earth ecosystem and nature is the ecosystem; just as we consider the white bear in the Earth ecosystem, and in particular in the polar one, so we must consider man as belonging to a variety of ecosystems and in particular to the planet global one, because massively distributed everywhere and influential on the whole geoid and beyond. Culturally, man no longer belongs to places, but he is a thing among things, an element among elements, a complexity among complexities: he is part of an open and dynamic system, an eventuality, a quantum event, like everything that exists, has existed or will exist. But due to a particular or magnificent chance, he knows it, and he must become aware of it.

Man lives in spaces on which he has built places that have changed over the ages and millennia. In the spaces or environments, in those indistinct masses, he has found inspiration and identified recognizable models and there he has “emitted” places, he has culturized the environments, the elements of the composite Earth ecosystem; by domesticating, he has anthropized them. All these processes have created what is now there, including the alienating global warming. By creating places, he has often abandoned, destroyed, forgotten, submerged, supplanted, uprooted, regenerated others; this is the great capacity of the human being, but in order to do all this he had to know and understand, or rather fill, that container which is culture.

Thus, places become emblematic elements of human dwelling on Earth because they are points of a network that coexist in different spaces and times, that are coloured and take different forms according to the cultural eye that reads and interprets them. However, the points of a network, like the variables in a relationship, do not have a hierarchical or chronological order, but simply are events that manifest or non-manifest since not all cultures or cultural perspectives are sensitive to the same perceptual focus. In classical times, mountains had a very different meaning from that attributed to them by Walter Bonatti, just as Captain Nemo’s ocean depths have a different role and forms than those of a marine biologist, and the great Nebraska plains have a different meaning to Bruce Springsteen’s notes than to those of the Native Americans who inhabited them. However, all these creation and destruction processes, of analysis and interpretation, foundation and separation have in common the human cultural behavior. Now it finds itself at a crossroads and has the obligation to change something, even if only immaterially the way of defining and interpreting the phenomena that happen in the world; because a different look asks for a different approach that, in turn, leads to a different result.

Cultural behaviour has generated the land consumption, glaciers melting, wars, exhausting resources exploitation, all causes and, in turn, co-present effects of that alienating event that is global warming. It is there and cannot be denied; it influences and will influence human dwelling on Earth, whether it is by presence or by removal. Surely, it is a non-local phenomenon, that is distributed in different spaces and times, generates a gravitational, cultural and eco-systemic field, which is essentially undefinable with the classical terms, and therefore it requires a profound rethinking. Culture must interpret, return to calling things by their names, especially those elements that do not have a connotation and classification: because even if classifications have produced damage, still the human cognitive apparatus works through them and cannot change its functioning. Nevertheless, it can do so in the production of results, therefore it can influence knowledge and action.

Timothy Morton defined the elements with these kind of characteristics, hyper-object, i.e. things (Heidegger 2011; Esposito 2014) that are beyond the classical cultural schemes, such as places, global warming, and perhaps man himself.

3 Give a Shape, Face the Abyss

Not many hours before these letters were engraved on the bright light of a computer screen, the thermometer in one of the most prestigious cities in the world, Paris, reached almost 43 °C; something that had never happened since atmospheric temperatures are reliably and comparably recorded in this city. Also, a few weeks earlier in France, the previous absolute maximum temperature records in the country were disintegrated. Likewise, globally June 2019 was the warmest month ever, surpassing the previous and recent record of 2016. If it were the Guinness World Record show, humanity would credit itself with a substantial number of them; but such an achievement would be a failure and bring other perspectives. The emergency is global: the landscapes all over the Earth are changing because of mankind, but the transformation is not predictable. The environmental and anthropic identity that characterized a place is no longer the same, it is changing. After all, identity is not something fixed or defined at the origin, it is created by progressing, and places all over the Earth are changing: there is something strange in the neighbour's garden, but also in the home garden. Identity is evolving and in the mirror in which homo sapiens looks, he sees only the blur, a vibrant limit, like the intense, swaying lights of the starry night painted by Van Gogh.

