Keywords Environmental catastrophes · Nature-culture dichotomy · Fear ·
Awareness · Communication · Scientific reflection · Precautionary principle ·
Climate change
1 Introduction
It is a great challenge to protect biodiversity and ecosystems in the face of an evergrowing and resource-consuming population of humans. Environmental awareness
is the result of the interplay between human evolution, environmental history, and
societal relations to nature. How important are disaster-memory and the NatureCulture Dichotomy in the context of environmental management and risk
prevention?
Many conditions of ecosystems and biodiversity are changing slowly if not
imperceptibly. It can be assumed that many species already have been eliminated
which were never recognized by science. Thus, the relating processes are invisible
for humans even if humans are causing the loss. Important features of ecosystems
may change with little scientific recognition. An example may be changing species
compositions of microorganisms in soils and water sources as a result of an increasing transfer of certain chemical substances such as nitrogen from the atmosphere.
The relating bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms are key species to ecosystem
functions; however, the scientific knowledge about microbiomes is still rather
limited (Klironomos 2007; Rashid et al. 2015; de Menezes et al. 2017). The
following consideration is based around the question—is environmental consciousness reflecting recent environmental challenges and risks properly? Furthermore, it is
an open question, whether the damage of ecosystems and biodiversity might have
stronger impacts on human cultures, wellbeing, and survival than we are able to
estimate today. This contribution reviews the meaning of our environmental consciousness with regard to the environment on the one hand and management effort
on the other.
Why should a contribution about major problems of ecosystems and biodiversity
take part in a rather theoretical debate about the so called Nature-Culture Dichotomy,
Nature-Culture Dualism, Nature-Culture Divide or Nature/Nurture Dichotomy/
Dualism? All over the world we can directly observe destructive exploitation in
nature, damage to habitats, species decline, a fast-growing human population which
is getting more and more nervous, global heating, not only of the atmosphere,
resulting in dystopia. Today we face very concrete ecological and social disasters,
and time is running out to solve multifaceted environmental problems. How might
such a theoretical debate be related to practical consequences for the environment at
local, regional or global scales? Furthermore, if the nature of humans enables
destructive behaviour, and if humans are able to destroy their own conditions
necessary for life, how might the discussion about the nature-culture relationship
be relevant?
Nature-Culture Dichotomy and Environmental Consciousness: Do We Fear the Right. . .
19
Awareness · Communication · Scientific reflection · Precautionary principle ·
Climate change
1 Introduction
It is a great challenge to protect biodiversity and ecosystems in the face of an evergrowing and resource-consuming population of humans. Environmental awareness
is the result of the interplay between human evolution, environmental history, and
societal relations to nature. How important are disaster-memory and the NatureCulture Dichotomy in the context of environmental management and risk
prevention?
Many conditions of ecosystems and biodiversity are changing slowly if not
imperceptibly. It can be assumed that many species already have been eliminated
which were never recognized by science. Thus, the relating processes are invisible
for humans even if humans are causing the loss. Important features of ecosystems
may change with little scientific recognition. An example may be changing species
compositions of microorganisms in soils and water sources as a result of an increasing transfer of certain chemical substances such as nitrogen from the atmosphere.
The relating bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms are key species to ecosystem
functions; however, the scientific knowledge about microbiomes is still rather
limited (Klironomos 2007; Rashid et al. 2015; de Menezes et al. 2017). The
following consideration is based around the question—is environmental consciousness reflecting recent environmental challenges and risks properly? Furthermore, it is
an open question, whether the damage of ecosystems and biodiversity might have
stronger impacts on human cultures, wellbeing, and survival than we are able to
estimate today. This contribution reviews the meaning of our environmental consciousness with regard to the environment on the one hand and management effort
on the other.
Why should a contribution about major problems of ecosystems and biodiversity
take part in a rather theoretical debate about the so called Nature-Culture Dichotomy,
Nature-Culture Dualism, Nature-Culture Divide or Nature/Nurture Dichotomy/
Dualism? All over the world we can directly observe destructive exploitation in
nature, damage to habitats, species decline, a fast-growing human population which
is getting more and more nervous, global heating, not only of the atmosphere,
resulting in dystopia. Today we face very concrete ecological and social disasters,
and time is running out to solve multifaceted environmental problems. How might
such a theoretical debate be related to practical consequences for the environment at
local, regional or global scales? Furthermore, if the nature of humans enables
destructive behaviour, and if humans are able to destroy their own conditions
necessary for life, how might the discussion about the nature-culture relationship
be relevant?
Nature-Culture Dichotomy and Environmental Consciousness: Do We Fear the Right. . .
19