know nothing about the intellectual world of humans living before ancient Chinese,
Egyptian and Greek times and their writings (Toynbee 1979).
Was the relationship with nature predominantly fearful or amicable? Or was the
relationship similar to the one of modern humans, with a combination of both
positive and negative emotions and connotations? Which aspects of nature did
people in former times cherish and which did they eliminate? Were humans during
the Stone Age able to enjoy the beauty of a flower? What was manageable and what
was resignation to fate? How was the system of ethical values arranged with respect
to the natural environment?
In general, basic elements of reflection and reasoning during the past might have
been the same as today. Realism and quasi-scientific recognition comprise observation, logic, trial and error, experimentation, induction and deduction. Interpretation
and spirituality, including religiousness, comprise doubt, scepticism, belief, and
imagination. However, consequences and rituals might have been totally different.
Not long ago, cannibalism, sacrifice and the acceptance of punishment were
conducted by religious cosmology, as part of the cultural interpretation of nature.
During the Middle Ages and modern pre-Darwin times the Islam, Judaism and
Christianity played a powerful role in the Middle East, the Mediterranean and the
western world. The interpretation of the present, and recommendations for tomorrow, including confession and repentance, was a matter for priests and churches.
During this time, there was no good reason for the assumption that humans evolved
together with other apes from the same ancestors. The relation to nature was dictated
by danger and fear, pain and hard work. Thus, the interest in being part of nature
must have been rather small. It can be assumed that a stroke of fate was related to
decisions of gods rather than to scientific logic (Barnes 1965).
However, nobody exactly knows what the goals for action in the daily life of
prehistorical times might have been. Nutrition, organisation of shelter, sexuality, and
rest/sleep may be associated with the term natural behaviour. Music, arts and
technology are normally attributed to cultural behaviour. However, what about
communication? Communication and education are surely essentials through all
times to guarantee survival and wellbeing of humans, by no means different from
other intelligent mammal or bird species.
Is the narrow relationship between parents and babies more related to our nature
whereas education in public schools and universities is part of modern social and
cultural development?
The relation to the natural world comprises different aspects from love/danger to
innocence. Antipodes such as devil as an omnipresent entity, and harmony including
ecological equilibrium, have also been associated with nature. Harmony might have
been an idea and leading concept for cultural behaviour through all times. Avoidance
of harmony was personalised in the devil. Thus, nature served as template to what
could be and what we do not want, but always outside of our scope for design.
Due to technical solutions, the imagination of ‘dangerous nature’ during former
times was increasingly replaced by the imagination of harmlessness or harmony in
the wilderness. Parallel religious interpretation was replaced by scientific explanation. Every day we can see movies about a perfectly organized natural world and
Nature-Culture Dichotomy and Environmental Consciousness: Do We Fear the Right. . .
25
Egyptian and Greek times and their writings (Toynbee 1979).
Was the relationship with nature predominantly fearful or amicable? Or was the
relationship similar to the one of modern humans, with a combination of both
positive and negative emotions and connotations? Which aspects of nature did
people in former times cherish and which did they eliminate? Were humans during
the Stone Age able to enjoy the beauty of a flower? What was manageable and what
was resignation to fate? How was the system of ethical values arranged with respect
to the natural environment?
In general, basic elements of reflection and reasoning during the past might have
been the same as today. Realism and quasi-scientific recognition comprise observation, logic, trial and error, experimentation, induction and deduction. Interpretation
and spirituality, including religiousness, comprise doubt, scepticism, belief, and
imagination. However, consequences and rituals might have been totally different.
Not long ago, cannibalism, sacrifice and the acceptance of punishment were
conducted by religious cosmology, as part of the cultural interpretation of nature.
During the Middle Ages and modern pre-Darwin times the Islam, Judaism and
Christianity played a powerful role in the Middle East, the Mediterranean and the
western world. The interpretation of the present, and recommendations for tomorrow, including confession and repentance, was a matter for priests and churches.
During this time, there was no good reason for the assumption that humans evolved
together with other apes from the same ancestors. The relation to nature was dictated
by danger and fear, pain and hard work. Thus, the interest in being part of nature
must have been rather small. It can be assumed that a stroke of fate was related to
decisions of gods rather than to scientific logic (Barnes 1965).
However, nobody exactly knows what the goals for action in the daily life of
prehistorical times might have been. Nutrition, organisation of shelter, sexuality, and
rest/sleep may be associated with the term natural behaviour. Music, arts and
technology are normally attributed to cultural behaviour. However, what about
communication? Communication and education are surely essentials through all
times to guarantee survival and wellbeing of humans, by no means different from
other intelligent mammal or bird species.
Is the narrow relationship between parents and babies more related to our nature
whereas education in public schools and universities is part of modern social and
cultural development?
The relation to the natural world comprises different aspects from love/danger to
innocence. Antipodes such as devil as an omnipresent entity, and harmony including
ecological equilibrium, have also been associated with nature. Harmony might have
been an idea and leading concept for cultural behaviour through all times. Avoidance
of harmony was personalised in the devil. Thus, nature served as template to what
could be and what we do not want, but always outside of our scope for design.
Due to technical solutions, the imagination of ‘dangerous nature’ during former
times was increasingly replaced by the imagination of harmlessness or harmony in
the wilderness. Parallel religious interpretation was replaced by scientific explanation. Every day we can see movies about a perfectly organized natural world and
Nature-Culture Dichotomy and Environmental Consciousness: Do We Fear the Right. . .
25