What can it be called? Looking for a new word, or concept, for the time we live in now, which I consider to be after Darwinism. What can it be called: ”Postdarwinism”? The ”Anthropocene” means something else, when the human being has completely taken over nature and the world. The most common quotes are that Darwinism deals with: ”The strongest survivor”, or: ”The Fittest, survive”. Charles Darwin and Darwinism assume that all that survives in nature belongs to ”The Natural Selection”. However, the human and humanity have not already passed the stage of development when human society made it possible to no longer adapt to nature, or that the ”strongest” physically and / or physically no longer has the same conditions for to cope with current and future developments? Artists like Madonna, Beyoncé, Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney have earned significantly more, than many of the players in the financial market. A painting by Jean-Michel Basquiat (which died on August 12, 1988) was sold here by the day for one billion kronor. He began his artistic career as a ”grafitti artist”, scribble, fled from home and lived on New York’s streets. In what way would he have succeeded in Charles Darwin’s ”Natural Selection”? Whether he had undergone artistic education or studied art science, he probably had come up with an example of ”the survivor of the fittest”. But, instead, he was ”street smart”, and adapted to the afro-American ”neo-expressionism”. Thus, there is, I mean, a whole human world, which was not in the same way, during Charles Darwin’s time, and therefore never included in his thoughts about ”The Natural Selection.” Nor in Richard Dawkins’s view of ”The Selfish Gene”. In order to explain the content or significance of the word or concept in its context, I use Charles Darwin and Darwinism as an example. What I mean is that the hierarchies of nature, as Charles Darwin referred to in his evolutionary theory, does not assume the competition today, in our society. The word I was looking for was ”Information Age”, ”Information Time” or, in English: ”Information Age”. Researcher Richard Dawkins has written a book called ”The Selfish Gene”. In the future it will be also biology or genetics that control the evolutionary development of the individual or the whole. I doubt it. Instead, I assume, with or without ethical links, that genetics will increasingly be linked with digital technology and cybernetics. That very well-synthesized components can be included in genetic contexts, to change the inheritance, to what they consider themselves; Something positive or negative. A positive side of the case could be that through synthetic biology, it can replace genes or inheritance, which can lead to problems like diabetes, epilepsy or even permanent psychiatric ill health. This is not about ”Social Darwinism” or any ”chemical lobotomy”. Suppose science in the future can replace biological reproduction with synthetic reproduction. It would change the whole society when human sexuality is no longer linked to the biological fertilization. This is, of course, a hypothesis or pure speculation, not political, social or psychological ideology. It was none other than the human beings who produced the atomic bomb, although ”nuclear charges” explodes in the sun constantly, night by day. Today and before, the male has stood for the intercourse and the woman for conception. This idea is just to go one more step in the same direction as the means of contraception. Creating synthetic beings is of course as provocative to us, sapiens, as it was for the neanderthals that the sapiens was replacing them. All biologically would be replaced by synthetic, but another selection of ”information”. Within the literature there is a genre called ”science fiction” or ”speculative realism”. Taking this view seriously is like believing that Stephen King’s horror novels are real, or something that Stephen King himself advocates or thinks is right. This is not about facts, but a provocative hypothesis: ”What would happen if …?” Mary Shelley did not advocate that people, like Doctor Victor Frankenstein, would take body parts to construct an artificial human being. She asked: ”What would happen if a story describes such a man and the consequences of his actions?” That scientists have produced living creatures synthetically, with a synthetic sperm identical a biological sperm and a synthetic egg identical to a biological egg, with identical ”information” in the fertilized egg and in stem cells, nothing is about ”feelings”. That one species (NOTE! Not ”Race”) has replaced another, nothing is unusual in evolution. Sapiens has preceded many species before we became. There is no evidence that the neandertals were ”better and more sensitive” than us, or that we are ”worse and insensitive” than them? One step in the development where Human, Homo Sapiens, creates and manufactures their own replacements, is as much today a result of inventions and innovations. Most of the things in our surrounding in everyday lives are ”unnatural”, artificial and synthetic. The vast majority of us in the ”information society” do not experience it as something magical, amazing or sensational. Most people train with their smartphones in front of them, television sets and computers at home, to travel to other parts of the world. I just mean that this view, to me, is an interesting hypothesis and starting point for a novel based on ”speculative realism” or science fiction. We, I think, certainly value our reality differently than the people who lived during the Roman Empire, or during the Enlightenment? A ”robot” or ”computer” can not change itself beyond the program that controls it. Why could not a synthetic creature, like a child, undergo a personal development process, experience reality, gain experience, with the same or other conditions than ourselves? Again; Homo sapiens lives in a way other than Homo Neandertalis, or Homo erectus. That does not mean that our Sapiens experience of reality is ”better” or ”intelligent” than theirs. Just that we are better at adjusting reality and nature to our own needs, than that, as they probably had to; To adapt to current conditions, survive by being physically and mentally strong without any advanced tools, such as computers, airplanes, cars, television sets or an advanced administration that adjusts our environment to our own needs and drives. As said; The man has always stood for the intercourse, while the woman stood for conception, birth and to ensure the child’s first time of development and maturity. Why not let all this happen in synthetic workshops instead, to release Man once more from the ”original sin”?