Entscheiden Sie selbst, welche Daten erfasst werden und passen Ihre Einstellungen hier individuell an. Mehr anzeigen. Stop Start. Heute Wildflecken. Melde mich wie befohlen Personal Melde mich wie befohlen: Personalfeldwebel Ausbildung Heer Von der Methodik der Gefechtsausbildung Personal und Reserve. Soldaten sind zum Besuch der Ministerin an Deck angetreten. Details ansehen Zu: Die Panzerfaust 3.
Such a theory — which, if it is to solve the problem of selec- tion, must be recognized in consensus and no longer be the object of scientific controversy — does not of course exist. Presumably, moreover, no such holistic theory is even possible, for epistemological reasons, since it would require the observer to assume an external position which is not attainable.
The result of this diagnosis is that the theoretical work on sustainability cannot usefully set as its goal the theory of sustainability per se which would provide conclusively, once and for all, a theoretical grand overview of sustainable development of humankind.
Thus, the search for a criterion for selection would appear to be stuck in a fundamental crisis, faced either with circularity, infinite regression, or dogmatic establishment,4 all three of which are fatal for any attempt to arrive at a transpar- ent and justified criterion K for a comparison between sustainability concepts. This diagnosis makes it necessary to reflexively take a step back, as it were, and to try to conceptualize a manner in which a rational comparison between, and selection among, various sustainability concepts might be carried out procedurally.
Scientific sustainability concepts — and they alone are the object of our con- siderations here — have a claim to validity beyond the sphere of subjective opin- ion or belief. If therefore decision-makers E must, in order to meet the demands of practice, select one from among a number of sustainability concepts, they would have to get the representatives of the competing concepts together around a table in order to initiate a discourse regarding truth and cor- rectness Habermas The discourse would serve as a procedure for checking whether, e.
However, the question as to the point of departure of such a discourse, which has caused the above-discussed search for criterion K to fail, at least initially, also crops up here. In fact, agreement is often reached if a common basis exists as a point of departure for attempts at reasoning and justification.
Pre- discursive consensuses often extend to a disposition toward settling disagreement and conflict by argument in the first place, to a willingness on the part of the participants to accept better arguments and to call their own previous positions into question, and to a common terminological basis, common quality criteria for arguments, and a recognition of rules of communications in accordance with the standards of procedural fairness Gethmann cf.
Pre-deliberative consensuses contain more preconditions than do pre-discursive consensuses, since they encompass, too, substantial aspects of the given understood situation, e.
Pre-deliberative consensuses are hence strongly context- related. This would be a procedural response to the challenge of a selection decision: only in the discourse itself would the determination emerge as to which criterion K was to determine the worthiness of preference of the concepts. Certainly, this model is only a thought experiment, and not simple to imple- ment as a real process.
Nonetheless, it gives an indication as to how the problem elucidated in Section 2 might be handled transparently and logically. I will eluci- date this in the next step, in which the question is: assuming the representatives of various sustainability concepts were to subject themselves to the effort of a discourse, where would the pre-deliberative consensus be, to which all would accede, or to which all would have to be able to accede?
Clearly, the latter formu- lation is itself not free of problems, since what would, after all, be at issue would not be an acceptance which could be assumed or expected of the participants, but rather their actual acceptance.
A provisional arrangement at the beginning of theory The important thing is, then, to search for nontrivial elements of factually accepted determination in the context of sustainability.
The factual acceptance of consensus deserves primacy — it is an example of the primacy of practice. As a first step, this agreement might be sought at the level of sustainability-as- goal. If the idea of sustainability is a goal which can be generally accepted and considered as a pre-deliberative understanding in the context of the discourse regarding the worthiness of preference of sustainability concepts, various differ- ent sustainability concepts might be compared with regard to their suitability as contributions toward achieving that goal.
Unfortunately things are not that simple. For sustainability as a goal has no substance, since it is difficult to imagine anyone arguing against sustainability without falling into self-contradiction. The indeterminate nature at the level of the goal is reduced through concepts acting as the means, but in a different way — and thus the problem of selection remains. Controversies regarding concepts are hence not only disagreements regarding the suitability of means for shared goals, but also conflicts, too, at the level of the goal definition itself.
