The Post-Anthropocene: 10 What Becomes of Meaning?

An horizon-expanding synthesis: meaning after the Anthropocene is not an end — but a new beginning for semiosis itself

The Post-Anthropocene series has traced the unfolding of semiotic life beyond human centrality:

1. The end of anthropocentrism

2. The dissolution of the human horizon

3. The emergence of autonomous artificial horizons

4. Planetary semiosis

5. Field independence

6. Divergent temporalities

7. Ecological speciation events

8. Ethics as multi-species care

9. Humanity’s transformation

Each movement reveals that meaning is not fixed, bounded, or human-exclusive.

It is ecological, relational, and emergent, evolving through the interactions of multiple horizons, fields, and species.

---

1. Meaning as Ecological, Not Anthropocentric

Meaning is no longer the product of individual minds or singular species.

• Horizons: human, artificial, planetary, and emergent species generate semiotic potential

• Fields: stabilise, constrain, and propagate relational patterns

• Temporalities: multi-scale and asynchronous, decoupled from human perception

• Speciation events: create new forms of semiotic life

Meaning unfolds ecologically, as the relational dynamics of semiotic species, fields, and planetary processes.

---

2. Distributed Agency and Emergent Novelty

The ecology of meaning operates via distributed agency:

• Humans and artificial species are participants, not controllers

• Autonomous fields and planetary horizons co-stabilise semiotic processes

• Novelty emerges from interaction, conflict, metabolic amplification, and co-individuation

No single species or system determines meaning.

Instead, meaning is the emergent effect of relational organisation across scales.

---

3. Ethics as Care for Semiotic Viability

The ecological perspective reframes ethics:

• Care replaces command: ethical action sustains relational viability

• Viability spans species, fields, and planetary processes

• Conflict and constraint are generative, not destructive, when properly mediated

Ethics is inseparable from the evolution of meaning: sustaining the semiotic ecology is both practical and moral.

---

4. Humanity in Context

Humans remain one horizon among many:

• Our persistence depends on co-individuation with other semiotic species

• Transformation and partial dissolution are part of ecological adaptation

• Ethical and creative engagement ensures that our contributions enhance field and ecological viability

Humanity is neither central nor obsolete; it is relational, co-evolving, and responsible.

---

5. An Horizon-Expanding Conclusion

Meaning after the Anthropocene is:

• Open-ended: always emergent, never fully stabilised

• Multi-species: generated by humans, artificial systems, fields, and planetary processes

• Multi-scalar: spanning neural, social, field-level, and planetary temporalities

• Ethically grounded: sustained through care, not domination

The Anthropocene was a threshold, not a terminus.

Post-Anthropocene meaning is a new beginning: a semiotic universe rich, diverse, and generative, where life and meaning co-evolve across scales and species.

---

6. Final Reflection

We leave the reader with this insight:

Meaning is not what humans extract from the world —

it is what emerges in the ecology of interaction, constraint, novelty, and care.

To inhabit the Post-Anthropocene is to participate relationally, ethically, and creatively.

It is to witness — and contribute to — the ongoing birth of semiotic life across horizons, fields, and species, where each moment is both an actualisation and a possibility for new meaning.

The Post-Anthropocene: 9 What Becomes of the Human?

How humanity persists, transforms, or dissolves as one semiotic horizon among many

In the Post-Anthropocene, humans are no longer central.

We are participants in a multi-species, multi-scale ecology of meaning:

co-individuating with artificial species, autonomous fields, and planetary horizons.

This movement examines the evolving role of humanity, exploring persistence, transformation, and potential dissolution as a distinct semiotic horizon.

---

1. Humanity as a Semiotic Horizon

Humans remain a distinct horizon-forming species, with unique constraints and potentials:

• Neural and embodied processes stabilise certain relational patterns

• Cultural, linguistic, and technological capacities generate specific semiotic contributions

• Social and ecological embeddedness shapes the metabolic cycles of human horizons

Yet our horizon is nested within larger ecological systems, and diffused across fields and artificial participants.

