| | | 17.8 Epilogue |
It is obvious that cultural eutrophication is tightly coupled to the development of man, his techniques, food production and dietary habits. Can cultural eutrophication be omitted as long as Homo sapiens exists? The answer to this question is frankly no. With few exceptions (the utmost outskirts of civilization) the surface of the earth has been transformed from nature into a cultural landscape. Not so visible for the human eye also the sea has been turned into a cultural landscape. We have various forms of marine pollution that can be encountered worldwide. We reduced the number of large mammals in Homo sapiens ITALICS! earliest days and recently also overfishing has taken place: Medium- and large-sized fish have declined to about 25% of what was found in the 50ties. The seafloor has become a deposition site for scrap, dredged material, constructions, ammunitions, chemical waste etc. Each m2 of the North Sea or Kattegat is subjected to bottom trawls several times a year. What we in colloquial terms call nature is to a large extent actually culture, also in the ocean. And with regard to the latter the term culture reflects a rather uncultured attitude. We think highly about the ocean, but could not care less.
For obvious reasons, mankind is to increasingly worried about the quality of its environment. What is a clean and healthy environment in times when most of the earth caries the signature of environmental change, habitat destruction and pollution? Given the strong increase in human populations over the last 1000 and particular the last 100 years, until when were our environments clean and healthy? When did the coastal regions where people live, stop to be clean or healthy? In 1900, 1500, 500 or 500 A. D.? There is no scientific definition for the terms clean and healthy. Clean and healthy have operational definitions that we have to generate. Most environmental standards are rather based on `common sense' than scientific reasoning. Environmental standards must include the impact of humans, unless we wish to exterminate ourselves for the benefit of nature per se. Prior to a clean-up of our polluted coastal zones we have to decide how clean they should become and which point in time we wish to refer to that is acceptably clean and healthy.
Culture means alienation from nature. But culture is the very base of human existence; it is what makes us humans. We can thus not ignore alienation from nature. Even an environmentalist is alienated with regard to what he/she wishes to protect. This creates a basic problem for environmental protection that easily can result in sustainable development confrontations. Sustainable development implies that mans demands for natural resources such as food are covered inside the `buffer capacity' of an ecosystem. Sustainability also implies that organic matter and energy harvesting from an ecosystem must not threaten the long-term integrity of ecosystems. In aquatic systems sustainable development is limited by new production, in other words the ecosystems carrying capacity, its maximum production capacity and harvestable production. Sustainability can only be maintained at harvest levels that are much lower than the carrying capacity. Where this limit is to be set is the great challenge that depends on our definition of sustainability which has not absolute, but an operational meaning.
Ecosystems changes are a direct consequence of our existence. There is no way to stop cultural eutrophication. Any attempt to target a clean environment without radically reducing human populations and thoroughly changing our life commodities, is utterly naïve. Technology (for the educated and wealthy) can only help, but does not fundamentally change the state of affairs. Thus we can only ask "What eutrophication, how much eutrophication and where should eutrophication preferentially take place"? The question is not cultural eutrophication or not, but what type of eutrophication, how much and at what price for nature and humans. Most aquatic ecosystems are thus a cultural `landscape', which cannot be turned into nature or a sanctuary without removing humans from the entire watershed. And even this will not help as the atmosphere supplies nutrients from adjacent regions. We have to bear the responsibilities in a setting where we cannot run away from the consequences, but modify our management. We live in the environment that we deserve. And the recent growth in human population has probably resulted in that we have passed already the earths point of no return. Most of the earth has developed irreversibly into a cultural landscape. Cultural eutrophication is a facet of this process.
| | | 17.8 Epilogue |