Social and humanitarian problems of human ecology, society and culture. Global international environmental problems Modern world environmental problems
There is a lot of uncertainty in the modern use of the term “Nature”. Often I use this term so arbitrarily that the essence of the concept of Nature itself is blurred.
The author, based on an analysis of information on what researchers put into this concept, came to the conclusion that it is necessary to divide it into: the concept of Nature - as an essence, Nature as an object of perception, as an object of use and Nature as an environment.
It is proposed to put the following meaning into the concept of the essence of nature. Nature is the essence, everything that exists, the whole world in the diversity of its forms. Used in conjunction with the concepts of matter, universe, Universe. Thus, nature defines the inseparable and infinite, all-encompassing, interpenetrating everything - micro-, meso, - macro, - mega, - superworld. This is the unity of the Beginning and the End, based on the quantum essence of matter, substance, energy, interaction and information in Space-Time. In the term “Nature” there is no concept of a specific object, but there is something that represents a material-spatio-temporal unity of part and whole, for which there is no moment that can be stopped and about which we can say that it is beautiful.
Nature forces us (once again!) to look for the Highest Principle in it. A beginning that does not exist, because this beginning never existed, since the meaning of the existence of Nature lies in the laws of conservation, in the continuity of movement, change, interaction. The push (as a creation), as a trigger, as a trigger provoking the beginning or as the origin of movement in nature, does not make sense, since it is a consequence of the continuous fluctuations of Chaos, which does not have the ability to be absolute, but in the limit always provokes endless phase transitions of matter and substance from disordered to ordered structural and spatial states. The measure of variability of states, interactions, quality, quantity in Nature is Time. Nature is not a blurred surface of awareness of the ephemeral nature of an object, it is something more that Man strives for in order to understand the structure of the World. Nature is everything between Nothing and Everything. It is living and nonliving in unity. This is the absence of any edge effects as they are always temporary. This is everything that makes the consciousness tremble with the admiring diversity of being, existing, moving, living. This is not a Wheel that crushes Time, but a whirlwind that drags matter, substance and consciousness into a continuous process of excitation of Chaos, capable of forming structures with the same ease in time and space as destroying them in order to create new ones.
As for Man, she, Nature, is indifferent to what he “does” on the path of learning her laws, which do not exist. But there is only an insignificant transitory particularity cognized by man, changing with the awareness of its diversity of forms of states, movements, interactions; there is a certain entity capable of exhibiting periodicity in an infinite variety of phenomena, states and interactions depending on random fluctuations and external influences. It doesn’t even matter to Nature that it was her self-organization that launched the mechanism of the self-organized mind, into which she equally, as well as into the unconscious part of the world, invested creation and destruction as antipodes (truth and error), without which there can be no movement towards knowledge of it (Nature ) and yourself (mind). The place of Man in Nature lies in the timeliness of noticing the creative principle in the destructive in it and creating, in accordance with his needs, to see the world the way he wants; in the ability to understand one’s place in Nature, one’s role in it and to discover oneself every time.
Beauty will save the World... But there is nothing more beautiful and harmonious than Nature, in which even disharmony sounds like a hymn to Chance, which one wants to admire. Nature is an object not only of art, but of science, the essences of which are inseparable either in consciousness or in human creation. A person knows and can know only a small part of Nature, and having known it, an abyss of other parts opens before him, limiting the infinity with his perception of the Principles (mathematics, physics, etc.), which he invented himself and in which he saw his own infinity of perception of their essence. Nature is infinite both in harmony and without it, in creation and destruction, it is infinite in part and as a whole, in its continuous creation and transformation, despite the limited number of atoms in periodic law D.I. Mendeleev, the particles that atoms are made of, despite only four types of physical interactions in it. The beauty of nature in the visible part of the spectrum is only part of its beauty, but just as the palette of sounds is infinite in just seven notes, so is the infinite variety of each shade of light in just seven ranges of the visible spectrum...
Nature as an object of perception is the world person: river, forest, star, Milky Way galaxy, bee, clouds, earth, house, city, etc. This is always only a part of the essence of Nature, separated from it by man by his consciousness and awareness of what is happening in it. The part of the essence that is subject to observation, study, contemplation, use, contains human life, consciousness, etc. In this sense, this concept can be both subjective and objective, or rather, capable of dividing the essence into objective and subjective. There is no person, there is no perception of not only the essence of Nature, the object of Nature, but also the natural environment. The object of perception is not equal and cannot be identified with the essence of the object. Perception is always richer than the form of an object, but poorer than its essence and structure. Consciousness always endows an object of nature with properties and qualities that nature does not possess. It tends to either simplify or complicate the object of perception, but will never be true in relation to its essence, based on Bohr's principle of complementarity. Because human consciousness is connected to perception, which is capable of endowing an object with a non-existent reality and soaring with its consciousness in this unreality (virtuality) until the perception turns into a bare essence. For example, to feel the reality of falling (as a manifestation of gravity) and break your head instead of soaring through the perception of the beauty of flight while dreaming about it, without noticing that the path along which you were walking ended...
Nature as an object of use is a part of it separated from nature with complete ecological unity, meeting the needs of man, possessing properties and qualities that are useful for him, which he uses for his own purposes. social development, knowledge of nature itself through interaction with it.
Nature as an environment is part of nature, a dynamic ecological state that changes over time, the cycle of matter and energy. The set of elements of nature in interaction, movement, changes in states that ensure the homeostasis of the constituent elements of the environment: biotopes, biocenoses, ecosystems, humans. At the global level, this is the structure and function of the biosphere in the unity of the circulation of matter in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, exchange of energy and information. Habitat, evolution of life and human creation.
The aesthetic understanding of nature includes the specificity of sensations depending on a person’s state of mind, his consciousness, education and culture. There is no beauty and harmony in nature itself. There is only a continuous process of creation and destruction through fluctuations in quality and quantity, through the desire for Chaos and running away from it through the creation of temporary structures that perceive neither beauty nor harmony. It is a person, due to his spiritual experiences and visions, who notices the beautiful in it, nature, through the whim of his sensations.
2. Socio-natural dead end
In the problem under consideration, the idea of the duality of the nature of man himself is very important.
The consequence of human evolution is its bifurcation into biological and social essences.
Biological essence - from animals. It is a manifestation and consequence of the natural evolution of the animal world. Man is a derivative of the evolution of nature through the evolution of primates. Like animals, humans have a similar way of feeding, reproduction, struggle for existence (survival), instincts, including instincts of self-preservation, sexual desire, etc. Social essence is a consequence of the formation and development of primitive consciousness in animals, first at the level of the need to create a family, a herd (and a leader in it), then consciousness, which consolidated the need to unite humans into social groups (hordes) in order to achieve the conditions for their survival under the influence of the challenges of the natural environment. The highest form of socialization was the accidental (as a result of a fierce struggle for existence) separation by man himself and his primitive social groups (hordes) from nature for the purposes of survival and knowledge of himself in it, knowledge of it itself. That is, the social (as well as spiritual) essence was created by man himself as a result of the development of his consciousness, capable of separating himself from the general system of evolution of the biological world into a system of independent (parallel) development of his own outside the influence of the environment, Figure 1. Man created society, power , state and law. At different parts of its historical development united and separated peoples, ethnic groups, society, culture, thereby looking for (and still looking for) conditions under which society and personality would develop progressively. Man created science and technology in order to, having studied the laws of nature, survive in conditions of continuous changes in its state under the influence of his own economic activity and self-organization. Man created religion and created gods for himself so that in search of himself, his essence, he would not go crazy. In them he saw social and personal support for the uncertain state into which he found himself when he did not know how, did not want, or could not get out of the deadlock he discovered. Therefore, it is impossible to endow nature with a social essence, since it has nothing to do with its manifestation in man. Nature created only the biological essence of man, but he created the social essence himself.
And it seems strange that today they are raising the question “about the departure of a purely socio-economic (even in the broadest sense) vision of our future development to a socio-natural one. The starting point is no longer a socio-economic system isolated from nature and developing only according to its “internal” laws, but a socio-natural system that coordinates its development with “external” biospheric laws.” And further: “Sustainable development, providing a balanced solution to socio-economic problems and problems of maintaining a favorable state of the environment and natural resource potential in order to meet the vital needs of current and future generations and preserve the biosphere, requires a fundamental change in worldview (my italics) ...At the same time Such transformations, in principle, will be of a socio-natural and global nature, requiring the active participation of branches of “synthetic” natural science and ecologized social and humanitarian knowledge...” Then: “... in the field of economics, the socio-natural approach shifts the emphasis from discussions about the effectiveness of market or planned mechanisms, alternatives between private and public property, etc. into the problem of compatibility of any socio-economic form with nature.”
It makes no sense to talk about the compatibility of a socio-economic form with a natural one, since society, as a phenomenon, arose in nature as a bifurcation, a leap in human consciousness. Nature created the physical essence in him, and he created the social one himself in response to the challenges of the natural environment. Incompatible things cannot coexist in principle. They can only resist, since social laws are created by society, and natural laws are created by nature. Therefore, the natural laws of nature cannot come into conflict with social ones, since there is no connection between them a priori, just as there is no connection between the dependence of social laws on natural laws. They are different in essence, content and origin. But the inertia (as an expression of inertia) of nature will crush everything that does not comply with the laws of its development, because from the point of view of its accumulated energy potential in relation to the energy potential of Man, in time it is infinitely higher compared to the energy capabilities and time of existence of Man. And although Man changes the environment itself (but not Nature in our above-mentioned understanding) and influences the biosphere of the Earth, Nature always has an abundance of Time, and Man always has a shortage of it in order to understand the laws of its development.
Alas, the socio-economic form simply cannot be compatible with nature. These are two different systems, different stages of development of natural objects.
Now let's dwell on the problem, why did they start talking about the departure of a purely socio-economic vision of our development to a socio-natural one? Before answering the question, let's look at the device system modern world, and then we’ll place the accents.
Modern science affirms the simple truth that in the system: Nature - man - society man is a product of the evolution of nature, and society is a consequence of human evolution. In this simple diagram, which expresses the fundamental structure of the evolution of relations, nature has no relation to society as a social system. Let us repeat, Nature did not create society. Society was created by man in order to survive in the conditions of continuous changes in nature, its evolution, and the continuous struggle for existence in it. This is a human response to the challenges of nature, to the problem of survival according to the law of action and reaction, in accordance with the Le Chatelier-Brown or Newton principle. Therefore, exactly the opposite, the socio-economic system turns out to be isolated from nature and develops only according to its “internal” (to be more precise - social) laws. Therefore, it, a socioecosystem, by its nature cannot be socionatural.
And the concept of a socioecosystem, as a single natural complex formed by living organisms and their habitat according to A. Teneli (1935), in which the processes of exchange of matter, energy (and today we need to talk about information) are carried out, implies a community of all living organisms, and not only human. Otherwise, the person himself is isolated from the rest of the living. But such an approach clearly contradicts the essence of the state of affairs and can be attributed to error. After all, it is obvious that a socioecosystem is an ecosystem created with the participation of not just humans as a biological species, but an ecosystem formed as a result of its economic (or rather social) activities. A socioecosystem is a social environment + a natural environment + a part of nature processed by humans or even “transformed” nature. If we are talking about the complete replacement of the natural environment with an artificial environment. This is the meaning that should be included in the concept of socioecosystem.
Society - in a broad sense as a set of historically established forms of joint activity of people, and in a narrow sense - a historically specific type of social system, a certain form of social relations. From the point of view of the position of specific individuals in society, the following point of view may be valid. Society is a form, or rather a structure of organization of people, but not geniuses, individuals. The latter will always find a defect in the structure of society so that, by increasing it, they can destroy the old structure from within and build on its ruins a new one, stable in the conditions of new social relations or the requirements of the social development of society. In this sense, just as the history of mineral species can be read by defects in their structure, so the history of society can be understood by the permanent succession of critical events, led by individuals or scoundrels. In this sense, Hegel is right when he contrasts the state with a society in which the government solves the problems of its structure, including its own, but not the social system, which is often a consequence of its own self-organization rather than the organizational activities of managers.
Now, returning to the system nature - man - society, let us trace the feedback connections, since the direct ones are clear. The connection between man and nature is determined by the pressure of human economic activity on nature (through resource extraction, waste production, etc.). Nature responds to this to man by changing its quality strictly according to the principle of action and reaction, thus stimulating man, again, to find solutions (it is correct to speak of his management decisions on his own, that is, the social structure of self-organization), so as not to upset the balance actions and reactions. Otherwise, he, the person (society) will be left out of survival. In other words, it is man who needs (and therefore is not indifferent!) his economic activity, since he is the one to solve the problem of survival, and not nature. Nature in its development does not make any choices at all; it changes according to its own laws of self-organization, according to its own laws of self-preservation and Chance (the game of dice). So it is impossible to intertwine nature with society and talk about socio-natural development. They have different laws. In nature - natural, in humans - social. Man and society have a goal, or rather the desire for unlimited development and unlimited existence in time; nature does not have such goals. They are not inherent in the essence of Nature itself, which develops according to the laws of internal self-organization. Its homeostasis lies in its laws of conservation. Thus, there is an internal contradiction in the socio-natural unification of the concepts of society and nature. It's not harmless. Because it puts a completely different emphasis and views on the system of management of environmental and natural resource activities.