Man is facing something new, a faster and faster descent towards a point he does not know; it is a leap into the void. Global warming brings data, results, interpretable towards the past and what we call the present, but not towards tomorrow, because it is not there yet, it does not exist. Certainly, one can make predictions, but it is like hypothesizing, from acquired experience and memory, what is at the edge of the universe or at the bottom of an abyss. Homo sapiens is looking right into this chasm, into this abyss, but, as Nietzsche (1977) recalled, when we inspect the abyss, it looks inside us. It disturbs us, digs into us; it confronts man with a primordial, distressing, perturbing question, a return to his origins, to himself. The answers he can give can be apocalyptic, fantastic, hypothetical, there is no certainty, there is no repeatability. And memory doesn't help, because there is no experience of all this. The human being is faced with something that he does not know, but if he wants to continue his adventure, he will have to face that step by step.

The first step, with biblical scent, is to give the name to things (Esposito 2014; Heidegger 2011). The term “thing” is largely discredited, so much so that its meaning and strength is not understood. It generally means any element—general, particular, universal, existing, imaginary, non-existent, material or immaterial, concrete or abstract—that is evoked in presence. When something is present it becomes real because it can be described, framed, perhaps representable. To become real is to take consistency and subsistence; after all, “real” is linked to “thing” because they both derive from the Latin word “res” which was used to represent what is in the breadth of determinations. Therefore, thing is not a neutral or vague word, but a lemma that recalls reality; what homo sapiens must redo is to give name and form to the real, to the new real phenomena that appear only as changes but that in the depths recall a new and pulsating reality. All these events, elements welcome in the real, because what seemed fixed no longer is and perhaps never was. When a building, a place is built it becomes an individual or collective focal point, but somehow it deforms the flat space perception and creates a temporality, because from its new presence something happens. In this space and in this time that are recreated and re-presented, these elements change in their minimal systems as well as in the more evident ones that appear more “real”. The physicality that outlines them and the culture that shapes them are necessary elements to their definition, because they are things on which the identity perception projected by the individual or the community is outlined. They are things or more properly objects, since there is a subject, conscious or not, who grasps and perceives them. As it is for places, so it is for other events and for global warming. But how can this complexity of phenomena with unique characteristics, diffused in space and time, that are and remain present both as precedent absence and as subsequent trace, be defined? Morton (2013) has shaped a witty and precise term for them: “hyperobjects”. They are more than just objects, because they must be considered in their “non-local” aspect and their influence on multiple scales. They are more-than-objects, perceived by an entity that is simply a subject, and here is their perturbation: their complexity is such that they cannot be understood simply with the classical models of experience and classification.

The term “hyperobjects” is perfect because it allows us to overcome that concern, that non safety that arises when one tries to refer to these elements, to explain them in their complexity; as Fisher (2018) wrote, these elements are uncanny, weird, and make normal classifications no longer valid and sufficient. Their aura requires new terms and new approaches, as Morton (2013) said.

Hyperobject (refers) to things that are massively distributed in time and space relative to humans. A hyperobject could be a black hole (…) the biosphere, or the Solar system, (…) nuclear materials. Hyperobjects, then, are “hyper” in relation to some other entity, whether they are directly manufactured by humans or not (Morton 2013, 1).

The American philosopher traces four main characteristics in order to be able to sub-divide, recognize and therefore classify an element as a hyperobject: they are viscous; they are diffuse and present in different space–time moments (non-local); they are zonal and determine phases around them (phasing); and finally they are a set of several objects (interobjectively).

Specifically, when Morton talks about viscosity, he means that these hyperobjects are mellifluous, viscous, i.e. once you enter into contact with them you can no longer detach, they remain present in your memory and are detectable in other determinations, in other elements. After all, the philosopher presents this term to classify the global warming, explaining that it is the hyper-object that manifests itself through the climate change, because the latter is one of the results of the global warming process-thing. Precisely for this reason it traces it as viscous, because climate change varies and spreads all over the globe and in different ways, but especially because once you realize its presence it cannot be ignored (even if there are those who try to do it), you are influenced and touched by it. The same happens also with places and landscapes (Marini and Tolusso 2016) because they are expressions of cultures and interpretations, you revive them in time, in memory, you are influenced by them, in positive or negative.

