State-of-the-art planning theory considers cities as cyborg entities composed by a “natural” part (human beings and their social structures) and an “artificial” part (buildings, infrastructure and other urban artifacts). We contend that this hybrid conception is indissolubly coupled with the ability to discriminate perfectly between the “natural” and the “artificial”. But is this actually the case? We will provide a critical reflection on this ontological issue pointing out that current urban planning theory as well as the general philosophical reflection is not able to produce a rigorous, consistent epistemic criterion to draw this distinction. Long-standing difficulties in this respect are exponentially amplified by recent developments in artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and biotechnology, and their growing relevance in urban environments of the near future risk making the cyborg conception informing the complexity theory of cities obsolete. We will conclude our reflection identifying a possible path for overcoming this dualism toward a more socio-natural conception internalizing the proteiform character of the concept of “nature” itself as well as its inherent cognitive/political element.

最新的规划理论将城市视为由“自然”部分（人类及其社会结构）和“人为”部分（建筑物，基础设施和其他城市文物）组成的机器人实体。我们认为，这种混合概念与在“自然”和“人工”之间进行完美区分的能力密不可分。但是实际上是这样吗？我们将对这个本体论问题进行批判性反思，指出当前的城市规划理论以及一般的哲学反思都无法产生严格，一致的认识论准则来区分。人工智能，纳米技术和生物技术的最新发展成倍地放大了这方面的长期困难，以及它们在不久的将来在城市环境中的相关性越来越高，使机器人概念取代了城市的复杂性理论。我们将总结出自己的反思，找出克服这种二元论朝着更社会自然的观念迈进的可能途径，这种观念将“自然”概念本身及其固有的认知/政治要素的蛋白状特征内在化。