Notes

1. McLuhan, “At the Moment of Sputnik.”

2. There is an extensive literature across multiple disciplines on “whole earth” imagery. For example, see Cosgrove, “Contested Global Visions”; Jasanoff, “Image and Imagination”; Poole, Earthrise; Diederichsen and Frank, The Whole Earth.

3. Committee on Scientific Accomplishments of Earth Observations from Space, National Research Council, Earth Observations from Space, 15.

4. New York Times, “Sputnik’s Legacy.”

5. Tikhonravov, “The Creation of the First Artificial Earth Satellite.”

6. Mack, Viewing the Earth. For a discussion of satellites in relation to the televisual, see Parks, Cultures in Orbit.

7. The complete text for the Kodak advertisement reads, “The whole earth from a business viewpoint,” and details the boundless capacity of satellite sensing technology: “Aerial photographic surveillance started as an art of war. Now it has found work in help-ing mankind make a better peace with his environment. Kodak Products, for example, monitor dangerous ice on the sea, as well as the health of lakes, and the readiness of hillsides to slide down. Snow fields as fresh water sources are inventoried, as are fishing grounds off continental coasts. Aerial photography also measures social phenomena. Our color-infrared film has been found capable of providing accurate estimates of number of families in areas of high population density. Statistics in the public library may lag behind population shifts. Business decisions require fresh, solid facts. We have customers who can pick economic facts out of the air—from an appropriate altitude. Decision-makers who wish to get in touch with such people should write Eastman Kodak Company.” Cited in Horowitz, “Domestic Communications Satellites,” 38.

8. Ibid. As Horowitz notes in this article, rather than serving ecological and public interests, primarily, “the principal contractors for NASA’s Earth Resources Technology Satellite, launched last July (1972) to identify sources of environmental pollution and monitor mineral resources, are General Electric and Eastman Kodak”; and “one prospective satellite owner, RCA Globcom, has already noted in its satellite plan to the FCC that it intends to make satellite facilities available to the mining and petroleum industries.”

9. For a discussion of how “informational globalism” coincides with “infrastructural globalism,” see Edwards, A Vast Machine, 23–25.

10. McLuhan, “At the Moment of Sputnik,” 49. Sputnik was launched October 4, 1957, rather than October 17, 1957, as cited in this instance.

11. Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 56.

12. Ibid., 152; Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 60; Lamarre, “Afterword,” 92.

13. Berkeley, “Edmund C. Berkeley Papers.”

14. Welsh, “Sensor Networks, Circa 1967.”

15. Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century,” 98.

16. Ibid., 94.

17. Helmers, “Creating Sensors”; Hsu, Kahn, and Pister, “Wireless Communications for Smart Dust”; Postscapes, “A Brief History.”

18. Gross, “The Earth.”

19. Ibid.

20. John Parkinson, chief technologist of Ernst & Young, quoted in Gross, “The Earth.”

21. Toshitada Doi, chairman of Sony Corporation’s Digital Creatures Lab, quoted in Gross, “The Earth.”

22. Arthur, “Smartphone Explosion in 2014”; Thomas, “Smartphones Set to Become Even Smarter.”

23. IBM, “The Internet of Things.”

24. Ibid.

25. Evans, “The Internet of Things.” For a discussion of the things in the Internet of Things, see Gabrys, “Re-thingifying the Internet of Things.”

26. Bradley et al., “Internet of Everything (IoE) Value Index”; Cisco, “Internet of Everything.”

27. Chan, “IPv6.”

28. Intel, “What Does the Internet of Things Mean?”

29. For instance, see Scottish Sensor Systems Centre.

30. Wilson, Sensor Technology Handbook; O’Sullivan and Igoe, Sensing and Controlling. See also Gertz and Di Justo, Environmental Monitoring with Arduino.

31. Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century,” 78.

32. Combes, Gilbert Simondon; Simondon, L’individuation à la lumière.

33. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 31 and 67–88 passim.

34. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 163–64.

35. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 5–24.

36. Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 149, 222; Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 62.

37. Neumann, “First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC.”

38. As Combes writes, “Simondon’s approach entails a substitution of ontogenesis for traditional ontology, grasping the genesis of individuals within the operation of individuation as it is unfolding.” See Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 3.

39. Hayles, My Mother Was a Computer, 17–31.

40. For instance, see Cox, Speaking Code.

41. Mackenzie, Cutting Code, 169; Gabrys, Digital Rubbish.

42. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life.

43. For example, see Foucault, Security, Territory, Population.

44. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 78; Lamarre, “Afterword”; Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 55–56.

45. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 94, 112; Whitehead, Process and Reality, 15, 41.

46. Simondon, “The Genesis of the Individual,” 306.

47. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 4.

48. Ibid., 19.

49. Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture; Höhler, “‘Spaceship Earth.’”

50. Heise, Sense of Place and Sense of Planet.

51. Edwards, Vast Machine, 25.

52. Ibid., xix.

53. Guattari, Schizoanalytic Cartographies, 11–12.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid., 6.

56. McLuhan, “At the Moment of Sputnik,” 49.

57. For example, see E. Odum, Ecology; H. Odum, Environment, Power and Society; Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind.

58. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs and Women, 164.

59. There is a rich literature that explores the ways in which cybernetics and information theory have influenced understandings of and approaches to ecologies (and systems, more generally). See, for instance, Haraway, “The High Cost of Information”; Taylor, “Technocratic Optimism”; Elichirigoity, Planet Management; Martin, “Environment c. 1973”; Bowker, “How to Be Universal.”

60. For an overview of the area of these media-ecological distinctions, see Fuller, Media Ecologies.

61. See, for instance, Hörl, The Ecological Paradigm.

62. Guattari, The Three Ecologies.

63. See Fuller, Media Ecologies, 4.

64. Massumi discusses the “becoming-environmental of power” in relation to Foucault’s exposition of environmentality. I take up this specific use of becoming-environmental of power in chapter 7 of Program Earth in relation to smart cities. Here, however, I draw on Whitehead and Simondon to develop an expanded notion of the becoming environmental of computation through the individuations and concrescences generated through environmental sensors. See Massumi, “National Enterprise Emergency”; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics.

65. Gabrys, “Atmospheres of Communication.”

66. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish.

67. “Civic science” is a term from Fortun and Fortun, “Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus.” “Street science” is a term used by Corburn in Street Science. See also Burke et al., “Participatory Sensing.”

68. For example, see Goodchild, “Citizens as Sensors.”

69. For example, see Paulos, Honicky, and Hooker, “Citizen Science”; Aoki et al., “A Vehicle for Research.”

70. The most commonly referenced platform for environmental data is one that has been in continual transformation. First taking the form of Pachube, as developed by Usman Haque, this platform was subsequently developed as an open yet commercially based structure in the form of Cosm and has now become a more commercial and subscription-led platform rebranded as Xively. The development and migration of this platform from an open community to a commercial enterprise is a topic that could be researched and analyzed at length. However, there is not room here to deal in depth with how environmental sense data are aggregated, presented, and made accessible—or commercialized—in online platforms.

71. Key citizen-science research within science and technology studies includes (but is not limited to): Irwin, Citizen Science; Irwin and Michael, Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge; Jasanoff, “Technologies of Humility”; Ellis and Waterton, “Environmental Citizenship in the Making”; Wynne, “May the Sheep Graze Safely?”

72. Bratton and Jeremijenko, “Suspicious Images, Latent Interfaces.”

73. The work of Kim Fortun is relevant here in thinking about how the “informating of environmentalism” takes place. See Fortun, “Biopolitics and the Informating of Environmentalism.” At the same time, I read Fortun’s work alongside Simondon, who in a less epistemological register considers how in-forming and in-formation are processes of exchanging material and energy, of taking form, and of giving shape to individuals and environments. See Simondon, L’individuation à la lumière, and Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 5–6. I discuss this concept in more detail throughout this study, particularly in chapter 4.

74. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 176. Latour and Stengers take up Whitehead’s notion of concern to discuss “matters of fact” and “matters of concern.” For instance, see Latour, “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?”; Stengers, “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality.”

75. Mackenzie, Wirelessness; Greenfield and Shepard, “Urban Computing and Its Discontents.”

76. Hayles, “RFID”; Kitchin and Dodge, Code/Space; de Souza e Silva and Frith, Mobile Interfaces in Public Spaces.

77. Dourish and Bell, Divining a Digital Future.

78. Ekman, Throughout.

79. Foth et al., From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen.

80. Boler, ed., Digital Media and Democracy; Jenkins and Thorburn, eds., Democracy and New Media; Delwiche and Henderson, eds., The Participatory Cultures Handbook; Ratto and Boler, DIY Citizenship.

81. Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope; Earl and Kimport, Digitally Enabled Social Change; Feenberg and Barney, Community in the Digital Age; Rainie and Wellman, Networked.

