Global Warming: from Replacement to Regeneration

Global Warming: from Replacement to Regeneration

Nature’s Technology

For a long time, we have viewed the environmental crisis primarily as a race against time. The climate is changing, soils are degrading, biodiversity is diminishing, and ecosystems are under increasing pressure. Faced with this situation, we have sought above all new technologies: less impactful energy sources, more efficient materials, agricultural systems capable of reducing inputs, and infrastructure capable of increasing our protection from extreme events [5, 8, 11].
This path is necessary, but it may not be sufficient.
The question is not only how efficient new technologies are, but also the logic according to which they are conceived.
Can we address an ecological crisis using only a technology built according to the same principles of separation, substitution, extraction, and control that have contributed, at least in part, to producing the current conditions?
It’s a question that recalls a famous quote often attributed to Albert Einstein: “We cannot solve problems with the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” The literal attribution of the phrase to Einstein, however, is not sufficiently documented, and therefore it is preferable not to use it as a direct quotation.
Regardless of its attribution, the concept remains significant.
If the ecological crisis also stems from a way of conceiving Nature as something to be broken down, controlled, exploited, and replaced, it may not be sufficient to make individual technologies more efficient without changing the overall logic of the system.
We therefore need a shift in perspective.
It is within this space of reflection that the concept of the Technology of Nature fits, developed from the agroecological perspective of Guido Bissanti and explored in depth in the volume Principi e fondamenti di agroecologia, edited together with Giovanni Dara Guccione, Barbara Manachini, Paola Quatrini, and Alberto Sturla [2].
The term “technology,” in this context, does not refer to machines or tools in the conventional sense. Rather, it is an interpretative key through which to observe the way natural systems organize matter and energy, use information, establish relationships, recycle resources, adapt to perturbations, and maintain their ability to function over time [2, 10, 14].
Nature, from this perspective, is not a machine to be mechanically copied, but a set of processes and principles from which we can learn.

A technology based on the relationships between matter, energy, and information
One of the central elements of the Technology of Nature is the continuous interaction between matter, energy, and information.
Life is not simply a collection of molecules. Living organisms possess levels of organization that allow them to maintain their identity, interact with the environment, reproduce, and change over the course of evolution.
Maturana and Varela developed the concept of autopoiesis to describe the ability of living systems to continuously produce and maintain their own organization [10].
From an ecological perspective, moreover, organisms cannot be considered separately from the environment in which they live. Water, atmosphere, soil, minerals, solar radiation, and biological communities participate in a network of exchanges in which matter and energy are continuously transformed and transferred [6, 9].
A plant, for example, uses solar radiation as an energy source, absorbs water and nutrients from the soil, and exchanges gases with the atmosphere. Through photosynthesis, it produces organic matter that subsequently enters food webs and biogeochemical cycles [6, 12].
The organic matter produced by a plant can become food for other organisms; some can enter the soil; decomposers transform it; the nutrients are made available again and can be used by other organisms.
The system, therefore, does not function according to a simple linear sequence.
It functions through cycles, transformations, exchanges, and relationships.
It is precisely this characteristic that makes the concept of the Technology of Nature particularly significant for agroecology [2, 4].
Biological information also represents a fundamental component of the organization of living systems. DNA constitutes a system for storing and transmitting genetic information, while evolutionary processes allow populations to change over time [12].
It is important, however, not to confuse these different levels. Matter, energy, and information are not equivalent from a physical point of view. Rather, their relationship constitutes a key to understanding how living systems organize and maintain themselves.
The Technology of Nature adds the dimension of biological organization to this perspective: energy is used in living systems to support processes that organize and transform matter through biological structures and information [2, 10].
Photosynthesis is one of the most obvious examples.
Solar energy is converted into chemical energy and used to build organic matter. This matter then enters food webs and ecosystem cycles [6, 12].
Life can therefore be observed as a continuous process of transformation in which matter and energy are organized through biological systems capable of storing and transmitting information.
It is this capacity for organization, interaction, and transformation that enables the functioning of ecosystems and contributes to their capacity for adaptation and resilience [3, 7, 9].