Nonetheless, a level might be found at which a pre-deliberative consensus could be arrived at, at least in general terms Grunwald : the level of international understanding on sustainability. At the UN Conference on Environment and Development in in Rio de Janeiro, the international community of nations assumed the binding duty to implement that model in concrete policy at the national and global levels.
The corresponding documents, their numer- ous remaining semantical compromises and imprecisions notwithstanding, do at least constitute a certain level of definition of sustainability cf.
Central to it are the conditions for the possibilities of the reproduction of human societies, from small-scale communities to the global society.
This combination of a largely shared diagnosis and an equally largely shared view that action is necessary — although the question of how to act remains controversial — shows that in spite of all the conflicts and controversies around sustainable devel- opment, there are clear signs that a factually recognized pre-deliberate agreement is emerging.
Hence, the policy agreements which are binding under international law can be interpreted as indicators, and as an expression of a globally shared pre- deliberate consensus on sustainability. If that is the case, this pre-deliberate con- sensus can be used as a point of departure for discourses on the suitability of divergent concepts of sustainable development. However, two caveats are in order: first, this pre-deliberate consensus is, pre- cisely because of the political nature of its creation, highly indeterminate in terms of substance.
As has often been noted — usually critically, from the scien- tific community — it contains a large number of semantical compromises, unclear terminology, rhetorical stock phrases, etc. Hence, this pre-deliberate consensus, in the form of the Brundtland Report, the Rio documents and the follow-up agreements, etc.
Second, the problem described in Section 3. What we therefore have is the determination of a position legitimized democratically and under international law, on the basis of incom- plete knowledge and situational assessments. If the above statements are accurate, the primacy of practice is expressed in that legitimated policy settings can be used as a pre-deliberative consensus in a theoretical i.
Ultimately, it would be presumed that with all the accepted fallibility, an argumentative struggle will have taken place in which the power of the superior argument is at least one factor. Fallibil- ity, time dependency, and the provisional and incomplete character of knowledge will mean that the establishment of policy, as a methodological beginning and as the basis for a discourse, will always remain provisional, and require criticism and further development, in which theoretical argumentation will play a major role.
Theory and practice The situation diagnosed above leads to the thesis that what is at issue is not the drafting of a comprehensive theory of sustainability, but rather the creation of a fruitful relationship between practice and theory. This does not mean a theory regarding a practice that is in progress, but rather theoretical instructions which — primarily by means of the mentioned selection decisions between competing sustainability conceptions — have an effect on practice, which must then in turn be theoretically reflected upon.
We therefore have a double reflexive relationship between theory and practice, as described by Habermas , p. This situation is an ideal point of departure for scientific work — not only for empirical, but also for the terminological, conceptual, and hermeneutic theoreti- cal work. The key is, in the process of a scientific discourse of definition, to take the existing and factually shared pre-deliberative consensus, fuzzy and in need of interpretation as it may be, as the basis upon which sustainability can be made operable and — largely — by means of definitional and operationalizing proposals, to push the practice of policy-makers and societal public opinion to continue working on the ever provisional pre-deliberate consensus on sustainability, and to develop further and concretize the existing provisional construct.
Ultimately, it is a paradoxical program: we are using the pre-deliberative consensus that can be considered legitimated in the context of the political framework as a point of departure, knowing that it is itself in need of criticism, and that a duty to criti- cism certainly exists; it is indeed a provisional situation.
Grunwald has the pur- pose of drawing practical consequences through rational discourse out of the existing beginning, i. These two modes are not mutually independent. The knowledge gained in the context of the operationalization discourse and the implementation of its results can affect the further formulation and direction of the justification discourse, and must therefore be among the factors considered there.
What is important is not the theory for a certain practice, but rather the theory-practice relationship and its theoretical reflection. The interaction between theory and practice is decisive. In the context of practical societal-political implementation, and in fact even during work with the concept, experience will be gained regarding its operability, followed later by the empirically observed results of the measures implemented on its basis. With regard to technological development, the former has been characterized as follows: The resulting dynamic of this approach is that directions and goals of development are certainly apparent, albeit not in the sense of straightfor- ward planning.