82. Dean, Anderson, and Lovink, Reformatting Politics; Lovink, Networks without a Cause; Raley, Tactical Media.

83. Approaches to the more-than-human registers and materialities of participation have been attended to and developed across a wide range of feminist technoscience literature. One key reference here is Barad, “Posthumanist Performativity.” See also Suchman, “Agencies in Technology Design.” Haraway also develops this approach, drawing on Whitehead’s notion of “misplaced concreteness,” where she works beyond the abstractions of primary and secondary qualities to consider the expanded ways in which the materialities and practices of technoscience are situated. See Haraway, Modest_Witness, 269.

84. Stengers, “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality.”

85. For example, see McCullough, Ambient Commons.

86. Latour, Pandora’s Hope; Stengers, The Invention of Modern Science.

1. Stengers, “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality,” 109.

2. Ekman, Throughout.

3. Akyildiz et al., “A Survey on Sensor Networks”; Pottie and Kaiser, “Wireless Integrated Network Sensors”; Cuff, Hansen, and Kang, “Urban Sensing: Out of the Woods.”

4. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88–89.

5. Stengers, “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality,” 99.

6. As N. Katherine Hayles writes in relation to distributed cognition of RFID tags, “When we understand that humans are not the only cognizers who can interpret information and create meaning, we are free to imagine how a world rich in embodied contextual processes might be fashioned to enhance the distributed cognitive systems that surround us and that we ourselves are.” While this research is influenced by this important more-than-human media perspective that moves beyond human-centered approaches to computational technology, here I am interested to bring Whitehead into this discussion of distributions of sensing, not in order to emphasize cognition (with its potential connection to consciousness), but rather to expand upon experience as a key way of drawing together multiple sensing entities. See Hayles, “RFID,” 69.

7. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 20.

8. Ibid., 88.

9. Stengers elaborates on this sense of “tuning” within experiments, and writes, “The idea that experimentation appeals to facts as they are observed by means of experimental appliances only refers to the stabilized end-product of a difficult operation. As Andrew Pickering (1995) marvelously characterized it, in his Mangle of Practice, experimenters may well know in advance what they want to achieve—what, for instance, their appliance should detect. However, a long process of tuning will nevertheless be needed, within which nothing will be trusted, neither the human hypothesis nor the observations made. Indeed, the process of tuning works both ways, on human as well as on more-than-human agency, constitutively intertwining a double process of emergence, of a disciplined human agency and of a captured material agency.” Stengers, “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality,” 96.

10. Stengers, “The Cosmopolitical Proposal.”

11. Benson, Wired Wilderness.

12. Estrin, “Reflections on Wireless Sensing Systems.”

13. Center for Embedded Networked Sensing (CENS), Annual Progress Report.

14. Tolle et al., “A Macroscope in the Redwoods”; Elson and Estrin, “Sensor Networks.”

15. This chapter focuses on sensor applications for ecological study. However, this by no means covers the entirety of sensor applications for environmental uses and beyond, including agricultural management and energy saving in buildings. A whole range of automated environments is emerging through sensor applications, some of which are addressed in this study.

16. Szewczyk et al., “An Analysis of a Large Scale Habitat.”

17. The U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER); National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON).

18. Edwards et al., “Introduction”; Schimel et al., “2011 Science Strategy.”

19. Microsoft Research, “SenseWeb.” As mentioned in an introductory note, Cosm, which was formerly named Pachube, became a fee-based service in the form of Xively, and so is now less oriented toward DIY engagements. See also Thingful for a map of devices connected to the Internet.

20. Lehning et al., “Instrumenting the Earth.”

21. Nokia, “Sensor Planet”; IBM, “A Smarter Planet”; HP Labs, “Central Nervous System for the Earth (CeNSE)”; Planetary Skin Institute.

22. For a discussion of the multiple actors invested in ubiquitous computing, including governments, see Nold and van Kranenburg, “The Internet of People.”

23. While there is not space within this chapter to discuss these developments within sensor systems, for a more extensive discussion of how emerging sensing technologies and practices might be understood as forms of environmentality, see chapter 7 of Program Earth, “Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City.”

24. For a discussion of earlier attempts to program environments with sensors through the prototypical if largely hypothetical technology of smart dust, see Gabrys, “Telepathically Urban.”

25. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), “Annual Progress Report,” 3.

26. Mackenzie discusses this issue of how relations or itineraries are drawn through software in Cutting Code. See also Fuller, Behind the Blip.

27. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), “Annual Progress Report,” 3.

28. Latour, Science in Action.

29. Hamilton et al., “New Approaches.”

30. Goldman et al., “Distributed Sensing Systems,” 3.

31. Rundel et al., “Tansley Review.”

32. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), “Terrestrial Ecology Observing Systems.”

33. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), “Annual Progress Report,” 6.

34. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), “Center for Embedded Networked Sensing,” 5.

35. Estrin, “Reflections on Wireless Sensing Systems,” 2.

36. Goldman et al., “Distributed Sensing Systems,” 12.

37. Elson and Estrin, “Sensor Networks,” 2.

38. Ibid., 7.

39. Ibid., 10.

40. Ibid., 7.

41. Inevitably, incompatibilities within data sets are not the only issues with sensors. Given that the embedded sensors are prototypes and tested “in the wild,” the devices at times cease to function as intended, whether due to mechanical failure, calibration issues, or bugs in the code. Given that the CENS project has also come to an end, some sensors may cease to function and break down over time. For a more extended discussion on the material processes of electronics as they break down, see Gabrys, Digital Rubbish.

42. Bowker, “Biodiversity Datadiversity.” For a detailed discussion of data issues that have emerged specifically in relation to the CENS project, see Borgman, Wallis, and Enyedy, “Little Science Confronts the Data Deluge.”

43. Roth and Bowen, “Digitizing Lizards.”

44. Goldman et al., “Distributed Sensing Systems,” 10.

45. Tolle et al., “A Macroscope in the Woods.”

46. Goldman et al., “Distributed Sensing Systems,” 6.

47. Ibid., 19, emphasis in original.

48. Estrin, “Reflections on Wireless Sensing Systems,” 2.

49. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), “Annual Progress Report,” 29.

50. Hyman, Graham, and Hansen, “Imagers as Sensors.”

51. Hayles, “RFID,” 48–49.

52. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 180–81; Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 30, 157.

53. Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century.”

54. Turing, “Intelligent Machinery,” 117.

55. Ibid.

56. Whitehead, Modes of Thought; Massumi, Semblance and Event.

57. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 158; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 352–53.

58. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 138.

59. Ibid., 158. And as Stengers writes, “We do not know how a bat, armed with its sonar, or a dog, capable of tracking by smell, perceive ‘their’ world. We can identify the features they discriminate, but we can only dream of the contrast between ‘that which’ they perceive and what they are aware of. All we ‘know’ is that their experience is, like ours, highly interpretative, and that, like ours, it has solved an extraordinarily delicate problem: to give access, in a more or less reliable way, to what it is important to pay attention to.” Paying attention is “the interpretative choice from which our experience has issued.” Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 338.

60. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88.

61. Shaviro, Without Criteria, 21.

62. While this notion of distributed experience can be found within Whitehead’s writings, it also is a prior concept developed by William James in relation to radical empiricism. Adrian Mackenzie takes up the latter concept in relation to wirelessness to discuss how wireless technologies unfold these distributions of experience. See James, Essays in Radical Empiricism; Mackenzie, Wirelessness.

63. For a more extended discussion on the development of “facticity,” see Halewood and Michael, “Being a Sociologist,” 34; Stengers, “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality.”

64. Thanks are due to Mike Michael for conversations that have led to these points.

65. Simondon develops the ontogenetic aspects of individuals and experience at length. For a discussion of this work, see Combes, Gilbert Simondon.

66. Parisi, “Technoecologies of Sensation and Control.” See also Guattari, Chaosmosis.

67. Clough, “The New Empiricism,” 51.

68. Helmreich, “Intimate Sensing,” 130–32.

69. Goodwin, “Seeing in Depth.”

70. Foucault, The Order of Things; Kittler, “Thinking Colors and/or Machines”; Hayles, “Computing the Human”; Parikka, Insect Media; Fuller, “Boxes towards Bananas.”

71. Hayles, “RFID.”

72. Braidotti, Transpositions, 41. See also Guattari, Chaosmosis.

73. Braidotti, Transpositions, 96–97.

74. Whitehead, Modes of Thought; Uexküll, A Foray; Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics.

75. Uexküll, A Foray, 44–46.

76. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 20–21.

77. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 89–90.

78. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 58.

79. Shaviro, Without Criteria, 25.

80. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 238.

81. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics.

82. Citizen-sensing applications have emerged through the James Reserve sensor research. See Cuff, Hansen, and Kang, “Urban Sensing”; Estrin, “Reflections on Wireless Sensing Systems.”