Now let us again turn to the very essence of man. It contains the duality of its nature. It simultaneously coexists with the biological principle, which makes it similar to the animal, and the social one, generated by [awareness] of its place in nature, which led man to the need to create society as a structure that promotes the survival of the individual in the natural, then modified and, finally, in environment transformed by it. He needs society not only for survival in conditions of continuous change in nature under the influence of natural processes of evolution, but also under his own (economic activity) influence. Thus, society is, first of all, the structure of the organization of people. It is not society that creates waste, cuts down forests, or extracts minerals, but specific people, individuals, if we resort to the norms of legal language. But society is responsible for the individual within the framework of his influence on the preservation of resources and the quality of the environment and limits his freedom of activity by social laws, which, again, a person “invents” to preserve his structure - society. Otherwise, chaos will arise in the system of relations between man and society. Society will collapse, people will disappear. In this case, first the personality in a person dies, and only then the animal in him. Precisely because personality is secondary in relation to the biological essence of man. This is precisely the (wild) essence of Nature. The animal is primary - the social is secondary. In a critical situation, the animal in man will eventually die out, since this feral personality will no longer be able to return to collecting, from where the primordial man came to this world of evolution to reason, since in the environment transformed by man the animal will have nothing to collect. He loses his connection with the natural habitat, and nature, having an unlimited time of its existence, due to its assimilation potential, having returned (without man) to its original quality, will continue its development on the basis of its own laws of conservation, but without him, without man .
True, there is one thing. It consists in a person acquiring reason, as the ability to self-awareness, self-knowledge, self-examination (in himself and his essence), which again distinguishes a person from an animal. It was man’s awareness of the consequences of his influence on the biosphere that forced him to formulate the problem of his own “survival” from his own “mismanagement” activities. So all is not lost. The man “realized” what he was doing. Consequently, now, according to the law of self-preservation, it is he (and only himself) who must find a way out of this situation. And he will certainly find it with the help modern science and improving technologies. There is simply no alternative to this.
However, oddly enough, there are still persistent misconceptions about the nature of the mind. The fact is that the phenomenon of reason lies in the fact that it appeared contrary to nature and despite the person himself to possess it. It, reason, as a leap, as a bifurcation, arose with man’s isolation of himself from nature on the basis of his observation of changes in its qualities. Man once “guessed” to rip off the skin of an animal, drive predators out of caves and protect his own existence from the influence of the external environment during the period of glacial collisions. Thus, he gained clothing, housing, and then energy (fire). It was with their help that he gradually reduced his dependence on the natural environment. Man began to develop (and is still developing) in parallel with the evolution of natural systems. And in this sense, it has long been in conditions of co-evolution with nature. In this sense, N. Moiseev was mistaken, leaving us with hope for co-evolution with it in the future. We are already in it, but we have not realized it.
The following Figure 1 illustrates a possible scenario for the co-evolution of nature, the biosphere, humans and nature “processed” by humans.
The essence of the presented scenario is that at some historical stage in the formation of the Earth, which is about 4.6 billion years old, the biosphere arises (somewhere in the range of 4.5 - 3.1 billion years ago) from pre-life forms (primitive organic compounds found in meteorites). At the turn of 3.1 billion years ago, in the conditions of the proto-ocean, life forms of unicellular non-nuclear forms of organisms (prokaryotes) developed, leaving imprints in the most ancient sedimentary complexes. Changing environmental conditions based on photosynthesis contributed to the evolution of life forms into nuclear forms of unicellular organisms (about 1.8 - 1.6 billion years ago) of eukaryotes, which contributed to the emergence of multicellular Ediacaran life forms (1.4 - 0.9 billion years ago ). At the turn of 0.575 billion years, the Cambrian explosion of the evolution of life forms is observed, when the foundations of all the existing diversity of organisms are laid. The rapid increase in the rate of evolution of life forms leads to the emergence of animals and humans. With the separation of himself from nature (awareness of his existence in it), he guessed to skin animals, acquiring homes (first by expelling predators from caves, and then building his own primitive forms), based on the mastery of energy (fire), in the face of natural challenges environment (the advance of glaciers), a person becomes independent of the conditions of the surrounding natural environment. Moreover, he himself acts as one of the factors of evolution by artificially changing the quality of the environment based on the mechanism of economic activity. Thus, he transfers part of the natural nature into the category of “processed” nature as a result of his economic activities. There is a period of division of nature into the line of natural evolution of preserved natural biotopes, biocenoses and ecosystems, the line of evolution of man and his economic activity through the technological, to the economic and to the information man. Finally, to the line of nature “processed” by man. The bifurcation of nature into two parallel branches became the reason for the entry of “intelligent” human activity into its arena.
Thus, we emphasize once again that with the advent of Homo sapiens, problems arose that we today call environmental. And the new environment, formed under the influence of society, is nothing more than a socio-ecosystem. Thus, it can be argued that man has become one of the factors of evolution, and within the framework of his knowledge of the laws of nature with the help of science and technology, he has become a factor influencing the state of the biosphere as a whole.
Man, having separated himself from nature and taken the path of technological and economic development, took upon himself responsibility not only for the preservation of the environment, reproduction of resources as a “reasonable” form of organizational activity in nature, but also for the preservation of life itself on Earth. In this sense, the biosphere with the entire set of life forms continues to develop according to its own internal laws of evolution (self-organization) of nature, and man continues to develop according to the laws of self-organization of the mind within the framework of the laws of conservation of nature. Living organisms, under the pressure of human economic activity, will be between a “hammer and a hard place”, on the one hand, obeying the natural laws of evolution of living things, on the other hand, they will measure (limit) their development with the influence of human economic activity on them. In this sense, the human factor, which arose in the arena of evolution, acts as a new agent provoking the need for accelerated adaptation of all living things to new conditions. external conditions“man-processed nature.” Thus, man is already a factor in the evolution of all life in the biosphere. Everything that does not have time to adapt will disappear under its influence. What remains will coexist in symbiosis with a person in parallel with him. However, a person’s awareness of his role in preserving living things will “help living things” adapt to new factors of evolution, which will make it possible for a person to preserve not only the habitat, but also the gene pool. This can only happen in the conditions of the noosphere, in conditions of reasonable economic activity within the framework of the laws of conservation of Nature. Then man and the “nature processed by him” will develop in parallel and for a long time within the framework of the laws of human self-preservation and the laws of evolution of nature.
Based on Figure 1, the following should be noted. If the biosphere acts as a phenomenon, that is, an exceptional phenomenon in the Universe (which can only be challenged by the discovery of either new forms of life, or the same ones, but on other planetary and other stellar systems), then Nature, with the advent of life, acquires a new quality in self-organization by dividing it into living and nonliving substances of matter, but again within the framework of conservation laws. Since, using the example of life on Earth, the rate of self-organization of living things is higher than the rate of self-organization of the natural components of Nature (environment), then life will provoke an accelerated change in the properties of Nature itself. In this sense, the existence of pre-life forms in outer space will lead to the explosive nature of its spread with the help of reason. That is, in any case, with the advent of even the phenomenon of life, Nature is doomed to its new state of accelerated development. And with the help of reason, she may have made a bet on the possibility of “preventing her own degeneration.”
Today we are interested in pragmatic problems related to the survival of humans as a species. Namely, what will happen to it if a favorable or unfavorable scenario develops related to the pressure on the environment of its economic activities?
A favorable scenario lies in the plane of man’s awareness of his place in nature and the biosphere. This awareness can occur if the pace of development of natural science, technology and humanitarian culture is equalized. Otherwise (especially in the case of a lagging humanitarian culture), human existence will face an unfavorable course of events, when the laws of nature learned by man by technologists will be aimed at solving the ambitious tasks of a limited group of people, states, capable of undermining the gene pool of survival, regardless of whether scientists and technologists wanted it or No. Because the level of awareness of “what we are doing” will shift to the plane of “we don’t know what we are doing.” In other words, the bets are placed, gentlemen... The game has begun... In any case, the winning will be on the side of Nature, since it was she who made it possible for Homo sapiens to appear. This means that her bet (on Homo sapiens) is also doomed to win. But first, it is necessary for reason to manage the achievements of scientific and technological progress, and not power, including the solution of problems associated with the co-evolution of man and Nature. Because the authorities (including those represented by the ambitious policies of some states) will always set goals that will interest only them.
Therefore, the socio-natural approach to human development is nonsense. Parallel to the evolution of nature, human development is a fact. By changing it, he changes himself. But, having ceased to depend on her, he did not and never will become above her. He is initially a derivative of nature, having turned only into its rational part. Therefore, we repeat, the essence of man lies in determining his place in nature, in knowing himself through knowledge of the laws of nature based on interaction with it. Otherwise, intelligence in the Universe will turn out to be “chance” or “an unfortunate random error.”
The socioecosystem initially does not “coordinate” and cannot inherently “coordinate” its development with “external” biospheric laws, since they do not exist. The biosphere is a consequence of the same evolution of nature and is subject to its laws, which are continuous movements and fluctuations in it, where Chance plays the same important and constructive role as its absence. Otherwise, any natural derivative of nature claims the right to develop according to its own laws. Let us emphasize once again that the exception is the mind, which was able to remove the environmental factor, thereby subsequently finding itself outside of natural evolution, which is determined by the variability of species under the influence of the natural environment. The mind has only one chance of survival - this is co-evolution in the understanding of N.N. Moiseev.
There is another well-established misconception that the biosphere is almost degrading under the influence of human economic activity. Also false are the ideas of a large number of researchers and ecologists who see short-term changes in the structure and function of the biosphere as signs of an environmental disaster provoked by human economic activity.
What is the biosphere?
Biosphere - region active life, covering the lower part of the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the upper part of the lithosphere. This is the thinnest shell of the planet, less than 100 km thick. This is only about 0.016 part of the radius of the Earth. But it was precisely its evolution that gave rise to the phenomenon of reason. In the biosphere, living organisms that form the living matter of the planet and their habitat are organically connected and interact with each other, forming an integral dynamic and balanced system.
The term biosphere was introduced by E. Suess in 1875. The doctrine of the biosphere, as the active shell of the Earth, was developed by V.I. Vernadsky (1926), in which “the total activity of living organisms (including humans) manifests itself as a geochemical factor on a planetary scale.”
In the case of man as a global geochemical factor, it is still necessary to doubt, since here it is more correct to consider that his economic activity did not manifest itself as an all-planetary phenomenon, but covered only part of the biosphere. Man has penetrated into the depths of the earth with technical means only up to km and is only taking timid steps in exploring the oceanic depths. Hyperbolization of human economic activity in the biosphere is one of the common misconceptions that may not be harmless.
In fact, the biosphere is a self-organizing balanced system and is itself a derivative of the self-organizing essence of Nature. It is functionally connected with the surrounding outer space and geospheres energetically, structurally and informationally. Exchange energy processes in it are caused by cosmic and solar radiation falling on the geosphere from the outside and thermal energy potential coming from inside the Earth. This energy cycle involved first cosmochemical and then geochemical processes, which first gave rise to cosmochemical and then biochemical reactions, and biological evolution shaped life on Earth, which appears to us as a phenomenon. It is a phenomenon, the essence of which remains unclear. We, who have made a huge breakthrough in the field of natural science, still cannot give a strict definition of what life is. We are still torn between the concept of living and nonliving and are surprised to discover that there is no such line. That living is something that is physically perceived by us as the result of some kind of phase transitions between mineral (inert according to V.I. Vernadsky) and living substances. At the same time, “everywhere”, the uniformity of the elemental composition of living and inanimate, but not the relationships of these elements in natural objects, a priori gives us information about the unity of living and inanimate matter. And in this sense, we have no right to believe that life is a special form of its existence. Rather, compared to nonliving (inert) matter, it is simply more transient in structure, modification over time, and is manifested by its events of interaction with surrounding nature noticeable and diverse forms of biological movement. The mineral form transforms its composition more slowly in time and space and therefore appears to us unchanged, dead, inanimate, imperceptible in movement.
Being a derivative of the evolution of Nature, the biosphere arose and developed according to the principles of a self-organizing multifunctional living organism, in which local changes provoke the protective functions of the biosphere as a system according to the principle that is known in immunology. In this sense, the developed immunity of the biosphere to influences or disturbances from within the system (under the influence of human economic activity as a derivative of the evolution of the biosphere) provokes adequate defensive reactions according to the Le Chatelier-Brown principle. In this case, cosmic disturbances on the biosphere must be considered as constantly acting, that is, background. In this sense, human economic activity disturbing the biosphere can be considered as a subsystem of constantly increasing influence on its structure and functions. At the same time, both the subsystem (Man) and the system (Biosphere) are self-learning, self-organizing. Therefore, Man in the Biosphere system cannot be considered a one-sided negative factor on the state of its structure and function; otherwise, we can initially attribute the biosphere itself to a self-destructive system, since the Man who emerged from its womb is its derivative. On the contrary, it must be considered that the inertial essence of the biosphere, taking into account its energy potential, multiplied by the time of its existence, is incomparably higher than the potential of its subsystem of Human economic activity. The energy potential of Man in comparison with the biosphere tends to zero, since the time of his intense “destructive” activity is 13 5*107 times less than the time of the “creative function” of the biosphere, even if we equate the energy intensity of human economic activity with the energy intensity of the biosphere.
