During the last few decades, Science Studies has tried to redefine

the concept of nature according to our present period, its knowledge

and technologies.1 This task has not only meant a reshaping of

our understanding of scientific disciplines related to nature, like

biology or physics, but it has also provoked some social, cultural

and political debate. In general terms, we could consider that these

consequences have been channeled through two main perspectives,

one that can be labeled as “global” or “totalizing,” and another one

that can be understood as “particular” or “differential.”2 However,

constructing the argument from the opposite perspective, it is also

true that most of the socio-cultural preoccupations posed by Science

Studies have been reflected in contemporary society. If Michel Serres

or Edgar Morin posed the question of constructing a consciousness

of the unity of the Earth, its ecological biodiversity and our anthropo-

biophysical status within it (what they call the becoming of the

Planetary Age and our terrestrial destiny), then nothing fuels these

perceptions more than the social consciousness of totality inspired by

our Digital Culture-from the data transmission during the Cold War

to mass media and the Internet.3 Likewise, if Donna Haraway or Peter

Sloterdijk have posed the question of redefining the contemporary

subject and its environment in terms of human and non-human being,

then the present anxieties of the contemporary subject-with his or

her techno-scientific consciousness dissolved in fluxes of data, genes

and memes-feed this contemporary metaphysics.4