The much-needed dialogue between environmental ethics and philosophy of technology, particularly in addressing the ecological crisis, has gained momentum in recent years (Almazán and Prádanos 2024; Kaplan 2017; Gardiner and Thompson 2017). Notably, philosophy of technology shows growing enthusiasm for fostering this exchange (Puzio 2024; Gellers 2024; 2020; Coeckelbergh 2019). This paper aims to contribute by systematizing and expanding these efforts, focusing on the issue of changeability and the expectations surrounding the normativity of change in nature and technology. Specifically, it examines two pro-environmental solutions proposed by philosophy of technology: responsible innovation (von Schomberg, Blok 2019; Koops 2015) and the maintenance turn (Young and Coeckelbergh 2024; Perzanowski 2022; Young 2021). 

To deepen the understanding of their potential, these solutions will be framed respectively within two distinct approaches: responsible innovation in the holistic perspective, which analyzes broad patterns in “Technology with a Capital T” (Blok 2024; Ritter 2021), and the maintenance turn as belonging to the artifactist tradition (or “artifactology”), which emphasizes the impacts of specific artifacts (Mitcham 1994) or technologies Blok 2024; Ritter 2021). Significantly, each framework reflects contrasting views on change: systemic transformation—characterized by technological progress—is generally seen as desirable (as the semantics of “technological change” suggest), whereas changes in individual artifacts are often viewed negatively, since they typically involve wear, deterioration, or obsolescence resulting from that very progress. 

This inherent conflict will be further examined by comparing these technological dichotomies with environmental ethics, where debates over holistic approaches versus the focus on individual natural entities hinge on whether ecosystem stability or individual interests should take precedence (McShane 2014). Regarding the dichotomy of changeability within environmental ethics, individual dynamism (unlike in artifacts) is often valued for its internal teleology, whereas systemic change tends to be viewed neutrally (e.g., evolution) or negatively (unlike in technology), as seen in the expectation of stability betrayed by semantics terms like “climate change.” 

Against this backdrop, the paper explores how responsible innovation and the maintenance turn shape the pre-ecological mindset within the philosophy of technology, with changeability as the central focus. It examines how these frameworks address environmental emergencies, considers their limitations, and evaluates potential contradictions between them. 

A primary concern in this analysis is to maintain a clear distinction between artifacts and natural beings, as well as between ecosystems and technology. It is essential to highlight the specific vulnerabilities of artifacts, often overlooked in environmental ethics (see Saito 2022; Vogel 2024), in contrast to those of natural entities. Raising awareness of these differences may encourage a more appropriate, and ethically grounded, approach to the treatment of artifacts. At the same time, it helps prevent the misapplication of care frameworks—such as maintenance or restoration—designed for artifacts to natural beings. This conflation risks treating necessary interventions in one domain as unacceptable interferences in the other. Only by maintaining this distinction can we meaningfully integrate philosophy of technology with environmental ethics.