Rather, human activity is a kind of challenge, disturbing and provoking the necessary structural and functional transformations in the biosphere itself. In this sense, the accelerated evolution of man cannot but influence the adequate acceleration of transformations in the biosphere, aimed at maintaining its integrity as a living organism on the basis of the same Le Chatelier-Brown principle. The meaning of awareness of this phenomenon is the leitmotif of this study.
According to the ideas of A.V. Kanygin, the evolution of the biosphere can be represented in the form of processes:
- the emergence of new ecological specializations that provide higher efficiency in the use, transfer and transformation of matter and energy in ecosystems;
- spatial expansion of life on Earth (gradual transformation of a discrete biosphere into a continuous one through the development of new bionomic zones and biotopes);
- complications of the trophic structure of ecosystems (from the simplest autotrophic-heterotrophic prokaryotic ecosystems of the Archean to the modern global ecosystem of developed biocenoses of the Earth;
- changes in spatial and energy parameters of biogeochemical cycles.
In this case, by the emergence of ecological specializations that ensure higher efficiency of energy use in ecosystems, it is necessary to understand such a development of life forms that would be aimed at preventing the degeneration of matter by reducing the entropy of the biosphere, that is, increasing its internal energy, capable of progressively developing the evolution of life forms . After all, it is known that it is life that is capable of transforming entropy into its antipode due to the accumulation of energy in dying substances.
The Ordovician is considered as one of the turning points in the evolution of the biosphere. Due to the emergence of new taxonomic groups with more effective trophic adaptations in benthic communities and the development of pelagic zones in the euphotic zones of the seas by heterotrophic organisms, dramatic changes occurred in marine ecosystems in the Ordovician, which predetermined the further evolution of marine biota.
The main evolutionary strategy of Precambrian marine organisms is to increase the efficiency of adaptation to physical and chemical environmental conditions by increasing the complexity of biological organization and separating metabolic and reproductive functions at the intraorganismal level. In the Ordovician, marine ecosystems became multi-layered, their complexity sharply increased. trophic structure and for the first time a closed biological cycle was formed within the entire marine area. The balance of Ca and Mg in marine sedimentation changes. The increase in oxygen in the atmosphere led to the formation of the Earth's ozone layer. Life comes to dry land. The Late Ordovician extinction of marine biotas was a consequence of a catastrophic reduction in living spaces on the shelf, as a result of a decrease in the level of the world ocean due to the binding of large volumes of water in continental glaciers after the Middle Ordovician transgressive maximum. This catastrophe led to the fact that the life forms of land, adapted to new conditions, gave a new impetus to the evolution of the organic world, but already on land... Catastrophe, revolution, evolution based on the adaptive process.
Let's consider the essence of the put forward concept of “Scientific justification for the strategy of sustainable development, which can only be obtained from the standpoint of the theory of biotic regulation and environmental stabilization.”
Biotic regulation in natural environments obeys the law of evolution. From the perspective of synergy, it is a change in external environmental influences that affect living organisms. This creates natural biotic regulation. With the entry of Homo sapiens into the arena of life, a new, artificial factor of biotic regulation appeared. The number and diversity of species composition comes under control of human economic activity from the moment of its appearance in the biosphere. The destruction of ungulates, some predators, valley forests with the help of fires, and then (from the Neolithic) with the help of agriculture brought the biosphere to a new quality, in which human economic activity manifested itself as one of the functions of changing the structure and quality of the biosphere itself. She has entered an era of influence on her from an internal, self-generated factor of development (and not degradation). As in natural processes, the consequences of economic activity are spontaneous until a person realizes his place in it, the biosphere. Since he is aware of his influence on living things, a situation arises for possible “reasonable” regulation of his activities, that is, management.
In the proposed concept, it remains unknown what is meant by “stabilization of the environment.” The environment is a continuously changing system and, regardless of human economic activity, it will strive to follow the laws of conservation, that is, to change in accordance with the principle of action and reaction. Reducing pressure on the environment due to population growth is only possible if new and latest technologies. Only under these conditions is it possible to improve the quality of the environment. In this sense, the assimilation potential of the natural environment will inevitably restore its energy capabilities through the natural cycle. Its inertia is like a compressed spring, which will release energy depending on the speed at which a person removes his load on the environment. Since the system itself of making and implementing management and technological decisions is inertial, returning to the original state of the environment will not cause serious changes in the biosphere. If this happens too quickly, then returning the environment to its original state is fraught with the same dangerous consequences as human pressure on it. Is it because the destroyed economy in former USSR, Russia and the CIS, helping to reduce pressure on the natural environment in a huge part of the Eurasian continent, as well as the implementation of environmental programs in Europe, have made it possible to sharply limit pressure on the natural environment over the past decade. This could Lately provoke sharp changes in the nature of the movement of energy (heat) and air masses, which led to the creation of extreme situations in the modern biosphere in Eurasia and the USA. It is obvious that the assimilation potential of the atmosphere is restored faster than the hydrosphere, and the latter - faster than the lithosphere due to the metabolic processes of the circulation of matter. The structure and functions of biotopes, biocenoses and ecosystems are restored more slowly, but they are restored provided that the processes of slowing down their functions under the influence of human economic activity have not exceeded the threshold of their ability to reproduce. It is practically impossible to restore lost landscapes with their inherent biotopes, biocenoses and ecosystems. To replace them in a new structural and morphological setting and ecological niche, new biotopes, biocenoses and ecosystems that are stable in new environments will develop. Thus, a person, through his economic activities, changes the structure of relations between elements of the natural environment, the structure of the exchange of matter, energy, information, but does not affect the speed of metabolic processes in environment and the structure of the cycle of matter. The phenomenon of human economic activity lies in the fact that, by changing the structure of metabolic processes, he replaces rapidly occurring metabolic reactions with slowly occurring ones (but within the cycle of matter).
3. The problem of the connection between natural science and humanitarian culture in the relationship Nature - MAN - Society
The history of the emergence of natural science and humanitarian culture is associated with the period when man separated himself from nature. Thus, a person appears in the evolution of the living as a phenomenon of knowledge and [awareness] of the nature of his place in it - himself. Thus, if this assumption is true, then a person first appears to us as an observer, capable of identifying an object of nature in his consciousness and noticing himself in it. In this sense, he also acts as a natural scientist, who was later able to create the first tools with the help of which he was able to defend himself and obtain food for himself. In this sense, it is logical to first move from a natural scientist to a technologist. The humanist in a person will mature later with the creation of society through moral imperatives, first within the family, then within the community, etc. That is, a technologist matures in the natural sciences, and along with them, ethics and morality gradually mature as the basis for his humanization, the need for the development of culture as such. But, developing these principles within oneself spontaneously, a person’s awareness of them will come much later (for example, among Greek philosophers), when the need for this awareness arises, the need for ethics and morality to protect society from its decay from within. That is, in the depths of the natural science culture, a technological culture matures, and only after that a humanitarian culture. But their speeds and levels of development are different. This follows from the very history of the formation of Homo sapiens.
The time of man's separation from nature can be attributed to the recorded moment of his creation of archaic tools at the turn of 3.5 * 106 years. By this it is necessary to emphasize that except for Afar man, no one in the animal kingdom could make these tools. In this sense, we can, to a first approximation, assert that he had primitive forms of consciousness, which also distinguished him from the rest of the animal world.
These conditions cannot be disputed by appealing to the ability, for example, of some birds (including crows) to “make” primitive tools in order to pull, for example, an insect out of a crack, hole, etc. Because these are modern birds, and we cannot a priori transfer this skill to birds of the past.
In this sense, the natural primitive culture of archaic people arose on the basis of observation of nature, on the basis of the possibility of acquiring the first skills in handling natural objects, stone, for example. Only after the isolation of stone from nature as a possible tool for throwing at an animal, or cracking a nut with a stone, or making primitive cutting edges based on the inclusion of an anvil in a set of stone tools, does archaic technology appear, that is, an archaic technologist appears in the arena of evolution, Figure 2.
This period of formation of the archaic technologist is not yet accompanied by upright walking. It will appear much later. However, on the way to upright walking, a person for a long time will look for mechanisms for improving tools, thereby developing his thinking as his consciousness develops, passing on information about the acquired primitive technological skills according to the relay race principle, from generation to generation. Otherwise, the information could simply be lost. Because then in each subsequent species the ability to make tools must arise every time by chance and from the very beginning. The repeated randomness in the development of tool-making skills among different types of archaic people should simply be excluded. Therefore, the appearance of Homo habilis 2 million years ago corresponded to a new era of improvement of archaic tools, which led to the creation of more advanced samples.
 |
The long stage of the formation of technological man through ergaster, erectus, was accompanied by extinction and the appearance of new species in the arena of the struggle for existence, including the Neanderthal until Homo sapiens appeared in its depths. More graceful in relation to Neanderthal man, he managed not only to survive in the struggle for existence, but, perhaps, for the first time in the history of the evolution of Nature, having crossed the barrier of its self-organization, to create a new level of self-organization - the mind. Let us emphasize that it was not nature that created the mind, it was man who made himself intelligent through the perception of it, nature, through the structure of perception of the structure of the world organized by evolution. And he did this by accident, through a bifurcation of the perception of himself in her. This case never happened to anyone else alive, and nature, divided into irrational and reasonable, began to exist in parallel as a phase state of immiscible principles, as immiscible liquids, solid phases of the historical development of matter depending on environmental conditions...
So, where is that elusive border that separates Homo sapiens from Homo erectus and skill? After all, if indeed Neanderthal man was still capable of consciously burying his relatives, then already in the depths of his consciousness the world around him should be bifurcated into the real and the other! And perhaps, already in the depths of the consciousness of an upright man, this line is hidden, which separated a skilled person from a person capable of realizing his role in the world of wild nature around him, that is, standing at the source of reason? Maybe... But no matter how much one would like to find this boundary in the future, it will always slip away into other sources of existence and remain the “Flying Dutchman”, a pop-up mirage in the mind of an inquisitive natural scientist. And the great revelation, which flashed like its barely noticeable shadow, suddenly opens up to a simple truth - there is no such boundary and boundary. They simply cannot exist, just as there cannot be a boundary between matter and matter, space, matter and time, as a boundary between living and nonliving, between consciousness and awareness of what is happening. For in everything there is everything at the same time, and there is nothing that a priori could be considered a beginning...
Now regarding the radical change in worldview during the transition to sustainable development that researchers are talking about. The term worldview contains a view of the world. See the world as it is. To radically change it means to discard all ideas about it embedded in the consciousness of man and society during their evolution. In other words, discard the entire phylogenesis of the worldview. It's a delusion. A person changes along with the world around him. By changing nature, he changes himself. His worldview is based on interaction with nature. Revolutionary transformations in consciousness are the affirmation of a new ideology, which may turn out to be a delusion, as evidenced by world social experience. The worldview must mature in society as society itself matures in its vision of its place in nature, each time measuring its development with the phenomena that occur in it under the influence of natural processes and its economic activities. At the same time, we should not forget from the outset that when we talk about preserving a favorable environment, we must assume that this conservation concerns not only the conditions of human existence, but also all living things in the biosphere. In this sense, no transformations in the form of “socio-natural” (only relating to man and society) and especially global ones are required. You just need to understand that preserving life means preserving its diversity, including the diversity of forms of its existence. The problem of “synthetic” natural science is the desire to give it a far-fetched form of a new scientific character - nothing more. Because if we use this terminology, then it is enough to recall that the science of synthetics is integrated into all areas of knowledge, not only natural. Otherwise, there will be another researcher who will offer a synthetic worldview or synthetic ideology and psychology. Hence, the ensuing problems of ecologization of consciousness and spirit, education and culture, come simply from man’s understanding of his place in nature and society. In understanding the meaning of one’s existence, which is inseparable from preserving one’s home, home, habitat, biosphere, finally.
It is sometimes said that a person develops through trial and error. And in our minds it seems that everything that is negative, accompanying human development, is undesirable. In fact, this can be presented in the form of a necessity that provokes human development through his perception of the consequences of his intervention in natural processes. Development cannot exist without changing the quality of the environment. This is the essence of nonequilibrium processes in open thermodynamic systems - evolution through fluctuations, from order to chaos and through constructive chaos to a new state (order through fluctuations) of order. I just want to shout to society: “It’s very cool that we have the opportunity to make mistakes!” This means that we live and exist. Therefore, we are able to recognize our mistakes. Therefore, we have a future!” To have the right to make a mistake means not to exist - but to live! This is the phenomenologism of man, as well as the phenomenon of Nature, which uses Chance to obtain a negative result, which gives it the opportunity to choose. The introduction of the concept of negentropy in natural science and computer science is a revelation that makes it possible to recognize that information can never be negative, and a negative result in any activity always has positive consequences.
