(Diesen Text als PDF herunterladen)

On Human Ecology

Dieter Steiner & Wolfgang H. Serbser - 2025

What is Human Ecology?

When we ask: What is physics? What is biology? What is sociology? What is psychology? then we always get an answer that shows that the field of knowledge in question deals with certain aspects of this world within defined boundaries. This is not the case when we ask the question: What is human ecology? because especially in Germany and, to some extent, in Europe at large it is not a generally recognized subject in the academic canon. Although the situation outside of Europe is to some extent different, an ignorance about human ecology prevails, and this is probably due to the fact that it is a field of activity that, unlike the disciplines mentioned above, cannot be easily pigeonholed. The designation “human ecology” in itself clearly conveys that it must be about people's relationships with their environment. The big question, however, is how these relationships should or can be investigated, because we are dealing with an extremely complex situation here. Not only the relationship of the individual human being to his natural environment should be studied, but also the one to the social environment, including the built environment, and beyond that the one to his own inner self. At the same time, the relationship between human society as a whole and nature must be considered at a higher level. From this perspective, human ecology actually has to do with everything that happens on this planet with the participation of humans or, conversely, everything that is of natural origin and influences human life. From a scientific point of view, it is therefore interdisciplinary, but depending on the degree of holism it strives for, it must on the one hand cross borders into philosophical realms and on the other hand, in the sense of transdisciplinarity, deal with non-academic practical everyday or indigenous knowledge (see Unuigbe 2023). Human ecology is based on a world view that sees humans as responsible respectful co-creators, not as dominators and ruthless manipulators of the earth's ecology, and calls on them to act accordingly.

What is Human Ecology?

When we ask: What is physics? What is biology? What is sociology? What is psychology? then we always get an answer that shows that the field of knowledge in question deals with certain aspects of this world within defined boundaries. This is not the case when we ask the question: What is human ecology? because especially in Germany and, to some extent, in Europe at large it is not a generally recognized subject in the academic canon. Although the situation outside of Europe is to some extent different, an ignorance about human ecology prevails, and this is probably due to the fact that it is a field of activity that, unlike the disciplines mentioned above, cannot be easily pigeonholed. The designation “human ecology” in itself clearly conveys that it must be about people's relationships with their environment. The big question, however, is how these relationships should or can be investigated, because we are dealing with an extremely complex situation here. Not only the relationship of the individual human being to his natural environment should be studied, but also the one to the social environment, including the built environment, and beyond that the one to his own inner self. At the same time, the relationship between human society as a whole and nature must be considered at a higher level. From this perspective, human ecology actually has to do with everything that happens on this planet with the participation of humans or, conversely, everything that is of natural origin and influences human life. From a scientific point of view, it is therefore interdisciplinary, but depending on the degree of holism it strives for, it must on the one hand cross borders into philosophical realms and on the other hand, in the sense of transdisciplinarity, deal with non-academic practical everyday or indigenous knowledge (see Unuigbe 2023). Human ecology is based on a world view that sees humans as responsible respectful co-creators, not as dominators and ruthless manipulators of the earth's ecology, and calls on them to act accordingly.

“New Human Ecology”

Today's human ecology is a child of concern about the constantly deteriorating basis of life on this planet as a result of human activity. Although there had been warning voices for some time, it was not until the epoch-making book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962), the Club of Rome report Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972), the first Earth Day celebrated by 20 million people in the USA in 1970 and the first UN environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972 that a real awakening took place. Environmentally oriented social movements and non-governmental organizations were formed and courses in human ecology were introduced at some universities, also in Europe. In addition, specializations focusing on human-environment relations emerged in established human science disciplines, such as environmental medicine and environmental economics early on, followed by environmental psychology, environmental philosophy and, after some delay, environmental sociology. In some cases, this resulted in fruitful connections to human ecology, but in other cases these representations remained trapped within their disciplinary boundaries. In addition to uncovering and criticizing the social and environmental damage caused by our activities, human ecology today is increasingly concerned with the question of how social change can be initiated and shaped to lead to a positive, damage-free or at least damage-minimizing future. Important directions for a human ecology that aims to tackle today's problems are listed in the Manchester Declaration of 2009.

What About Sustainable Development?

The obvious question is: why are we promoting a human ecology when the concept of sustainable development is now being followed everywhere, including at universities, in view of the ecological crisis we are in today? The answer is already in the last sentence of the first section. The basic problem is that this is not an ecological concept, but an economic one. How can this be, when the well-known three-pillar model with the ecological, social and economic areas postulates equivalence? Even if this were the case, there would be a problem that few people would notice. Klaus Michael Meyer-Abich (2003, 179-180) has noted: “The error of the three-pillar theorem consists ... in giving equal weighting to (1) the whole of nature, (2) a part of this whole, namely human societies, and (3) a part of this part, namely their economies, when weighing up interests. Instead, it would be appropriate to subordinate the parts to the whole!” In addition, in cases of conflict there is a tendency to give priority to economic interests. Furthermore, the term “development” still contains the idea of growth, as expressed in No. 8 of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals: “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.” Of course, individual sectors can grow and others can shrink. However, the idea that the economy as a whole must constantly grow and accumulate more and more resources in the process is highly problematic. And of course there are companies that have managed to achieve truly sustainable operations. Unfortunately, however, large corporations and investors are still the dominant players. They are tied to a fossil-fuel-driven and resource-devouring industrial society that has become increasingly widespread, especially in the 20th century. The aim here is to achieve positions of power that enable control over what happens on this planet, which at the same time means that consideration for human rights and environmental standards is largely ignored. Of course, there are committed teachers in the education system, which is fully committed to the concept of sustainable development, who interpret it in a human-ecological sense. The problem arises where the understanding of “business as usual, now simply sustainable” has the upper hand. As long as this view dominates, the whole thing is a sham, which is an illustrative example of the upside-down state of our civilization mentioned below.

“Classical Human Ecology”

Before the aforementioned more recent development of human ecology, there existed already a “classical human ecology« that played an important role, particularly in sociology and in the various research and teaching disciplines in the so-called Social Science Building at the University of Chicago (see Serbser 2004a). The classical phase lasted from around 1909 to 1940, but had predecessors and successors and was also accompanied by representatives of social philosophy and social psychology (for the entire history, see Serbser 2021). It was primarily about people living together in a socially very diverse community under the conditions of the time. Chicago served as a “real world laboratory” for the investigation of the social problems that arose from the coexistence of inhabitants of different classes and immigrants of different origins. The outstanding figure was Robert E. Park (see Serbser 2004b). He drew on Darwin's theory of evolution to show that human societies cannot be regarded to be in opposition to nature, but that they are parts of the earthly ecosystem. He investigated whether the principle of the struggle for existence, which plays a role in evolution, is still effective in the human context. His result: there is a biotic substructure in which primeval competitive behavior is still relevant and represents a component of economic behavior. Higher up, however, there is a cultural superstructure that uses explicit laws and regulations and implicit customs to curb excessive free action and steer it in the direction of mediation, cooperation and inclusion (for Park's significance for human ecology, see the collection of his writings in Park 1952). Also in the USA, courses in home economics had been offered at various universities since around 1900. Over time, it became clear that this was human ecology on a small scale, family ecology, and the branch of science concerned with this was renamed Human Ecology (see Bubolz 1991). Uri Bronfenbrenner (1979) specifically investigated how family members develop psychologically through internal and external interactions. Finally, in cultural anthropology, the study of the role of culture in the interaction of humans with their natural environment goes back a long way to Franz Boas, the American anthropologist of German origin (see Boas 1938). More recently, the term “cultural ecology” has been coined for this problem area (see Netting 1986).

How Resilient is the Earth?

In the current situation, an essential question is the Earth's carrying capacity. Of course, the size of the world's population plays a role here, but above all the environmental impact of the exorbitant consumption of the westernized part of it. Talking about the “part” is therefore also a reminder of the resulting unequal distribution in rich and poor countries. It stands to reason that part of human ecology is concerned with the related issues, in particular the environmental degradation caused by the consumption of resources and the production of waste. Examples include the books by Paul R. Ehrlich et al. (1973) and Wolfgang Nentwig (2005). In the latter case, the chapter headings are typically: Population, Food, Energy, Raw Materials, Waste, Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Impact of Chemicals, Impact on Atmosphere and Climate and Environmental Change. Efforts of this kind could be described as superficial human ecology, insofar as the background of the social factors causing them is not addressed or only mentioned in passing. Here Stephen Boyden (1987) goes one step further with his evolutionary approach: his starting point is biological evolution, which has given man a capacity for culture that has enabled him to grow out of biological bottlenecks, but at the same time to damage his own livelihood under certain circumstances. Boyden cites as an example the developing addiction to technology (technoaddiction), which has led to a growing extrasomatic material metabolism (technometabolism) and mountains of waste. With all our demands on the earthly conditions, we are now in the process of exceeding planetary boundaries, which means we run the risk of triggering massive negative changes at tipping points (e.g. rapid decay of the remaining rainforest in Amazonia) (see Rockström et al. 2023).

