In many aspects science becomes conducted nowadays through technology and preferential criteria of economy. Thus investigation and knowledge is evidently linked to a speci?c purpose. Especially Earth science is confronted with two major human perspectives concerning our natural environment:sustainability of resources and assessment of risks. Both aspects are expressing urgent needs of the living society, but in the same way those needs are addressing a long lasting fundamental challenge which has so far not been met. Following on the patterns of economy and technology, the key is presumed to be found through a devel- mentoffeasibleconceptsforamanagement ofbothournaturalenvironmentand in one or the other way the realm of life. Although new techniques for obser- tion and analysis led to an increase of rather speci?c knowledge about particular phenomena, yet we fail now even more frequently to avoid unforeseen impli- tions and sudden changes of a situation. Obviously the improved technological tools and the assigned expectations on a management of nature still exceed our traditional scienti?c experience and accumulated competence. Earth- and Life- Sciences are nowadays exceedingly faced with the puzzling nature of an almost boundless network of relations, i. e. , the complexity of phenomena with respect to their variability. The disciplinary notations and their particular approaches arethusnolongeraccountingsu?cientlyfortherecordedcontextofphenomena, for their permanent variability and their unpredictable implications. The large environmental changes of glacial climatic cycles, for instance, demonstrate this complexity of such a typical phenomenology.

In many aspects science becomes conducted nowadays through technology and preferential criteria of economy. Thus investigation and knowledge is evidently linked to a speci?c purpose. Especially Earth science is confronted with two major human perspectives concerning our natural environment:sustainability of resources and assessment of risks. Both aspects are expressing urgent needs of the living society, but in the same way those needs are addressing a long lasting fundamental challenge which has so far not been met. Following on the patterns of economy and technology, the key is presumed to be found through a devel- mentoffeasibleconceptsforamanagement ofbothournaturalenvironmentand in one or the other way the realm of life. Although new techniques for obser- tion and analysis led to an increase of rather speci?c knowledge about particular phenomena, yet we fail now even more frequently to avoid unforeseen impli- tions and sudden changes of a situation. Obviously the improved technological tools and the assigned expectations on a management of nature still exceed our traditional scienti?c experience and accumulated competence. Earth- and Life- Sciences are nowadays exceedingly faced with the puzzling nature of an almost boundless network of relations, i. e. , the complexity of phenomena with respect to their variability. The disciplinary notations and their particular approaches arethusnolongeraccountingsu?cientlyfortherecordedcontextofphenomena, for their permanent variability and their unpredictable implications. The large environmental changes of glacial climatic cycles, for instance, demonstrate this complexity of such a typical phenomenology.