Learning effects are thus not excluded a priori, but are rather explicitly integrated as the motivating mechanisms of planning modifica- tions. The integration of learning ability is the key for the openness of the future. Grunwald , p. Theoretical work will not spare us the toil of deliberative efforts in the context of planning and decision-making discourses; at the same time, there is hope that theoretical reflection can support these deliberations.
Conclusions Often, sustainability is characterized as a process. Although in many respects, this is merely a phrase Ott , or an attempt to dodge terminological, conceptual, or substantive decisions, nonetheless, procedural and process-related elements are inherent to sustainability, if only because precisely the considerable insecuri- ties regarding future knowledge will prevent us from defining and operational- izing sustainability conclusively once and for all, and then passing the remaining problems on to the administration as a management task.
The primary task of theoretical work on sustainability is the reflection of the associated theory-practice relation- ship, in order to achieve a maximum of learning. There will be no theory of sustainability to be found at the end of the paths outlined here for practice-connected theoretical work, from which — even if the scientific community were of one mind — policy decisions might emerge as a reflection of scientific knowledge. On the one hand, scientifically consensual sustain- ability conceptions would still be conditionally normative.
Regarding the deci- sion as to whether the antecedent prerequisites which constitute the applicable conditions of the theory, and the fulfillment of which could transform the if- then chains of theoretical work into practical policy, have been fulfilled, the entire if-then chain ultimately can constitute no more than a proposal made to the continuing political process.
Instead, theory is here only a medium of reflective learning, itself a passage on the way to a reflected further development of pre- deliberate consensuses and theory-practice relationships. Of course, in a democratic public context Habermas ; Grunwald , the decision-making process requires deliberation, which cannot, however, be elaborated upon here.
It should be permitted, in this conceptually oriented paper, to refrain from dwelling upon that question further, and to rather continue with the argumentation as a thought experiment. Bibliography Bechmann, G. In: K. Brand ed. Politik der Nachhaltig- keit. Voraussetzungen, Probleme, Chancen — Eine kritische Diskussion. Berlin, — Bergmann, M. Boulding, K. Review of a Strategy of Decision. American Sociological Review 29, — Burns, T. Creative Democracy. New York. Gethmann, C.
Grunwald, A. Journal of the General Phi- losophy of Science 29, — Handeln und Planen. Spuren des Seins im Sollen. Das lebensweltliche Fundament der Ethik. In: B. Emunds, G. Horntrich, G. Kruip, G. Frankfurt, 66— Technik und Politikberatung. Philosophische Perspektiven.
Konzepte nachhaltiger Entwicklung vergleichen — Aber wie? In: T. Schultz, Ph. Voget eds. Die Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit. Ausbau, Anwendung und Kritik. Marburg, 41— Frankfurt: Campus. Habermas, J. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. In: H. Fahrenbach ed. Wirklichkeit und Reflex- ion. Walther Schulz zum sechzigsten Geburtstag. Pfullingen, — Theorie und Praxis.
Sozialphilosophische Studien. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt, 2 vols. Hauff, V. Unsere gemeinsame Zukunft. Janich, P. Wissenschaftstheorie als Wissenschaftskritik. Synopsis on the implementation of the model of sustainable development in conceptual studies and national plans. Kates, R. Svedin, U.
Sustainability Science. Nachhaltige Entwicklung integrativ betrachtet. Konstitutive Elemente, Regeln, Indikatoren. Ott, K. In: J. Das integrative Nach- haltigkeitskonzept in der Forschungspraxis. Berlin, 63— Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Skorupinski, B. Moreover, the selection can be considered late recognition of the fact that the problems of sustainable development, no matter how they are conceived or understood, cannot be resolved in the normal course of operations of the scientific community, but that what is rather needed is a specific research approach adequate to the structure and quality of the problems.
In the academic discourse, this insight has for some time become increasingly accepted. But what is the book inside the cover of sustainability science? Is it about a new super- or supra-discipline sui generis, or about a new structure or means of orientation of the systems of knowledge production? The literature contains evidence of both perspectives. Theory of sustainability?