Evolutionary Perspective: our Civilization is Upside Down

It is of course possible that a damaging technology can be replaced by a gentler or even harmless one. The quickly determined corrective reaction to the occurrence of polar ozone holes is an example. Unfortunately, however, this is an exception. With our current biggest problem, climate change, we do not seem to be able to significantly reduce CO₂ emissions fast enough. Some countries, such as Germany, are on the right track, but globally, emissions in 2023 have reached a new maximum. A committed human ecology must therefore take a close look at the obstructive social conditions. It can follow on from Boyden's evolutionary perspective, but must extend it. We can imagine a human society as being made up of three key areas. At the bottom we have the economic sphere, which ensures the supply of material goods taken from nature, at the top the cultural sphere, which gives us orientation, today by means of religion, philosophy, science, art and education, and in between the socio-political sphere, which shapes and regulates human coexistence. The material flow from bottom to top has a constitutive character, while the spiritual flow from top to bottom has a regulative character. If a human collective is to be able to survive in the long term, the latter flow must be fed by an orientation towards what is happening in nature. However, this is not or no longer the case today. In the course of cultural evolution, there was a change, beginning in the late Neolithic, from manageable communities - first groups of nomadic foraging peoples, then village communities with horticulture - to growing societies with urban centers and political institutions (prime example Mesopotamia, see Serbser 2008). Today, this has developed into a globalized economic society with all-round trade and an unleashed monetary economy. Our entire civilization is dominated by an economic profit motive that sets no limits. This was already an issue in the Chicago human ecology described above under the designation »robber baron economy«! This development also means that the focus of orientation, which once had its place in the cultural sphere and was based on acting in accordance with nature, is now determined by the economy. As a result, our civilization is upside down and has lost its foothold (see Steiner 2008 & Steiner 2021, video). Accordingly, there has been occasionally talk of the “hors sol society”.^[1]

Radical Human Ecology

In this evolutionary process, a distinction is usually made between two revolutions: the agricultural revolution in the Neolithic period and the industrial revolution that began in the 18th century. Mostly ignored - with the exception of feminist literature - is a transition that can be described as a gender revolution, the change from egalitarian or even matricentric communities to patriarchal, i.e. male-dominated societies. This began in different regions in the Neolithic period and continued into the Bronze Age (see Meier-Seethaler 2011). As a result, our social structures, especially economic structures, are still male-dominated today. This is one of the most fundamental causes of our current problems. If we do not simply want to combat the symptoms in the form of environmental degradation - as is often the case with the concept of sustainable development mentioned above - we must focus on changing the structures and putting civilization back on its feet. »Overshoot will end, either by design or disaster«, is the repeated message of the Global Footprint Network. If we want to adhere to the former and avoid the latter, we need a combination of enormous political efforts at the top and massive pressure from below. First and foremost, the way in which the economic system functions – the system that prevails since industrialization – must undergo a fundamental change. A preceding alteration in awareness and thus a guiding education play a decisive role in this. Human ecology, insofar as it deals with and engages with issues in this area, is called “radical” (see Williams et al. 2012).

The Human Ecological Approach to the World

Garret Hardin (1985) has described human ecology as both conservative and subversive. This sounds paradoxical, but of course the two attributes refer to two different areas. It is conservative in that it advocates the preservation of the natural foundations of life, and subversive in the conviction that the functioning of our civilization must be changed in order to do so. In the latter sense, Gerald Young (1991) lists a number of characteristics of human ecology that he calls “slightly heretical”. This is in comparison to the normal scientific enterprise. Let us summarize some important aspects. As can be seen from the first paragraph, human ecology claims to view the world in a connective, integrative, synthetic or holistic way (see Steiner & Nauser 1993), although reductionist perspectives are of course not excluded for the purpose of analysis. Researchers working in human ecology should do so in a humanistic and anthropocentric sense. “Humanistic” refers to an attitude that takes the whole person as its starting point. It is not only a rational thinking being, but also a being guided by feelings and intuitions. Of course, “anthropocentric” here does not mean that humans regard themselves as the crown of creation, but rather the realization that they have a limited capacity for knowledge in accordance with their dispositions. However, this state can - although Young does not recommend this - be softened through Deep Ecology by attempting, in the sense of Arne Naess (1989), to expand one's own self and to view components of the environment with which one is in relationship as parts of oneself, so to speak. This gives the relationship to the world a spiritual touch.

Alternative Science

A humanistic-anthropocentric attitude in the above sense also means that science takes on a different character. Conventional theory demands that science be conducted objectively free from bias, emotions and values. Of course, one should not proceed from preconceived opinions, but as far as possible from established facts. However, if we recognize that the phenomena of the natural world have an inherent value, we cannot possibly operate without emotion and value. In view of the desirability of social change, the consequence is that human ecology views the world not only descriptively, but also normatively. The functioning of nature should once again serve as a model. Ulrich Loening (2025) has compiled a list of characteristics worthy of imitation under the title “Harmonise with Nature”. The most important of these is probably natural circularity (example: waste avoidance), which stands in contrast to the prevailing linearity of civilization.

Conclusion

After the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, at which the idea of sustainable development was propagated, there was a great sense of optimism. However, this faded after a while. The change of course in the economy propagated by Swiss entrepreneur Stephan Schmidheiny (1992) did not take place. To the extent that there have been positive developments since then, they have mostly been politically initiated and represent a drop in the ocean. However, it is precisely when the feeling that things are going wrong prevails that it is advisable to work with vigor to reverse the trend. This is where the function of human ecology in the education system comes into play. As a brochure from the College of the Atlantic puts it, it should change lives and change the world!

Literature

Boas, Franz (1938). The Mind of Primitive Man. Macmillan, New York (revised edition, first published in 1911).

Boyden, Stephen (1987). Western Civilization in Biological Perspective. Patterns in Biohistory. Clarendon  Press, Oxford.

Bronfenbrenner, Uri (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bubolz, Margaret M. (1991), The Family Ecosystem. Macro and Micro Interdependence. In M. Suzanne Sontag et al., (Eds). Human Ecology. Strategies for the Future (pp. 26-51). Society for Human Ecology, Fort Collins, CO.

Carson, Rachel (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Ehrlich, Paul R., Ehrlich, Anne H. & Holdren, John P. (1973). Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.

Hardin, Garrett (1985). Human ecology: the subversive, conservative science. In Richard J. Borden (Ed.). Human Ecology. A Gathering of Perspectives (pp. 68-80). The Society for Human Ecology, College Park, MA.

Loening, Ulrich (2025). Harmonise With Nature. Only a change of mindset can reverse cultural habits which counter nature. Paper COHE Conference »Facing the Future: Human Ecology and Higher Education«, Potsdam 2022. To be published 2025 in Human Ecology Review. Preprint  2024 with ResearchGate: Download.

Meadows, Donella H,, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers & William W. Behrens III (1972). Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New York.

Meier-Seethaler, Carola 2011. Ursprünge und Befreiungen. Eine dissidente Kulturtheorie. opus magnum, Stuttgart (2nd revised edition).

Meyer-Abich, Klaus Michael (2003). Nachhaltigkeit - die neue Kulturform der Wirtschaft. In Günter Altner, Heike Leitschuh-Fecht, Gerd Michelsen, Udo E. Simonis und Ernst U. von Weizsäcker (Eds), Jahrbuch Ökologie 2004 (pp. 176-191). C. H. Beck, Munich.

Naess, Arne (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. Outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al..

Nentwig, Wolfgang (2005). Humanökologie. Fakten - Argumente - Ausblicke. Springer, Berlin et al. (2nd revised edition. first published in 1995).

Netting, Robert M. (1986). Cultural Ecology, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.

Park, Robert Ezra (1952). Human Communities. The City and Human Ecology. The Collected Papers of Robert Ezra Park, Vol. 2. Editor.: Everett Cherrington Hughes. The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.

Rockström, Johan et al. (2023). Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619(7968), 102-111.