The reason for all the discrepancies in society’s understanding of the causes and consequences of environmental problems lies in the amazing situation when natural science knowledge, which gives rise to the rapid development of technology, is ahead of humanitarian knowledge - as a reflection in the human mind of the consequences of its technological development. What is the reason for this lag? Why was humanity in man not ready for scientific and technological achievements in society? But the fact is that the scientific and technological revolution revealed in man his unwillingness to perceive what he himself created, relying on the amazingly productive mechanism he himself created for the structure and methodology of cognition of the laws of nature, from which he received dizzying technological consequences.
Let's turn to history. Previously, the humanitarian culture was ahead of the natural sciences, since its idea of the world was mythological in nature. This allowed culture to create world masterpieces in the field of art, literature, architecture... But as soon as the ideas about the structure of the world on the basis of scientific knowledge change, humanitarian culture hopelessly begins to lag behind and lose its gained positions. She turns out to be too inert. In art, literature, and architecture, trends arise that perceive the world not only as different, but as fantastically different, even to the point of abstraction. This, perhaps, is akin to the transition from real (order, harmony) perception to the chaos of perception of a new worldview by the traumatized consciousness of a person, that suddenly the entire ideological foundation collapsed overnight. Exactly in accordance with Prigogine's theorem - order through fluctuations. This is exactly what is happening now in art, literature, architecture - in the entire humanitarian culture. World has gone mad. And a person in this world sees monsters everywhere, encroaching on his life, consciousness, development. In fact, this moment of extreme fluctuations stimulates the perception of the world as it is - crazy (for example, the world order from the position of quantum physics!) unnaturally (from yesterday) more diverse and beautiful in the accelerated transformation of it by man. It is man, an intelligent part of nature, who has accelerated fluctuations in the natural world in order to quickly understand his place in nature... in order to survive in the endless marathon for new knowledge.
The lag of the humanitarian culture from the natural sciences also occurred, apparently, because humanities in a person are based not on the natural (real) perception of the surrounding real world, but on virtuality, imagery, expressed in sensations, experiences, which are based on the desire to see the world differently. what he is, and how others want to see him.
What is happening in the field of economics within the framework of the “socio-natural” approach to sustainable development? Nothing. It is impossible to combine the incompatible, although the creators of the “socio-natural” approach rely on the compatibility of any socio-economic form of property with nature. But what to do with the world that does not belong to its social part?
The fact is that the concept of the economic value of nature (Girusov et al., 1998) follows from the emergence of the economic category of price. And the price in any relationship between people is naturally determined by supply and demand. Thus, the introduction of this economic category into relations between people comes, first of all, from the need to possess the quality of nature (resource, environment). And this desire to possess comes from the biological essence of man... A person will always strive for unlimited possession (even despite the lack of need for this) until he breaks with the animal nature in himself. And that won't happen anytime soon, if ever. Rather, Nature has implanted in man the duality of his essence, giving rise to a duality of consciousness so that he could go crazy if one day he fixes in his brains any possibility of separating himself from the wildness of Nature inherent in the being of the biological principle in him.
For example, unlimited food requirements leading to obesity, the need to have more material than required, the desire to be stronger than everyone else, to achieve power in order to establish one’s superiority - all this comes from the animal. This struggle between the animal and the social in man continues in the humanities and natural sciences (the struggle of opinions of scientists, designers, workers in art, literature, architecture, etc., the quarrel over the possession of titles and degrees, the battle for the right to be the first to possess a new direction in art , new knowledge). Moreover, the forms of this struggle, unlike animals, can be even more sophisticated with the use of the most powerful weapon - the tongue. But it is precisely this struggle, as a means of self-affirmation of the individual, that forces a person to move towards new knowledge, towards the possession of new directions in art, painting, literature, sculpture, etc. Again through fluctuations in the norms of morality, ethics, law, consciousness and awareness of humanitarian values. And all this will be measured by society’s need for something, to have an economic price category, the degree of consolidation of power, and self-affirmation of the individual.
So, Man will transfer objects of natural and environmental resources from the category of “untouched” nature to the category of “processed” nature to suit his needs and will never turn back, just as evolution did not do this, because he himself is part of it and even more so - an attribute its acceleration. Of course, one can shed tears for the lost wild nature, but so far not one of its “defenders” has given up on the social benefits that nature itself gave him through persistent, intelligible work. And they want to present this hypocrisy to society and themselves as a “new worldview.” In fact, over billions of years of evolution, Nature, while creating resources, did not imagine that anyone would ever use them. It’s just that this awareness by the person himself of its qualities led to his own understanding of its properties necessary to satisfy his growing needs. At the same time, in the future, new technological possibilities will arise, with the help of which a person will extract new useful properties for himself that he did not even imagine.
Let us remember that at the beginning of human history, the basis of the energy potential was firewood, wind, the energy of falling water, then coal, then oil, gas, nuclear energy, and already controlled thermonuclear energy “looms” ahead... The efforts of the mind, thus, reached the energy that controls the evolution of stars for billions of years. Human imagination, running ahead of science and technology, began to lag behind the pace of technology development, and the future began to come faster than it seemed to him. Doubts about the fact that it is technology that will destroy nature, the environment, and with it people, are nothing more than fear of the unknown. Like the horizon, it frightens, but attracts daredevils who are always ready to answer the challenges of the unknown with their desire to find out what is beyond the horizon. And they go against common sense for those who see their meaning of existence only in satisfying animal needs in humans.
3.1. God-seeking in the “ethics” of nature
Nature has no values, or even the concept of value. These concepts in relation to oneself and the world around them arose in a person endowed with reason.
V. Boreyko begins with the fact that “the problem of the moral rights of nature is central to environmental ethics,” p. 45. And already on p. 52 he disavows his own idea: “In nature itself, naturally, there are no moral relations. Morality is not inherent in natural systems; there are no moral persons in the wild.” And finally, on page 53 he states: “In nature there are only values, and not moral relations.” Thus, the problem of the moral rights of nature, according to his own ideas, does not exist. However, the author persistently endows nature with ethics. What is ethics, morality, aesthetics, and beauty from the perspective of the modern understanding of the terms?
Ethics - from Greek. - custom, custom, character. Philosophical discipline that studies morality and ethics. First introduced by Aristotle. Understood as the science of human nature. Ethics as the science of what is proper in the system of I. Kant, who developed the ideas of autonomous ethics as based on internal, self-evident moral principles, contrasting it with heteronomous ethics, based on any conditions, interests and goals external to morality. In contrast to Kant's “formal” ethics of duty, the Russian writer M. Scheller (1838-1900) and the German philosopher N. Hartmann (1882-1950) developed a “material” (substantive) ethics of values. However, the central problem of ethics is the problem of good and evil.
Morality - from lat. words moralis - morality. Moral teaching. A special form of social consciousness and type of social relations (moral relations). One of the main ways to regulate human actions in society is through norms. Unlike simple custom or tradition, moral norms receive ideological justification in the form of ideals of good and evil, due, and justice. Unlike law, the fulfillment of moral requirements is sanctioned only by forms of spiritual influence (public, internal assessment, approval or condemnation by society, the individual). Morality is studied by ethics.
Aesthetics - from Greek. feeling. Sensual. Philosophical science that studies the sphere of aesthetics as a specific manifestation of the value relationship between man and the world and the area of artistic activity of people. As a special discipline in A. Baumgarten in the 18th century - about sensory meaning - the lowest theory of knowledge, complementing logic. According to I. Kant, aesthetics is the science “about the rules of sensuality in general.” In German classical aesthetics of the 18th - early 19th centuries, an understanding of aesthetics as a philosophy of art developed, which was consolidated by G.W.F. Hegel. The main problem of philosophical aesthetic thought in antiquity, the Middle Ages and in modern times is the problem of beauty. Technical aesthetics studies socio-cultural, technical and aesthetic problems of the formation of a harmonious objective environment created by means of industrial production to ensure human comfort. Represents the theoretical basis of design (industrial, domestic, etc.).
Morality is inherent in man as a means of moralizing his relationship to nature. And Boreyko understands this on the same page 52. “Ecological ethics considers the relationship not between natural objects, but between man and nature from the position of human culture.” As they say, he himself got lost and got out of his delusion, but... then his entire narrative already turns to the moral law of nature through the animal and vegetable world…
If a person himself endows natural objects with natural rights in his own consciousness, it means that a person will certainly get out of the vicious circle of problems that he created for himself through his activities in nature.
Evolution gave man self-development. Developed man and his culture have become able, through man’s awareness of his place in nature, to move in such a direction as to replace the elements of evolution with the organization of reasonable management of the processes of preserving living nature. By this, nature has achieved a new quality of its own - preventing its own degeneration, and man is already opening the door to the possibility of entering the noosphere.
Therefore, T.N. Pavlova is absolutely right when she talks about recognizing the rights of animals through the consequences of human influence on their survival, and the UN General Assembly, which adopted the World Charter for Nature in 1982, emphasizes that all forms of life should be ensured the opportunity to exist within human economic activity.
After Locke (1632-1704), who declared that man has natural rights to life, liberty, health, etc., Western ecophilosophers endowed living and inanimate objects of nature with moral rights.
The right of animals and plants is not a right, but a person’s awareness of the need to realize this right to their existence in a competitive struggle in the ecological niche of the biosphere. So if in ancient Egypt in the preserved papyrus “not a single complaint was found from the bulls,” this does not mean at all that they complained or simply could complain, or had the gift of language.
Recognizing the rights, but lack of freedom, of animals and plants (they do not have freedom of choice) is, at worst, hypocrisy on the part of people, and at best, a delusion.
Selection gave a person satiety, so he had free time to think about the rights of wild animals. Their right did not exist before the advent of a reasonable person, but with his appearance, for some reason they acquired this right...
Wildness in nature, as a gene pool, must be protected by man, without at the same time giving rights to wild animals in accordance with the rights of society. Otherwise, the concept of sociality for humans must pass to animals and plants. They do not need this, since they cannot create their own “animal” laws. It is created by Nature and is called evolution. The animal and plant world, like nature itself, develop according to the laws natural selection. One of the disturbing factors of natural selection in the new conditions of existence of nature was man. Plants and animals, by the way, and the natural environment from which it emerged and began to develop parallel to natural laws in the niche of their conservation, turn out to be powerless to compete with it in the field of development. Unless viruses and bacteria are still capable of fighting the human immune system, and he is clearly concerned about this. But it is pointless for a person to compete with life, since life itself gave birth to him, and he will develop with it according to the principle of co-evolution mentioned above. In this sense, life is indestructible, since it not only has its own structure of self-organization, which led to diverse forms of its existence, but also through human consciousness and awareness of its values. She, life, will be protected by him.
Just the reference that V. Boreyko gives to the statements of the Prophet Muhammad, through the mouth of the Arab thinker Izz-ad-Din ibn Abd al-Salam, who, back in the 13th century, noted in a special treatise: “The rights of cattle and animals, depending on man...” and exposes the protruding ears of truth. That is, it specifically refers to the human right to protect sick animals, not to load them with more than they can bear..., and does not mean the possibility of animals having the right to defend their interests.
Statements of the Russian lawyer S. Fisher (1899) “recognition of the legal personality of animals, i.e. endowing animals with a certain share of legal capacity” in this sense is not the very right of animals to defend their rights in court. As for the right of personality of animals, this is absurd, since only a rational being - a person - becomes a person.
The freedom of farm animals according to English bioethicists involves five freedoms:
- freedom from thirst, hunger, malnutrition
- freedom from discomfort
- freedom from wounds and disease
- freedom from fear and stress
- the right to a normal life.
All these freedoms are guaranteed by a person in household. True, the British forgot to protect them from the cold, from the free expression of their will to engage in sexual relations...
What does V. Boreyko say about the rights of Animals? “Moral (natural) rights can be reflected in legal rights... when certain human institutions are ready to treat him (the animal) in a certain way, that is, to give him legal status. How they will do it is a matter of technology.” As they say, comments are unnecessary.
Known legally recognized values and virtues according to Stone are:
- in that the object can perform legal actions of its own free will;
- when determining the provision of legal support, the court must take into account the harm caused to him;
- support should be directed to his benefit.
Stone proposes to use a method according to which, when a friend of a natural object believes that if that (object) is under threat, he (the person) can apply to the court to establish guardianship... But the point is, how can a person understand an animal, that’s what question. Nature forbade interspecies communication. How can a person believe that part of nature could be under threat? A claim is not yet a claim, but an assumption... Another thing is that collecting a claim for damage to a natural object does not require his consent, but requires a person’s awareness of the need for such an action. The concept of damage to the environment and nature exists as a legal norm with human awareness of this damage, that’s the point, and not the awareness of this by part of nature itself.
