private initiatives and governmental organisations have already prevented the extinction of certain endangered species at local to international scales.
The perception and interpretation of the environment changed during the secularization, and in modern times from a religious dominated to a scientific framing.
Furthermore, during a very short time period the communication channels changed
due to the development of print media and later modern digital technologies. The
amount of available information, including scientific knowledge, has simply
exploded across the globe during recent decades.
Handling and filtering of information in combination with a stronger focus on
ecosystems and biodiversity will be a key for the success of biodiversity conservation management in the future.
Even if it may be impossible to exclude environmental disasters completely, the
interplay between environment and environmental consciousness resulted in technological and other solutions to reduce the risk for humans during modern times.
Nevertheless, the permanent adjustment of environmental consciousness and
relating behaviour as a precautionary principle between environment/ecosystems
and survival of the biota has the potential to reduce the threats for biota as well. The
risk management may profit from increasing attention on slowly changing human
activities and environmental conditions, and from revaluation of natural attributes.
Do we fear the right things? The communication of danger signals from the
environment, and risk assessments, were useful historically and are still useful even
if only a small proportion of disaster forecasts become reality. Thus, the behaviour
must always be adjusted in relation to our knowledge and readiness to calculate a
risk. The answer is clearly yes; in many cases we fear the right things.
Additionally, we are able to forecast dramatic events from very small danger
signals by using a combination of fantasy and logic. Furthermore, if death is a matter
of more or less regular stochastics, like the number of killed people by car accidents,
then we are also able to slow down the awareness, because the biology of fear does
not allow intensive fear for a long time. We are able to fear terrorism much more than
car accidents even if the death toll is much smaller. Thus, in this case the answer is
no; we do not fear the risks adequately.
As a consequence of the psychological predisposition humans are sometimes
overcautious and sometimes heedless.
To summarize, our environmental consciousness is the result of an interplay
between our evolution, environmental history, communication about disasters, and
social behaviour. As such it cannot guarantee avoidance of future environmental
disasters. This might also be related to the playful and experiment-friendly side of
humans, and the simple fact that certain regions or environmental conditions are at
the same time both beneficial and life-threatening.
In general, awareness and fear are directed to survival and avoidance of pain.
Thus, environmental conditions of ecosystems and the survival of natural habitats
and species diversity on Earth are not the central goal of our environmental consciousness even if further losses have the potential to limit the cultural life and wellbeing of humans.
18
C. Hobohm
The perception and interpretation of the environment changed during the secularization, and in modern times from a religious dominated to a scientific framing.
Furthermore, during a very short time period the communication channels changed
due to the development of print media and later modern digital technologies. The
amount of available information, including scientific knowledge, has simply
exploded across the globe during recent decades.
Handling and filtering of information in combination with a stronger focus on
ecosystems and biodiversity will be a key for the success of biodiversity conservation management in the future.
Even if it may be impossible to exclude environmental disasters completely, the
interplay between environment and environmental consciousness resulted in technological and other solutions to reduce the risk for humans during modern times.
Nevertheless, the permanent adjustment of environmental consciousness and
relating behaviour as a precautionary principle between environment/ecosystems
and survival of the biota has the potential to reduce the threats for biota as well. The
risk management may profit from increasing attention on slowly changing human
activities and environmental conditions, and from revaluation of natural attributes.
Do we fear the right things? The communication of danger signals from the
environment, and risk assessments, were useful historically and are still useful even
if only a small proportion of disaster forecasts become reality. Thus, the behaviour
must always be adjusted in relation to our knowledge and readiness to calculate a
risk. The answer is clearly yes; in many cases we fear the right things.
Additionally, we are able to forecast dramatic events from very small danger
signals by using a combination of fantasy and logic. Furthermore, if death is a matter
of more or less regular stochastics, like the number of killed people by car accidents,
then we are also able to slow down the awareness, because the biology of fear does
not allow intensive fear for a long time. We are able to fear terrorism much more than
car accidents even if the death toll is much smaller. Thus, in this case the answer is
no; we do not fear the risks adequately.
As a consequence of the psychological predisposition humans are sometimes
overcautious and sometimes heedless.
To summarize, our environmental consciousness is the result of an interplay
between our evolution, environmental history, communication about disasters, and
social behaviour. As such it cannot guarantee avoidance of future environmental
disasters. This might also be related to the playful and experiment-friendly side of
humans, and the simple fact that certain regions or environmental conditions are at
the same time both beneficial and life-threatening.
In general, awareness and fear are directed to survival and avoidance of pain.
Thus, environmental conditions of ecosystems and the survival of natural habitats
and species diversity on Earth are not the central goal of our environmental consciousness even if further losses have the potential to limit the cultural life and wellbeing of humans.
18
C. Hobohm