A technology that works with relationships
The difference between many human technological systems and natural systems becomes even more evident when we consider the role of relationships.
A machine can be broken down into its components. If one component breaks, it can often be replaced without substantially altering the functioning of the others.
An ecosystem cannot be interpreted in the same way.
A forest is not simply a collection of trees. Soil is not a container in which to place a crop. A river is not just a channel through which water flows.
Functioning emerges from relationships.
Roots interact with microorganisms and fungi; vegetation influences the microclimate; organic matter nourishes biological communities; insects participate in pollination; water connects apparently separate systems [6, 12].
The ecological value of a system therefore depends not only on the presence of individual elements, but also on the relationships, processes, and functions that connect them [3, 7].
This is a fundamental difference.
Human technology has been extraordinarily effective in designing objects. Nature’s Technology instead suggests focusing on the design and maintenance of relationships [2].
This perspective is particularly important when designing agroecosystems.
The question should not be simply which variety to use, which fertilizer to apply, or which machine to purchase.
We should also ask ourselves: what relationships must we re-establish for the system to function better?

A technology that does not maximize a single performance
Even the concept of efficiency takes on a different meaning.
An industrial system can be designed to maximize a specific performance: producing more units of product using less energy, less time, or fewer raw materials.
Ecosystems, however, cannot be reduced to the maximization of a single performance.
A forest produces biomass, conserves carbon, contributes to the water cycle, protects the soil, hosts biodiversity, and modifies microclimatic conditions.
A wetland can simultaneously provide habitat, retain water, contribute to natural purification, and reduce certain hydrological risks [3, 7].
The functionality of an ecosystem therefore depends on the multiplicity of interactions and functions.
This does not mean that Nature is always “more efficient” than human technology. Rather, it means that the evaluation criteria can be different.
A system designed to maximize a single performance can be highly efficient with respect to that objective and simultaneously vulnerable when conditions change.
Resilience, on the other hand, raises a different question: how capable is a system of maintaining or recovering its functions in the face of disruptions and changes? [7].
Resilience, therefore, does not mean the absence of change.
It is the ability to continue functioning under variable conditions.

Energy is not just used for production: it is used for organization
Photosynthesis clearly demonstrates the difference between a purely productive conception of energy and an ecological one.
Solar energy is used to build organic matter. This matter does not remain confined to the organism that produced it: it enters food webs, is transformed by decomposing organisms, and participates in material cycles [6, 12].
Energy flows through ecosystems, while many elements of matter are continuously recycled. This is an important distinction.
A linear industrial system tends to extract resources, transform them, use them, and produce waste.
Ecosystems, on the other hand, are characterized by a strong interdependence between production, consumption, decomposition, and recycling [6, 9].
For this reason, the concept of the Technology of Nature calls for a design in which matter is not considered simply as a resource to be consumed, but as part of cycles to be maintained [2, 4].
The goal is not to mechanically imitate every natural process, but to understand the general principle of circularity.

Agroecology as a Laboratory of the Technology of Nature
Agroecology represents one context in which these principles can be translated concretely.
A field can be interpreted as a surface area designed to maximize production.
Or it can be considered as an agroecosystem in which crops, soil, microorganisms, insects, water, climate, and landscape continuously interact.
In the second case, the way we conceive of production changes.
Soil fertility does not simply coincide with the immediate availability of nutrients. It includes structure, organic matter, biological activity, water-retention capacity, and interactions between organisms [1, 5].
Biodiversity is therefore not merely a component to be conserved for ethical or landscape reasons. It is also a functional component of the agroecosystem [4, 12].
Crop rotations, intercropping, permanent ground cover, hedgerows, organic matter management, crop diversification, and reduced tillage can be interpreted as tools for rebuilding and strengthening the ecological relationships of the system [1, 4, 5].
Agroecology thus becomes more than a set of techniques. It becomes a method for designing agri-food systems.
The FAO identifies diversity, synergies, efficiency, resilience, recycling, and co-creation and knowledge sharing among the elements of agroecology, proposing a systemic vision of the agri-food transition [4].
These principles demonstrate a strong convergence with the idea of ​​Nature Technology: not continually replacing ecological processes with external inputs, but seeking to utilize and strengthen those already present in the system [2, 4].