The position of D. Favre, addressed by V. Boreyko, does not help either, from which it follows that it is impossible to deprive any creature of life, freedom or habitat without due legal process. In this sense, a mediator arises again - a person.
G.A. Kozhevnikov declared the right of primitive nature to exist, and A.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky - about the sacred right to life not only of humans, but also of everything “that is destined to live and bloom on earth along with humanity not constrained in his creativity by nature.”
We can talk about the ethical side of the problem of oppression or even destruction of animals and plants. But this is the ethics of man, or rather not ethics, but his animal need outside the ethical standards that man sets for himself due to the fact that he is an object endowed by evolution with a dual nature - biological (animal) and social (public). The animal in a person will always accompany him, no matter how much he wants to break with this essence, escaping into a social niche. It was the social essence of man that gave rise to his awareness of the need to protect from himself not only the environment, but also life itself through its diversity. And he will certainly do this. Just as V. Boreyko will do this, eating salads, Azov fish and Ukrainian lard...
Natural science culture is a Human ability aimed at empathy, his perception of events, and the study of conditions occurring in Nature. The ability of a person to study and use its laws to satisfy their needs by separating and using its parts (for example, resources) for their own purposes and creating artificial materials based on science and technology (intelligence). Understand his place in it depending on his spiritual state, education, and the nakedness of his feelings. This is, finally, the ability of man to take into account the laws of Nature not only for survival in it, but also for co-evolution.
Humanitarian culture is a human ability aimed at studying the laws of development of society, at determining the place of the individual in it for his own survival and development of society by satisfying his material and spiritual needs. The ability of a person and society to own the spiritual potential accumulated over the entire history of mankind.
Thus, the awareness of a person (society) of his place in nature will allow him to develop a natural mechanism of managerial influence on his economic activities exclusively under the conditions of the law of balanced environmental management. But we have already stopped at this more than once.
Literature
Kokin A.V., Kokin A.A. Worldview.-St. Petersburg, 2000.
Kokin A.V. The phenomenon of intelligence.-SPb: 2003.
Kokin A.V. On the problem of intellect: the concept of challenge//Uch.zapiski SKAGS, No. 2003. P.
Kokin A.V. The phenomenon of intelligence. - Rostov-on-Don - St. Petersburg, 2002.
Moiseev N.N. Noosphere.-M.: Young Guard, 1990.
Mostly happened in the last 100 years.
Kanygin A.V. The Ordovician phenomenon of explosive divergence of the organic world of the Earth: causes and evolutionary consequences for the biosphere. //Geology and Geophysics, 2001, v. 42, no. 4, p. 631-667.
Strategy and problems of sustainable development of Russia in the 21st century / ed. A.G. Granberg, V.I. Danilova-Danilyan, M.M. Tsikanova, E.S. Shophoeva.-M.: Economics, 2002.
Ignatov V.G., Kokin A.V. The assimilation potential of nature as a factor in the sustainable development of regions // Sustainable development of the South of Russia. - Rostov n/D: SKAGS, 2003. P.137- 147. Kokin A.V., Kokin V.N. Natural resource base of the world economy. Status, prospects, legal aspects. -M-SPb, 2003.
For example, species of living organisms that have been lost under the influence of human economic activity cannot be reproduced.
Note “Serious doubts” // In the world of science, 1989, No. 8.
During the time of Homo erectus (1000 - 700 thousand years ago), tools were divided into two main groups: flake cultures and hand ax cultures that came from the Early Paleolithic, that is, from the depths of Homo habilis.
Homo habilis (1900 -1000 thousand years ago) knew both small tools made from stone flakes (omo) and tools from large pebbles of the Oldovai culture of the Early Paleolithic
Kokin A.V. Truth: phenomenon or noumenon?//Truth and error. Dialogue of worldviews. - N. Novgorod, 2003. P. 35-38.
Strategy and problems of sustainable development of Russia in the 21st century / ed. A.G. Granberg, V.I. Danilova-Danilyan, M.M. Tsikanova, E.S. Shophoeva.-M.: Economics, 2002.
Girusov E.V. and others. Ecology and economics of land use. - M.: Law and Law, 1998.
It is known that selection exists only on the basis of preserving the wild species.
Strategy and problems of sustainable development of Russia in the 21st century / ed. A.G. Granberg, V.I. Danilova-Danilyan, M.M. Tsikanova, E.S. Shophoeva.-M.: Economics, 2002.
As Giordano Bruno once said, “I know that here lies the boundary of space, but I ask you what is beyond it.”
Regarding the reasoning of E. Boreyko in his famous work: Boreyko V.E. A breakthrough in environmental ethics. -Kiev: Kiev Ecological and Cultural Center. Issue 21. Nature conservation. 2001.
Kozhevnikov G.A. On the need to establish protected areas for the protection of Russian nature // Ethical and aesthetic approach to wildlife conservation and conservation work. - Kyiv: Kiev Ecological and Cultural Center. 1997. pp.81-91.
Ignatov V.G., Kokin A.V. Ecology and economics of environmental management.-Rostov n/D: Phoenix, 2003. Kokin A.V., Kokin V.N. Natural resource base of the world economy. Status, prospects, legal aspects.-M:, St. Petersburg, 2003.
II. MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS
Kokin A.V., prof. SKAGS
CONFIDENTIAL CONTRADICTIONS. NATURAL AND HUMANITARIAN PROBLEMS IN ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1. About the essence of difficult truths
There is a lot of uncertainty in the modern use of the term "Nature". Often I use this term so arbitrarily that the essence of the concept of Nature itself is blurred.
The author, based on an analysis of information on what the researcher puts into this concept, came to the conclusion that it is necessary to divide it into: the concept of Nature - as an essence, Nature as an object of perception, as an object of use and Nature as an environment.
It is proposed to put the following meaning into the concept of the essence of nature.
Nature is the essence that defines the inseparable and infinite, all-encompassing, interpenetrating everything - micro-, meso, - macro, - mega, - superworld1. This is the unity of the Beginning and the End, based on the quantum essence of matter, substance, energy, interaction and information in Space-Time. In the term “Nature” there is no concept of a specific object, but there is something that represents a material-spatio-temporal unity of part and whole, for which there is no moment that can be stopped and about which we can say that it is beautiful.
Nature forces us (once again!) to look for the Highest Principle in it. A beginning that does not exist, because this beginning never existed, since the meaning of the existence of Nature lies in the laws of conservation, in the continuity of movement, change, interaction. The push (as a creation), as a trigger, as a trigger provoking the beginning or as the origin of movement in nature, does not make sense, since it is a consequence of the continuous fluctuations of Chaos, which does not have the ability to be absolute, but in the limit always provokes endless phase transitions of matter and substance from disordered to ordered structural and spatial states. The measure of variability of states, interactions, quality, quantity in Nature is Time. Nature is not a blurred surface
Kokin A.V., Kokin A.A. Worldview.-St. Petersburg, 2000.
awareness of the ephemeral nature of an object is something more that Man strives for in order to understand the structure of the World. Nature is everything between Nothing and Everything. It is living and nonliving in unity. This is the absence of any edge effects as they are always temporary. This is everything that makes the consciousness tremble with the admiring diversity of being, existing, moving, living. This is not a Wheel that crushes Time, but a whirlwind that drags matter, substance and consciousness into a continuous process of excitation of Chaos, capable of forming structures with the same ease in time and space as destroying them in order to create new ones.
As for Man, she, Nature, does not care what he “does” on the way to learning her laws, which do not exist. But there is only an insignificant transitory particularity cognized by man, changing with the awareness of its diversity of forms of states, movements, interactions; there is a certain entity capable of exhibiting periodicity in an infinite variety of phenomena, states and interactions depending on random fluctuations and external influences. It doesn’t even matter to nature that it was her self-organization that launched the mechanism of the self-organized mind, into which she equally, as well as into the unconscious part of the world, invested creation and destruction as antipodes (truth and error), without which there can be no movement towards understanding it. (Nature) and yourself (mind). The place of Man in Nature lies in the timeliness of noticing the creative principle in the destructive in it and creating, in accordance with his needs, to see the world the way he wants; in the ability to understand one’s place in Nature, one’s role in it and to discover oneself every time.
Beauty will save the World... But there is nothing more beautiful and harmonious than Nature, in which even disharmony sounds like a hymn to Chance, which one wants to admire. Nature is an object not only of art, but of science, the essences of which are inseparable either in consciousness or in human creation. A person cognizes and can cognize only a small part of Nature, and having cognized it, he reveals the abyss of other parts, limiting the infinity with his perception of the Principles (mathematics, physics, etc.), which he invented himself and in which he saw his own infinity of perception of their essence. Nature is infinite both in harmony and without it, in creation and destruction, it is infinite in part and as a whole, in its continuous creation and transformation, despite the limited number of atoms in the Periodic Law of D.I. Mendeleev, the particles that make up
atoms, despite only four types of physical interactions in it. The beauty of nature in the visible part of the spectrum is only part of its beauty, but just as the palette of sounds in just seven notes is endless, so is the variety of each shade of light in just seven ranges of the visible spectrum.
Nature as an object of perception is the human world around us: river, forest, star, Milky Way galaxy, bee, clouds, earth, house, city, etc. This is always only a part of the essence of Nature, separated from it by man by his consciousness and awareness of what is happening in it. The part of the essence that is subject to observation, study, contemplation, use, contains human life, consciousness, etc. In this sense, this concept can be both subjective and objective, or rather, capable of dividing the essence into
objective and subjective. There is no person, there is no perception of not only the essence of Nature, the object of Nature, but also the natural environment. The object of perception is not equal and cannot be identified with the essence of the object. Perception is always richer than the form of an object, but poorer than its essence and structure. Consciousness always endows an object of nature with properties and qualities that nature does not possess. It tends to either simplify or complicate the object of perception, but will never be true in relation to its essence1, based on Bohr’s principle of complementarity. Because human consciousness is connected to perception, which is capable of endowing an object with a non-existent reality and soaring with its consciousness in this unreality (virtuality) until the perception turns into a bare essence. For example, to feel the reality of falling (as a manifestation of gravity) and break your head instead of soaring through the perception of the beauty of flight while dreaming about it, without noticing that the path along which you were walking ended.
Nature as an object of use is a part of it separated from nature with complete ecological unity, meeting the needs of man, possessing properties and qualities that are useful for him, which he uses for his social development, knowledge of nature itself through interaction with it.
Nature as an environment is part of nature, a dynamic ecological state that changes over time, the cycle of matter and energy. The set of elements of nature in interaction, movement, changes in states that ensure the homeostasis of the constituent elements of the environment: biotopes, biocenoses, ecosystems, humans. At the global level, this is the structure and function of the biosphere in the unity of the circulation of matter in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, exchange of energy and information. Habitat, evolution of life and human creation.
The aesthetic understanding of nature includes the specificity of sensations depending on a person’s state of mind, his consciousness, education and culture. There is no beauty and harmony in nature itself. There is only a continuous process of creation and destruction through fluctuations in quality and quantity, through the desire for Chaos and running away from it through the creation of temporary structures that perceive neither beauty nor harmony. It is a person, due to his spiritual experiences and visions, who notices the beautiful in it, nature, through the whim of his sensations.
2. Socio-natural dead end
In the problem under consideration, the idea of the duality of the nature of man himself is very important.
The consequence of human evolution is its bifurcation into biological and social essences.
Biological essence - from animals. It is a manifestation and consequence of the natural evolution of the animal world. Man is a derivative of the evolution of nature through the evolution of primates. Like animals, man has: close
1 Kokin A.V. Truth: phenomenon or noumenon?//Truth and error. Dialogue of worldviews
niy.-N.Novgorod, 2003.S. 35-38.
a way of nutrition, reproduction, struggle for existence (survival), instincts, including instincts of self-preservation, sexual desire, etc. Social essence is a consequence of the formation and development of primitive consciousness in animals, first at the level of the need to create a family, a herd (and a leader in it), then consciousness, which consolidated the need to unite humans into social groups (hordes) in order to achieve the conditions for their survival under the influence of the challenges of the natural environment. The highest form of socialization was the accidental (as a result of a fierce struggle for existence) separation by man himself and his primitive social groups (hordes) from nature for the purposes of survival and knowledge of himself in it, knowledge of it itself. That is, the social (as well as spiritual) essence was created by man himself as a result of the development of his consciousness, capable of separating himself from the general system of evolution of the biological world into a system of independent (parallel) development of his own outside the influence of the environment, Figure 1. Man created society, power , state and law. At different stages of its historical development, it united and separated peoples, ethnic groups, societies, and cultures, thereby seeking (and still seeking) conditions under which society and personality would develop progressively. Man created science and technology in order to, having studied the laws of nature, survive in conditions of continuous changes in its state under the influence of his own economic activity and self-organization. Man created religion and created gods for himself so that in search of himself, his essence, he would not go crazy. In them he saw social and personal support for the uncertain state into which he found himself when he did not know how, did not want, or could not get out of the deadlock he discovered. Therefore, it is impossible to endow nature with a social essence, since it has nothing to do with its manifestation in man. Nature created only the biological essence of man, but he created the social essence himself.