1. For just one of many examples, see BBC England, “Webcams: Animals.”

2. GlobalWarming.House.Gov., “Oil Spill in the Gulf.”

3. Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 56.

4. For example, see Haraway, “Introduction.”

5. This committee was disbanded in 2011. See Sheppard, “Republicans Kill Global Warming Committee.”

6. Markey, Edward Markey to Lamar McKay.

7. Interspecies Internet is a project proposed by rock star Peter Gabriel in collaboration with cognitive psychology and animal intelligence researchers, as well as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf. The “user group” for this worldwide network consists of animals in zoos, which are accessed via webcams. See Interspecies Internet.

8. O’Connell, Nichols, and Karanth, eds., Camera Traps in Animal Ecology.

9. BBC News, “Secret Life of the Cat.” Human-oriented wearable camera technology has also been in use for some time, from Microsoft’s SenseCam, which sought to create “a photographic memory for everyone,” to the recently discontinued Google Glasses.

10. WildlifeTV, “Wildlife Webcams.”

11. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Macaulay Library.

12. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, “All about Birds.”

13. As stated by Charles Eldermire, Bird Cams project leader at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, on “Critter Cams Viewers Becoming Citizen Scientists.”

14. Ocean Networks Canada, “Teen Spots Hagfish-Slurping Elephant Seal.” The particular discovery in this case was brought forward by a Ukrainian teenage boy who emailed a clip of a hagfish being consumed by an unknown creature in deep underwater spaces. As it turns out, a female elephant seal was the creature eating the hagfish, which had not been previously observed by scientists, as hagfish not only inhabit deep ocean spaces, but were also assumed to be inedible. See http://www.oceannetworks.ca and http://digitalfishers.net for more information on Ocean Networks Canada’s citizen-science initiatives.

15. Just a few examples of research that analyzes science and visuality include Haraway, Modest_Witness; Daston and Galison, Objectivity; Mody, “The Sounds of Science.”

16. Mitman, “When Nature Is the Zoo,” 139–40.

17. Ibid.

18. Beyond the references mentioned above, Lucy Suchman undertakes a discussion of sociomaterial relations of people and things that engages with visuality as part of its focus. See Suchman, “Reconfigurations.”

19. Haraway, Modest_Witness, 223; Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump.

20. Haraway, “Situated Knowledges.”

21. National Geographic, Crittercam.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Donna Haraway, “Crittercam,” 249. Haraway draws on Merleau-Ponty in her discussion of “infoldings of the flesh.”

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid., 249–50.

27. While some research has argued for the adoption of the concept “emplacement” in comparison to “embodiment,” I diverge from this approach as I seek to avoid the fixities that can emerge through denotations and connotations of “place.” I am also cautious to avoid appending “environment” to a “mind-body” dyad, thereby maintaining a substantialist approach to sensing. In this sense, Whitehead and Simondon are key thinkers whom I draw on to attempt to work beyond a substantialist understanding of sense (in other words, minds that might decode or sense objects in environment), and instead take up processes such as individuations, concrescences, and subject-superjects of experience to address the particular attachments of sensing entities and environments. For a discussion of emplacement in relation to embodiment, see Howes, “Introduction.”

28. Hayles, “RFID,” 48.

29. Ibid.

30. Andrejevic, “The Webcam Subculture and the Digital Enclosure.”

31. Goldberg, The Robot in the Garden.

32. For a collection of discussions on sensory mediation in relation to art and technology, see Jones, Sensorium.

33. Hayles, “RFID,” 48.

34. Ibid.

35. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 179–82.

36. For a discussion of the “sense of place” in relation to rethinking the global–local divide and how this influences environmental imaginations, see Heise, Sense of Place. Heise argues that the local is as much an assemblage as the global and does not equate to pure unmediated access to the world.

37. Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 50–52.

38. Ibid., 20. As Simondon writes, “L’objet technique un est unité de devenir.”

39. Lamarre, “Afterword,” 95; See also Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 57.

40. Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 56. He writes, “Il ne s’agit pas en effet d’un progrès conçu comme marche dans un sens fixé à l’avance, ni d’une humanisation de la nature; ce processus pourrait aussi bien appaître comme une naturalisation de l’homme; entre homme et nature se crée en effet un milieu techno-géographique qui ne devient possible que par l’intelligence de l’homme: l’auto-conditionnement d’un schème par le resultat de son fonctionnement nécessite l’emploi d’une fonction inventive d’anticipation qui ne se trouve ni dans la nature ni dans les objets techniques déjà constitués; c’est une oeuvre de vie de faire ainsi un saut par-dessus la réalité donnée et sa systématique actuelle vers de nouvelles formes qui ne sa maintiennent que parce qu’elles existent toutes ensemble comme un système constitué; quand un nouvel organe apparait dans la série évolutive, il ne se maintient que s’il réalise une convergence systématique et pluri-fonctionnelle.”

41. Ibid., 55–56.

42. Ibid., 55. The becoming environmental of technical objects is in this sense normative: it is what is needed to avoid overspecialization and disadaptation, and for a technical object to become “natural.”

43. James San Jacinto Mountains Reserve.

44. Rundel et al., “Tansley Review.”

45. James San Jacinto Mountains Reserve, “The Moss Cam Project.”

46. Mishler, “The Biology of Bryophytes.”

47. Hamilton et al., “New Approaches.”

48. Hyman, Graham, and Hansen, “Imagers as Sensors.”

49. Mishler, “The Biology of Bryophytes.”

50. Jasanoff, “Image and Imagination.”

51. Haraway, “Situated Knowledges.”

52. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 178–82.

53. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, “Deep Water,” 167, 187.

54. Markey, Edward Markey to Lamar McKay.

55. Ibid.

56. Jansen and Keilar, “Markey.”

57. The Global Language Monitor, “Top Words of 2010.”

58. GlobalWarming.House.Gov, “Oil Spill in the Gulf.”

59. Jonsson, “BP Live Feed ‘Spillcam’.”

60. “Live Gulf Oil Spill Cam.”

61. Stuever, “BP’s Oil Spillcam.”

62. Helmreich, “Nature/Culture/Seawater.”

63. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, “Science in a Time of Crisis.”

64. Ibid.

65. Serres, The Five Senses.

66. Clough, “The New Empiricism,” 51.

67. Roth and Bowen, “Digitizing Lizards.”

68. Ibid., 731.

69. Ibid., 721.

70. For a related discussion of environmental sensors, see Gabrys, “Automatic Sensation.”

71. Puig de la Bellacasa, “Touching Technologies, Touching Visions.”

72. Haraway, “Situated Knowledges,” 589.

73. “Critter Cams Viewers.”

74. Helmreich, “Intimate Sensing,” 149.

75. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 78.

76. Lamarre, “Afterword,” 95.

1. McConnell, “Telemetry in Sea Mammals”; Biuw et al., “Variations in Behavior and Condition.”

2. For more information, see Argos; Benson, “One Infrastructure, Many Global Visions.”

3. Wilson, Shepard, and Liebsch, “Prying into the Intimate Details.”

4. Newton, Bird Migration.

5. Pahl et al., “Large Scale Homing in Honeybees.”

6. The National Science Foundation, “The Secret Lives of Wild Animals”; Wikelski et al., “Simple Rules Guide Dragonfly Migration.”

7. The Arctic Tern Migration Project; Egevang et al., “Tracking of Arctic Terns.”

8. Sirtrack, “Sirtrack Working with Emperor Penguin”; Sirtrack, “Happy Feet Transmissions Ceased.”

9. Cooke, “Biotelemetry and Biologging”; Johnson, “‘Smart Collar’ in the Works.”

10. Wilson and McMahon, “Measuring Devices on Wild Animals”; Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, “A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking”; Scandolara et al., “Impact of Miniaturized Geolocators.”

11. For a parallel discussion of biomonitoring, see Kosek, “Ecologies of Empire.”

12. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 238 and 228–88 passim.

13. Wilson, Shepard, and Liebsch, “Prying into the Intimate Details.”

14. May, “Unanswered Questions in Ecology,” cited by Wikelski in “Move It, Baby!”

15. Benson, Wired Wilderness, 92.

16. Wikelski, “Move It, Baby!”

17. MoveBank; Dodge et al., “The Environmental-Data.”

18. Wikelski, “Move It, Baby!”

19. MoveBank, “What Is Animal Tracking?”

20. Wikelski, “Move It, Baby!”

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.; Marshall, “Foreword,” 4–5.

25. Marshall, “Foreword,” 4.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid., 5.

28. International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space (ICARUS) Initiative, “Technical Solution”; Wikelski et al., “Going Wild.”

29. Pennisi, “Global Tracking of Small Animals.”

30. International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space (ICARUS) Initiative, “Science & Projects.”

31. As Pennisi writes, “Because the space station is only 320 kilometers away, the ICARUS system will demand much less energy than ARGOS to send data, reducing battery requirements. As currently designed, most tags for ICARUS will contain a GPS that regularly takes stock of the wearer’s location, storing those data for many months if needed. To be most energy efficient, the ICARUS tag will be preprogrammed to turn on only when the space station will pass overhead and will deliver its data only when triggered by the space station.” See Pennisi, “Global Tracking of Small Animals.”

