ABSTRACT
In this volume there are attempts not only to demand but to execute such an integration: ‘eMergy analysis’ (Pillet, this volume) and ‘technometabolism’ (Boyden, this volume) are the names of such concepts. They try to achieve the integration by describing the interactions in the human-ecological triangle as amounts of energy. I consider these models as useful because we know at least vaguely what we are talking about, even if the different transfers of energy are of a high complexity. Such statements can at least be measured or tested. However, one may also accuse these models of reductionism: how can we compare and integrate, for instance, statements on amounts of energy
and statements on social symbols? Do we have a satisfactory description of the ecological crisis, knowing to what extent energies are moved by persons and society? There is yet another question which I think will be hard to answer: how is it possible that things (state of affairs) which do not consist of energy and matter, such as social structures, rules, symbols and theories, are able to transform and use matter and energy? In our everyday life we are no longer surprised by the fact that we can travel by train from Zürich to Basel. Yet do we have any theoretical frameworks which enable us to see that our inorganic and organic environment is moved and structured by human activity and human symbols (cf., on this problem, Weichhart 1989)?