And it seems strange that today they are raising the question of moving away from a purely socio-economic (even in the broadest sense) vision of our future development to a socio-natural one. The starting point is no longer a socio-economic system isolated from nature and developing only according to its internal laws, but a socio-natural system that coordinates its development with “external biospheric laws.” And further: “Sustainable development, which provides a balanced solution to socio-economic problems and problems of maintaining a favorable state of the environment and natural resource potential in order to meet the vital needs of current and future generations and preserve the biosphere, requires a fundamental change in worldview (my italics - A.K.) ... At the same time, such transformations, in principle, will be of a socio-natural and global nature, requiring the active participation of branches of “synthetic” natural science and ecologized social and humanitarian knowledge.” Then: “... in the field of economics, the socio-natural approach shifts the emphasis from discussions about the effectiveness of market or planned mechanisms, the alternative private - public property and
1 Strategy and problems of sustainable development of Russia in the 21st century / Ed.
etc. into the problem of compatibility of any socio-economic form with nature.”
It makes no sense to talk about the compatibility of a socio-economic form with a natural one, since society, as a phenomenon, arose in nature as a bifurcation, a leap in human consciousness. Nature created the physical essence in him, and he created the social one himself in response to the challenges of the natural environment. Incompatible things cannot coexist in principle. They can only resist, since social laws are created by society, and natural laws are created by nature. Therefore, the natural laws of nature cannot come into conflict with social ones, since there is no connection between them a priori, just as there is no connection between the dependence of social laws on natural laws. They are different in essence, content and origin. But the inertia (as an expression of inertia) of nature will crush everything that does not comply with the laws of its development1, because from the point of view of the energy potential accumulated by it in relation to the energy potential of Man, in time it is infinitely higher in comparison with the energy capabilities and time of existence of Man. And although Man changes the environment itself (but not Nature in our above-mentioned understanding) and influences the biosphere of the Earth, Nature always has an abundance of Time, and Man always has a shortage of it in order to understand the laws of its development.
Alas, the socio-economic form simply cannot be compatible with nature. These are two different systems, different stages of development of natural objects.
Now let's dwell on the problem, why did they start talking about the departure of a purely socio-economic vision of our development to a socio-natural one? Before answering the question, let’s look at the system of structure of the modern world, and only then we will place emphasis.
Modern science affirms the simple truth that in the system:
Nature m man m society
man is a product of the evolution of nature, and society is a consequence of evolution
tions of man. In this simple diagram, which expresses the fundamental structure of the evolution of relations, nature has no relation to society as a social system. Let us repeat, Nature did not create society. Society was created by man in order to survive in the conditions of continuous changes in nature, its evolution, and the continuous struggle for existence in it2. This is a human response to the challenges of nature, to the problem of survival according to the law of action and reaction, in accordance with the Le Chatelier-Brown or Newton principle3. Therefore, exactly the opposite, the socio-economic system turns out to be isolated from nature and develops only according to its “internal” (necessary
1 Kokin A.V. The phenomenon of intelligence.-SPb: 2003.
2 Kokin A.V. On the problem of intellect: the concept of challenge//Uch.zapiski SKAGS, No. 2003. P.
3 Strictly speaking, we are talking about the fact that “an external influence that removes a system from thermodynamic equilibrium causes processes in it that tend to weaken the results of this influence.” This is the Le Chatelier-Brown principle. Newton's third law states almost the same thing: “...to an action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.”
to speak more precisely - social) laws. Therefore, it, a socioecosystem, by its nature cannot be socionatural.
And the concept of a socioecosystem, as a single natural complex formed by living organisms and their habitat according to A. Teneli (1935), in which the processes of exchange of matter, energy (and today we need to talk about information) are carried out, implies a community of all living organisms, and not only human. Otherwise, the person himself is isolated from the rest of the living. But such an approach clearly contradicts the essence of the state of affairs and can be attributed to error. After all, it is obvious that a socioecosystem is an ecosystem created with the participation of not just humans as a biological species, but an ecosystem formed as a result of its economic (or rather social) activities. A socioecosystem is a social environment + a natural environment + a part of nature processed by humans or even “transformed” nature. If we are talking about complete replacement of natural
s" s" s" t~h s"
natural environment artificial environment. This is the meaning that should be included in the concept of socioecosystem.
Society - in a broad sense as a set of historically established forms of joint activity of people, and in a narrow sense - a historically specific type of social system, a certain form of social relations. From the point of view of the position of specific individuals in society, the following point of view may be valid. Society is a form, or rather a structure of organization of people, but not geniuses, individuals1. The latter will always find a defect in the structure of society so that, by increasing it, they can destroy the old structure from within and build on its ruins a new one, stable in the conditions of new social relations or the requirements of the social development of society. In this sense, just as the history of mineral species can be read by defects in their structure, so the history of society can be understood by the permanent succession of critical events, led by individuals or scoundrels. In this sense, Hegel is right when he contrasts the state with a society in which the government solves the problems of its structure, including its own, but not the social system, which is often a consequence of its own self-organization rather than the organizational activities of managers.
Now, returning to the system nature - man - society, let us trace the feedback connections, since the direct ones are clear. The connection between man and nature is determined by the pressure of human economic activity on nature (through resource extraction, waste production, etc.). Nature responds to this to man by changing its quality strictly according to the principle of action and reaction, thus stimulating man2, again, to find solutions (it is correct to speak of his management decisions on his own, that is, the social structure of self-organization), so as not to upset the balance actions and reactions. Otherwise, he, the person (society) will be left out of survival. In other words, it is precisely the person who needs (and therefore is not indifferent!) his economic activity, since he has to solve the problem
1 They are a phenomenon and provoke society to change its state and structure
2 Here the concept of “person” refers to society.
survival, not nature. Nature in its development does not make any choices at all; it changes according to its own laws of self-organization, according to its own laws of self-preservation and Chance (the game of dice). So it is impossible to intertwine nature with society and talk about socio-natural development. They have different laws. In nature - natural, in humans - social. Man and society have a goal, or rather the desire for unlimited development and unlimited existence in time; nature does not have such goals. They are not inherent in the essence of Nature itself, which develops according to the laws of internal self-organization. Its homeostasis lies in its laws of conservation. Thus, there is an internal contradiction in the socio-natural unification of the concepts of society and nature. It's not harmless. Because it puts a completely different emphasis and views on the system of management of environmental and natural resource activities.
Now let us again turn to the very essence of man. It contains the duality of its nature. It simultaneously coexists with the biological principle, which makes it similar to the animal, and the social one, generated by [awareness] of its place in nature, which led man to the need to create society as a structure that promotes the survival of the individual in the natural, then modified and, finally, in environment transformed by it. He needs society not only for survival in conditions of continuous change in nature under the influence of natural processes of evolution, but also under his own (economic activity) influence. Thus, society is, first of all, the structure of the organization of people. It is not society that creates waste, cuts down forests, or extracts minerals, but specific people, individuals, if we resort to the norms of legal language. But society is responsible for the individual within the framework of his influence on the preservation of resources and the quality of the environment and limits his freedom of activity by social laws, which, again, a person “invents” to preserve his structure - society. Otherwise, chaos will arise in the system of relations between man and society. Society will collapse, people will disappear. In this case, first the personality in a person dies, and only then the animal in him. Precisely because personality is secondary in relation to the biological essence of man. This is precisely the (wild) essence of Nature. The animal is primary - the social is secondary. In a critical situation, the animal in man will eventually die out, since this feral personality will no longer be able to return to collecting, from where the primordial man came to this world of evolution to reason, since in the environment transformed by man the animal will have nothing to collect. He loses his connection with the natural habitat, and nature, having an unlimited time of its existence, due to its assimilation potential, having returned (without man) to its original quality1, will continue its development on the basis of its own laws of conservation, but without him, without man .
True, there is one thing. It consists in a person acquiring reason, as the ability to self-awareness, self-knowledge, self-examination (in himself and his essence), which again distinguishes a person from an animal. It was man’s awareness of the consequences of his influence on the biosphere that forced him to formulate
1 Strictly speaking, it will not be original, but different. Everything flows, everything changes.
to solve the problem of one’s own “survival” from one’s own “mismanagement” activities1. So all is not lost. The man “realized” what he was doing. Consequently, now, according to the law of self-preservation, it is he (and only himself) who must find a way out of this situation. And he will certainly find it with the help of modern science and improving technology. There is simply no alternative to this.
However, oddly enough, there are still persistent misconceptions about the nature of the mind. The fact is that the phenomenon of reason2 is that it appeared contrary to nature and despite the person himself to possess it. It, reason, as a leap, as a bifurcation, arose with man’s isolation of himself from nature on the basis of his observation of changes in its qualities. Man once “guessed” to rip off the skin of an animal, drive predators out of caves and protect his own existence from the influence of the external environment during the period of glacial collisions. Thus, he gained clothing, housing, and then energy (fire). It was with their help that he gradually reduced his dependence on the natural environment. Man began to develop (and is still developing) in parallel with the evolution of natural systems. And in this sense, it has long been in conditions of co-evolution with nature. In this sense, N. Moiseev was mistaken 3, leaving us with hope for co-evolution with it in the future. We are already in it, but we have not realized it.
The following Figure 1 illustrates a possible scenario for the co-evolution of nature, the biosphere, humans and nature “processed” by humans.
Figure 1. Illustrating the realized scenario of the co-evolution of nature, the biosphere, man and nature “processed” by man.
Here: X0 point - the appearance of life on Earth, corresponding to the origin of the biosphere; X2 - the formation of homo sapiens and modern, who has realized his place in the biosphere; X1 - division of the biosphere according to the direction of evolution in its constituent systems: X1-X1 into the natural evolution of the part of nature not affected by human economic activity; X2-X2 on intelligent life and life under the influence of human economic activity; X3-X3 - for the life of nature processed by man. The shaded area is the time, space and intensity of human influence on nature, resources and
1 This refers to the emergence of the Concept of Sustainable Development
2 Kokin A.V. The phenomenon of intelligence. - Rostov-on-Don - St. Petersburg, 2002.
3 Moiseev N.N. Noosphere.-M.: Young Guard, 1990.
his environment. The gray tone shows the emergence of man into the noosphere with the co-evolution of the natural environment, man and nature “processed” by man.
The essence of the presented scenario is that at some historical stage in the formation of the Earth, which is about 4.6 billion years old, the biosphere arises (somewhere in the range of 4.5 - 3.1 billion years ago) from pre-life nized forms (primitive organic compounds found in meteorites). At the turn of 3.1 billion years ago, in the conditions of the proto-ocean, life forms of unicellular non-nuclear forms of organisms (prokaryotes) developed, leaving imprints in the most ancient sedimentary complexes. Changing environmental conditions based on photosynthesis contributed to the evolution of life forms into nuclear forms of unicellular organisms (about 1.8 - 1.6 billion years ago) of eukaryotes, which contributed to the emergence of multicellular Ediacaran life forms (1.4 - 0.9 billion years ago). years ago). At the turn of 0.575 billion years, the Cambrian explosion of the evolution of life forms is observed, when the foundations of all the existing diversity of organisms are laid. The rapid increase in the rate of evolution of life forms leads to the emergence of animals and humans. With the separation of himself from nature (awareness of his existence in it), he guessed to skin animals, acquiring homes (first by expelling predators from caves, and then building his own primitive forms), based on the mastery of energy (fire), in the face of natural challenges environment (the advance of glaciers), a person becomes independent of the conditions of the surrounding natural environment. Moreover, he himself acts as one of the factors of evolution by artificially changing the quality of the environment based on the mechanism of economic activity. Thus, he transfers part of the natural nature into the category of “processed” nature as a result of his economic activities. There is a period of division of nature into the line of natural evolution of preserved natural biotopes, biocenoses and ecosystems, the line of evolution of man and his economic activity through the technological, to the economic and to the information man. Finally, to the line of nature “processed” by man. The bifurcation of nature into two parallel branches became the reason for the entry of “intelligent” human activity into its arena.
Thus, we emphasize once again that with the advent of Homo sapiens, problems arose that we today call environmental. And the new environment, formed under the influence of society, is nothing more than a socio-ecosystem. Thus, it can be argued that man has become one of the factors of evolution, and within the framework of his knowledge of the laws of nature with the help of science and technology, he has become a factor influencing the state of the biosphere as a whole.
