Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
The multi-level character of the socioecosystems is another heavy load for scientists
interested in sustainability research for earth stewardship. We not only need to incor-
porate the social, biological, and physical aspects in our research, but also, to con-
sider the multiple spatial-temporal strata in which socioecosystems operates. How to
tackle such a complex system? The environmentalist slogan “think globally and act
locally”, conveying some systems thinking perspective, may help. However, between
the global and local tier, there are plenty of other levels to consider (municipal, state,
national, regional, continental, hemispheric, etc.). In order to deal with such com-
plexity, it is recommended to choose one particular tier to focus our research, and
concentrate on the interactions between that particular level of interest with the
immediate upper (or supra) and lower (or sub) ranking. One can be aware of further
upper and lower layers (beyond the immediate supra and sub ranks), but only as
observers, reducing the level of observations as the scales get farther away from the
focus of interest. In this way, one will be able to understand the immediate context's
factors, which are inducing the behavior of our socioecosystem (at the focus of inter-
est) and also the local and particular conditions that our chosen scale of focus is
directly infl uencing, without loosing the whole perspective. Sometimes, it is also
necessary consider a particular levels of the hierarchy that most strongly infl uence
your level of interest. For example, the critical level above the national level might
be global (rather than regional) because of globalization of trade and climate.
Finally, we cannot leave this discussion without talking about the role of technol-
ogy. Although it is true that in many respects technology brought us into an environ-
mental confl ict of global proportions, there is no way we can deal with the problem
and walk a sustainable earth stewardship course without the aid of technology.
However, technological development should also be aligned with this socioecosys-
tem paradigm. Human nature is technological because it is the blend of knowledge
and conscious intent prompted by environmental interactions, and thus it is the way
humans live with their surroundings. Our environmental awareness should encour-
age a technology design shift conscious that humans do need their ecosystems, not
only because they depend on them, but truly because with them we constitute socio-
ecosystems. The idea of Jordan (
1998
) encouraging “working with nature” suggests
that an understanding of the many interactions and processes that occur in nature,
should enlighten us to embed them in our technological design. We need to align our
technological quest with our socioecosystem character.
Rozzi (
2012
) has pointed out that a particular
habitat
induces in living things
habits
that eventually match to astonishing perfection that particular
habitat
. It is a
fact of life. Species appear, adapt, and extinguish following this interactive rational,
and if something changes, ecosystems self-organize following through this dynamic
systemic imperative. With the help of technology we have created artifi cial habitats,
giving us the impression that we do not need our original environment any more.
And we have developed habits that obviously do not match with our original habitat.
With the advancement of technology we have come to think that we are separated
from the rest of the species, and we dream of traveling in an aseptic spacecraft (just
humans and machines) conquering other worlds: it is a false impression (Margulis
1998
).
Even when we have visited the moon several times and even set technological foot in
Search WWH ::
Custom Search