Schmidheiny, Stephan (1992). Changing Course –  A Global Perspective on Development and the Environment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA & London.

Serbser, Wolfgang (2004a). Forschungsgeschichte des symbolischen Interaktionismus / History of Research on Symbolic Interaction. In Ulrich Ammon et al. (Eds) Soziolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society / Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft, Vol. 1, Part 1  (pp. 836-854). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin & New York.

Serbser, Wolfgang (2004b). Human Ecology – Entstehung und Rezeption. In id. (Ed.). Humanökologie: Ursprünge - Trends - Zukünfte. Beiträge der DGH Jahrestagungen 1999 & 2000 (pp. 121-138). Edition Humanökologie 1. oekom, Munich.

Serbser, Wolfgang H. (2008). Die Natur der Gesellschaft - Zur Genese ihrer politischen und moralischen Ordnung. In Karl Bruckmeier & Wolfgang H. Serbser (Eds). Ethik und Umweltpolitik. Humanökologische Positionen und Perspektiven( pp. 51-74). Edition Humanökologie 6. oekom, Munich.

Serbser, Wolfgang (2021). Chicago Human Ecology – Eine Einführung (4 chapters). Videos, COHE Internationales Online Programm Sommer 2021. Access.

Steiner, Dieter (2008). Die moralische Inversion. In Karl Bruckmeier & Wolfgang H. Serbser (Eds). Ethik und Umweltpolitik. Humanökologische Positionen und Perspektiven (pp. 165-184). Edition Humanökologie 6. oekom, Munich.

Steiner, Dieter (2021). I. Diagnosis: Our Civilization Stands on its Head and is Threatened with Collapse. II. Remedy? Does a »Search for the Primitive« Help to Get on the Feet Again? Videos, COHE International Online Program Summer 2021. Access to I, access to II.

Steiner, Dieter & Markus Nauser (Eds) (1993). Human Ecology. Fragments of Anti-Fragmentary Views of the World. Routledge, London & New York.

Unuigbe, Ngozi (2023). What can we learn from indigenous ecological knowledge? The Ecological Citizen 6(2), 135-139.

Williams, Lewis, Rose Roberts & Alastair McIntosh (Eds) (2012). Radical Human Ecology: Intercultural and Indigenous Approaches. Ashgate, Farnham, UK, & Burlington, VT.

Young, Gerald L. (1991). Minor heresies in human ecology. In M. Suzanne Sontag, Scott D. Wright & Gerald L. Young (Eds). Human Ecology. Strategies for the Future (pp. 11-25). Society for Human Ecology, Fort Collins, CO.

------------------------------

^[1]  Hors sol literally means “outside the soil”. The term is used for soil-free vegetable cultivation in greenhouses, where the plants are rooted in substrates such as coconut fibers and supplied with nutrient solutions

(Diesen Text als PDF herunterladen)

Zur Humanökologie

Dieter Steiner & Wolfgang H. Serbser - 2025

Was ist Humanökologie?

Wenn wir fragen: Was ist Physik? Was ist Biologie? Was ist Soziologie? Was ist Psychologie? dann bekommen wir in jedem Fall eine Antwort, die erkennen lässt, dass das fragliche Wissensgebiet sich innerhalb definierter Grenzen mit bestimmten Aspekten dieser Welt befasst. Nicht so, wenn wir die Frage: Was ist Humanökologie? stellen, denn diese ist in Deutschland und teilweise auch in Europa kein allgemein anerkanntes Fach im akademischen Kanon. Auch wenn das außerhalb Europas zumeist anders aussieht, hat das vermutlich damit zu tun, dass sie ein Betätigungsfeld ist, das sich im Gegensatz zu den oben beispielhaft genannten Disziplinen nicht so einfach in einer Schublade ablegen lässt. Dabei vermittelt der Name »Humanökologie« an sich klar, dass es hier um die Beziehungen der Menschen zu ihrer Umwelt gehen muss. Die große Frage ist aber, wie diese Beziehungen untersucht werden sollen oder können, denn wir haben es hier mit einer äußerst komplexen Situation zu tun. Es geht nicht nur um das Verhältnis des einzelnen Menschen zu seiner natürlichen Umwelt, sondern auch zur sozialen Umgebung inklusive der vom Menschen gebauten Umwelt und darüber hinaus zu seinem eigenen Inneren. Gleichzeitig muss auf höherer Ebene die Beziehung der ganzen menschlichen Gesellschaft zur Natur ins Blickfeld kommen. So gesehen hat Humanökologie eigentlich mit allem zu tun, was auf diesem Planeten unter Mitwirkung der Menschen geschieht oder was umgekehrt natürlichen Ursprungs ist und das menschliche Leben beeinflusst. Wissenschaftlich gesehen ist sie deshalb interdisziplinär ausgerichtet, muss aber je nach dem Grad von Ganzheitlichkeit, den sie anstrebt, grenzüberschreitend einerseits in philosophische Gefilde vorstoßen, andererseits im Sinne einer Transdisziplinarität sich mit außerakademischem praktischem, z.B. indigenem oder alltagsweltlichem Wissen befassen (siehe Unuigbe 2023). Dabei geht die Humanökologie von einem Weltbild aus, das den Menschen in seiner Verantwortung als respektvollen Mitgestalter, nicht als Beherrscher und rücksichtslosen Manipulator der irdischen Ökologie sieht und entsprechend an sein Handeln appelliert.

»Neue Humanökologie«

Die heutige Humanökologie ist ein Kind der Besorgnis über die sich als Folge menschlichen Tuns stetig verschlechternden Lebensgrundlagen auf diesem Planeten. Zwar hatte es schon länger warnende Stimmen gegeben, aber zu einem eigentlichen Aufbruch kam es erst mit dem epochemachenden Buch Der stumme Frühling von Rachel Carson (1963), dem ebensolchen Club of Rome-Bericht Grenzen des Wachstums (Meadows u.a. 1972), dem ersten, von 20 Millionen Menschen gefeierten Earth Day in den USA 1970 und der ersten Umweltkonferenz der UNO in Stockholm 1972. Es bildeten sich umweltorientierte soziale Bewegungen und Nichtregierungs-Organisationen und an einigen Hochschulen, auch in Europa, wurden Studienangebote in Humanökologie eingeführt. Zudem entstanden in etablierten humanwissenschaftlichen Disziplinen auf die Mensch-Umwelt-Beziehung fokussierte Spezialrichtungen, so schon früh die Umweltmedizin und die Umweltökonomie, dann die Umweltpsychologie, die Umweltphilosophie und, mit einiger Verspätung, die Umweltsoziologie. Damit ergaben sich zum Teil fruchtbare Verbindungen zur Humanökologie, zum Teil aber blieben diese Darstellungen innerhalb ihrer disziplinärer Grenzen gefangen. Die heutige Humanökologie befasst sich neben der Aufdeckung und Kritik von sozial und umweltbezogenen Schäden unserer Aktivitäten inzwischen vermehrt mit der Frage, wie ein gesellschaftlicher Wandel, der zu einer positiven schadenfreien oder mindestens schadenminimierenden Zukunft führt, initiiert und gestaltet werden kann. Wichtige Stoßrichtungen für eine Humanökologie, die sich der heutigen Probleme annehmen möchte, sind in der Manchester-Deklaration von 2009 aufgelistet.

Was ist mit der nachhaltigen Entwicklung?