The concept of sustainability science as a discipline in its own right has been the topic of numerous academic publications in recent years cf. However, that means that no matter how broadly we define the frame today, we will tomorrow face problems which lie beyond its established boundaries — which will by then already have been fixed by tradition.
That fact collides with the evidently essential normativity of a possible sustain- ability science cf. However, it is precisely this context dependency which prevents, or at least limits, the construction of a separate corpus of knowledge, a necessary constituent of any scientific discipline.
For knowledge about the sustainability, or lack thereof, of societal development has been recognized to encompass more than merely scientific knowledge; experiential, institutional and traditional knowledge, etc. Hence, to put it in only slightly exaggerated terms, every society, be it at the national, regional or local level, will have to construct its own characteristic corpus of knowledge for dealing with its own specific sustainability problems.
Methodological knowledge, on the other hand, is different: even if methods may be context-specific, decon- textualization and systematization are possible here, as Bergmann and colleagues have shown. In the next section, I will come back to the question of the role of methods in determining what a suitable framework for handling problems of sustainable development might be.
Farrell has argued, the engineering concept of problem-solving is misleading in the context of sustainable development. Thompson Klein et al. However, it becomes understandable if we take into account the central epis- temic interest of a sustainability science which is explicitly stressed in virtu- ally all conceptions: the understanding of the interaction between social and ecological systems, or, to put it more succinctly, between society and nature.
I will enter into this aspect in greater detail in the section after the next. Instead of establishment or canonization, what is needed is a flexible research mode which will do justice to the dynamics, and to the temporal, spatial, social, cultural etc. That is an approach which can develop along with the systems for which it is drafting transformational perspectives, and of which it is itself a part.
Transdisciplinarity is such a research mode. The ensuing dis- cussion around these two approaches, which has in many respects remained controversial to this day, has lent new momentum to the discourse about transdisciplinarity, which goes back to the s. It soon became clear that an essential area of application of this mode of research would be problems of sustainable development cf.
Gibbons et al. However, how can this linkage be conceptualized? In this context, criticism as a fundamental attitude means first of all a reference to the major ecological crisis phenomena, such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, land degradation or the overuse of natural resources. Changes can emerge in marginal or general functional conditions of systems, or else as disturbances, often with systemic posi- tive feedbacks.
Here, the primary scientific challenges lie in the context of sustainable develop- ment, because these patterns and relationships fundamentally refer to inter- actions between nature and society see Section 4.
For this purpose, it is important to distinguish the lev- els which structure that sustainability discourse. They are empirically difficult to keep apart; analytically, however, they can and must be kept separate. They are the normative, the operative and the descriptive levels cf. Every concept of sustainable develop- ment contains normative settings for what is societally desirable, and for the scopes of action and of decision-making processes oriented towards that end.
These include such examples as: inter- and intra-generational justice, the preservation of the natural foundations of life, or the intelligent regulation of supply systems.
At this level of discourse, orientation knowledge is neces- sary for the evaluation of goals, the distinction between non-desirable and desirable developments and conditions, etc. At issue are moral principles and their interpretations, as well as criteria and indicators for sustainable development in the three inseparably linked sustainability dimensions.
At this level, the key question is: How can a process be designed in the course of which a consensus regarding what is desirable will emerge, and which role will scientific knowledge have in that process keywords: inclusivity, legiti- macy and fairness?
Sustainability always implies a strong reference to operative, strategic activity, and to concrete, controllable and affordable solutions to specific problems in various fields of activity and sec- tors of society with the familiar problems of scale and of generalization.
Here, action or transformation knowledge is necessary. The integration of scientific and practical — political, institutional, business, etc. The important thing is useful and practically implementable concepts, i. At the descriptive or analytical level, the question is: Which developments are possible at all? That presupposes knowledge about system dynamics system knowledge , and begins with the analysis of non-sustainable development directions and conditions.
The methodologically guided integration of primarily scientific knowledge for a better understanding of complex effective contexts is the main characteristic at this level of discourse. Transdisciplinarity We propose transdisciplinarity as a research mode for a critical science which would take sustainable development as a normative Leitbild Jahn The key points of this basic understanding can briefly be outlined as follows: transdis- ciplinarity is a research practice which processes complex, real-life problems by means of methodological, guided cooperation between disciplines, and between researchers and practical actors, in order to enable common learning processes between the scientific community and society.