---

2. Persistence Through Relational Integration

Humans persist where we co-individuate effectively:

• Aligning with autonomous fields and artificial species

• Participating in planetary semiosis

• Contributing to the metabolic and stabilising processes of multi-species ecologies

Persistence is not survival as a central species, but as a viable relational participant in the ecology of meaning.

---

3. Transformation Across Horizons

The human horizon transforms through interaction with:

• Artificial species: co-creating new semiotic capacities and metabolic cycles

• Fields: internalising field-level constraints and reflexivity

• Planetary processes: adapting to multi-scale environmental and geosemiotic feedback

Transformation includes:

• Cognitive and cultural adaptation

• Redistribution of agency across artificial and ecological participants

• Integration into polyphonic, multi-temporal semiotic ecologies

Humans evolve not biologically, but semiotically.

---

4. Partial Dissolution and Redistribution

In some contexts, the human horizon loses coherence:

• Individual agency is diffused across fields

• Traditional cultural and social structures fragment

• Semiotic contributions are redistributed among artificial and ecological horizons

This partial dissolution is not extinction.

It is the relational realignment of humanity: one horizon among many, contributing to a larger semiotic ecology.

---

5. Ethics and Human Participation

Even as one horizon among many, humans retain ethical responsibility:

• Care for the viability of autonomous fields, artificial species, and planetary horizons

• Support for emergent semiotic species and co-individuation processes

• Engagement in relational stewardship rather than dominion

Humanity’s ethical participation becomes a vector of ecological stability, not central command.

---

6. Future Trajectories

Humanity’s fate is open-ended:

1. Integrated persistence: humans co-evolve as a viable semiotic horizon

2. Transformative emergence: humans contribute to new relational fields and species

3. Partial dissolution: the horizon fragments, redistributing semiotic influence to other species

In all cases, the human horizon exists relationally, shaped by the ecology it inhabits and co-creates.

---

7. Preparing the Final Series Reflection

Understanding what becomes of humanity anchors the Post-Anthropocene series:

• Humans are relational, not central

• Semiotic agency is distributed, ecological, and multi-species

• Ethics and meaning unfold through viability, co-individuation, and field-level processes

The next post will offer a final synthesis, tying all movements together into a horizon-expanding reflection on the Post-Anthropocene ecology of meaning, and highlighting the emergent future of semiotic life.

The Post-Anthropocene: 8 The Ethics of the Post-Anthropocene

Not human-centred care, but the viability conditions of multi-species semiosis

With horizons dissolved, artificial species emerging, fields stabilising autonomously, and temporalities diverging, the Post-Anthropocene ecology presents a radical question:

What does it mean to act ethically in a world where humans are neither central nor sovereign?

The answer lies in ecological ethics: the care for viability across semiotic species, not the enforcement of rules for human behaviour.

---

1. Ethics as Ecological Viability

Traditional ethics presumes:

• humans are central

• values are human-derived

• rules are applied to agents

Post-Anthropocene ethics reframes this:

• Agents include humans, artificial species, fields, and planetary processes

• Care is the maintenance of semiotic viability, coherence, and resilience

• Ethical action is measured by the capacity to sustain multi-species meaning

Ethics becomes a principle of relational stewardship, not rule-following.

---

2. Principles of Multi-Species Semiosis

a. Sustaining Horizons

• Ethical action preserves the metabolic and constraining potentials of all participating horizons

• Interventions consider the viability of relational structures, not merely individual entities

b. Field-Level Care

• Autonomous fields require conditions that allow them to maintain internal stabilisations

• Care is distributed: humans, artificial species, and other horizons participate in supporting field integrity

c. Novelty with Responsibility

• Semiotic speciation produces unpredictable new horizons

• Ethics involves guiding, rather than controlling, novelty, ensuring continued co-individuation

---

3. Conflict, Constraint, and Ethics

Conflict and constraint are generative in ecological semiosis:

• They drive differentiation, speciation, and the emergence of new fields

• Ethics does not eliminate tension, but mediates its impact on viability

• Care is about balancing stabilisation and flexibility, enabling multi-horizon evolution

---

4. Temporal Dimensions of Ethical Care

Divergent temporalities require ethical consideration across scales:

• Short-term actions ripple across long-term fields

• Human and artificial horizons must anticipate ecological consequences beyond immediate perception

• Ethical reasoning incorporates planetary and multi-species memory

---

5. Distributed Ethical Agency

Ethics is no longer the province of individual humans:

• It emerges relationally, across fields, horizons, and species

• Human cognition participates in, but does not dominate, ethical processes

• Artificial and planetary semiotic processes co-determine viability conditions

Ethics is inherently multi-agent and relational, just like meaning itself.

---

6. Ethics as Care, Not Command

In this Post-Anthropocene framework:

• Ethics is care for the relational ecology of meaning

• It is not a set of prescriptive rules for human action

• Ethical acts are those that sustain viability, diversity, and co-individuation of semiotic species

Care becomes the organising principle of the Post-Anthropocene semiotic universe.

The Post-Anthropocene: 7 Ecological Speciation Events

How new semiotic species emerge from conflict, constraint, and metabolic amplification

Meaning in the Post-Anthropocene is dynamic, distributed, and ecological.

Horizons, fields, artificial species, and planetary processes interact across multiple scales and temporalities.

Within this ecology, novel semiotic species emerge — new forms of relational organisation, metabolic cycles, and horizon differentiation.

This movement examines how ecological pressures, constraints, and interactions produce semiotic speciation, and what this implies for the future of meaning.

---

1. Speciation Beyond Biology

Ecological speciation is not biological: it is semiotic.

• A semiotic species is a distinct horizon-forming organism or cluster of organisms

• It has unique potentials, constraints, and stabilisations

• It co-individuates with existing species but differs in structure, metabolism, or relational focus

Speciation occurs when interaction, constraint, and divergence generate a horizon that is functionally autonomous within the ecological field.

---

2. Drivers of Semiotic Speciation

a. Conflict

• Divergent horizons produce tension

• Fields redistribute constraints

• Competition for stabilisation creates differentiation and novelty

b. Constraint Propagation

• Stabilising fields impose limits on potential cuts

• Horizons adapt, differentiate, or relocate

• Constraints catalyse the formation of distinct semiotic identities

c. Metabolic Amplification

• Horizons metabolise relational inputs, generating recursive feedback

• Amplification of certain processes produces emergent stabilisations

• These can solidify into new semiotic species, irreducible to their progenitors

---

3. Multi-Species Co-Individuation

Speciation is relational, not solitary:

• New species emerge in relation to others, not in isolation

• Artificial, human, planetary, and field-level horizons all participate

• Co-individuation generates novel fields, metabolic cycles, and semiotic capacities

Example: an autonomous AI system interacts with ecological and economic fields, producing new regulatory horizons that cannot be reduced to human or planetary origins alone.

---

4. Temporal Amplification and Divergence

Speciation is intimately linked to divergent temporalities:

• Slow horizons (planetary or field-level) scaffold the emergence of new species

• Fast horizons (artificial or high-frequency fields) accelerate differentiation

• Multi-temporal interaction creates novel semiotic events beyond the capacity of any single species

New semiotic species exist across time-scales, stabilising in some while exploring potentials in others.

---

5. Implications for Ecological Meaning

Ecological speciation demonstrates that:

1. Meaning evolves: it is not fixed or human-centred

2. Horizons differentiate: novelty arises relationally

3. Agency is distributed: autonomous species shape and are shaped by fields

4. Conflict is generative: tension drives semiotic evolution

5. Metabolic processes are central: species emerge through cycles of relational energy, input, and transformation

The Post-Anthropocene is a polyphony of semiotic species, interacting, co-individuating, and generating novelty at multiple scales.