Die Frage liegt nahe: Warum machen wir Werbung für eine Humanökologie, wenn nun doch hinsichtlich der ökologischen Krise, in der wir heute stecken, überall, auch an den Hochschulen, dem Konzept der nachhaltigen Entwicklung gefolgt wird? Die Antwort steckt schon im letzten Satz des ersten Abschnitts. Das Grundproblem ist, dass es sich dabei nicht um ein ökologisches, sondern ein ökonomielastiges Konzept handelt. Wie das, wenn im bekannten Dreisäulenmodell mit den Bereichen Ökologisches, Soziales und Ökonomisches doch eine Gleichwertigkeit postuliert wird? Schon wenn diese eingehalten würde, besteht ein Problem, das nur wenigen auffällt. Klaus Michael Meyer-Abich (2003, 179-180) hat es festgehalten: »Der Fehler des Dreisäulentheorems besteht … darin, (1) das Ganze der Natur, (2) einen Teil dieses Ganzen, nämlich die menschlichen Gesellschaften, und (3) ein Teil dieses Teils, nämlich deren Wirtschaften für die Interessenabwägung gleich zu gewichten. Sachgemäß wäre stattdessen eine Nachordnung der Teile unter ihr Ganzes!« Dazu kommt, dass in Konfliktfällen die Tendenz besteht, den ökonomischen Interessen einen Vorrang zu gewähren. Weiter steckt im Begriff »Entwicklung« immer noch die Wachstumsidee, wie es ja auch in Nr. 8 der von der UN verfolgten Ziele der nachhaltigen Entwicklung zum Ausdruck kommt: »Dauerhaftes, breitenwirk­sames und nachhaltiges Wirtschaftswachstum, produktive Vollbeschäftigung und menschenwürdige Arbeit für alle fördern.« Wohlverstanden, natürlich können einzelne Branchen wachsen und andere schrumpfen. Höchst problematisch ist aber die Vorstellung, die Wirtschaft insgesamt müsse ständig wachsen und dabei immer mehr Ressourcen akkumulieren. Und natürlich gibt es Firmen, die sich zu einer echt nachhaltigen Funktionsweise durchgerungen haben. Dominant sind aber leider immer noch Großkonzerne und Investoren, die einer fossil getriebenen und ressourcenverschlingenden Industriegesellschaft verhaftet sind, wie sie sich vor allem im 20. Jahrhundert immer mehr ausgebreitet hat. Hier werden Machtpositionen anvisiert, die die Kontrolle über die Geschehnisse auf diesem Planeten ermöglichen, was gleichzeitig bedeutet, dass die Rücksicht auf menschenrechtliche und umweltschonende Standards weitgehend ausgeblendet wird. Natürlich gibt es im Bildungswesen, das sich ganz dem Konzept der nachhaltigen Entwicklung verschrieben hat, engagierte Lehrkräfte, die es in humanökologischem Sinne interpretieren. Das Problem entsteht dort, wo das Verständnis von »business as usual, jetzt einfach nachhaltig«, die Oberhand hat. So lange diese Auffassung dominiert, ist das Ganze eine Mogelpackung, die ein illustratives Beispiel für den unten angesprochenen Kopfstand unserer Zivilisation ist.

»Klassische Humanökologie«

Neben der genannten neueren Entwicklung der Humanökologie gab es vorher schon eine »klassische Humanökologie«, die insbesondere in der Soziologie und in den verschiedenen Forschungs- und Lehrdisziplinen im sogenannten Social Science Building an der University of Chicago eine wichtige Rolle spielte (vgl. Serbser 2004a). Die klassische Phase dauerte von etwa 1909 bis 1940, hatte aber Vorläufer und Nachfolger und wurde auch begleitet von Repräsentanten der Sozialphilosophie und Sozialpsychologie (zur gesamten Geschichte siehe Serbser 2021). Es ging in erster Linie um das gesellschaftliche Zusammenleben der Menschen in einem sozial sehr diversen Gemeinwesen unter den damaligen Verhältnissen. Chicago diente dabei als »Reallabor« für die Untersuchung der sozialen Probleme, die sich aus dem Nebeneinander von Einwohnern verschiedenen Standes und von Einwanderern unterschiedlichster Herkunft ergaben. Die herausragende Figur war Robert E. Park (siehe dazu Serbser 2004b). Er knüpfte an Darwins Evolutionstheorie an, um zu zeigen, dass menschliche Gesellschaften nicht der Natur gegenüberstehende Gebilde sind, sondern Teile des irdischen Ökosystems. Er untersuchte, ob das in der Evolution eine Rolle spielende Prinzip der struggle for existence auch im menschlichen Kontext noch eine Rolle spielt. Sein Resultat: Es gibt eine biotische Substruktur, in der urtümliches Konkurrenzverhalten noch aktuell ist und eine Komponente des ökonomischen Verhaltens darstellt. Darüber aber herrscht eine kulturelle Superstruktur, die mittels expliziten Gesetzen und Vorschriften und implizitem Brauchtum allzu freiheitliches Tun eindämmt und in Bahnen von Vermittlung, Kooperation und Inklusion zu lenken vermag (zu Parks Bedeutung für die Humanökologie siehe die Sammlung seiner Schriften in Park 1952). Ebenfalls in den USA gab es seit ca. 1900 an verschiedenen Hochschulen Studienangebote für Hauswirtschaft, Home Economics. Mit der Zeit wurde klar, dass es sich hier um Humanökologie im Kleinmaßstab, um Familienökologie handelt, und der damit befasste Wissenschaftszweig wurde in Human Ecology umbenannt (siehe dazu Bubolz 1991). Uri Bronfenbrenner (1981) hat speziell untersucht, wie sich Familienmitglieder durch interne und externe Interaktionen psychisch entwickeln. Schließlich reicht in der Kulturanthropologie die Beschäftigung mit der Frage, welche Rolle die Kultur in der Auseinandersetzung des Menschen mit seiner natürlichen Umwelt spielt, weit zurück zum Deutschamerikaner Franz Boas (siehe Boas 1938). In neuerer Zeit ist für diesen Problemkreis der Begriff »Kulturökologie« geprägt worden (siehe Bargatzki 1986).

Wie groß ist die Resilienz der Erde?

In der heutigen Situation ist eine essenzielle Frage die nach der Tragfähigkeit der Erde. Dabei spielt natürlich die Größe der Weltbevölkerung eine Rolle, vor allem aber die Umweltbelastung durch den exorbitanten Konsum des westlich geprägten Teils von ihr. Mit der Rede vom »Teil« wird somit auch an die in reichen und armen Ländern resultierende Ungleichverteilung erinnert. Es liegt nahe, dass sich ein Teil der Humanökologie mit den damit zusammenhängenden Fragen beschäftigt, insbesondere mit der Umweltdegradierung durch den Ressourcenverbrauch und die Abfallproduktion. Als Beispiele seien die Bücher von Paul R. Ehrlich u.a. (1975) und von Wolfgang Nentwig (2005) genannt. Im letzteren Fall lauten die Kapitelüberschriften typischerweise: Bevölkerung, Nahrung, Energie, Rohstoffe, Abfall, Ökobilanz, Umweltbelastung durch Chemikalien, Beeinflussung von Atmosphäre und Klima und Veränderung der Umwelt. Man könnte die Anstrengungen dieser Art als vordergründige Humanökologie bezeichnen, insofern dabei der Hintergrund der verursachenden gesellschaftlichen Faktoren nicht angesprochen oder nur am Rande erwähnt wird. Hier geht Stephen Boyden (1987) mit seiner evolutionären Betrachtung einen Schritt weiter: Sein Ausgangspunkt ist die biologische Evolution, von der der Mensch eine Kapazität für Kultur bekommen hat, die es ihm ermöglichte, aus biologischen Engpässen herauszuwachsen, gleichzeitig aber unter Umständen auch die eigenen Lebensgrundlagen zu schädigen. Boyden nennt als Beispiel die sich entwickelnde Techniksucht (technoaddiction), die zu einem wachsenden extrasomatischen materiellen Stoffwechsel (technometabolism) und zu Abfallbergen geführt hat. Mit all unseren Beanspruchungen der irdischen Gegebenheiten sind wir heute daran, planetare Grenzen zu überschreiten, womit wir das Risiko eingehen, an Kipppunkten massive negative Veränderungen auszulösen (z.B. rapider Zerfall des restlichen Regenwaldes in Amazonien) (siehe Rockström u.a. 2023).