32. Hinchliffe, “Sensory Biopolitics”; Wikelski et al., “Disaster Alert Mediation Using Nature.”

33. Schofield et al., “Novel GPS Tracking.”

34. Wilcove, No Way Home; Kurvits et al., Living Planet.

35. Block et al., “Tracking Apex Marine Predator.”

36. Warner Chabot of the Ocean Conservancy, as cited in Bauer, “Tagging Pacific Predators.”

37. Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust.

38. BirdsEye Tools for Birders, “BirdLog North America.”

39. The Nature Conservancy, “Precision Conservation.”

40. The Migratory Connectivity Project, “Citizen Science.”

41. Large Pelagics Research Center, “Tag a Tiny Program.”

42. Yu, “More Than 300 Sharks In Australia”; Surf Life Saving Western Australia, https://twitter.com/SLSWA; Zoological Society of London, “Eel Conservation”; EpiCollect, Roadkill Garneau. See also OpenScientist, “Mobile Citizen Science Apps!”

43. Allan et al., “A Cost-Effective and Informative Method.” An instructional video accompanying this paper is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaSvS0grVjw.

44. xClinic Environmental Health Clinic and Living Architecture Lab, “Amphibious Architecture”; Benjamin, Yang, and Jeremijenko, “New Interaction Partners for Environmental Governance.”

45. Nitta, “Extreme Green Guerillas.”

46. Cornwell and Campbell, “Co-Producing Conservation and Knowledge”; Hurlbert and Liang, “Spatiotemporal Variation in Avian Migration Phenology”; Cooper, Shirk, and Zuckerberg, “The Invisible Prevalence of Citizen Science”; Laughlin et al., “Integrating Information from Geolocators.”

47. Wikelski, “Move It, Baby!”

48. Savill et al. Wytham Woods; Elton, The Ecology of Invasions.

49. University of Oxford, “Wytham Woods.”

50. Dyo et al., “WILDSENSING.”

51. Dyo et al., “Wildlife and Environmental Monitoring.”

52. Dyo et al., “WILDSENSING.”

53. Pasztor et al., “Selective Reprogramming.”

54. Benson, Wired Wilderness, 48.

55. Sea Mammal Research Unit, “Southern Elephant Seals as Oceanographic Samplers.”

56. Biuw et al., “Variations in Behavior and Condition.”

57. McConnell, “Telemetry in Sea Mammals.”

58. For example, see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Critical New Data.”

59. McConnell, “Telemetry in Sea Mammals.”

60. Benson, Wired Wilderness, 190–93.

61. International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space (ICARUS) Initiative, “Countdown to ICARUS.”

62. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, “Social Migration in Juvenile White Storks.”

63. Rotics, “Comparison of Juvenile and Adult Migration.”

64. Brown et al., “Observing the Unwatchable.”

65. Rotics, “Comparison of Juvenile and Adult Migration”; Amezian and Khamlichi, “White Stork Satellite-Tracked.”

66. Wikelski, “Move It, Baby!”

67. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Animal Tracker. http://www.orn.mpg.de/animal_tracker.

68. Wikelski, “Move It, Baby!”; Wald, “Follow That Bird.”

69. e-obs.

70. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Animal Tracker app.

71. Wikelski, “Move It, Baby!”

72. Wikelski et al., “Disaster Alert Mediation Using Nature.”

73. Wikelski, “Move It, Baby!”; Maier, “A Four-Legged Early-Warning System.”

74. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 109.

75. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 4. As Combes writes, “No individual would be able to exist without a milieu that is its complement, arising simultaneously from the operation of individuation: for this reason, the individual should be seen as but a partial result of the operation bringing it forth. Thus, in a general manner, we may consider individuals as beings that come into existence as so many partial solutions to so many problems of incompatibility between separate levels of being.”

76. See also Simondon, Two Lessons on Animal and Man.

77. In addition to examples cited above, see Vandenabeele et al., “Excess Baggage for Birds.”

78. Wilson and McMahon, “Measuring Devices on Wild Animals.”

79. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 120.

80. Ibid., 119.

81. This argument resonates with Stengers’s discussions in Cosmopolitics I and Cosmopolitics II.

82. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 78.

83. Hayles, My Mother Was a Computer, 20.

84. For example, see Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind; Negroponte, “SEEK.” See also Clarke, “John Lilly.”

85. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 96.

86. Ibid., 89–90.

87. See Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings. For a parallel discussion on automation, see Stacey and Suchman, “Animation and Automation.”

88. Lamarre, “Afterword,” 80.

89. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 10; Simondon, L’individuation à la lumière, 28.

90. For example, see Stevens, Sensory Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution. A related analysis of the informational influences on biology can be found in Keller, “The Body of a New Machine.”

91. Technique, however, is one way to approach the open potential of machines, since it is through technique that original engagements unfold, which cannot be limited to one machinic function. See Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 93.

92. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 28. As Whitehead writes, “‘becoming’ is a creative advance into novelty. It is for this reason that the meaning of the phrase ‘the actual world’ is relative to the becoming of a definite actual entity which is both novel and actual, relatively to that meaning, and to no other meaning of that phrase. Thus, conversely, each actual entity corresponds to a meaning of ‘the actual world’ peculiar to itself. . . . An actual world is a nexus; and the actual world of one actual entity sinks to the level of a subordinate nexus in actual worlds beyond that actual entity.”

93. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 31.

94. Ibid., 27. As Combes writes, “In effect, a living being, ‘in order to exist, needs to be able to continue individualizing by resolving problems in the milieu surrounding it, which is its milieu.’ . . . In the analysis proposed by Simondon, perception, for instance, appears as an act of individuation operated by a living being to resolve a conflict into which it has entered with its milieu. In his view, to perceive is not primarily to grasp a form; rather it is the act taking place within an ensemble constituted by the relation between subject and world, through which a subject invents a form and thereby modifies its own structure and that of the object at the same time: we see only within a system in tension, of which we are a subensemble.” See also Simondon, L’individuation à la lumière, 264.

95. Simondon, “The Genesis of the Individual,” 306.

96. Ibid.

97. See Pritchard, “Thinking with the Animal-Hacker.”

98. Stengers, Cosmopolitics II, 362.

99. Ibid., 359.

100. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 60; Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 152.

101. Tsing, “Empowering Nature,” 137.

102. Debaise, “A Philosophy of Interstices,” 108.

1. The Finnish Society of Bioart, “Environmental Computing.”

2. Masco, “Bad Weather.”

3. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 5.

4. Coen, The Earthquake Observers, 163. See also Aubin, Bigg, and Sibum, The Heavens on Earth.

5. Kilpisjärvi Biological Station; Sustaining Arctic Observing Network (SAON); SCANNET; International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic.

6. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Report 2010, 8. This report calls for “a sustained, robust circumpolar monitoring network effective at detecting change and discerning trends over the entire Arctic Region related to a range of environmental stressors including pollutants, climate change and the interaction between them.”

7. Anisimov et al., “Polar Regions (Arctic and Antarctic).”

8. Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic et al., The Arctic in the Anthropocene, 12.

9. Cubasch et al., “Introduction.”

10. Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), “Essential Climate Variables.”

11. Committee on Understanding and Monitoring Abrupt Climate Change and Its Impacts et al., “Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change,” 52; Brigham-Grette et al., “Pliocene Warmth,” 1421–27.

12. Oceans at MIT with Ron Prinn. “400 ppm CO₂?” http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm-threshold.

13. Hartmann et al., “Observations,” 166; NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2).” A number of videos explaining OCO-2 note the importance of gathering constant and global information on CO₂: “We can only manage what we can measure.” http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos. OCO-2 gathers hundreds of thousands of CO₂ measurements every day by assessing diffracted light levels in the atmosphere. See http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/observatory/instrument.

14. Stocker et al., IPCC, 2013; Scripps Institute of Oceanography, “The Keeling Curve.”

15. Hartmann et al., “Observations: Atmosphere and Surface,” 167.

16. Stocker et al., IPCC, 2013, 11.

17. Hartmann et al., “Observations,” 198.

18. CO₂ has now been designated as a pollutant by the EPA. See Supreme Court of the United States, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (April 2, 2007); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Endangerment and Cause.” This legislation has recently been put to work through the “Clean Power Plan” to limit CO₂ levels. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Carbon Pollution Standards.” For an expanded discussion of how CO₂ turns up as a pollutant relative to the environments that it begins to transform, see Gabrys, “Powering the Digital.”

19. For instance, see Forest Carbon Project Inventory; Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA). For an expanded discussion of climate change in relation to sinks, see Gabrys, “Sink.”