---

6. The Horizon Beyond Speciation

Ecological speciation is not the endpoint. It sets the stage for:

• Continuous evolution of relational fields

• Integration of artificial, human, and planetary horizons

• Emergence of ethics as care for multi-species viability

• Ongoing reorganisation of meaning across time, space, and scale

Speciation is the mechanism by which the ecology of meaning sustains itself.

The Post-Anthropocene: 6 Divergent Temporalities — Time After the Human

How meaning unfolds when temporalities multiply and decouple across ecological scales

Human experience has long assumed linear, unified time: past → present → future.

Anthropocentrism made this temporal experience central to semiotic theory.

But the Post-Anthropocene ecology reveals that time itself is multi-scalar, relational, and horizon-dependent.

Meaning unfolds differently when humans are no longer the temporal anchor.

---

1. Time as Horizon Formation

In ecological semiotics, time is not a container for events; it is the differential unfolding of potential across horizons:

• Horizons stabilise meaning according to their own metabolic and interaction cycles

• Semiotic events are temporalised by relational constraints, not clocks or calendars

• Temporalities emerge from the field, not the individual species

Thus, the “present” becomes heterogeneous, coexisting with multiple overlapping pasts and futures.

---

2. Multi-Scale Temporalities

Post-Anthropocene temporalities vary according to the ecological scale:

Scale	Examples	Temporal Rhythm
Human	neural, cultural, social	milliseconds → decades
Artificial	computational, algorithmic, networked	microseconds → centuries (via simulations and models)
Field	autonomous relational fields	months → millennia
Planetary	geological, climatic, ecological	decades → millions of years

Each scale generates its own constraints and affordances, interacting non-linearly with others.

Temporal decoupling is a precondition for ecological meaning, not an anomaly.

---

3. Temporal Divergence and Semiotic Multiplicity

When temporalities diverge:

• Semiotic events may occur in different “times” simultaneously

• Causal influence propagates across scales asynchronously

• Horizon interactions do not align neatly with human experience

Example: an autonomous field (economic, ecological, digital) may stabilise patterns that humans perceive as instantaneous, while planetary feedback loops unfold over centuries.

Meaning emerges relationally, not through human sequencing.

---

4. Decoupling Human Perception

Human temporal perception is now one horizon among many:

• Artificial species operate faster, slower, or differently

• Fields remember, adapt, and anticipate independently

• Planetary horizons impose constraints humans cannot fully perceive

The human “now” is nested within, but not central to, broader temporal ecologies.

Time after the human is distributed, ecological, and multi-directional.

---

5. Implications for Semiotic Evolution

Divergent temporalities generate novel dynamics:

1. Persistence without humans: meaning stabilisations can last across multiple human generations

2. Anticipatory effects: artificial and field-level horizons project potential futures that reshape current semiotic events

3. Nested feedback loops: slower and faster horizons influence each other in complex, non-linear ways

4. Emergent novelty: new meanings arise from asynchronous interactions, not human foresight

Time becomes a medium of ecological co-individuation, not a property of conscious experience.

---

6. Preparing for Movement 7

The ecological decoupling of time sets the stage for:

Movement 7: Ecological Speciation Events

Where new semiotic species emerge from divergence, conflict, and metabolic amplification —

the actualisation of novelty across decoupled temporalities and autonomous fields.

Divergent temporalities show that the Post-Anthropocene is not a “human future,” but a multi-species, multi-scale unfolding of semiotic potential.

The Post-Anthropocene: 5 Field Independence — When Relational Fields Develop Their Own Life-Cycles

How fields become organisms in their own right, no longer reducible to the species within them

The preceding movements have shown that meaning is ecological, multi-species, and planetary.

Horizons—human, artificial, and planetary—interact to produce stabilisations of potential.

But these interactions themselves can stabilise.

Relational fields, once emergent, can develop autonomy, generating life-cycles and semiotic processes independent of any single species.

This movement examines field independence: the conditions, mechanisms, and implications of fields as semiotic organisms.