From substitution to regeneration
This is where Nature Technology can take on a broader meaning for the ecological transition.
A significant portion of contemporary innovation proceeds through the replacement of:
– fossil fuels with renewable sources;
– thermal engines with electric motors;
– virgin materials with recycled materials;
– inefficient processes with more efficient ones.
These changes are necessary, but replacing one component does not necessarily mean transforming the functioning of the entire system.
The next question should therefore be: does the new solution only reduce damage or does it also increase the system’s capacity to regenerate?
This represents the shift from efficiency to regeneration.
A regenerative agricultural system should not simply consume fewer inputs: it should be capable of contributing to the reconstruction of soil fertility and biological functionality.
A resilient city should not simply consume less energy, but could use vegetation, soil, and water as components of the urban infrastructure to help manage heat and stormwater [5, 13].
Managing a river should not necessarily be limited to building ever larger structures to contain water. In certain contexts, it may be more effective to restore space to natural processes of expansion and retention, integrating them with the necessary infrastructure [5, 13].
Regeneration, therefore, does not simply mean “doing good for Nature.”
It means rebuilding functional capacities.

Before Intervening, Understand
This perspective also profoundly changes the way we design. We are accustomed to starting with a seemingly simple question: what do we need to build?
An approach inspired by the Technology of Nature should instead begin with a prior and, in a certain sense, more fundamental question: how does this system work?
Before deciding what intervention to implement, we need to understand how water circulates, how matter moves, which organisms interact with each other, and which natural processes are still active. At the same time, we need to understand which of these processes we have interrupted, which ecological functions we have weakened, and, above all, what is currently preventing the system from regenerating.
Only after acquiring this knowledge should the most appropriate intervention be identified.
In some cases, sophisticated technology will be necessary; in others, it may be essential to build infrastructure. In still others, the most effective solution may be much simpler: remove an obstacle and allow a natural process to resume its function.
This approach therefore requires a thorough knowledge of the territory and its dynamics. It’s not just about identifying a problem and designing a response, but about understanding the processes that regulate a system and intervening, when necessary, seeking to support its natural functioning.
Even environmental assessment (EIA) can be interpreted from this perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should not be reduced to seeking compensation to be applied after an impact has occurred. The hierarchy of environmental intervention should instead prioritize, whenever possible, first the avoidance and prevention of impacts, then their reduction, and only in the case of residual impacts, the adoption of any compensatory measures required by law.
Nature’s Technology thus introduces an important design principle: before compensating for a destroyed ecological process, we must ask ourselves whether it is possible to avoid its destruction or preserve its functionality.
Understanding before intervening ultimately means recognizing that the first form of design does not necessarily consist in building something, but in understanding how what already exists works and assessing whether it is possible to preserve or restore its processes.

Learning to Design with Nature
Restoring space to natural processes does not mean returning to an idealized past. It means using scientific knowledge and technological innovation to work with natural systems.
A wetland can contribute to water management. Vegetation can help mitigate urban heat. Coastal vegetation and dune systems can contribute to shoreline protection. Soil rich in organic matter can improve water retention and support a more complex biological community [1, 5, 13].
Nature-based Solutions are precisely in this direction.
It is not about replacing technology with nature, but about integrating natural processes and human design.
The IUCN defines Nature-based Solutions as actions aimed at protecting, sustainably managing, and restoring natural or modified ecosystems, simultaneously addressing social challenges and producing benefits for human well-being and biodiversity [13].
It is a perspective that leads technology towards a different form of innovation.
Not necessarily doing more. Doing better, also using what natural systems already can do.

From Efficiency to Sufficiency
Nature’s Technology suggests an even more radical question than that of efficiency. It’s not just a matter of asking how we can do the same thing while consuming fewer resources, but also whether we really need to do that same thing.
Efficiency remains a fundamental objective of the ecological transition: using less energy, less water, fewer materials, and reducing waste is certainly important. However, efficiency alone may not be enough if, at the same time, the overall amount of our consumption continues to increase. A process can become more efficient, but if we continually increase its scale, the savings achieved risk being offset by the increase in consumption.
This is why, alongside efficiency, it becomes necessary to discuss sufficiency. The question is no longer simply how to produce and consume more efficiently, but how much we actually need.
How much energy do we need to live well? How much water do we really use? How many materials do we need? How much land do we need to occupy? And how much infrastructure do we actually need to meet our needs?
These questions shift our perspective. They invite us not to focus exclusively on improving existing technologies, but to rethink needs and how we choose to satisfy them.
The most important innovation, in fact, does not necessarily consist in inventing a product that does the same thing while consuming less. Sometimes innovation consists in understanding that a need can be satisfied using far fewer resources. Other times, it can mean completely rethinking the way a service is organized, avoiding producing, transporting, or consuming what is not truly necessary.
From this perspective, sufficiency does not represent a return to the past or a renunciation of innovation. On the contrary, it can become one of its most interesting forms: not doing the same thing better, but understanding if we can do it differently, doing what is needed with less.
This, too, is, after all, technological innovation.