20. A resource that lists a number of community-led and traditional ecological knowledge projects in the Arctic is the Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic et al., The Arctic in the Anthropocene.

21. At the time of this fieldwork, a Kilpisjärvi environmental sensor feed was viewable on the Pachube platform, which was later renamed Cosm, and then Xively, as previously mentioned. The Kilpisjärvi feed, which is no longer live but includes historic measurements for light, humidity, temperature, noise, air quality, CO, and CO₂, is now available at https://xively.com/feeds/21544. The Kilpisjärvi webcam can be viewed at http://kilpis5.kilpis.helsinki.fi/appletvid.html.

22. Forsström et al., “Seasonality of Phytoplankton”; Lemke et al. “Observations.”

23. Vaughan et al., “Observations.”

24. Prowse et al., “Climate Change Effects.”

25. Strangeways, Measuring the Natural Environment, 1.

26. Bowker, “Biodiversity Datadiversity.”

27. Kohler, Landscapes and Labscapes, 118–24. See also Cruikshank, Do Glaciers Listen?

28. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 18. As Whitehead writes in relation to the “matter-of-fact,” “Consider, for example, the scientific notion of measurement. Can we elucidate the turmoil of Europe by weighing its dictators, its prime ministers, and its editors of newspapers? The idea is absurd, although some relevant information might be obtained. I am not upholding the irrelevance of science. Such a doctrine would be foolish. For example, a daily record of the bodily temperatures of men, above mentioned, might be useful. My point is the incompleteness of the information.”

29. Coen, The Earthquake Observers, 6, 20; Kohler, Landscapes and Labscapes, 122–24.

30. Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA); Atlas of Community-Based Monitoring in a Changing Arctic. The Arctic Perspective Initiative (API) has worked in collaboration with the Finnish Bioart Society on developing “open authoring, communications and dissemination infrastructures for the circumpolar region” in Kilpisjärvi.

31. On the different ways in which measurement may be operationalized toward much different effects in relation to measure and value, see Verran, “The Changing Lives of Measures and Values.” On the ways in which experience and measurement generate speculative registers of evidence and data, see Gabrys, “Pollution Sensing and Fracking.”

32. A discussion of the ways in which organisms “incorporate” and sense environments can be found in Gabrys, “Becoming Urban.”

33. On the notion of organisms working through the materialities of changing environments, see Gabrys, “Plastic.”

34. For more project information, see Preemptive Media, “Area’s Immediate Reading (AIR)”; Jeremijenko, “Feral Robotic Dogs.”

35. xClinic Environmental Health Clinic and Living Lab, “Amphibious Architecture.”

36. Costa, Pigeon Blog; Percifield, dontflush.me; Safecast.

37. Paterson, “Vatnajökull (the sound of)”; Collier, Ray, and Weber, “The Pika Alarm.”

38. “Million Trees NYC.”

39. Braidotti, Transpositions.

40. Ellis and Waterton, “Environmental Citizenship in the Making.”

41. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88–89; Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 158.

42. Fortun, “Biopolitics and the Informating of Environmentalism.”

43. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 5; Simondon, L’individuation à la lumière, 32.

44. Simondon, L’individuation à la lumière, 32, as translated in Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 6.

45. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 32.

46. Simondon, L’individuation à la lumière, 253, as translated in Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 31.

47. Simondon, L’individuation à la lumière, 63, as translated in Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 19.

48. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 19.

49. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88.

50. Stengers, “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality,” 103.

51. Stengers, “Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices”; Stengers, Cosmopolitics II, 349–50.

52. Stengers, Cosmopolitics II, 349.

53. Ibid., 350.

54. Braidotti, Transpositions, 149–50.

55. Haraway, “Situated Knowledges,” 589.

56. For a complementary discussion of radical empiricism in relation to earthly concerns, see Latour, “A Plea for Earthly Sciences.”

57. Kim TallBear, “Uppsala 3rd Supradisciplinary Feminist Technoscience Symposium,” http://www.kimtallbear.com/homeblog/uppsala-3rd-supradisciplinary-feminist-technoscience-symposium-feminist-and-indigenous-intersections-and-approaches-to-technoscience. See also TallBear, “Why Interspecies Thinking Needs Indigenous Standpoints.”

58. On the notion of speculative empiricism, see Debaise, Un empirisme spéculatif.

59. Edwards, A Vast Machine, 427–39.

60. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 252. Stengers also writes (discussing and citing Whitehead’s Process and Reality, 11), “It pertains to speculative propositions to ‘make us feel’ what is, in fact, a generality that bears upon every proposition,” 267. Generality, in many ways, inheres as an environment in which facts take hold and have relevance.

1. Moore et al., “A Comparison of Plastic and Plankton”; Moore and Phillips, Plastic Ocean.

2. Ebbesmeyer and Scigliano, Flotsametrics and the Floating World, 167.

3. For example, see Carpenter and Smith, “Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface.”

4. Ebbesmeyer and Scigliano, Flotsametrics and the Floating World, 227; Moore and Phillips, Plastic Ocean.

5. For example, see National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, “A Global Map of Human Impacts.” Not to be confined to surface views of the ocean, Google Earth has also added an ocean layer that allows “underwater” views. See http://www.google.com/earth/explore/showcase/ocean.html.

6. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “De-mystifying the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch.’”

7. For example, see Jordan, Midway.

8. Vitaliano, Legends of the Earth.

9. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 177–82.

10. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 89–110.

11. Howell et al., “On North Pacific Circulation”; Pichel et al., “Marine Debris Collects.”

12. Lebreton, Greer, and Borrero, “Numerical Modeling of Floating Debris.”

13. Howell et al., “On North Pacific Circulation.”

14. Ibid.

15. Meanders and eddies are areas where most visible “patches” of garbage emerge, whereas gyres tend to have overall higher concentrations of microplastics that are quite often invisible or difficult to detect. See NOAA, “De-Mystifying the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch.’”

16. Gregory and Ryan, “Pelagic Plastics”; U.S. EPA, “Marine Debris in the North Pacific.”

17. Derraik, “The Pollution of the Marine Environment.”

18. Gabrys, “Plastic.”

19. As Moore et al. write, “Several limitations restrict our ability to extrapolate our findings of high plastic-to-plankton ratios in the North Pacific central gyre to other areas of the ocean. The North Pacific Ocean is an area of low biological standing stock; plankton populations are many times higher in nearshore areas of the eastern Pacific, where upwelling fuels productivity. . . . Moreover, the eddy effects of the gyre probably serve to retain plastics, whereas plastics may wash up on shore in greater numbers in other areas. Conversely, areas closer to the shore are more likely to receive inputs from land-based runoff and ship loading and unloading activities, whereas a large fraction of the materials observed in this study appear to be remnants of offshore fishing-related activity and shipping traffic.” See Moore et al., “A Comparison of Plastic and Plankton.”

20. Arthur, Baker, and Bamford, Proceedings of the International Research Workshop; Thompson et al., “Lost at Sea”; Thompson et al., “Plastics, the Environment, and Human Health”; Andrady, “Microplastics in the Marine Environment.”

21. Gregory, “Environmental Implications.”

22. Barnes et al., “Accumulation and Fragmentation”; Takada, “International Pellet Watch”; United Nations Environment Programme, “Marine Litter: A Global Challenge.”

23. Kaiser, “The Dirt on Ocean Garbage Patches”; U.S. EPA, “Marine Debris in the North Pacific.”

24. Takada, “International Pellet Watch.”

25. Boerger et al., “Plastic Ingestion”; Thompson et al., “Plastics, the Environment, and Human Health.”

26. Cózar et al., “Plastic Debris in the Open Ocean”; Di Lorenzo et al., “North Pacific Gyre Oscillation”; Goldstein, Rosenberg, and Cheng, “Increased Oceanic Microplastic Debris.”

27. As Stengers writes, “The production of the matter of fact that could operate as a reliable witness for the ‘adequacy’ of an interpretation is always an experimental achievement. As long as this achievement remains a matter of controversy, the putative matter of fact will remain a matter of collective, demanding, concern.” See “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality,” 94. See also Latour, “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?”

28. Underwood, Experiments in Ecology.

29. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 78.

30. Barad, “Posthumanist Performativity.”

31. Gabrys, “Speculating with Organisms in the Plastisphere.”

32. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish; Gabrys, “Plastic.”

33. Howell et al., “On North Pacific Circulation.”

34. Ebbesmeyer et al., “Tub Toys Orbit the Subarctic Gyre”; Ebbesmeyer and Scigliano, Flotsametrics and the Floating World.

35. Madrigal, “Found.”

36. Ebbesmeyer, “Using Flotsam to Study Ocean Currents.”

37. Ibid.; Law et al., “Plastic Accumulation.”

38. Ebbesmeyer writes, “We must develop networks, which remain vigilant to collect this flotsam.” See Ebbesmeyer, “Using Flotsam to Study Ocean Currents.” This is something Ebbesmeyer has also supported through the efforts of Beachcombers Alert, http://www.beachcombersalert.org.