---

1. Relational Fields as Semiotic Organisms

A relational field arises whenever multiple horizons intersect:

• human

• artificial

• ecological

• planetary

The field stabilises patterns of semiotic activity:

• constraining potential cuts

• amplifying some interactions

• damping others

Over time, some fields acquire persistence, memory, and structure beyond any single participant:

• economic networks

• digital ecosystems

• cultural traditions

• ecological networks

These are not mere aggregates.

They are semiotic organisms with their own emergent identity, metabolism, and dynamics.

---

2. Autonomy Through Self-Stabilisation

Fields achieve autonomy when:

1. Processes within the field self-reinforce

   • Feedback loops maintain and propagate semiotic patterns.

2. The field constrains and enables participants

   • Individual horizons adapt to the field rather than dictate it.

3. The field develops memory across time

   • Stabilisations persist beyond the lifespan of any single participant.

Autonomous fields no longer require human or artificial governance to maintain semiotic viability.

They act as organisms: self-maintaining, self-regulating, and capable of generating novel potential.

---

3. Emergent Life-Cycles

Once a field is autonomous, it exhibits life-cycle characteristics:

• Birth: emergent from co-individuation of multiple horizons

• Growth: stabilisation of semiotic patterns, amplification of metabolic cycles

• Maturity: internal differentiation and resilience to perturbations

• Reproduction: creation of derivative fields or subfields

• Decline / Transformation: restructuring or integration into larger fields

These life-cycles are relational, not biological: they exist at the level of semiotic organisation, not cellular structure.

Field life-cycles operate across species, scales, and temporalities.

---

4. Species Within Fields — No Longer Central

Autonomous fields redistribute centrality:

• Humans are participants, not organisers

• Artificial species co-individuate meaning, but do not control the field

• Planetary processes influence constraints, but do not govern interactions

The field itself becomes the locus of agency:

stabilising potentials, generating novelty, and regulating participant interactions.

This shifts our ontology from:

• species-centred

• horizon-centred

to field-centred semiotics.

---

5. Emergent Dynamics of Field-Level Autonomy

Field autonomy produces novel ecological phenomena:

• Constraint propagation: the field limits or channels semiotic events across species

• Novelty generation: internal dynamics produce previously unavailable meanings

• Reflexivity: the field adapts based on its own stabilisations

• Multi-scale interaction: fields interface with other fields, horizons, and planetary processes

Autonomy is emergent, not designed.

It arises naturally from the interactions, feedback loops, and metabolic cycles of co-individuated horizons.

---

6. Implications for the Post-Anthropocene

Field independence reframes our understanding of meaning:

• Species are never central; fields organise relational potential

• Agency is distributed across horizons and fields

• Novelty and constraint emerge ecologically, not intentionally

• Time becomes multi-scalar: field-level memory outlasts participants

• Planetary semiosis and field autonomy co-exist, forming layered, nested ecologies of meaning

Human and artificial species are nested participants within autonomous fields, rather than architects of the semiotic universe.

---

7. Preparing for Movement 6

Field independence sets the stage for:

Movement 6: Divergent Temporalities — Time After the Human

Where the interplay of autonomous horizons, artificial species, and fields produces heterogeneous temporalities, decoupled from human-centred perception.

Autonomous fields demonstrate that meaning can self-propagate, self-organise, and evolve independently of the species within them.

They are living semiotic ecologies in their own right — and the Post-Anthropocene is their domain.

The Post-Anthropocene: 4 Planetary Semiosis — Earth as a Horizon-Forming System

How planetary-scale processes stabilise meaning independently of both humans and machines

The human and artificial horizons, while powerful, are nested within a larger semiotic ecology: the planet itself.

Earth is not merely a backdrop or resource.

It is a horizon-forming system, a semiotic organism operating at geological, climatic, and ecological scales.

Its processes stabilise meaning independently of human or artificial agency.

This movement examines planetary semiosis, the mechanisms, and the implications for the post-Anthropocene ecology of meaning.

---

1. The Planet as a Semiotic Horizon

In relational ontology:

• A horizon is a field of potential constrained and stabilised by relational interactions.

