Could you perhaps share a little bit more about this? And maybe you can also elaborate on this idea of the non-human as a non-owner.

So for me, the non-human, and I've encountered this at many conferences and conversations with, for example, development scholars or decolonial scholars, and they really dislike the term non-human.

Not everyone, obviously, but some.

And so there's the non-human of neurotylism, which is supposed to be the sort of how it's used in natural science with animals and plants and bacteria and so on.

And then there's the non-human about dehumanization.

It's a very difficult concept to handle with the new materialism which tries to de-center the human.

And also the idea of what questions which makes a human and so on.

And so my question was, at the end of writing this book, did you feel that new materialism does possess the tools to address challenges of our times? Or do we need a different starting point?

Could you perhaps share a little bit more about this? And maybe you can also elaborate on this idea of the non-human as a non-owner.

So for me, the non-human, and I've encountered this at many conferences and conversations with, for example, development scholars or decolonial scholars, and they really dislike the term non-human.

Not everyone, obviously, but some.

And so there's the non-human of neurotylism, which is supposed to be the sort of how it's used in natural science with animals and plants and bacteria and so on.

And then there's the non-human about dehumanization.

It's a very difficult concept to handle with the new materialism which tries to de-center the human.

And also the idea of what questions which makes a human and so on.

And so my question was, at the end of writing this book, did you feel that new materialism does possess the tools to address challenges of our times? Or do we need a different starting point?

Could you perhaps share a little bit more about this? And maybe you can also elaborate on this idea of the non-human as a non-owner.

So for me, the non-human, and I've encountered this in many conversations with, for example, development scholars or decolonial scholars, and they really dislike the term non-human.

Not everyone, obviously, but some.

And so there's the non-human of neurotylism, which is supposed to be the sort of how it's used in natural science with animals and plants and bacteria and so on.

And then there's the non-human about dehumanization.

It's a very difficult concept to handle with the new materialism which tries to de-center the human.

And also the idea of what questions which makes a human and so on.

And so my question was, at the end of writing this book, did you feel that new materialism does possess the tools to address challenges of our times? Or do we need a different starting point?

Could you perhaps, uh, share a little bit more about this, and maybe you can also elaborate on this idea of, uh, the non-human as a non-owner?

Mm-hmm.

So for me, the non-human, and I've encountered this at many com-- uh, conference and conversations with, for example, development scholars or decolonial scholars, and they really dislike the term non-human.

Not everyone, obviously, but some.

And, um, so there's the non-human of new materialism, which is supposed to be the sort of how it's used in natural science with, uh, I don't know, animals and plants and bacteria and so on.

And then there's the non-human about dehumanization.

It's a very difficult concept to handle with the new materialism, which tries to decenter the human, and also the idea of what questions, what makes a human, and so on.

And so my question was, at the end of writing this book, did you feel that new materialism, uh, does possess the tools to address challenges of our times, or do we need a different starting point?