Evolutionäre Perspektive: Kopfstand unserer Zivilisation

Es ist natürlich möglich, dass eine schadenverursachende Technik durch eine sanftere oder gar harmlose ersetzt werden kann. Die schnell beschlossene korrigierende Reaktion auf das Auftreten der polaren Ozonlöcher ist ein Beispiel. Leider ist das aber eine Ausnahme. Bei unserem gegenwärtigen größten Problem, dem Klimawandel, scheinen wir nicht in der Lage zu sein, die CO₂-Emissionen schnell genug signifikant zu senken. Einige Länder wie Deutschland sind auf gutem Weg, aber global gesehen hat der CO₂-Ausstoß 2023 ein neues Maximum erreicht. Eine engagierte Humanökologie muss also die hinderlichen gesellschaftlichen Zustände unter die Lupe nehmen. Sie kann bei Boydens evolutionärer Perspektive anschließen, muss sie aber ausweiten. Wir können uns eine menschliche Gesellschaft als durch drei maßgebliche Bereiche aufgebaut vorstellen. Unten haben wir den ökonomischen Bereich, der die Versorgung mit der Natur entnommenen materiellen Gütern gewährleistet, oben den kulturellen Bereich, der uns Orientierung vermittelt, heute mittels Religion, Philosophie, Wissenschaft, Kunst und Bildung, und dazwischen den sozio-politischen Bereich, der das menschliche Zusammenleben formt und regelt. Der materielle Fluss von unten nach oben hat einen konstitutiven, der geistige Fluss von oben nach unten einen regulativen Charakter. Soll ein menschliches Kollektiv längerfristig überlebensfähig sein, muss der letztere Fluss von einer Orientierung am Geschehen in der Natur gespeist sein. Das ist aber heute nicht bzw. nicht mehr der Fall. Im Laufe der kulturellen Evolution gab es einen im späten Neolithikum beginnenden Wechsel von überschaubaren Gemeinschaften – zuerst Gruppen von Wildbeutern, dann Dorfgemeinschaften mit Gartenbau – zu wachsenden Gesellschaften mit städtischen Zentren und politischen Institutionen (Paradebeispiel Mesopotamien, siehe Serbser 2008). Bis heute ist daraus eine globalisierte ökonomische Gesellschaft mit allseitigem Handel und einer entfesselten Geldwirtschaft geworden. Ein sich keine Grenzen setzendes wirtschaftliches Profitdenken dominiert unsere ganze Zivilisation. Dies war schon bei der oben beschriebenen Chicagoer Humanökologie unter der Bezeichnung robber baron economy ein Thema! Diese Entwicklung hatte auch zur Folge, dass der Fokus der Orientierung, der einmal seinen Platz im kulturellen Bereich hatte und sich nach dem Naturgeschehen richtete, heute von der Ökonomie bestimmt wird. Im Resultat bedeutet dies, dass  unsere Zivilisation auf dem Kopf steht und damit die Bodenhaftung verloren hat (siehe Steiner 2008 & Steiner 2021, Video). Entsprechend ist auch schon von der »hors sol-Gesellschaft^[1] »gesprochen worden.

Radikale Humanökologie

In diesem evolutionären Geschehen werden üblicherweise zwei Revolutionen unterschieden, die landwirtschaftliche im Neolithikum und die industrielle mit Beginn im 18. Jahrhundert. Meist unbeachtet – Ausnahme die feministisch geprägte Literatur – bleibt ein Übergang, den man als Genderrevolution bezeichnen kann, der Wandel von egalitären bis matrizentrischen Gemeinschaften zu patriarchalen, also männerbeherrschten Gesellschaften. Dieser begann regional unterschiedlich im Neolithikum und hatte Ausläufer bis in die Bronzezeit (siehe Meier-Seethaler 2011). Als Resultat sind bis heute unsere gesellschaftlichen Strukturen, insbesondere die ökonomischen, männlich geprägt. Dies ist eine der grundlegendsten Ursachen für unsere heutigen Probleme. Wollen wir bezüglich der Umweltdegradierung nicht einfach nur Symptombekämpfung betreiben – wie es eben häufig im Bereich des Konzeptes der oben genannten nachhaltigen Entwicklung der Fall ist – muss die Änderung der Strukturen ins Auge gefasst werden, insgesamt die Zivilisation wieder auf die Füße gestellt werden. Overshoot will end, either by design or disaster, heißt es jeweils in den Mitteilungen des Global Footprint Network, zu Deutsch etwa: »Die Erdüberlastung wird zu einem Ende kommen, entweder durch unsere Planung oder durch eine Katastrophe.« Wollen wir die erstere ansteuern und die letztere vermeiden, brauchen wir eine Kombination von enormen politischen Anstrengungen oben mit massivem Druck von unten. In erster Linie muss die Art und Weise, wie das seit der Industrialisierung vorherrschende Wirtschaftssystem funktioniert, eine grundlegende Änderung erfahren. Einem vorangehenden Bewusstseinswandel und damit einer wegleitenden Bildung kommt dabei eine entscheidende Funktion zu. Die Humanökologie, die sich mit Fragen in diesem Bereich beschäftigt und engagiert, nennt sich »radikal« (siehe dazu Williams u.a. 2012).

Der humanökologische Zugang zur Welt

Garret Hardin (1985) hat die Humanökologie als konservativ und gleichzeitig als subversiv bezeichnet. Das tönt paradox, aber natürlich beziehen sich die beiden Attribute auf zwei verschiedene Bereiche. Indem sie sich für die Bewahrung der natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen einsetzt, ist sie konservativ, in der Überzeugung, dass dazu das Funktionieren unserer Zivilisation geändert werden muss, subversiv. Im letzteren Sinne listet Gerald Young (1991) eine Reihe von Eigenschaften der Humanökologie auf, die er »leicht ketzerisch« nennt. Gemeint ist dies im Vergleich zum normalen Wissenschaftsbetrieb. Betrachten wir zusammenfassend einige wichtige Aspekte. Wie schon aus dem ersten Absatz hervorgeht, hat die Humanökologie den Anspruch, die Welt verbindend, integrativ, synthetisch bis holistisch zu betrachten (siehe dazu Steiner & Nauser 1993), wobei aber natürlich teilweise reduktionistische Perspektiven zwecks Analyse nicht ausgeschlossen sind. Die Humanökologie treibenden Forscherinnen und Forscher sollen dies in einem humanistischen und anthropozentrischen Sinne tun. Mit »humanistisch« ist eine Einstellung gemeint, die vom ganzen Menschen ausgeht. Dieser ist nicht nur ein rational denkendes, sondern auch ein von Gefühlen und Intuitionen angeleitetes Wesen. »Anthropozentrisch« bedeutet hier natürlich nicht, dass der Mensch sich selbst als Krone der Schöpfung betrachtet, sondern die Einsicht, dass er seinen Anlagen entsprechend eine eingeschränkte Erkenntnisfähigkeit hat. Dieser Zustand kann aber – was Young allerdings nicht empfiehlt – tiefenökologisch aufgeweicht werden, indem im Sinne von Arne Naess (1989) versucht wird, das eigene Selbst auszuweiten und Komponenten der Umwelt, mit denen man in Beziehung steht, gewissermaßen als Teile von sich selbst zu betrachten. Dies gibt dem Verhältnis zur Welt einen spirituellen Anstrich.

Alternative Wissenschaft

Eine humanistisch-anthropozentrische Einstellung im obigen Sinne hat aber auch zur Folge, dass der Wissenschaftsbetrieb einen anderen Charakter bekommt. Die konventionelle Theorie verlangt, dass Wissenschaft vorurteilslos, objektiv, emotionslos und wertfrei betrieben wird. Natürlich, man soll nicht von vorgefassten Meinungen, sondern so weit wie möglich von eruierten Fakten ausgehen. Wenn wir aber anerkennen, dass den Phänomenen der natürlichen Welt ein inhärenter Wert zukommt, können wir unmöglich emotionslos und wertfrei operieren. Angesichts der Wünschbarkeit von gesellschaftlichen Änderungen ist die Konsequenz die, dass Humanökologie die Welt nicht bloß deskriptiv, sondern zusätzlich normativ betrachtet.

Schluss

Nach der UNO-Konferenz für Umwelt und Entwicklung 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, an der die Idee der nachhaltigen Entwicklung propagiert wurde, herrschte große Aufbruchsstimmung. Diese war aber nach einiger Zeit wieder verflogen. Der vom Schweizer Unternehmer Stephan Schmidheiny (1992) propagierte Kurswechsel der Wirtschaft fand nicht statt. Soweit es seither gute Entwicklungen gab, waren sie meist politisch initiiert, und sie stellen Tropfen auf den heißen Stein dar. Gerade aber wenn das Gefühl, es laufe schief, überwiegt, ist es angezeigt, sich mit Elan für eine Trendwende einzusetzen. Hier ist die Funktion einer Humanökologie im Bildungssystem zu sehen. Sie soll, wie es auf einer Broschüre des College of the Atlantic heißt, das Leben und die Welt verändern!

Literatur

Bargatzki, Thomas (1986), Einführung in die Kulturökologie. Umwelt, Kultur und Gesellschaft. Dietrich Reimer, Berlin.

Boas, Franz (1938). The Mind of Primitive Man. Macmillan, New York (revidierte Ausgabe, Erstveröffentlichung 1911).

Boyden, Stephen (1987). Western Civilization in Biological Perspective. Patterns in Biohistory. Clarendon  Press, Oxford.