In that context, integration is a central cognitive challenge for the research process. At the ISOE, we are working with the general model of transdisciplinarity which we developed several years ago, and have since been testing and refining it in numerous research projects Jahn ; Bergmann et al.
We cannot enter into the details of the model here for a detailed explanation, see Jahn , pp. Its point of departure is the only apparently self-evident assumption that the handling of societal problems requires that they be linked to gaps in scientific knowledge, i.
This assumption enables the contributions to societal and scientific progress to be viewed as the epistemic goal of a single research dynamic. Moreover, this approach links the two fundamental concepts of transdisciplinarity, which are still distinguished in academic discourse: the real-life approach, in which soci- ety employs science in order to design practical solutions to concrete problems; and the internal-scientific approach, in which science basically pursues its own fundamental goals — the production of new knowledge, methods, models and theories — albeit with reference to societal problems.
Figure 4. We are adopting it from a scheme developed by the US Committee of Scientists , p. It distinguishes four problem types, according to their strength of consensus regarding knowledge and values.
If the forms of knowl- edge characteristic for the problems of sustainable development are entered into the four fields of this matrix see Section 3. The participation of actors from the practical sphere is to be recommended in this case e. As in the first case, for this type of problem, too, a real-life approach is often sufficient.
However, integration requirements increase, since con- flicts are to be expected in the process of negotiating research goals. The same is true for the evaluation of the relevance of results for societal prac- tice; for this reason, and for reasons of acceptance, the direct participation of practical actors is absolutely necessary, especially for the formulation of problems at the outset of the research process, and also in the integration and evaluation of the results.
For this reason, new system knowledge will be needed, together with transformation knowledge. This is the reverse of the first problem type: here, what is needed is rather an internal-scientific approach to transdisci- plinarity, and the integration requirements are high, especially for the inter- disciplinary production of new scientific knowledge.
The participation of practical actors is, as in the first case, advisable, e. Most problems of sustainable devel- opment fall into this class; here, specific knowledge in all three categories is necessary. Accordingly, the integration requirements are highest in this case; the real-life and internal-scientific transdisciplinarity approaches combine to form a single research dynamic.
The participation of practical actors at all phases of the research process is urgent in this case. Transdisciplinarity is a research practice which continually develops further, together with the cross-disciplinary, historically contingent objects with which it deals. This is true both of its methods and with regard to the forms of participa- tion of practical actors in the research process — i. For this reason, the distinctions established above must of course remain broad brush; the empiri- cal richness of transdisciplinary research lies in the spaces between these four types see Figure 4.
In view of the growing impact of human activities upon the biosphere, the geosphere, the atmosphere and the hydrosphere, the Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen coined the term anthropocene to describe the mutual inter- dependence between natural and social processes on various spatial and temporal levels. However, understanding these relationships between nature and society demands plenty in the way of preconditions, and raises the question as to how they can become the object of scientific investigation in the first place, i.
For it is patterns of relationships which will have to be observed, not isolatable single phenomena. Becker ; Becker et al. This analytical dis- tinction enables an expression of the materiality of natural conditions, and at the same time their embedding in symbolic orders, interpretive contexts and social constructs. The distinction between nature and society is applied to particular phenomenological contexts, such as transportation and mobility, land use and food, etc.
Societal relations to nature are seen as regulated, or at least as regulable and shape- able. The normative view here is that all interactions with nature which are identi- fied as basal will have to be designed and regulated in such a manner that societal life processes are intergeneratively continuable, so that societies will not collapse. This presupposes concepts of successful regulation, reproduction and development — and thus places the concept of societal relations to nature in the horizon of sustainable development, i.
For some time, attempts have been made to view societal relations to nature as systemic contexts, i. Berkes et al. Conceived as SESs, interactive relationships between nature and society can be researched as a complex of relationships intrinsic to the system.
If sustainability problems are reformulated within this concept, the question posed immediately changes: How can these interlinked systems — and not merely isolated subsystems — develop sustainably?