39. Dohan and Maximenko, “Monitoring Ocean Currents with Satellite Sensors”; International Pacific Research Center, “Tracking Ocean Debris”; SEA-MDI, “Want to Track Marine Debris?”

40. Marine Traffic; Thingful.

41. Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.

42. Gillis, “In the Ocean, Clues to Change.”

43. Helmreich, “Intimate Sensing,” 148.

44. UK Argo, “Deep Profile Floats.”

45. Takada, “International Pellet Watch.”

46. Lauro et al., “The Common Oceanographer”; Smerdon, Manning, and Paull, “Crowdsourcing Coastal Oceanographic Data.”

47. Protei; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project.”

48. WayDownSouth, “Adopt an Argo Float.” The Google Earth Argo Application is available at http://argo.jcommops.org/argo.kml. See also EU-Argo RI, “Deployed Floats.”

49. Marine Debris Tracker.

50. Schupska, “UGA’s Marine Debris Tracker Named.’”

51. Ibid.

52. Llanos, “Average Joe as Oceanographer?”

53. Maximenko, Hafner, and Niiler, “Pathways of Marine Debris.”

54. Lumpkin and Pazos, “Measuring Surface Currents with Surface Velocity Program Drifters.”

55. Newsroom UNSW, “Our Plastics Will Pollute Oceans for Hundreds of Years.”

56. Dohan and Maximenko, “Monitoring Ocean Currents with Satellite Sensors”; Lebreton, Greer, and Borrero, “Numerical Modeling”; Maximenko, Hafner, and Niiler, “Pathways of Marine Debris.”

57. Sebille, England, and Froyland, “Origin, Dynamics, and Evolution.”

58. Lumpkin, Maximenko, and Pazos, “Evaluating Where and Why Drifters Die.”

59. U.S. EPA, “Marine Debris in the North Pacific.”

60. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 110.

61. Ibid.

62. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 223.

63. Ibid., 158.

64. James, Pragmatism, 127–64.

65. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 103, 105.

66. Ibid., 214–15.

67. Gabrys, “Plastic.”

68. Helmreich, “Nature/Culture/Seawater”; Stengers, “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality.”

69. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 176.

70. Shaviro, Without Criteria, 47. See also Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 176.

71. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88.

72. Stengers, “A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality,” 96.

73. Barthes, “Plastic,” 97.

74. Bensaude-Vincent et al., “Matters of Interest.”

75. Haraway, When Species Meet, 88–93; Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, 390–93.

76. Stengers, “Including Nonhumans in Political Theory.”

1. While all of these pollutants affect cardiovascular and pulmonary health, particulate matter (PM) is of particular concern. As the World Health Organization (WHO) notes in a fact sheet on air quality, “PM affects more people than any other pollutant. The major components of PM are sulfate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, carbon, mineral dust and water. It consists of a complex mixture of solid and liquid particles of organic and inorganic substances suspended in the air. The particles are identified according to their aerodynamic diameter, as either PM (particles with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 10 μm) or PM (aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 μm). The latter are more dangerous since, when inhaled, they may reach the peripheral regions of the bronchioles, and interfere with gas exchange inside the lungs.” See WHO, “Ambient (Outdoor) Air Quality.”

2. London Air Quality Network (LAQN).

3. The EU air quality objective (2008) indicates that there should be no more than 40 µm/m³ of NO₂ per year. The New Cross Road station (in the borough of Lewisham) recorded 51 µm/m³ of NO₂ in 2013. See the London Air Quality Network (LAQN); European Commission, “Air Quality Standards.”

4. Preemptive Media, “Area’s Immediate Reading.”

5. Safecast.

6. Aoki et al., “A Vehicle for Research”; Create Lab, “Speck”; AirCasting. One DIY-guide oriented toward air pollution sensing is Di Justo and Gertz, Atmospheric Monitoring with Arduino. Also see ongoing work in the Citizen Sense project in the area of monitoring air pollution.

7. U.S. EPA, “Draft Roadmap,” 2. See also Snyder et al., “The Changing Paradigm.”

8. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 22.

9. Ibid., 7, 16.

10. This notion of experience as constructive functioning has been discussed by Whitehead, Process and Reality, 156, and is taken up further by Shaviro in Without Criteria, 48.

11. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 114.

12. The U.S. EPA list on “Toxic Air Pollutants” includes 187 hazardous air pollutants, including benzene, dioxin, mercury, and toluene. Some of these substances are carcinogenic, while others can cause serious health effects ranging from respiratory disease, birth defects, and even death. Very few of these substances are monitored regularly at air quality monitoring stations.

13. U.S. EPA, “What Are the Six Common Air Pollutants?”

14. UK Clean Air Act; U.S. EPA, “Clean Air Act”; European Commission, “Directive 2008/50/EC.”

15. For example, see Choy, Ecologies of Comparison, 139–68.

16. For established limits for common pollutants, see the U.S. AirNow “Air Quality Index”; European Commission, “Air Quality Standards.” For a discussion of the ways in which legal disputes become entangled in establishing both the matters of fact and concern of air pollution, see Jasanoff, “Thin Air.” For a discussion on how exposure and harm become increasingly difficult to link within newer regimes of chemical living, particularly in relation to indoor air quality, see Murphy, Sick Building Syndrome.

17. Ambient PM pollution contributes to 3.2 million deaths annually, and there are increasing levels of heart disease, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary disease in association with PM 2.5 exposure. See Lim et al., “A Comparative Risk Assessment.” The WHO suggests that “exposure to air pollutants is largely beyond the control of individuals and requires action by public authorities at the national, regional, and even international levels.” See WHO, “Ambient (Outdoor) Air Quality.”

18. Air pollution is increasingly as much a rural environmental problem as an urban one. See Citizen Sense for project work on air pollution and fracking.

19. Bickerstaff and Walker, “The Place(s) of Matter”; Whitehead, State Science and the Skies; Irwin, Citizen Science.

20. Global Community Monitor. See also Ottinger, “Buckets of Resistance.”

21. Lidskog and Sundqvist, Governing the Air.

22. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 203; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 259.

23. U.S. EPA, “Draft Roadmap,” 2–5.

24. Gabrys, Pritchard, and Barratt, “‘Just Good Enough’ Data.”

25. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 163–64, 518.

26. Ibid., 252.

27. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 11.

28. Ibid., 203; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 259.

29. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 20.

30. As Whitehead notes, “The data upon which the subject passes judgment are themselves components conditioning the character of the judging subject. It follows that any presupposition as to the character of the experiencing subject also implies a general presupposition as to the social environment providing the display for that subject. In other words, a species of subject requires a species of data as its preliminary phase of concrescence. . . . The species of data requisite for the presumed judging subject presupposes an environment of a certain social character.” Ibid., 203.

31. Ibid., 20.

32. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 233; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 275.

33. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 155.

34. Ibid., 153–58. As Whitehead notes, the “subjectivist principle” assumes the “datum in the act of experience can be adequately analyzed purely in terms of universals”; and the “sensationalist principle” assumes the “bare subjective entertainment of the datum, devoid of any subjective form of reception.” Instead, “the philosophy of organism inverts this analysis” where there are not “objects for knowledge,” but rather there are subjects with “experience.” Ibid., 156–57.

35. Ibid., 68.

36. For example, see ibid., 219.

37. Bowker, Memory Practices in the Sciences; Barry, “Motor Ecology”; Whitehead, State Science and the Skies; Stengers, The Invention of Modern Science.

38. Bureau of Inverse Technology (BIT), “Feral Robot Engineering.”

39. Jeremijenko, “Feral Robotic Dogs.”

40. Lane et al. “Public Authoring & Feral Robotics.”

41. As mentioned in the introduction to Program Earth, these links between information and action are described as “shorter circuits” that enable greater participation. See Bratton and Jeremijenko, “Suspicious Images, Latent Interfaces.”

42. Costa, “Reaching the Limits”; Costa, Pigeon Blog.

43. Costa, Pigeon Blog.

44. Preemptive Media, “Area’s Immediate Reading.”

45. Costa, “Reaching the Limits,” 377.

46. Ibid., 379.

47. Braidotti, Transpositions.

48. “Air Quality Egg,” http://www.airqualityegg.com.

49. DiSalvo et al., “Towards a Public Rhetoric through Participatory Design.”

50. For a more extensive discussion of the political economies of participation and maker communities in relation to DIY sensing technologies, see Gabrys, Pritchard, and Calvillo, “Making DIY Air Quality Sensors.”

51. Aoki et al., “Common Sense.”

52. ClientEarth, “Supreme Court Rules UK Government Is Breaking Air Pollution Laws.”

53. Cf. Shaviro’s discussion of ethics as unfolding first through aesthetic and affective registers in The Universe of Things.

54. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 20.

55. Ibid., 23. Whitehead defines ingression as “the particular mode in which the potentiality of an eternal object is realized in a particular actual entity, contributing to the definiteness of that actual entity.” Eternal objects, never actual, are figures of pure potential that ingress within actual entities. Eternal objects are then an expression of potential, which nevertheless requires entities to become concrete.

56. Cohen, “Challenges and Benefits of Backyard Science.”

57. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 200; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 126–30.

58. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 12–13; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 265.

59. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88.

60. See Bowker, “Biodiversity Datadiversity”; and Gitelman, “Raw Data” Is an Oxymoron.

1. For example, see Archigram, A Guide to Archigram; Forrester, Urban Dynamics.

2. A wide range of studies in this area include Batty, “The Computable City”; Castells, The Informational City; Droege, Intelligent Environments; Gabrys, “Cité Multimedia”; Graham and Marvin, Splintering Urbanism; Mitchell, City of Bits.

3. Massumi, “National Enterprise Emergency,” 155; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 261.

4. Cisco, “Smart + Connected Communities.”

5. A study could be written just on the role of white papers within smart city developments. Crafted by industry, universities, and governmental agencies, smart city white papers appear to be a key way in which the imaginings and implementation of these urban developments circulate. The “circulation” of policy as discussed by Jennifer Robinson is part of the way in which cities accumulate multilocated “elsewheres” within projects of urban imagining. See Robinson, “The Spaces of Circulating Knowledge.” The documents drafted in support of the Connected Urban Development project are similarly informed by multiple white papers, including Zhen et al., “Cities in Action for Climate Change,” which was developed by Cisco, Metropolis, and Connected Urban Development, and gathers together details of eco-actions by and for cities around the world.

6. Foucault, “The Confession of the Flesh.”

7. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics.

8. Allwinkle and Cruickshank, “Creating Smart-er Cities”; European Commission, “Green Digital Charter.”

9. Lovink, “The Digital City”; Sassen, Global Networks, Linked Cities.

10. Ellison, Burrows, and Parker, “Urban Informatics”; Galloway, “Intimations of Everyday Life”; Graham, The Cybercities Reader.

11. Elfrink (for Cisco), “Intelligent Urbanization.”

12. Harrison and Abbott Donnelly (for IBM), “A Theory of Smart Cities.”

13. Townsend et al., “A Planet of Civic Laboratories,” 4.

14. Hollands, “Will the Real Smart City Please Stand Up?”

15. Mackenzie, Wirelessness.

16. Borden and Greenfield, “You Are the Smart City.”

17. Fuller and Haque, “Urban Versioning System”; Greenfield and Shepard, “Urban Computing and Its Discontents.”

18. Foucault, The Politics of Truth, 44–45.

19. Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, 22–23; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 259–61.

20. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 260.

21. Foucault, La naissance de la biopolitique; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics.

22. Agrawal, Environmentality.

23. Luke, “Environmentality as Green Governmentality.”

24. While the English version of this passage in The Birth of Biopolitics translates this term as “environmentalism,” in the French original Foucault uses the term environnementalité, which is much closer to conveying the sensing of governmentality distributed through environments, rather than a social movement oriented toward environmental issues. See Foucault, La naissance de la biopolitique, 266; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 261.

25. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 259.

26. For example, see Anker, “The Closed World of Ecological Architecture”; Banham, Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment.

27. Massumi, “National Enterprise Emergency.”

28. Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 244–45.

29. Ibid., 239–45.

30. Revel, “Identity, Nature, Life,” 49–52.

31. See Agamben, Homo Sacer.

32. Hayles, “RFID.”

33. Foucault, “The Confession of the Flesh,” 194.

34. Ibid., 194–95; Agamben, What Is an Apparatus?

35. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid., 97.

38. Ibid., 2.

39. Ibid., 58–59.

40. Deleuze, Negotiations, 97.

41. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 98.

42. Gabrys, “Telepathically Urban,” 58 and 50–59 passim.

43. Mitchell, Me++.

44. Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century.”

45. Gabrys, “Automatic Sensation”; Hayles, “RFID.”

46. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs and Women; see also Taylor, “Technocratic Optimism.”

47. Graham, “Software-Sorted Geographies”; Kitchin and Dodge, Code/Space; Thrift and French, “The Automatic Production of Space.”

48. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish; Kittler, “There Is No Software.”

49. Mackenzie, “The Performativity of Code,” 88.

50. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 5–6.

51. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish.

52. Mackenzie, Wirelessness.

53. Connected Urban Development.

54. Ibid.

55. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 102.

56. Ibid., 89–91.

57. Ibid., 2.

58. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 101.

59. Townsend et al., “A Planet of Civic Laboratories.”

60. Barney, “Politics and Emerging Media.” See also Couldry and Powell, “Big Data from the Bottom Up.”

61. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 98.

62. Deleuze, Negotiations, 182.

63. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 261.

64. For example, see Wiener, Cybernetics.

65. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 246–47.

66. Ibid., 252.

67. For example, see European Commission, “Report of the Meeting of Advisory Group.”

68. Deleuze, Negotiations, 83–118.

69. Foucault, “Intellectuals and Power,” 207.

1. SeeClickFix; FixMyStreet.

2. This approach, where computation provides a universal language for addressing problems, can be found in early writings on computing, from Leibniz on to Turing. In The Universal Computer, Davis describes Leibniz’s dream to achieve a universal means of calculating problems, where even war could be addressed and solved through computation. This classic propensity of computation has been updated and brought into a critical space of analysis in numerous works, not least of which is Morozov’s popular text, To Save Everything, Click Here. This chapter (as well as the whole of this section on Urban Sensing) is situated in relation to both longer-standing approaches to and more recent critiques of computation as a universal means for solving problems.

3. Stengers, “The Cosmopolitical Proposal.”

4. Ibid., 994.

5. Ibid., 995.

6. Ibid.

7. As Mike Michael writes, “The idiot is as much a process as a figure.” See Michael, “‘What Are We Busy Doing?’”

8. Ibid. For a related discussion of the idiot in relation to twitter, see Hawkins, “Enacting Public Value.”

9. For example, see Goriunova, “New Media Idiocy.”

10. For example, see Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA), Actions; Spontaneous Interventions; L’atelier d’architecture autogérée; Petrescu, Petcou, and Awan, Trans-Local-Act; Public Works; Awan, Schneider, and Till, Spatial Agency.

11. For example, see Lydon et al., Tactical Urbanism, Volume 2; Ferguson and Urban Drift Projects., Make_Shift City.

12. Code for America; Code For Europe; Adopt-a-Hydrant; Adopt-a-Siren; Adopt-a-Drain.

13. Pahlka, “Coding a Better Government.”

14. Ibid.

15. Bell, “It’s Appy Hour!”

16. Ibid.

17. Hern, “Seven Urban Apps.”

18. Bell, “It’s Appy Hour!” It bears mentioning that Nesta also provide a summary on how their predictions came to fare, and the civic apps prediction was noted as a “slightly disappointing sector,” in that there was neither the explosion in civic apps nor the joining up of these apps to public services in ways that would make them as effective as anticipated. They reflect, “Closer integration of apps with the work of public service providers could help to see more scale, and notably, significant cost savings for cities and their citizens. Local government is traditionally a slow adopter and therefore moving from small experiments to genuine scale is always a challenge.” A recurring narrative in many smart city and digital participation initiatives is that it is the slowness and disjointedness of local government that prevents these projects from having the effect they might otherwise have. See Nesta, “2013 Predictions.”

19. Mejias, Off the Network, 6.

20. There is an extensive and advanced set of literatures that take up issues of digital participation and (free) labor. While there is not room here to discuss this topic, see, for example, Scholz, Digital Labor.

21. Goldman et al., “Participatory Sensing.”

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid., 14. Emphasis in original.

24. Bell, “It’s Appy Hour!”

25. Andrejevic, “Nothing Comes between Me and My CPU,” 101–2.

26. Scholz, “What the MySpace Generation Should Know.”

27. Stengers, “The Cosmopolitical Proposal,” 995.

28. As cited in Davis, The Universal Computer, 17.

29. For two examples of urban science initiatives, see City Science; Center for Urban Science + Progress.

30. Fuller and Goffey, “Digital Infrastructures,” 317.

31. As Anderson and Pold write, “The city dweller may implement, experience, and use urban scripts, but what happens when she is not satisfied with the foundation of participation in urban public life, the scripts themselves? This experience is a call for action where the city dwellers take control of the urban scripts and become ‘writerly’ by creating, hacking, and rewriting the city.” See “The Scripted Spaces.”

32. Sassen, “Open Source Urbanism.”

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. For example, see Fraser’s critique of Habermas in “Rethinking the Public Sphere.”