Bronfenbrenner, Uri (1981). Die Ökologie der menschlichen Entwicklung. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart (das amerikanische Original, The Ecology of Human Development, erschien 1979 bei Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

Bubolz, Margaret M. (1991), The Family Ecosystem. Macro and Micro Interdependence. In M. Suzanne Sontag u,a, (Hrsg.). Human Ecology. Strategies for the Future (pp. 26-51). Society for Human Ecology, Fort Collins, CO.

Carson, Rachel (1963). Der stumme Frühling. Biederstein, München (das amerikanische Original, Silent Spring, erschien 1962 bei Houghton Mifflin, Boston).

Ehrlich, Paul R., Ehrlich, Anne H. & Holdren, John P. (1975). Humanökologie. Der Mensch im Zentrum einer neuen Wissenschaft. Heidelberger Taschenbücher 168. Springer, Berlin u.a. (das amerikanische Original, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, erschien 1973 bei W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA).

Hardin, Garrett (1985). Human ecology: the subversive, conservative science. In Richard J. Borden (Hrsg.). Human Ecology. A Gathering of Perspectives (pp. 68-80). The Society for Human Ecology, College Park, MA.

Loening, Ulrich (2025). Harmonise With Nature. Only a change of mindset can reverse cultural habits which counter nature. Paper COHE Conference »Facing the Future: Human Ecology and Higher Education«, Potsdam 2022. To be published 2025 in Human Ecology Review. Preprint  2024 with ResearchGate: Zum Download.

Meadows, Dennis, Donella Meadows, Erich Zahn & Peter Milling (1972). Die Grenzen des Wachstums. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart (das amerikanische Original, Limits to Growth, erschien 1972 bei Universe Books, New York).

Meier-Seethaler, Carola 2011. Ursprünge und Befreiungen. Eine dissidente Kulturtheorie. opus magnum, Stuttgart (2. überarbeitete Auflage).

Meyer-Abich, Klaus Michael (2003). Nachhaltigkeit - die neue Kulturform der Wirtschaft. In Günter Altner, Heike Leitschuh-Fecht, Gerd Michelsen, Udo E. Simonis und Ernst U. von Weizsäcker (Hrsg.), Jahrbuch Ökologie 2004 (pp. 176-191). C. H. Beck, München.

Naess, Arne (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. Outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge u.a.

Nentwig, Wolfgang (2005). Humanökologie. Fakten - Argumente - Ausblicke. Springer, Berlin u.a. (2. überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage. Erstveröffentlichung 1995).

Park, Robert Ezra (1952). Human Communities. The City and Human Ecology. The Collected Papers of Robert Ezra Park, Bd. 2. Hrsg.: Everett Cherrington Hughes. The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.

Rockström, Johan u.a. (2023). Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619(7968), 102-111.

Schmidheiny, Stephan (1992). Kurswechsel. Globale unternehmerische Perspektiven für Entwicklung und Umwelt. Artemis & Winkler, München.

Serbser, Wolfgang (2004a). Forschungsgeschichte des symbolischen Interaktionismus / History of Research on Symbolic Interaction. In Ulrich Ammon u.a. (Hrsg.) Soziolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society / Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft, Vol. 1, 1. Teilband (pp. 836-854). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin & New York.

Serbser, Wolfgang (2004b). Human Ecology – Entstehung und Rezeption. In Ders. (Hrsg.). Humanökologie: Ursprünge - Trends - Zukünfte. Beiträge der DGH Jahrestagungen 1999 & 2000 (pp. 121-138). Edition Humanökologie 1. oekom, München.

Serbser, Wolfgang H. (2008). Die Natur der Gesellschaft - Zur Genese ihrer politischen und moralischen Ordnung. In Karl Bruckmeier & Wolfgang H. Serbser (Hrsg.). Ethik und Umweltpolitik. Humanökologische Positionen und Perspektiven( pp. 51-74). Edition Humanökologie 6. oekom, München.

Serbser, Wolfgang (2021). Chicago Human Ecology – Eine Einführung (4 Kapitel). Videos, COHE Internationales Online Programm Sommer 2021. Zugang.

Steiner, Dieter (2008). Die moralische Inversion. In Karl Bruckmeier & Wolfgang H. Serbser (Hrsg.). Ethik und Umweltpolitik. Humanökologische Positionen und Perspektiven (pp. 165-184). Edition Humanökologie 6. oekom, München.

Steiner, Dieter (2021). I. Diagnosis: Our Civilization Stands on its Head and is Threatened with Collapse. II. Remedy? Does a »Search for the Primitive« Help to Get on the Feet Again? Videos, COHE International Online Program Summer 2021. Zugang zu I, Zugang zu II.

Steiner, Dieter & Markus Nauser (Hrsg.) (1993). Human Ecology. Fragments of Anti-Fragmentary Views of the World. Routledge, London & New York.

Unuigbe, Ngozi (2023). What can we learn from indigenous ecological knowledge? The Ecological Citizen 6(2), 135-139.

Williams, Lewis, Rose Roberts & Alastair McIntosh (Hrsg.) (2012). Radical Human Ecology: Intercultural and Indigenous Approaches. Ashgate, Farnham, UK, & Burlington, VT.

Young, Gerald L. (1991). Minor heresies in human ecology. In M. Suzanne Sontag, Scott D. Wright und Gerald L. Young (Hrsg.). Human Ecology. Strategies for the Future (pp. 11-25). Society for Human Ecology, Fort Collins, CO.

-----------------

^[1] Hors sol bedeutet wörtlich »außerhalb des Bodens«. Der Begriff wird für den bodenfreien Gemüseanbau in Gewächshäusern verwendet, bei dem die Pflanzen in Substraten wie z.B. Kokosfasern wurzeln und durch Nährlösungen versorgt werden.

(Diesen Text als PDF herunterladen)

Towards a European College of Human Ecology

Dieter Steiner & Wolfgang H. Serbser - 2025

The Idea: Background, Initial Explorations and Measures

In the wake of increasing environmental awareness and, in particular, the first UN conference on the environment in Stockholm in 1972, courses in human ecology were established at a number of universities in Europe. These have largely disappeared again for two reasons. Firstly, human ecology is not a traditionally recognized subject on the European continent, particularly in German-speaking countries, and, at the same time, it goes beyond the scope of conventional science. This is a thorn in the side of proponents of “pure” science. Secondly, in the course of the economization of higher education, which includes the introduction of the so-called Bologna system in Europe, the necessary preoccupation with environmental issues has largely been transferred to the concept of “sustainable development”. This hardly has the necessary depth, neither on the subject matter side (societal reasons for the current precarious situation) nor on the student side (personal development).

In this situation, the sociologist and human ecologist Wolfgang Serbser became convinced in 2005 that the founding of a college for human ecology in Europe was absolutely necessary. This was prompted by his experiences with the reform of German universities and his leading involvement in new degree programs at the Technical University of Berlin and Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus, in which many achievements, such as project studies and practical field studies, were lost. However, the main reason for his commitment was the impressions he gained during several visits to the College of the Atlantic (COA) in the USA, where what was considered unfeasible in the reform of German degree programs was put into practice (see the text “The College of the Atlantic (COA): Our Great Role Model” and Steiner 2011). As an organizational body the study group “College of Human Ecology and Liberal Arts” was formed within the German Society for Human Ecology (DGH). Under the leadership of Serbser, the group began to develop the project. Contacts were established with the COA and possible locations were considered: In Germany, a North Sea island, Rügen in the Baltic Sea or the Spreewald biosphere south of Berlin; in Switzerland, the Entlebuch biosphere (west of Lucerne) or the Pays d'Enhaut (canton of Vaud). A founding appeal in English appeared in the journal GAIA (see Serbser & Mrzljak 2006 or Call for the foundation 2006). For a justification, see also A College of Human Ecology for Europe.

On September 13, 2007, the initiative holds an international DGH symposium entitled “Perspectives on Human Ecology and Higher Education in Germany and Switzerland” at the TU Berlin. Under the moderation of study group member Parto Teherani-Krönner from Humboldt University, they discussed further aspects of establishing a college. The then president of COA, David Hales, issued a statement of support (see Serbser & Mrzljak 2007, which also contains information on the initial work of the study group). A college foundation was also the topic of a symposium entitled “Directions in human ecology education - a core human ecology curriculum?” at the 17th International Conference of the Society for Human Ecology (SHE) in Manchester, 2009. The outcome of this international meeting is set out in the Manchester Declaration. See Manchester Declaration.

