Global COE Program - Kyoto University - In Search of Sustainable Humanosphere in Asia and Africa

The aim of Initiative 4 is to reconstruct the humanosphere in a way that renders it inseparable from the biosphere and the geosphere, towards sustainable Humanosphere ⁱ . Modernity has prioritized productivity through science, technology, and institutions. It has positioned human beings as subjects who objectify and control nature. In other words, human society envisions itself as separate from the natural world, which it objectifies and attempts to control, and from which it has exploited the resources that are necessary for production. Within the humanosphere, the reproductive activities of human beings are objectified and contained as an inner realm of nature, also to be controlled so that it might better contribute to the productive efficiency of society. Nature that is objectified as external to human society, and nature that is objectified as inner realm of reproduction have both been depoliticized. In reality, however, neither the interaction between human beings and the environment nor the interaction between human beings and the reproductive realm is separable from political intention. How then can we better enable future “reproduction” in the wider sense of the term by formulating consensus towards the realization of a richer life?

In this day and age of scientific technology and social engineering, where reproductive technology, genetic engineering, and large-scale management of water resources are possible, human society has more than simply exploited nature, it has made nature the object of its manipulation. With the awareness that we are arriving at a turning point for the humanosphere, the biosphere and the geosphere brought about by the evolution of technology and institutions, we must re-examine our productivity-oriented paradigms and strive to redesign ways to realize public decision making under an alternative paradigm. Under this new paradigm, “reproduction” as the core of sustainable human society, the relationship between human society and nature, and the interaction between humanity and its environment would be realigned and reconstituted in order to reorient productivity away from being subsumed or enslaved by the drive towards its increase.

Every life process is based upon the mutual interaction between society and its ecological environment. Rather than delimiting “reproduction” to its most immediate sense, it should be understood as wide and far-reaching life-connecting processes that transmit the connectedness of life and the interaction with the environment to future generations.

This initiative is being furthered by five groups, each of which has a theme: “life, existential connectedness, and reproduction”; “glocal social movements”; “management and distribution of resources, disease and aging, biopolitics”; “the city, risk, technology, and industry”; and “the body, mind, and soul.” Key terms and issues that have emerged in pursuing these themes involve a “reconsideration of the inter-relationship between the intimate and public realms towards reconstructing the humanosphere.”

The intimate realm constitutes the core of the humanosphere where life is nurtured. This realm is characterized by values that emerge from within concrete personal relationships such as love, endorsement, and dignity, and it is the arena where these are secured. This realm of emergent values is the starting point for the realization of values in more open arenas. The public realm will proceed with governance and production by acting on the biosphere and the humanosphere through institutions and technologies, moving towards a realization of the logic of the intimate realm through endorsement and consent. We do not specify or assume the body of governance to be the state; instead, we aim to design multiple systems of governance that reflect the interests and values of multiple subjects. In terms of the economic system, we must break away from the paradigm of productivity and move towards “reproduction” as a way of connecting life in the humanosphere and the biosphere. It must be reconstructed so as to enrich the life of all individuals.

Just as we find individuality and character in the emergent forms of relatedness in the intimate realm, there is a character of locality in every environment that encompasses the humanosphere, the biosphere and the geosphere that nurture it. The production-centered paradigm thus far embraced was developed in the context of temperate environments. However, in the tropics, technology, institutions, and values have evolved on the basis of the characteristics of the regional ecology, which has enabled adaptation to the dynamism of nature in order to minimize risk and maximize its abundance. In other words, each locality has devised ways to activate and link its natural specificity to human society, forging a relationship of coexistence. This emphasis on the logic of the relatedness of life from the biosphere to the intimate realm, and from the intimate realm to the public realm, suggests an alternative to the paradigm of the temperate zone that has worked to control nature through a depersonalized public realm. This may further contribute to the reconstitution of the relationship between the intimate and public realms as well as among the humanosphere, the biosphere, and the geosphere.

In the final two years of the project, this initiative will seek to understand this local specificity of linking the biosphere and the humanosphere, with the ultimate aim of reconstructing the humanosphere in such a way as to realize the values emerging from the intimate realm. How we nurture life in the face of poverty, disaster, and various obstacles depends on how we can secure the relatedness emergent from the intimate realm, how this can be supported by technologies and institutions, and how we open these up to the public realm and governance. Securing sustainability throughout the geosphere, the biosphere, and the humanosphere, and enabling sustainable production through the mutual interaction of these spheres, will in effect lead to the reproduction of the relatedness of life. Starting from the sphere of intimacy that nurtures life, we seek a framework for the public realm that will secure richness in life. Through multiple layers of such locally realized public realms, it is our hope that the formation of a global humanosphere that nurtures and realizes the values emergent in the intimate sphere will be possible.

ⁱ Herein, I use “humanosphere” for the human realm in relation to the biosphere and geosphere and “Humanosphere” to refer to the larger idea of sustainable Humanosphere that encompasses all three.