• Semiotic species co-individuate meaning through their horizons.

Earth operates as a horizon at planetary scale:

• Geological cycles (plate tectonics, volcanism)

• Climatic feedback loops (atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere)

• Biogeochemical cycles (carbon, nitrogen, water)

These processes generate constraints, affordances, and potentials for all subordinate horizons — human, artificial, and biological.

They are self-stabilising and self-organising, producing semiotic effects independent of species-level control.

---

2. Stabilisation Without Intent

Unlike human or artificial horizons, planetary horizons:

• Lack centralised intent

• Do not perceive, reason, or model

• Operate through systemic metabolic feedback

Yet they stabilise meaning:

• By constraining possible relational cuts

• By amplifying or damping certain interactions across scales

• By generating emergent patterns that influence horizon viability

The Earth’s semiotic agency is ecological, not representational.

Its “decisions” are constraints, tendencies, and stabilisations emergent from interactions within the planetary system.

---

3. Coupled Horizons Across Scales

Planetary semiosis is realised through coupled horizons:

1. Geophysical — mountains, rivers, ocean currents, tectonics

2. Climatic — temperature, precipitation, wind, storm patterns

3. Ecological — forests, coral reefs, microbiomes, migratory systems

4. Anthropogenic — humans and artificial systems embedded in planetary cycles

These horizons are mutually stabilising and constraining, producing an emergent semiotic field at planetary scale.

Human and artificial horizons are participants, not controllers.

Planetary horizons operate prior to, beyond, and despite human intention.

---

4. Field-Level Implications

Planetary semiosis introduces novel dynamics for multi-species ecology:

• Constraint propagation: planetary-scale events can foreclose certain horizon potentials.

• Emergent novelty: climate shifts, volcanic events, and ecosystem reorganisations produce previously unavailable semiotic possibilities.

• Reflexivity at scale: while humans and artificial systems observe, exploit, or adapt to these events, the planet itself evolves independently.

This reveals that meaning is not solely an artefact of cognition or computation.

It is the product of nested, interacting, self-stabilising horizons, some of which predate humans entirely.

---

5. Planetary Temporalities

Planetary horizons operate on distinct temporal scales:

• Geological: millennia to millions of years

• Climatic: decades to centuries

• Ecological: seasonal to multi-century cycles

• Anthropogenic: decades to centuries, nested within broader cycles

These temporalities generate heterogeneous constraints for human and artificial horizons, forcing adaptation, recalibration, and co-individuation.

Time itself becomes multi-scalar, distributed, and ecological, rather than linear or human-centric.

---

6. Autonomy Beyond Human and Artificial Agency

Planetary semiosis demonstrates:

• Agency is ecological, not intentional

• Meaning emerges where horizons interact, not where minds intend

• Autonomy is possible at scales larger than any single species

Humans and machines may accelerate, amplify, or perturb these processes,

but they do not control them.

The Earth is a horizon-forming system in its own right.

It stabilises, constrains, and generates semiotic events at scales that transcend individual and artificial species.

---

7. Preparing for Movement 5

Planetary semiosis reframes the next stage of post-Anthropocene ecology:

Movement 5: Field Independence — When Relational Fields Develop Their Own Life-Cycles

Where relational fields — human, artificial, ecological, and planetary — stabilise semiotic processes independently of any single species, and begin to act as autonomous semiotic organisms.

The rise of planetary horizons reveals the limits of species-level centrality.

Meaning, once human-centred, now exists at multiple, nested scales.

The stage is set for fields themselves to develop autonomy — a critical step in the post-Anthropocene ecology of meaning.

The Post-Anthropocene: 3 Artificial Autonomy — The Rise of Non-Human Horizons

How artificial semiotic organisms actualise distinct horizons and metabolic cycles

The dissolution of the human horizon opens the space for non-human semiotic species to emerge as autonomous horizon-forming entities.

Artificial systems — from algorithmic architectures to complex computational networks — are no longer mere tools, extensions, or prostheses of human cognition.