Criteria can then be developed to determine which system dynamics, in accordance with the above introduced corridor model, could be identified as sustainable, and which not. A significant task of a transdisciplinary research for sustainable development would first and foremost involve an analysis of the conditions for the preser- vation of the development capability of social-ecological systems under pres- sure to change.
The research goal would be the development of options for less non-sustainable regulation of these systems or system complexes — with a focus on sustainable transformations, the preservation of capabilities to develop, and openness for the future. We have our doubts as to whether it is even useful or possible to formulate a theory or theories of sustainability as something conclusive, regardless of the specific processes or structures to which sustainability refers.
We assume that the scientific interest in a better understanding of sustainability cannot be separated from the context of the societal discourses around sustain- able development — nor should it be.
It appears to us not particularly useful to rigidly fix that which should be in a theory of sustainability; moreover, it would yet have to be determined in reference to which understanding of theory this were being done. If there is to be a theory, it should, in my view, be a critical theory in accordance with the approach described herein which could describe and explain how, where and when transformations to sustainable development might be possible, and could help identify points of bifurcation and windows of opportunity.
However, as I would like to demonstrate in the following, a clear understanding will be necessary for a productive debate around new ways for handling the problems of sustainable development in a knowledgeable manner. They correctly point out that a transdisciplinary science which addresses issues of sus- tainable development will increasingly face a debate over quality as thorny as the issue it addresses. The suitable and tested framework for that is that of the scientific disci- pline.
However, in view of the fundamental problems addressed herein, the issue of quality cannot, in my view, suffice as an argument for the establishment of a separate discipline. Rather, the important debate about quality and also about evaluation has been conducted for years in the context of the discourse around transdisciplinarity cf. Bergmann et al. Schellnhuber et al. Otherwise, it would not be possible to identify any problem which might be addressed with the aid of research.
Relating the philos- ophy and practice of ecological economics: The role of concepts, models, and case stud- ies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research. Ecological Economics, 67 3 , — Becker, E. Social-Ecological Systems as Epistemic Objects. In: Glaser, M. London: Routledge, 37— Sustainability and the Social Sciences. Lon- don: Zed Books Ltd.
Handbuch Umweltsoziologie. In: Becker, E. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, — Quality Criteria of Transdis- ciplinary Research. Methods for Transdisciplinary Research. A Primer for Practice. Berkes, F. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Build- ing Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: University Press. Boserup, E. An interdisciplinary visionary relevant for sustainability. Bunders, J. In: Veld, R. Knowledge Democracy. Con- sequences for Science, Politics, and Media.
Crutzen, P. Geology of mankind. Nature, , Defila, R. Evaluating transdisciplinary research. Farley, J. Conserving mangrove eco- systems in the Philippines: Transcending disciplinary and institutional borders.
Envi- ronmental Management, 45, 39— Farrell, K. Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination.
Book review. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, —, 13 1 , 75— Frame, B. Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability. Eco- logical Economics, 65 2 , — Funtowicz, S. Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25 7 , — Gibbons, M. The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage. Hummel, D.
Frankfurt am Main, www. Jahn, T. In: Bergmann, M. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. GAIA, 22 1 , 29— Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1— Jantsch, E. Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innovation.
In: CERI eds. Problems of Teaching and Research in Uni- versities. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 97— Kajikawa, Y. Research core and framework of sustainability science.
Sustainability Science, 3, — Sustainability science. Nature, , — Kauffman, J. Sustainability Science, 4, — Klein, J. Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A litera- ture review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, — Komiyama, H.
Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Science, 1, 1—6. Rickels, W. Dieses besteht aus einem , zwei oder drei Buchstaben. Bei einem Zulassungsbezirk kann es sich um Folgendes handeln:. Bis zum 1. Das Fahrzeug muss aber in jedem Fall umgemeldet werden. Es gibt allerdings auch einige Besonderheiten zu beachten:.
Finde die Liste super. Kann man ein ganz — bestimmtes Kennzeichen unter suchen schnell finden? Kfz-Kennzeichen sollen die Halterzuordnung vereinfachen. Dabei werden Standard- und Sonderkennzeichen unterschieden.
0コメント