A new idea of ​​progress
If we accept this perspective, we must also rethink the meaning of progress.
For a long time, progress has been associated primarily with the human capacity to transform the environment.
Today, that capacity has reached a scale that can compromise the ecological conditions on which our very activities depend [5, 11].
Future progress must therefore be measured not only in terms of quantity produced, speed, or efficiency, but also in terms of the ability to conserve and regenerate the systems on which we depend.
A territory will be truly more resilient when it can maintain soil fertility, water availability, biodiversity, and adaptive capacity [3, 7].
A city will be more advanced not only when it is technologically efficient, but when it can integrate artificial infrastructure and ecological processes to address heat, water, and other environmental risks [5, 13].
A truly innovative economy will not only be one capable of using resources more rapidly, but one capable of reducing consumption, increasing recycling, and maintaining the ecological foundation on which it depends.

We don’t have to save the planet
Perhaps we have used the expression “save the planet” too often.
The Earth does not need to be saved in the human sense of the term. Rather, the issue concerns our ability to continue living within functioning natural systems.
When we regenerate soil, we protect its future capacity to produce food.
When we restore a wetland, we strengthen certain hydrological and ecological functions.
When we restore space to a river, we can reduce the vulnerability of the landscape in certain contexts.
When we restore a coastal ecosystem, we can contribute to the protection of the human communities that depend on that landscape [3, 5, 13].
Regenerating Nature is therefore not just a gesture of protection towards something external to us. It is also a form of self-preservation for human society.

The Great Cultural Evolution
The ecological crisis is forcing us to recognize the limits of our capacity for control.
The next challenge is to learn to cooperate with systems we cannot fully control.
This does not mean abandoning human technology. It means evolving it.
We need satellites, sensors, climate models, monitoring systems, artificial intelligence, and advanced analytical tools. But we can use them to better understand natural processes, identify the pressures that hinder them, and design more precise and less invasive interventions [5, 8].
The technology of the future could therefore, in some cases, be that which allows us to interfere less and understand more.
Not a technology that continually replaces Nature, but a technology that understands its principles.
Not a technology based on the linear consumption of resources, but oriented towards circularity.
Not a technology that maximizes a single performance, but a technology that considers the overall functioning of the system.
Not a technology that aims exclusively at environmental control, but a technology capable of adapting to environmental dynamics.
This is the central idea of ​​Nature’s Technology: not a model to be mechanically copied, but a set of principles to be understood and from which to draw design criteria [2].
Nature does not necessarily offer us the machines of the future.
It offers us something more important: organizational principles that have allowed living systems to persist, transform, and adapt over time.
The challenge of ecological reconversion could then be precisely this: moving from substitution to regeneration, from object to system, from control to understanding, from linearity to circularity.
And perhaps the decisive question will no longer be: How can we save the planet?
But: How can we design a civilization capable of regenerating the system that supports it?
This will be the true technological and cultural evolution of our time.

Guido Bissanti

Bibliography
[1] Bot, A. & Benites, J. (2005). The Importance of Soil Organic Matter: Key to Drought-Resistant Soil and Sustained Food Production. FAO Soils Bulletin 80. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[2] Bissanti, G., Guccione, G. D., Manachini, B., Quatrini, P. & Sturla, A. (2025). Principi e fondamenti di agroecologia. Favara (AG): Associazione Medinova. ISBN 9791280140401.
[3] Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
[4] FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018). The 10 Elements of Agroecology. Rome: FAO.
[5] IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. DOI: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.
[6] Odum, E. P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
[7] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
[8] IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem & B. Rama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781009325844.
[9] Odum, E. P. (1969). The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science, 164(3877), 262–270. DOI: 10.1126/science.164.3877.262.
[10] Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4.
[11] IPBES – Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Edited by E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz & H. T. Ngo. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3831673.
[12] Raven, P. H., Evert, R. F. & Eichhorn, S. E. (2013). Biology of Plants. 8th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman.
[13] IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020). IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions: A User-Friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling Up of Nature-based Solutions. 1st ed. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.08.en.
[14] FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (n.d.). Soil Biodiversity. FAO Soils Portal. Available at: https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-biodiversity/en/ (accessed 28 August 2026).