Concentration on Emmendingen

Meanwhile there were active reports of interest from two regions: From the Freiburg i.Br. area and from Weißenburg in Bavaria. In the former, there were contacts with Regionalwert AG in Eichstetten with a view to a possible future teaching and research focus on organic farming. However, after encouraging discussions with the mayor, the town of Emmendingen, north of Freiburg i.Br. in Baden-Württemberg, came into focus as the preferred location. The region offered a variety of starting points for a practice-oriented course of study. In February 2011 the initiative organized a four-day public planning workshop of the charrette type in Emmendingen. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, later Co-President of the Club of Rome, and Nader Maleki, Chairman of the communications company Maleki Corporate Group and the International Bankers Forum (IBF), were keynote speakers. The urban planner Harald Kegler was available for the topics of city, region and economy, the architecture firm Duane Phillips for architecture, object planning and costs. Wolfgang Serbser had already drawn up a financing plan for the college's operations determining the space requirements too. At the charrette, possible locations for the college (conversion of existing buildings or new buildings) were assessed, possible contents of the study program were discussed and an Emmendingen citizens' association was founded. The results were finally presented to the city representatives at a public event. See Results of the charrette. For the status of the study group's work up to 2011, see Steiner 2011.

In November of the same year, the three-day annual conference of the “Council of European Urbanism Germany” (CEUD) also took place in Emmendingen. The results of the Charrette were discussed and supplemented with recommendations from an urban development perspective. This was followed in May 2012 by the First International College Forum in Frankfurt entitled “Liberal Arts and Science - Education for Agents of Transition.” The college project was thus an official part of the Global Business Week 2012 organized by the Maleki Group in Frankfurt am Main. The forum had an international audience. In addition to people interested in college and human ecology from abroad and members of the DGH, faculty members of the COA were also present. For the status of planning at this time, see ”At a glance – Call 2015” and the Flyer.

Contacts for the Purpose of Cooperation

Originally, a similar process to that in Emmendingen was planned for Weißenburg. However, it was postponed due to indispositions. Since it was now clear that we wanted to concentrate fully on Emmendingen, however, the Weissenburg option was no longer pursued. Now we had to look for cooperation partners. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker arranged a contact with the University of Freiburg. The Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources there showed interest. Our initiative member Parto Teherani-Krönner established contact with Humboldt University in Berlin. She worked there as a social scientist specializing in gender studies in rural areas and meal culture.

Of crucial importance, however, was COA's attitude towards our project. COA agreed to cooperate, and this was important in terms of solving the problem of accreditation, as it would take some years before this would be possible in Germany. One option discussed was to obtain accreditation for the European college in the state of Maine, USA, with the support of COA; another was to enable the students to spend the last two years of the Bachelor's program at COA and obtain a degree there. Contact with SHE, which is closely associated with COA, was and is also important. At their international conferences, Wolfgang Serbser had the opportunity to contribute his thoughts on new developments, report on plans for a European college (see Serbser 2016 as an example) and thus attract new cooperation in sessions dedicated to human ecology higher education.

Summer Universities

In 2013, the College group decided to offer two-week summer universities in Emmendingen. The idea was firstly, to raise awareness of the college project and secondly, to experiment with a practice-oriented teaching concept based on the idea of the real-world laboratory. The first summer university took place in 2015 entitled ”The Future of Food Sustainability” and with the support of COA through its faculty member and ecologist Molly Anderson. The students had the opportunity to get to know various local companies in practice and select one of them as a partner for their project work. The aim was to work on and implement selected future tasks of these partners in practice-oriented development projects. One group each dealt with the Demeter farm Querbeet, the wine manufacturer Mario Burkhart and the Citizens' stock corporation “Bürgeraktiengesellschaft Regionalwert AG”. The work consisted of reading, discussions, interviews, participant observation and practical work in the companies. Reports recorded the results and posters and short presentations presented the project work at a public final event. See the Concept, the 2015 Charrette Book and the report by Teherani-Krönner et al. 2015.

A second summer university was offered the following year. This time the topic was “The Future of Sustainable Food Business”. Once again, we received support from the COA, this time in the person of Jay Friedlander, a business economist specializing in sustainability. And once again, regional companies made themselves available as partner companies. Five groups were formed to tackle the following tasks:
1) Producing a digital map of the widely scattered fields of the Demeter farm Querbeet;
2) Proposing an improved investment strategy for Regionalwert AG;
3) Experimenting with a new method of producing tofu and considering new marketing strategies for the Taifun Tofu company;
4) Development of a marketing concept with the aim of increasing the number of suppliers of goat milk for the goat cheese producer Monte Ziego;
5) Proposals for the design of an urban garden to enable beekeeping on the premises of the industrial company Wehrle Werk, which specializes in environmental technology.

See the 2016 Concept, the 2016 Charrette Book and the reports by Schmidtsdorf and Serbser 2016 and Serbser 2016.

A third summer university in 2018 focused on “Urban Concepts in Sustainable Transition”. In consultation with the city, the focus was on its former fairground, which had since deteriorated into a mass parking lot. Under the direction of architect Duane Phillips, member of the COHE Faulty, who had already played a leading role in the 2011 charrette, the students were given the task of developing a master plan for a sustainable, climate-neutral and resilient district for this site. This fitted in perfectly with the city's intention to develop, starting next year, an urban climate analysis and then an adaptation concept for a climate-friendly city. The students not only planned residential units, offices, gardens, cultural facilities and integrated infrastructure for mobility and recreation, but also the main building for our planned college. In addition, the students developed various elements for the neighborhood to mitigate the effects of climate change. Of particular importance was the work of three students who developed a concept for cooling the rooms of the college buildings without having to use energy-intensive air conditioning systems. They made use of the centuries-old oriental tradition of the wind tower, which enables cooling and cross-ventilation without the use of additional energy.

The results were presented at the end of the summer university to a large audience of Emmendingen residents. The event led to the plan for the town to submit a funding application based on the described work as part of the “National Urban Development Projects (NPS)” of the Federal Ministry of Housing, Urban Development and Construction. However, this ultimately did not take place for local political reasons. Since then, the College project in Emmendingen has been put on ice. See the 2018 Concept, the 2018 Charrette Book (the described wind tower concept is presented on pages 27 to 30) and the report by Serbser and Hofmann 2018.

The results of the summer universities were shown in two exhibitions in Emmendingen, 2017 for the first two, 2018 for all three. The exhibition then toured to Sommerhausen in 2020 (DGH annual conference) and to the Potsdam conference in 2022.

Organizational Matters and Curriculum Development

As early as 2013, an advisory board consisting of prominent figures from science and culture was formed under the chairmanship of Ernst-Ulrich von Weizsäcker. In 2017, the independent limited liability company (German abbreviation: gGmbH) “European College of Human Ecology” (COHE) emerged from the previous DGH study group. The partners were the sociologist and human ecologist Wolfgang Serbser, the ecologically oriented economist Klaus Markus Hofmann, the agricultural and environmental sociologist Andreas Nebelung and the geographer and human ecologist Dieter Steiner. The first two shared the management. The aforementioned Summer University 2018 was the first project. This was followed by the development of a Master's degree program in “Human Ecology and Philosophy of Social Innovation” for Alanus University in Alfter near Bonn, after representatives of this institution expressed their interest. See the Handbook Master Program. Unfortunately, this study option has not yet been activated. We also pursued the idea of initially establishing, instead of a college, a smaller institution, which we called academy. It could have served as an information center, developed curricula, offered courses, promoted networking and generally promoted the existence of human ecology. Unfortunately, contacts with a foundation came to nothing. In 2021, Andreas Nebelung and Markus Hofmann left the gGmbH, the former because he wanted to change direction, the latter for health reasons. Wolfgang Serbser continued to manage the company and developed the academy concept together with Dieter Steiner.

International Online Program 2021

In summer 2021 - it was still the time of restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic - an online program was organized instead of another summer university. There was a call to produce and submit videos on human ecology topics. A large number of people responded, resulting in a collection of 14 contributions, some in German, some in English. All presentations are freely accessible subject to academic terms of use (see Online Program 2021). A Zoom meeting entitled “Human Ecology - Basic Knowledge for Agents of Transition” then took place on August 20. The recording of the contributions to this event can be found at Online Conference 2021. It also served as a preliminary stage for the major international conference in Potsdam in 2022.