Man, having separated himself from nature and taken the path of technological and economic development, took upon himself responsibility not only for the preservation of the environment, reproduction of resources as a “reasonable” form of organizational activity in nature, but also for the preservation of life itself on Earth. In this sense, the biosphere with the entire set of life forms continues to develop according to its own internal laws of evolution (self-organization) of nature, and man continues to develop according to the laws of self-organization of the mind within the framework of the laws of conservation
nature. Living organisms, under the pressure of human economic activity, will be between a “hammer and a hard place”, on the one hand, obeying the natural laws of evolution of living things, on the other hand, they will measure (limit) their development with the influence of human economic activity on them. In this sense, the human factor, which emerged in the arena of evolution, acts as a new agent provoking the need for accelerated adaptation of all living things to new external conditions of “man-processed nature.” Thus, man is already a factor in the evolution of all life in the biosphere. Everything that does not have time to adapt will disappear under its influence. What remains will coexist in symbiosis with a person in parallel with him. However, a person’s awareness of his role in preserving living things will “help living things” adapt to new factors of evolution, which will make it possible for a person to preserve not only the habitat, but also the gene pool. This can only happen in the conditions of the noosphere, in conditions of reasonable economic activity within the framework of the laws of conservation of Nature. Then man and the “nature processed by him” will develop in parallel and for a long time within the framework of the laws of human self-preservation and the laws of evolution of nature.
Based on Figure 1, the following should be noted. If the biosphere acts as a phenomenon, that is, an exceptional phenomenon in the Universe (which can only be challenged by the discovery of either new forms of life, or the same ones, but on other planetary and other stellar systems), then Nature, with the advent of life, acquires a new quality in self-organization by dividing it into living and nonliving substances of matter, but again within the framework of conservation laws. Since, using the example of life on Earth, the rate of self-organization of living things is higher than the rate of self-organization of the natural components of Nature (environment), then life will provoke an accelerated change in the properties of Nature itself. In this sense, the existence of pre-life forms in outer space will lead to the explosive nature of its spread with the help of reason. That is, in any case, with the advent of even the phenomenon of life, Nature is doomed to its new state of accelerated development. And with the help of reason, she may have made a bet on the possibility of “preventing her own degeneration.”
Today we are interested in pragmatic problems related to the survival of humans as a species. Namely, what will happen to it if a favorable or unfavorable scenario develops related to the pressure on the environment of its economic activities?
A favorable scenario lies in the plane of man’s awareness of his place in nature and the biosphere. This awareness can occur if the pace of development of natural science, technology and humanitarian culture is equalized. Otherwise (especially in the case of a lagging humanitarian culture), human existence will face an unfavorable course of events, when the laws of nature learned by man by technologists will be aimed at solving the ambitious tasks of a limited group of people, states, capable of undermining the gene pool of survival, regardless of whether scientists and technologists wanted it or No. Because the level of awareness of “what we are doing” will shift to the plane of “we don’t know what we are doing.” In other words, the bets are on, Mr.
yes...The game has begun. In any case, the gain will be on the side of Nature, since it was she who made it possible for Homo sapiens to appear. This means that her bet (on Homo sapiens) is also doomed to win. But first, it is necessary for reason to manage the achievements of scientific and technological progress, and not power, including the solution of problems associated with the co-evolution of man and Nature. Because the authorities (including those represented by the ambitious policies of some states) will always set goals that will interest only them.
Therefore, the socio-natural approach to human development is nonsense. Parallel to the evolution of nature, human development is a fact. By changing it, he changes himself. But, having ceased to depend on her, he did not and never will become above her. He is initially a derivative of nature, having turned only into its rational part. Therefore, we repeat, the essence of man lies in determining his place in nature, in knowing himself through knowledge of the laws of nature based on interaction with it. Otherwise, intelligence in the Universe will turn out to be “chance” or “an unfortunate random error.”
The socioecosystem initially does not and cannot inherently “coordinate” its development with “external” biospheric laws, since they do not exist. The biosphere is a consequence of the same evolution of nature and is subject to its laws, which are continuous movements and fluctuations in it, where Chance plays the same important and constructive role as its absence. Otherwise, any natural derivative of nature claims the right to develop according to its own laws. Let us emphasize once again that the exception is the mind, which was able to remove the environmental factor, thereby subsequently finding itself outside of natural evolution, which is determined
variability of species under the influence of the natural environment. The mind has only one chance of survival - this is co-evolution in the understanding of N.N. Moiseev.
There is another well-established misconception that the biosphere is almost degrading under the influence of human economic activity. Also false are the ideas of a large number of researchers and ecologists who see short-term changes in the structure and function of the biosphere as signs of an environmental disaster provoked by human economic activity.
What is the biosphere?
The biosphere is an area of active life, covering the lower part of the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the upper part of the lithosphere. This is the thinnest shell of the planet, less than 100 km thick. This is only about 0.016 part of the radius of the Earth. But it was precisely its evolution that gave rise to the phenomenon of reason. In the biosphere, living organisms that form the living matter of the planet and their habitat are organically connected and interact with each other, forming an integral dynamic and balanced system.
The term biosphere was introduced by E. Suess in 1875. The doctrine of the biosphere, as the active shell of the Earth, was developed by V.I. Vernadsky (1926), in which “the total activity of living organisms (including humans) manifests itself as a geochemical factor on a planetary scale."
In the case of man as a global geochemical factor, it is still necessary to doubt, since here it is more correct to consider that his economic activity did not manifest itself as an all-planetary phenomenon, but covered only part of the biosphere. Man has penetrated into the depths of the earth by technical means only up to 13 km and is only taking timid steps in exploring the oceanic depths. Hyperbolization of human economic activity in the biosphere is one of the common misconceptions that may not be harmless.
In fact, the biosphere is a self-organizing balanced system and is itself a derivative of the self-organizing essence of Nature. It is functionally connected with the surrounding outer space and geospheres energetically, structurally and informationally. Exchange energy processes in it are caused by cosmic and solar radiation falling on the geosphere from the outside and thermal energy potential coming from inside the Earth. This energy cycle involved first cosmochemical and then geochemical processes, which first gave rise to cosmochemical and then biochemical reactions, and biological evolution shaped life on Earth, which appears to us as a phenomenon. It is a phenomenon, the essence of which remains unclear. We, who have made a huge breakthrough in the field of natural science, still cannot give a strict definition of what life is. We are still torn between the concept of living and nonliving and are surprised to discover that there is no such line. That living is something that is physically perceived by us as the result of some kind of phase transitions between mineral (inert according to V.I. Vernadsky) and living substances. At the same time, “everywhere”, the uniformity of the elemental composition of living and inanimate, but not the relationships of these elements in objects of nature, a priori gives us information about the unity of living and inanimate matter. And in this sense, we have no right to believe that life is a special form of its existence. Rather, it is simply more transient in structure and modification over time compared to nonliving (inert) matter and is manifested by its events of interaction with the surrounding nature, noticeable and diverse forms of biological movement. The mineral form transforms its composition more slowly in time and space and therefore appears to us unchanged, dead, inanimate, imperceptible in movement.
Being a derivative of the evolution of Nature, the biosphere arose and developed according to the principles of a self-organizing multifunctional living organism, in which local changes provoke the protective functions of the biosphere as a system according to the principle that is known in immunology. In this sense, the developed immunity of the biosphere to influences or disturbances from within the system (under the influence of human economic activity as a derivative of the evolution of the biosphere) provokes adequate defensive reactions according to the Le Chatelier-Brown principle. In this case, cosmic disturbances on the biosphere must be considered as constantly acting, that is, background. In this sense, human economic activity disturbing the biosphere can be considered as a subsystem of constantly increasing influence on its structure and functions. At the same time, both the subsystem (Man) and the system (Biosphere) are self-learning, self-organizing. Therefore, Man in the system
The topic of the Biosphere cannot be considered a one-sided negative factor on the state of its structure and function, otherwise we can attribute the biosphere itself initially to a self-destructive system, since the Man who emerged from its womb is its derivative. On the contrary, it must be considered that the inertial essence of the biosphere, taking into account its energy potential, multiplied by the time of its existence, is incomparably higher than the potential of its subsystem of Human economic activity. The energy potential of Man in comparison with the biosphere tends to zero, since the time of his intense “destructive” activity1 is 5 107 times less than the time of the “creative function” of the biosphere, even if we equate the energy intensity of human economic activity with the energy intensity of the biosphere.
Rather, human activity is a kind of challenge, disturbing and provoking the necessary structural and functional transformations in the biosphere itself. In this sense, the accelerated evolution of man cannot but influence the adequate acceleration of transformations in the biosphere, aimed at maintaining its integrity as a living organism on the basis of the same Le Chatelier-Brown principle.
Let us consider the essence of the proposed concept of “Scientific justification for the strategy of sustainable development, which can only be obtained from the standpoint of the theory of biotic regulation and environmental stabilization2.”
Biotic regulation in natural environments obeys the law of evolution
tions. From the perspective of synergy, it is a change in external environmental influences that affect living organisms. This creates natural biotic regulation. With the entry of Homo sapiens into the arena of life, a new, artificial factor of biotic regulation appeared. The number and diversity of species composition comes under control of human economic activity from the moment of its appearance in the biosphere. The destruction of ungulates, some predators, valley forests with the help of fires, and then (from the Neolithic) with the help of agriculture brought the biosphere to a new quality, in which human economic activity manifested itself as one of the functions of changing the structure and quality of the biosphere itself. She has entered an era of influence on her from an internal, self-generated factor of development (and not degradation). As in natural processes, the consequences of economic activity are spontaneous until a person realizes his place in it, the biosphere. Since he is aware of his influence on living things, a situation arises for possible “reasonable” regulation of his activities, that is, management.
In the proposed concept, it remains unknown what is meant by “stabilization of the environment.” The environment is a continuously changing system and, regardless of human economic activity, it will strive to follow the laws of conservation, that is, to change in accordance with the principle of action and reaction. Reducing pressure on the environment with population growth is only possible if new and cutting-edge technologies are created.
1 Mostly happened in the last 100 years.
2 Strategy and problems of sustainable development of Russia in the 21st century / Ed.
A.G. Granberg, V.I. Danilova-Danilyan, M.M. Tsikanova, E.S. Shophoeva.-M.: Economics, 2002.
nology. Only under these conditions is it possible to improve the quality of the environment. In this sense, the assimilation potential of the natural environment will inevitably restore its energy capabilities through the natural cycle. Its inertia is like a compressed spring, which will release energy depending on the speed with which a person removes his load on the environment1. Since the system itself of making and implementing management and technological decisions is inertial, returning to the original state of the environment will not cause serious changes in the biosphere. If this happens too quickly, then returning the environment to its original state is fraught with the same dangerous consequences as human pressure on it. Is this why the destroyed economy in the former USSR, Russia and the CIS, which helped reduce pressure on the natural environment in a huge part of the Eurasian continent, as well as the implementation of environmental programs in Europe, made it possible to sharply limit the pressure on the natural environment over the last decade. This could recently provoke sharp changes in the nature of the movement of energy (heat) and air masses, which led to the creation of extreme situations in the modern biosphere in Eurasia and the USA. It is obvious that the assimilation potential of the atmosphere is restored faster than the hydrosphere, and the latter - faster than the lithosphere due to the metabolic processes of the circulation of matter. The structure and functions of biotopes, biocenoses and ecosystems are restored more slowly, but they are restored provided that the processes of slowing down their functions under the influence of human economic activity have not exceeded the threshold of their ability to reproduce2. It is practically impossible to restore lost landscapes with their inherent biotopes, biocenoses and ecosystems. To replace them in a new structural-morphological setting and ecological niche, new biotopes, biocenoses and ecosystems that are stable in new environments will develop. Thus, a person, through his economic activities, changes the structure of relations between elements of the natural environment, the structure of the exchange of matter, energy, information, but does not affect the speed of metabolic processes in the environment and the structure of the circulation of matter. The phenomenon of human economic activity lies in the fact that, by changing the structure of metabolic processes, he replaces rapidly occurring metabolic reactions with slowly occurring ones (but within the cycle of matter).
3. The problem of the connection between natural science and humanitarian culture in the relationship Nature - MAN - Society
The history of the emergence of natural science and humanitarian culture is associated with the period when man separated himself from nature. Thus, man appears in the evolution of the living as a phenomenon of knowledge and awareness of nature
1 Ignatov V.G., Kokin A.V. Assimilation potential of nature as a factor in sustainable development of regions // Sustainable development of the South of Russia.-Rostov n/D: SKAGS, 2003. P.137-147. Kokin A.V., Kokin V.N. Natural resource base of the world economy. Status, prospects, legal aspects. -M-SPb, 2003.
2 For example, species of living organisms that have been lost under the influence of human economic activity cannot be reproduced.
his place in it - himself. Thus, if this assumption is true, then a person first appears to us as an observer, capable of identifying an object of nature in his consciousness and noticing himself in it. In this sense, he also acts as a natural scientist, who was later able to create the first tools with the help of which he was able to defend himself and obtain food for himself. In this sense, it is logical to first move from a natural scientist to a technologist. The humanist in a person will mature later with the creation of society through moral imperatives, first within the family, then within the community, etc. That is, a technologist matures in the natural sciences, and along with them, ethics and morality gradually mature as the basis for his humanization, the need for the development of culture as such. But, developing these principles within oneself spontaneously, a person’s awareness of them will come much later (for example, among Greek philosophers), when the need for this awareness arises, the need for ethics and morality to protect society from its decay from within. That is, in the depths of the natural science culture, a technological culture matures, and only after that a humanitarian culture. But their speeds and levels of development are different. This follows from the very history of the formation of Homo sapiens.