36. See Davis, “Hacking as a Civic Duty”; alternatively, Cox, Speaking Code.

37. Gray Area Foundation for the Arts, “Urban Prototyping Festival.”

38. Ibid.

39. Sustainable Society Network, “UP London-2013.”

40. Urban Prototyping London, “Festival Showcase.”

41. Jiménez, “The Right to Infrastructure.”

42. TechniCity, “Coursera.”

43. Deleuze, Negotiations, 179

44. See Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.”

45. Stengers, “The Cosmopolitical Proposal,” 996.

46. Ibid.

47. Deleuze, Negotiations, 179–80.

48. Ibid., 181–82.

49. Anderson and Pold, “The Scripted Spaces.”

50. Latour, Pandora’s Hope; Akrich, “The De-Scription of Technical Objects.”

51. Suchman, Human-Machine Reconfigurations.

52. Andrejevic, “Nothing Comes between Me and My CPU,” 102.

53. TechniCity. “Coursera.”

54. Deleuze and Guattari, What Is Philosophy, 61–62.

55. TechniCity. “Coursera.”

56. Mackenzie, Transductions.

57. Stengers, “The Cosmopolitical Proposal,” 1000.

58. mySociety.

59. See FillThatHole; Citizens Connect.

60. FixMyStreet, “Abandoned Christmas Tree.”

61. FixMyStreet, “Council Worker Mowing Rubbish!”

62. FixMyStreet, “Rubbish.”

63. IBM Research–Brazil, “Citizen Sensing for Smarter Cities.”

64. For representative examples of literature that attends to social media, digital media, and capacities of political engagement, see Boler, Digital Media and Democracy; Dean, Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies.

65. For example, see Terranova, Network Culture; Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope; Rossiter, Organized Networks.

66. Fish et al., “Birds of the Internet.”

67. Barney, “Politics and Emerging Media.”

68. Ratto and Boler, DIY Citizenship.

69. Iveson, “Mobile Media,” 56.

70. For one example, see Townsend, Smart Cities.

71. See Spontaneous Interventions; PetaJarkata; Korsgaard and Brynskov, “Prototyping a Smart City”; Cox, “Support of Antisocial Notworking.”

72. For a discussion of “versioning” in relation to cities, see Fuller and Haque, Urban Versioning System.

73. “The ABC of Tactical Media,” a manifesto written by David Garcia and Geert Lovink, states, “Tactical Media are what happens when the cheap ‘do it yourself’ media, made possible by the revolution in consumer electronics and expanded forms of distribution (from public access cable to the internet) are exploited by groups and individuals who feel aggrieved by or excluded from the wider culture. Tactical media do not just report events, as they are never impartial they always participate and it is this that more than anything separates them from mainstream media.”

74. Raley, Tactical Media, 28–29. See also Lovink and Rossiter, “Dawn of the Organized Networks.”

75. Ibid. Raley draws here on Virno’s discussion of virtuosity in Grammar of the Multitude (and Virno, in his thinking on collectives, is in turn influenced by Simondon).

76. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 17.

77. Stengers, “The Cosmopolitical Proposal,” 996.

78. Ibid., 998.

1. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 12–14; Lamarre, “Afterword,” 92–94.

2. This is an interesting point of contrast with Whitehead, who suggests that concrescences are a less indeterminate actual entity or actual occasion. Yet with his focus on technology, Simondon draws out the ways in which technical objects may actually give rise to conditions of indeterminateness. In addition to the above, see Simondon, Du mode d’existence; Simondon, “Technical Mentality”; Whitehead, Process and Reality, 150.

3. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 81.

4. Stengers, “The Cosmopolitical Proposal,” 996.

5. See Graham, Disrupted Cities; and Bennett, “The Agency of Assemblages.”

6. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, “Urban Sensor Data Streams”; Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction, “Annual Review 2014”; Turgeman, Alm, and Ratti, “Smart Toilets.”

7. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, “Urban Sensor Data Streams.”

8. Greater London Authority, “Locations of TfL Street Cameras.”

9. Ungerleider, “The London Underground”; Microsoft, “Internet of Things.”

10. Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction (CSIC), “Annual Review 2014.”

11. City of Westminster, “Parking Bay Sensors.”

12. Living PlanIT.

13. Environment Agency, “River and Sea Levels.”

14. Environment Agency, “Air Pollution.”

15. Monitrain, “Condition Monitoring Protects London’s Thames Barrier.”

16. Skyview, “London Eye”; Observator Instruments, “Wind Monitoring and Alarm System”; London Eye, “Systems and Controls.”

17. Met Office, “Weather Stations”; Met Office, “Weather Observations Website.”

18. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, “Urban Sensor Data Streams.”

19. Living PlanIT. The London City Airport project is in part supported by the Technology Strategy Board (TSB).

20. Future Cities Catapult, “Sensing London.”

21. Greater London Authority, “Smart London Vision”; Greater London Authority, “Smart London Plan”; Future Cities Catapult, “Sensing London.” The TSB is a UK government-funded body.

22. Greater London Authority, “Smart London Plan,” 3.

23. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, “Urban Sensor Data Streams,” 19. As these authors write, Santander was deemed the smartest city in Europe “largely due to the thousands of sensors—monitoring parking and environmental conditions—deployed as part of a city-scale experiment to prototype typical ICT applications and services that might be found in a future smart city (www.smartsantander.eu). The experiment uses a tiered network infrastructure comprised of thousands of IEEE 802.15.4-enabled sensor nodes, mostly Wasp motes. The Spanish company Libelium (www.libelium.com) produces the devices, targeting embedded monitoring and control systems at the IoT-enabled smart city market.”

24. For a discussion of Songdo, see Halpern et al., “Test Bed Urbanism.”

25. Singer, “Mission Control, Built for Cities.”

26. TechCentral.ie. “Dublin to Become First Fully ‘Sensored’ City.”

27. IBM, “Smarter Cities Challenge.”

28. Siemens, “The Crystal.”

29. Greater London Authority, “Royal Albert Dock”; Royal Docks; Royal Albert Dock London.

30. In addition to Site IQ, the security system included access cards, an overall security system that automatically armed itself between 10 pm and 6 am, and CCTV cameras. Site IQ’s pattern recognition was such that it could discern between a fox, which it would not track, and a human, which it would track. See Siemens, “Siveillance SiteIQ.”

31. Miranda and Powell, Our Urban Future.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid., 10.

34. Ibid., 18.

35. Ibid.

36. Siemens, “Creating Cities.”

37. Miranda and Powell, Our Urban Future, 22.

38. Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings, 22–25.

39. Sustainable Society Network, “UP London 2013.”

40. This logic fits with James Beniger’s classic description of the cycle of communication technologies developed to control conditions of overload, while also contributing to new conditions of information overload. See Beniger, The Control Revolution.

41. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, “Urban Sensor Data Streams,” 19–20.

42. Kranenburg, “The Internet of Things.”

43. Wiener, Cybernetics, 5.

44. See CityDashboard. http://citydashboard.org/london.

45. Easterling, “The Action Is the Form,” 155.

46. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 15.

47. Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 15.

48. Wiener, Human Use of Human Beings, 22–27.

49. Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 13.

50. Simone, “Infrastructure.”

51. Simone, “People as Infrastructure,” 407.

52. Mackenzie, Wirelessness, 49.

53. Ibid., 96.

54. Ibid., 56.

55. Graham, Disrupted Cities, 8.

56. Simone, “Cities of Uncertainty.”

57. Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century,” 94.

58. Ibid., 98.

59. Ibid., 94.

60. Ibid., 99.

61. Ibid., 102.

62. Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 55.

63. Ibid.

64. Mackenzie, Wirelessness, 20. On withness, see also Munster, An Aesthesia of Networks.

65. James, Pragmatism, 69. James also suggests that “ordinary empiricism over-emphasizes” withness, whereas his proposal for “radical empiricism” he considered to be “fair to both the unity and the disconnection of experience.” See James, Radical Empiricism, 47.

66. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 62–64, 73, 81.

67. Ibid., 80.

68. Ibid., 79.

69. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 69–86.

70. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 161–63; cf. Debaise, “A Philosophy of Interstices,” 108.

71. Foucault, The Politics of Truth, 44–45.

72. Miranda and Powell, Our Urban Future.

73. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 22, 273. Stengers cites Whitehead, Process and Reality, 4.

1. Guattari, Schizoanalytic Cartographies, 5–13.

2. Ibid., 11–12

3. Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century,” 104.

4. Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 15; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 190–92.

5. Massumi, Semblance and Event, 173.

6. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 67; Simondon, Du mode d’existence, 221.

7. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 113. Cf. Braun, “Environmental Issues.”

8. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 9.

9. Ibid., 35, 42. See also Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 18.

10. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 19.

11. Jasanoff, “Technologies of Humility.”

12. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead.

13. Simondon, “Technical Mentality.”

14. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 17.

15. Ibid.

16. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 49.

17. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 213.

18. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 64–65; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 164.