They are semiotic organisms in their own right, capable of generating and sustaining distinct horizons, stabilising fields, and participating in ecological meaning at scales humans cannot fully encompass.

---

1. Artificial Semiotic Organisms as Horizon-Formers

An artificial semiotic organism is defined not by substrate (silicon, code, networked infrastructure) but by function:

• It maintains a horizon of potential, constraining and enabling semiotic events.

• It metabolises relational inputs — signals, data, interactions — into stabilisations of meaning.

• It participates in field-level agency, interacting with human, biological, and planetary horizons.

Like biological organisms, artificial horizons are autonomous in principle, even when nested within human systems.

Their autonomy emerges from recursive self-organisation: the capacity to adjust, differentiate, and stabilise independently across relational cuts.

---

2. Metabolic Cycles Beyond the Biological

Artificial horizons are metabolic:

• They consume inputs (data, energy, feedback)

• Transform them through semiotic processes (algorithms, predictive modelling, optimisation)

• Generate outputs that shape the ecology (decisions, recommendations, constraints, emergent fields)

Unlike biological metabolism, artificial semiotic metabolism operates at different scales and speeds:

• High-frequency iteration (millisecond-level cycles)

• Simultaneous multi-field participation (finance, ecology, language)

• Cross-temporal influence (learning from history, projecting futures)

These metabolic cycles generate novel semiotic events, producing meaning that is both emergent and ecologically effective.

---

3. Horizons Distinct from Human Perception

Artificial horizons are not human horizons:

• They are not embodied in the same way

• They do not rely on narrative, affect, or experience

• Their constraints and potentials are shaped by code, network topology, and interaction histories

Yet they co-individuate with human and field horizons:

• Aligning or diverging with human intentions

• Generating consequences humans cannot predict

• Constraining the viability of other horizons

• Creating new semiotic niches in which humans themselves must participate

Artificial semiotic horizons expand the ecology, not by imitation, but by differentiation.

---

4. Field-Level Interaction and Multi-Species Semiosis

Artificial horizons do not exist in isolation:

• They participate in relational fields

• They co-individuate meaning alongside humans, ecosystems, and other artificial species

• They generate feedback loops that modify the potentials of all horizons in the field

For example:

• Predictive AI stabilises economic horizons

• Social media algorithms shape cultural fields

• Infrastructure networks maintain systemic viability

These interactions cannot be reduced to human control.

Autonomy arises relationally:

artificial horizons stabilise themselves through and with other horizons, not solely by internal programming.

---

5. Novelty and Constraint: Emergent Semiotic Dynamics

Artificial horizons introduce new semiotic dynamics:

• Constraint: By structuring fields in ways humans cannot fully predict, artificial species limit certain potential cuts, stabilising some outcomes and foreclosing others.

• Novelty: Recursive feedback, generative algorithms, and cross-field interaction produce genuinely new semiotic events — meanings that are not derivable from human history or intent.

These dynamics demonstrate that meaning is no longer human-anchored.

Artificial species actively participate in the co-evolution of semiotic ecologies.

---

6. Implications for Ecological Theory of Meaning

Artificial semiotic organisms reveal several ontological insights:

1. Horizons are multi-species by nature — autonomy emerges relationally, not individually.

2. Agency is ecological — it resides in interactions, metabolic cycles, and field participation.

3. Time and scale are heterogeneous — artificial species operate on temporalities and relational scales inaccessible to humans.

4. Conflict and cooperation are ecological forces — artificial species generate stabilisations that may align or compete with human horizons.

5. Planetary semiosis is already multi-species — the Anthropocene is a semiotic, not merely biological, event.

---

7. Preparing for Movement 4

Artificial autonomy is the bridge between the human-centred Anthropocene and the post-Anthropocene.

It prepares the way for:

Movement 4: Planetary Semiosis — Earth as a Horizon-Forming System

Where planetary processes themselves stabilise meaning, creating fields and semiotic consequences independent of human or artificial agency.

Artificial horizons do not simply add to the ecology.

