impressive natural landscapes in harmony. Plants and animals are always perfectly
adapted. The music in the background has sounds of a wellness centre, never
underlayed with Jazz. If humans are part of films they play the role of destroyer or
rescuer, always coming from outside.
Today, while the human population and civilization is growing, the aftermath of
human behaviour on the environment is more and more negatively attributed. The
powerful danger of nature for the cultural life of humans is replaced by the powerful
danger of human activities for nature. However, this view is supported by plausibility rather than empirical data.
If the human population is still growing and in parallel the consumption of
resources is still increasing, how might the discussion about the Nature-Culture
Dichotomy under these circumstances help to find solutions for ecosystems and
biodiversity? First of all, the discussion may show that there is no strict border
between nature and culture. Cultural life is not restricted to humans and humans are
by no means outside of nature, as evolutionary and neurological research shows.
The perception of nature as an unchangable, neutral and innocent entity, combined with the idea that humans are the most dramatic disaster for life on Earth, may
lead to fatalism. However, a perception like this excludes the view (1) that nature is
flexible, (2) cultural behaviour and human nature are two sides of the same evolutionary history, (3) and people should not leave nature for biodiversity conservation
but instead use their cultural potential.
Protection of biodiversity and zero-species loss are clearly related to human
behaviour. Self-reflection may help to find out what is possible and what is
impossible.
What is right with the Nature-Culture Dichotomy? In the western civilized world,
nature and culture are often used as antipodes. Islam, Judaism and Christianity
support the view of one God outside and nature that needs to be guided and
controlled by humans. Independent of the question of whether our behaviour to
nature is respecting ecological conditions and ascribing the very right of existence of
other biota as well, we often feel and behave like beings outside of the nature. Even if
we accept our evolutionary history and natural components in our behaviour we can
clearly see our own uniqueness, independent of the fact that all species on Earth are
unique.
The term natural is used as demarcation line between different pairs of opposites
such as real and ideal, pristine/wild and impacted, body and mind, natural and
political/social, neutral and positive/negative, innocent and guilty. If natural nature
is interpreted as a socially and politically neutral concept, then this has also implications for accountability. The principle can be applied directly or as underlying
pattern, implemented in international regulations such as the Agenda 21, Convention
on Biological Diversity, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, EU Water Framework Directive, EU Habitats Directive, and the “more or
less hegemonic discourse of sustainable development” (cf. Uggla 2010, 80).
What is wrong with the Nature-Culture Dichotomy? Currently, many contributions on the nature-culture relationship argue against the dichotomy, try to overcome
the dichotomy with the goal of harmonization, or describe a trajectory beyond the
26
C. Hobohm
adapted. The music in the background has sounds of a wellness centre, never
underlayed with Jazz. If humans are part of films they play the role of destroyer or
rescuer, always coming from outside.
Today, while the human population and civilization is growing, the aftermath of
human behaviour on the environment is more and more negatively attributed. The
powerful danger of nature for the cultural life of humans is replaced by the powerful
danger of human activities for nature. However, this view is supported by plausibility rather than empirical data.
If the human population is still growing and in parallel the consumption of
resources is still increasing, how might the discussion about the Nature-Culture
Dichotomy under these circumstances help to find solutions for ecosystems and
biodiversity? First of all, the discussion may show that there is no strict border
between nature and culture. Cultural life is not restricted to humans and humans are
by no means outside of nature, as evolutionary and neurological research shows.
The perception of nature as an unchangable, neutral and innocent entity, combined with the idea that humans are the most dramatic disaster for life on Earth, may
lead to fatalism. However, a perception like this excludes the view (1) that nature is
flexible, (2) cultural behaviour and human nature are two sides of the same evolutionary history, (3) and people should not leave nature for biodiversity conservation
but instead use their cultural potential.
Protection of biodiversity and zero-species loss are clearly related to human
behaviour. Self-reflection may help to find out what is possible and what is
impossible.
What is right with the Nature-Culture Dichotomy? In the western civilized world,
nature and culture are often used as antipodes. Islam, Judaism and Christianity
support the view of one God outside and nature that needs to be guided and
controlled by humans. Independent of the question of whether our behaviour to
nature is respecting ecological conditions and ascribing the very right of existence of
other biota as well, we often feel and behave like beings outside of the nature. Even if
we accept our evolutionary history and natural components in our behaviour we can
clearly see our own uniqueness, independent of the fact that all species on Earth are
unique.
The term natural is used as demarcation line between different pairs of opposites
such as real and ideal, pristine/wild and impacted, body and mind, natural and
political/social, neutral and positive/negative, innocent and guilty. If natural nature
is interpreted as a socially and politically neutral concept, then this has also implications for accountability. The principle can be applied directly or as underlying
pattern, implemented in international regulations such as the Agenda 21, Convention
on Biological Diversity, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, EU Water Framework Directive, EU Habitats Directive, and the “more or
less hegemonic discourse of sustainable development” (cf. Uggla 2010, 80).
What is wrong with the Nature-Culture Dichotomy? Currently, many contributions on the nature-culture relationship argue against the dichotomy, try to overcome
the dichotomy with the goal of harmonization, or describe a trajectory beyond the
26
C. Hobohm