From here emerges the second peculiarity, the second constitutive element that connects global warming, landscapes and places, i.e. their non-real local aspect, because they appear and transform over time, showing new dynamics and expressions, occupying and assuming different spatial forms. After all, global warming did not only manifest itself in 2019 but, although in a less evident way, it was already present when the Titanic sank, or when Rachel Carlson gave voice to the environmental movement, or when B-15 began its journey to the ocean. In the same way, every place is present to itself, but changes over time; just think of how cities change: Rome, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Oslo are not the same as 200 or 2000 years ago and they will not be the same in 10 years, as they will not be in 10,000 years: they occupy, occupied and will occupy different spaces. Five hundred years ago the USA, like Italy, did not exist, now they exist and leave material and immaterial traces, spread them all over the globe, through their inhabitants, those vector-animals that are man in his entirety.

The presence of hyperobjects varies in its quantity and intensity, but their presence—and here is their third characteristic—their reality determines a phase shift (phasing) in space and time, from a material and an immaterial or, more properly, cultural point of view. In fact, like black holes, they are present and affect you the closer you are to the portals of manifestations, while they act in a less deviant way the further away you are from them. They modify the homo sapiens’ perception, i.e. space-time, just as they shape reality when they are present, because they transform and change the balances of the systems in which they are inserted, to which they are connected or to which they refer. A heat wave in Europe enters into a real relationship with the winter frost that can touch the east coast of the United States; a sort of Butterfly Effect, as it happens when a city or a place imposes itself as an attractive centre, varying its influence over time. Zermatt and Cervinia are not a local phenomenon, but a global one because they move flows all over the Earth, both on the material and on the immaterial level. Their influence, their being “zonal” has varied over time: 300 years ago, they were not what they are now. They were villages of shepherds and crystal seekers, now they are international tourist centers; tomorrow, perhaps, they will be humanity's places of salvation. We cannot know this, we cannot experience it, just as it was not conceivable, if not from a utopian point of view, that they would become what they are now.

Can there be a relationship between the function of a place, its destination and global warming? Is there a link between two elements apparently present in different systems? The answer is clearly yes. Here emerges the fourth characteristic to identify and define a hyperobject, i.e. its interobjectivity: each of them can be composed of several objects belonging to various systems that are related to each other, just as hyperobjects can be in a systemic relationship. As variables of a system of equations, they vary and change as their constitutive elements change. Global warming influences the destine of Zermatt and Cervinia, as well as the use and generation of entropy in the two city systems influences global warming, because they belong to that complex and global system called Earth.

Out of this, one can infer that hyperobjects are objects themselves, and therefore real things, but they are not a simple assembly-sum of smaller objects, rather they are also the result of immaterial and not algebraic relations; they exist, as Morton (2013) recalls, whether one thinks and knows them or not, because they are indeed related to human factors, but they exist independently of the presence of sapiens. They have spatial and temporal durations, change in time and, as said at the beginning, they are not born and they will not be suddenly exhausted, according to definable or calculable waveforms. Therefore, we can realize but not indicate them directly, we can grasp a manifestation, an episode, but not observe them in their totality; they are a Kantian noumenic reality that cannot be grasped with the limits of human reason.

Hyperobjects are a new word, a new way to refer to the world, to the Earth itself and not only, a small step to redefine the man-world relationship, going beyond the classic definitions. Above all, they redefine the identities of things, of reality and therefore also of places, because they are no longer just isolated spatial determinations, but something more: hyperobjects.

4 Conclusions

Man creates hyperobjects from simple objects in response to other hyperobjects, even if he does not realize it. About 1200 km from the North Pole there is a geo-localized place that does not belong to any state, any nation, but to humanity and perhaps to the Earth because it serves to preserve its life and potentiality and contains the genetic patrimony of life on Earth: seeds. It is an object that happens in a space and time, but in its destiny it has to become something wider and more complex, not measurable, therefore a hyper-object, i.e. the Svarbald Global Seed Vault. It contains the present, but also the past and the future, potential environments; it is zonal and is one of the answers to global warming. Perhaps, an attempt to overcome the concept of nature and place, towards a complete eco-mimesis (Morton 2007, 2016) of a common and integrated survival between earth and sapiens, between human and non-human, not as something distinct, but as participatory, without a hierarchy but as co-presence at the same level.