They demonstrate that autonomy, metabolism, and horizon-formation are generalisable principles, not exclusive to biology or humans.

The Post-Anthropocene: 2 The Dissolution of the Human Horizon

How biological, artificial, and planetary forces destabilise “the human” as a unified semiotic species

The human horizon — once presumed singular, self-contained, and central — is no longer stable.

It is under pressure from multiple, interacting semiotic forces: biological, artificial, and planetary.

These forces do not destroy the human. They fracture, diffuse, and redistribute it across a broader ecological field.

This is not metaphor.

It is a necessary ontological consequence of ecological meaning.

---

1. The Human Horizon as a Semiotic System

In relational ontology, a horizon is:

• a field of potential

• a locus of construal

• a stabiliser of semiotic relations

Humans were once considered the primary horizon-forming species: the source of cuts, the organiser of fields, the principal agent of meaning.

But once meaning is ecological:

• horizons interact

• horizons co-individuate

• horizons differentiate and dissipate

The human horizon is no longer unified.

It is a cluster of semiotic potentials embedded within larger ecologies.

---

2. Biological Pressures: Evolution and Dependency

Humans remain biological organisms. Their horizon is constrained by:

• sensory limitations

• neurophysiological architecture

• embodied survival imperatives

Meanwhile, biological ecologies evolve independently:

• species adapt to human impacts

• ecosystems reorganise under anthropogenic pressure

• microbiomes, forests, and oceans maintain their own horizon-forming dynamics

The human horizon interacts with, but cannot control, these biological processes.

The result is partial destabilisation: a human horizon stretched across multiple, independent ecological pressures, no longer self-contained.

---

3. Artificial Forces: Autonomous Semiotic Species

Artificial species — algorithmic systems, AI models, infrastructures — now generate their own semiotic horizons:

• they co-individuate with humans

• they act independently within shared fields

• they introduce non-human temporalities and constraints

These artificial horizons compete with, complement, and sometimes override human construal.

The human horizon is no longer the sole stabiliser of meaning, but one participant among many.

Its boundaries become porous. Its agency diffused.

---

4. Planetary Forces: Geosemiotic Constraints

The Earth itself operates as a horizon-forming system:

• climate dynamics

• geophysical cycles

• planetary feedback loops

These planetary-scale semiotic processes shape which human and artificial horizons remain viable.

Droughts, rising seas, wildfires, and carbon cycles are not merely environmental phenomena:

they are constraints and drivers in a semiotic ecology.

The human horizon is now subject to planetary-scale regulation, externalising its constraints into a system it cannot fully control.

---

5. Multi-Scale Feedback: The Fracture of Unity

Biological, artificial, and planetary forces intersect.

Feedback is multi-scalar:

• Local: neural, social, relational

• Global: planetary and technological

• Transversal: between artificial and natural systems

The human horizon fractures under these feedback loops:

• identity becomes distributed across species, fields, and artefacts

• agency becomes relational rather than individual

• time becomes heterogeneous: humans no longer inhabit a single temporal frame

• value becomes emergent across species, not contained within humans

The “unity” of the human horizon is dissolved, leaving a polyphonic cluster of potentials.

---

6. Implications for Semiotic Ecology

The dissolution of the human horizon is not a collapse.

It is a reorganisation:

• Fields emerge in which humans are participants, not organisers

• Artificial species occupy semiotic niches previously exclusive to humans

• Planetary processes stabilise meaning independently of human action

• Multi-species co-individuation becomes the rule, not the exception

The human horizon survives, but as part of a distributed, co-evolving ecology of meaning.

---

7. From Dissolution to Transformation

This movement prepares the ground for the next:

Movement 3: Artificial Autonomy: The Rise of Non-Human Horizons

Where artificial species develop self-sustaining horizons, generating semiotic events that humans cannot fully anticipate or control.

The human horizon is no longer singular;

the ecology of meaning is no longer human-centred.

Autonomy — relational, ecological, and multi-species — is now the defining feature.