The Open Border 229
Yet although there is no denying that there is a no-man’s-land between both domains,
it is not so obvious that its mere existence undermines the confl ict image. The contested
area could, after all, be clearly divided between the domain of artifacts and that of organ-
isms through stipulation. Such a stipulation might involve some arbitrariness, but propo-
nents of the confl ict image could maintain that at least one division carves nature (or rather
nature-culture) at its joints.
This is an implausible response, but what makes it implausible shows that there is a
need for further discussion, for the objection did not rest only on mere existence of a
contested area but also on the fact of its growth, through activities such as breeding and
genetic manipulation. These activities in turn might well have characteristics in common
with the intentional selection of traditional design and with natural selection: a breeder,
for instance, intentionally selects for some traits but has to rely partly on genetic reproduc-
tion. In genetic manipulation, the possibilities of intentional selection appear to have
increased—“at the price of ” natural selection. Thus a mixture of intentionalist and selec-
tionist notions seems appropriate for describing both activities.
Again this observation is probably correct, but its very formulation shows that there is
more to be said. Which mixture, if any, is appropriate for describing both activities? Are
intentional and natural selection indeed communicating vessels, meaning that an increase
in one causes a decrease in the other? Do breeding and genetic manipulation, or the
description of these activities, involve the application of concepts that were earlier used
exclusively for other domains or activities? And to what extent do intentionalist and selec-
tionist notions coexist in descriptions of breeding and genetic manipulation? Some answers
to these questions surely would undermine the confl ict image, but it is also possible to
give highly segregationist answers. Only a close review of actual theories or descriptions
would show which answers are correct and whether the confl ict image is really undermined
by the existence of oncomice and breeding. Without such a review, the contested-area
objection is only based on intuitions—albeit highly plausible ones.
In this chapter I provide such a review, not of theories of breeding and genetic manipu-
lation, which are activities that have a very wide scope and for which there are, to the best
of my knowledge, no concise theories or models available. Instead I have selected two
more determinate and narrow fi elds of inquiry and activity. In sections 13.2 and 13.3 I
discuss two types of artifact-oriented research in which evolutionary theory has seen very
recent use: evolutionary design, especially in electronics, and evolutionary archaeology.
These discussions are like journalistic border reports. Given the rapid development and
lack of consensus within these fi elds, it is virtually impossible to get an accurate overview
of the situation and to tell where promises end and results begin. I present work in both
fi elds as concisely and straightforwardly as possible, but this does involve considerable
reconstruction. Still, it can be shown that the application of evolutionary concepts
and models is, in both cases, problem-driven and open-ended, that neither application is
fruitfully analyzed as merely metaphorical, and that neither leads to abolishing the