International Hybrid Conference 2022

This conference was held under the title “Facing the Future - Human Ecology and Higher Education” from August 31 to September 3, 2022 in Potsdam. The conference was organized in a hybrid format (i.e. participation was partly live, partly online). The Co-President of the conference was Ortwin Renn, then Director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS, now the Research Institute for Sustainability = RIFS). He provided the necessary premises and technical infrastructure. A topic paper served as a call for participation. A second paper named the conference objective. Around 100 people from all continents took part and offered around 60 contributions, which were presented and discussed in 16 thematic blocks. Topics included: Impact of Climate Change, Agenda 2030, War and Politics, Transdisciplinarity, STEM Education, Digitalization, Systems Theory, Environmental Education, Environmental Justice, Food Security, Meal Culture, Studium Generale, Social Innovation, Art of Living, Harmony with Nature and Radical Human Ecology (see Program 2022).

Instructive were contributions from non-European universities, especially from the Philippines, in that a strongly practice-oriented human ecology is part of the curriculum. The conference was rounded off by keynote speeches from:

Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, now Honorary President of the Club of Rome;

Richard Borden, Dean of the College of the Atlantic for many years;

Lene Rachel Andersen, Danish economist, known for her book “Education, Keep Growing,” a Report to the Club of Rome«;

Jennifer Amparo, Professor at the College of Human Ecology and Assistant Vice Chancellor at the University of the Philippines, Los Banos;

Thomas Schmaus, Professor of Philosophy at Alanus University in Alfter near Bonn;

and finally

Johan Rockström, Professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and co-chair of the Earth Commission, an association of scientists trying to define a safe and just future path for people and the planet. Rockström, in his closing presentation at the conference, made public the new report to the Club of Rome “Earth for All.”

Recordings of most of the presentations can be found on the COHE website. Eleven people agreed to put their contributions into written form. A total of 13 articles are being published in the Human Ecology Review (HER), the organ of the Society for Human Ecology. See the report by Serbser & Steiner 2023.

European Network

At the above-mentioned conference, there was a call for the formation of a European network of human ecology. People interested in human ecology should be able to find each other, communicate with each other and possibly discover opportunities for cooperation. In the meantime, Sara Löwgren, a PhD student at the University of Linköping in Sweden, has taken on a leading role. She does this independently of COHE, but in contact with it. Sara Löwgren has a BA in Human Ecology from the College of the Atlantic, studied for an MA in Global Studies at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and is now doing her PhD in Linköping in the Department of Thematic Studies on the topic “How can better futures be shaped in rural areas in the age of climate change?” See Sara’s website on http://sara.lowgren.info/. .Thematic Studies in Linköping addresses societal issues that require an interdisciplinary approach. In cooperation with Mihnea Tănăsescu at the University of Mons (Belgium) and Vasna Ramasar at the University of Lund (Sweden), Sara also organizes online human ecology seminars. Contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Remember at this point that there once was a European Association for Human Ecology (EAHE). This was founded in 1988 and comprised people representing universities or societies from Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, England, Sweden and Switzerland. Even before that, since 1973, there had been an agreement between a number of universities under the auspices of the regional office of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Copenhagen concerning the possibility of obtaining an International Certificate in Human Ecology. This was a postgraduate course in human ecology. The idea was to promote inter-university cooperation in this field. This network was coordinated by the Centre Européen d'Ecologie Humaine at the Free University in Brussels, supervised by Luc Hens and Charles Susanne. See Hens, Susanne & Devuyst 1989, Hens 1991a and 1991b, Hens 1994 and Hens & Devuyst 1994. With the resignation of key individuals and thematic reorientations at the universities, this old network subsequently disappeared.

Conclusion

From the outset, the European College of Human Ecology was founded with the aim of promoting the European networking of human ecology not only in an idealistic sense, but also to create a place that can take the European idea into account in a very practical way. Even if an accredited degree course in human ecology has not yet been created and a campus has not yet been established, many successful steps have been taken in this direction in recent years. The European College of Human Ecology offers the legal, administrative and practical prerequisites for pursuing this goal in the long term. The non-profit status established in Germany offers tax and legal advantages and thus an excellent starting point for the pan-European, international development of human ecology. This is the legacy and the treasure of the previous work at and for the College we wish to pass on to the next generation.

Literature

Hens, Luc (1991a). International Networking Strategies in Human Ecology in Europe: The Brussels’ Experience. In M. Suzanne Sontag, Scott C. Wright & Gerald L. Young (Eds). Human Ecology. Strategies for the Future. Selected Papers from the 4th Conference of the Society for Human Ecology, Michigan State University, April 20-22, 1990 (pp. 255-264). Society for Human Ecology, Fort Collins, CO.

Hens, Luc (1991b). Inter-University Cooperation on Human Ecology in Europe. In Shosuke Suzuki, Richard J. Borden & Luc Hens (Eds). Human Ecology - Coming of Age: An International Overview (pp. 91-114). VUB Press, Brüssel.

Hens, Luc (1994). Networking in Human Ecology in Europe. Environmental Management and Health 5(2), 11-14.

Hens, Luc & Dimitri Devuyst (1994). Human ecology: The European perspective. Human Ecology  Review 1(2), 326-334.

Hens, Luc, Charles Susanne & Dimitri Devuyst (1989). Interuniversity Cooperation on Human Ecology as Organized by the “Centre Européen d’Ecologie Humaine.” In Charles Susanne, Luc Hens & Dimitri Devuyst (Eds). Integration of Environmental Education into General University Teaching in Europe (pp. 335-343). UNESCO-UNEP, Paris & Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels.

Schmidtsdorf, Julie & Wolfgang H. Serbser (2016). Sustainable Food Business im Fokus der zweiten Sommeruniversität. GAIA 25(4): 294-295.

Serbser, Wolfgang H. (2016). DGH international - Sommeruniversität 2016 und SHE-Konferenzen. GAIA 25(2): 137-138.

Serbser, Wolfgang H. & Klaus Markus Hofmann (2018): Humanökologisches Reallabor für Klimafolgenanpassung in Emmendingen. GAIA 27(4): 402-404.

Serbser, Wolfgang & Jadranka Mrzljak (2006). A College of the Atlantic for Europe. GAIA 15(4): 307-309.

Serbser, Wolfang & Jadranka Mrzljak (2007). A College of Human Ecology for Europe. GAIA 16(4): 304-306.

Serbser, Wolfgang & Dieter Steiner (2023). Facing the future: Human ecology and “Bildung”. GAIA 32(1): 202-203.

Steiner, Dieter (2011). Der Weg zu einem europäischen College für Humanökologie. GAIA 20(4): 284-285.

Teherani-Krönner, Parto, Wolfgang H. Serbser & Dieter Steiner (2015). Sommeruniversität Zukunft nachhaltiger Ernährung. Ein Schritt in Richtung Europäisches College für Humanökologie. GAIA 24(4): 286-288.

Campaign 2025

Who is interested in taking over and continuing the charitable non-profit limited company
“European College of Human Ecology gGmbH” (COHE)?

We, Wolfgang Serbser (CEO) and Dieter Steiner, owners of COHE, would like to hand over their commitment to younger hands after many years of work and are therefore
looking for successors.

20 years ago, the idea of founding a liberal arts college for human ecology was born. This initially gave rise to a DGH study group, then to the non-profit limited company that we are focusing on here. In order to draw attention to our mission, but also to try out new approaches ourselves, we have offered summer schools and organized conferences in addition to other work, but have not yet achieved the goal of establishing an accredited college of human ecology.  However, a draft for accreditation is already available.

For more details, see the text “Working Towards a College of Human Ecology”.

Human ecology study programs are needed because the courses on sustainable development currently available at most universities are often inadequate. One problem is that both the orientation of universities and the concept of sustainable development are often bound to a certain traditional idea of economics and business management. However, the serious environmental degradation is mainly a result of the way our economic system works. There is also a need for a consistent democratic orientation throughout the education system itself. Human ecology attempts to contribute to a change in awareness and action in the direction of a meaningful, non-destructive life of mankind on earth.

For more details, see the text “On Human Ecology”.

Our role model is the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, USA. Its course offerings are completely interdisciplinary and lead to a degree in human ecology. Most courses are taught in seminar style. Project studies, self-learning and practical orientation are highly valued. The college organization and administration is fully democratic with student participation.
For more details see the text “The College of the Atlantic (COA)”.

“Earth overshoot will come to an end, either through our planning or through a catastrophe,” says the Global Footprint Network. Our education system is challenged in this respect, but is not up to the task. Alternatives are urgently needed.

You can find out more about Wolfgang Serbser & Dieter Steiner here.

Please reply to: serbser[at]coh-europe.de