The time of man's separation from nature can be attributed to the recorded moment of his creation of archaic tools at the turn of 3.5-106 years. By this it is necessary to emphasize that except for Afar man, no one in the animal kingdom could make these tools. In this sense, we can, to a first approximation, assert that he had primitive forms of consciousness, which also distinguished him from the rest of the animal world.
These conditions cannot be disputed by appealing to the ability, for example, of some birds (including crows) to “make” primitive tools in order to pull, for example, an insect out of a crack, hole, etc. Because these are modern birds, and we cannot a priori transfer this skill to birds of the past.
In this sense, the natural primitive culture of archaic people arose on the basis of observation of nature, on the basis of the possibility of acquiring the first skills in handling natural objects, stone, for example. Only after the isolation of stone from nature as a possible tool for throwing at an animal, or cracking a nut with a stone, or making primitive cutting edges based on the inclusion of an anvil in a set of stone tools, does archaic technology appear, that is, an archaic technologist appears in the arena of evolution.
The long stage of the formation of technological man through the ergaster, erectus, was accompanied by extinction and the emergence of new species in the arena of the struggle for existence, including the Neanderthal until Homo sapiens appeared in its depths. More graceful in relation to Neanderthal man, he managed not only to survive in the struggle for existence, but, perhaps, for the first time in the history of the evolution of Nature, having crossed the barrier of its self-organization, to create a new level of self-organization - the mind. Let us emphasize that it was not nature that created the mind, it was man who made himself intelligent through the perception of it, nature, through the structure of perception of the structure of the world organized by evolution. And he did this by accident, through a bifurcation of the perception of himself in her. This service
tea did not turn up for anyone living anymore and, divided by nature into irrational and reasonable, it began to exist in parallel as a phase state of immiscible principles, as immiscible liquids, solid phases of the historical development of matter depending on environmental conditions...
So, where is that elusive border that separates Homo sapiens from Homo erectus and skill? After all, if indeed Neanderthal man was still capable of consciously burying his relatives1, then already in the depths of his consciousness the world around him should be bifurcated into the real and the other! And perhaps, already in the depths of the consciousness of a man who walks upright2, this line is hidden, which separated a skilled man3 from a man capable of realizing his role in the world of wild nature around him, that is, standing at the source of reason? May be. But no matter how much one would like to find this boundary in the future, it will always slip away into other sources of existence and remain the “Flying Dutchman”, a pop-up mirage in the mind of an inquisitive natural scientist. And the great revelation, which flashed by like its barely noticeable shadow, suddenly opens up to a simple truth - there is no such boundary and boundary4. They simply cannot exist, just as there cannot be a boundary between matter and matter, space, matter and time, as a boundary between living and nonliving, between consciousness and awareness of what is happening. For in everything there is everything at the same time, and there is nothing that a priori could be considered a beginning.
Now regarding the fundamental change in worldview during the transition to sustainable development, which researchers talk about5. The term worldview contains a view of the world. See the world as it is. To radically change it means to discard all ideas about it embedded in the consciousness of man and society during their evolution. In other words, discard the entire phylogenesis of the worldview. It's a delusion. A person changes along with the world around him. By changing nature, he changes himself. His worldview is based on interaction with nature. Revolutionary transformations in consciousness are the affirmation of a new ideology, which may turn out to be a delusion, as evidenced by world social experience. The worldview must mature in society as society itself matures in understanding its place in nature, each time measuring its development with the phenomena that occur in it under the influence of natural processes and its economic activities. At the same time, we should not forget from the outset that when we talk about preserving a favorable environment, we must
1 Note “Serious doubts” // In the world of science, 1989, No. 8.
2 During the time of Homo erectus (1000 - 700 thousand years ago), tools were divided into two main groups: flake cultures and hand ax cultures that came from the Early Paleolithic, that is, from the depths of Homo habilis.
3 Homo habilis (1900 -1000 thousand years ago) knew both small tools made from stone flakes (Omo) and tools from large pebbles of the Oldovai culture of the Early Paleolithic
4 Kokin A.V. Truth: phenomenon or noumenon?//Truth and error. Dialogue of worldviews. - N. Novgorod, 2003. P. 35-38.
5 Strategy and problems of sustainable development of Russia in the 21st century / Ed. A.G. Granberg, V.I.Danilov-Danilyan, M.M.Tsikanova, E.S.Shophoeva.-M.: Economics, 2002.
It should be noted that this conservation concerns not only the conditions of human existence, but also all living things in the biosphere. In this sense, no transformations in the form of “socio-natural” (only relating to man and society) and especially global ones are required. You just need to understand that preserving life means preserving its diversity, including the diversity of forms of its existence. The problem of “synthetic” natural science is the desire to give it a far-fetched form of a new scientific character - nothing more. Because if we use this terminology, then it is enough to recall that the science of synthetics is integrated into all areas of knowledge, not only natural. Otherwise, there will be another researcher who will offer a synthetic worldview or synthetic ideology and psychology. Hence, the ensuing problems of ecologization of consciousness and spirit, education and culture, come simply from man’s understanding of his place in nature and society. In understanding the meaning of one’s existence, which is inseparable from preserving one’s home, home, habitat, biosphere, finally.
It is sometimes said that a person develops through trial and error. And in our minds it seems that everything that is negative, accompanying human development, is undesirable. In fact, this can be presented in the form of a necessity that provokes human development through his perception of the consequences of his intervention in natural processes. Development cannot exist without changing the quality of the environment. This is the essence of nonequilibrium processes in open thermodynamic systems - evolution through fluctuations, from order to chaos and through constructive chaos to a new state (order through fluctuations) of order. I just want to shout to society: “It’s very cool that we have the opportunity to make mistakes! This means that we live and exist. Therefore, we are able to recognize our mistakes. Therefore, we have a future!” To have the right to make a mistake means not to exist - but to live! This is the phenomenologism of man, as well as the phenomenon of Nature, which uses Chance to obtain a negative result, which gives it the opportunity to choose. The introduction of the concept of negentropy in natural science and computer science is a revelation that makes it possible to recognize that information can never be negative, and a negative result in any activity always has positive consequences.
The reason for all the discrepancies in society’s understanding of the causes and consequences of environmental problems lies in the amazing situation when natural science knowledge, which gives rise to the rapid development of technology, is ahead of humanitarian knowledge - as a reflection in the human mind of the consequences of its technological development. What is the reason for this lag? Why was humanity in man not ready for scientific and technological achievements in society? But the fact is that the scientific and technological revolution revealed in man his unwillingness to perceive what he himself created, relying on the amazingly productive mechanism he himself created for the structure and methodology of cognition of the laws of nature, from which he received dizzying technological consequences.
The lag of humanitarian culture from natural science also occurred, apparently, because humanitarianism in a person is not based on natural sciences.
real (real) perception of the surrounding real world, but on virtuality, imagery, expressed in sensations, experiences, which are based on the desire to see the world not as it is, but as others want to see it.
What is happening in the field of economics within the framework of the “socio-natural” approach to sustainable development? Nothing. It is impossible to combine the incompatible, although the creators of the “socio-natural” approach rely on the compatibility of any socio-economic form of property with nature. But what to do with the world that does not belong to its social part?
The fact is that the concept of the economic value of nature (Girusov et al., 1998)1 follows from the emergence of the economic category of price. And the price in any relationship between people is naturally determined by supply and demand. Thus, the introduction of this economic category into relations between people comes, first of all, from the need to possess the quality of nature (resource, environment). And this desire to possess comes from the biological essence of man. A person will always strive for unlimited possession (even despite the lack of need for this) until he breaks with the animal nature in himself. And that won't happen anytime soon, if ever. Rather, Nature has implanted in man the duality of his essence, giving rise to a duality of consciousness so that he could go crazy if one day he fixes in his brains any possibility of separating himself from the wildness of Nature inherent in the being of the biological principle in him2.
For example, unlimited food requirements leading to obesity, the need to have more material than required, the desire to be stronger than everyone else, to achieve power in order to establish one’s superiority - all this comes from the animal. This struggle between the animal and the social in man continues in the humanities and natural sciences (the struggle of opinions of scientists, designers, workers in art, literature, architecture, etc., the quarrel over the possession of titles and degrees, the battle for the right to be the first to possess a new direction in art , new knowledge). Moreover, the forms of this struggle, unlike animals, can be even more sophisticated with the use of the most powerful weapon - the tongue. But it is precisely this struggle, as a means of self-affirmation of the individual, that forces a person to move towards new knowledge, towards the possession of new directions in art, painting, literature, sculpture, etc. Again through fluctuations in the norms of morality, ethics, law, consciousness and awareness of humanitarian values. And all this will be measured by society’s need for something, to have an economic price category, the degree of consolidation of power, and self-affirmation of the individual.
So, Man will transfer objects of natural and environmental resources from the category of “untouched” nature to the category of “processed” nature to suit his needs and will never turn back, just as evolution did not do this, because he himself is part of it and even more so - an attribute its acceleration. Of course, one can shed tears for the lost wild nature, but so far not one of its “defenders” has given up on the social benefits that nature itself gave him through persistent, intelligible work. And they want to present this hypocrisy
Girusov E.V. and others. Ecology and economics of land use. - M.: Law and Law, 1998. It is known that selection exists only on the basis of preserving the wild species.
society and oneself as a “new worldview”1. In fact, over billions of years of evolution, Nature, while creating resources, did not imagine that anyone would ever use them. It’s just that this awareness by the person himself of its qualities led to his own understanding of its properties necessary to satisfy his growing needs. At the same time, in the future, new technological possibilities will arise, with the help of which a person will extract new useful properties for himself that he did not even imagine.
Let us remember that at the beginning of human history, the basis of the energy potential was firewood, wind, the energy of falling water, then coal, then oil, gas, nuclear energy, and already controlled thermonuclear energy “looms” ahead... The efforts of the mind, thus, reached out to energy , which controls the evolution of stars for billions of years. Human imagination, running ahead of science and technology, began to lag behind the pace of technology development, and the future began to come faster than it seemed to him. Doubts about the fact that it is technology that will destroy nature, the environment, and with it people, are nothing more than fear of the unknown. Like the horizon, it frightens, but attracts daredevils who are always ready to answer the challenges of the unknown with their desire to find out what is beyond the horizon2. And they go against common sense for those who see their meaning of existence only in satisfying animal needs in humans.
Natural science culture is a Human ability aimed at empathy, his perception of events, and the study of conditions occurring in Nature. The ability of a person to study and use its laws to satisfy their needs by separating and using its parts (for example, resources) for their own purposes and creating artificial materials based on science and technology (intelligence). Understand his place in it depending on his spiritual state, education, and the nakedness of his feelings. This is, finally, the ability of man to take into account the laws of Nature not only for survival in it, but also for co-evolution.
Humanitarian culture is a human ability aimed at studying the laws of development of society, at determining the place of the individual in it for his own survival and development of society by satisfying his material and spiritual needs. The ability of a person and society to own the spiritual potential accumulated over the entire history of mankind.
Thus, the awareness of a person (society) of his place in nature will allow him to develop a natural mechanism of managerial influence on his economic activities exclusively under the conditions of the law of balanced environmental management. But we have already stopped at this more than once3.
1 Strategy and problems of sustainable development of Russia in the 21st century / ed.
A.G. Granberg, V.I. Danilova-Danilyan, M.M. Tsikanova, E.S. Shophoeva.-M.: Economics, 2002.
2 As Giordano Bruno once said, “I know that here lies the boundary of space, but I ask you what is beyond it.”
3 Ignatov V.G., Kokin A.V. Ecology and economics of environmental management. Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2003. Kokin A.V., Kokin V.N. Natural resource base of the world economy. Status, prospects, legal aspects. M.-SPb., 2003.
Environmental education
A. Kornazhek. Divide and rule! The division of society, science, religion and other spheres of life is beneficial to those in power. Nine differences between technocracy and harmony
Why do we treat everything as ordinary, described, everyday? Scientists have already studied everything, they have told us everything, what miracles can there be? How to understand something that does not speak our language, something that does not have the same senses as ours, and are we ready to understand and recognize other forms of the existence of consciousness? ... It has already been proven that plants react emotionally, feel, experience pain, even sense! Why doesn’t science move in the direction of such fundamentally important research? I'll tell you, they are not interested. Because the technocracy owns them. Because the Division forbids any scientist to think about the meaning of life and existence. They are dissecting stupidly living matter without trying to contact her and just chat! ()
Integrity and harmony must be taught from childhood. This is confirmed by the experience of the international hotel Turunc (Türkiye)
Why don’t official departments in different countries want to teach children in a new way right now? What or who is hindering education reform? ...everything comes down to the very forces that want to divide and rule.The unification of all countries and peoples into a single (world) state, as was the case in the “golden age,” will leave many ambitious people who dream of being at least small rulers out of work. It will also leave out of work many business representatives who are in symbiosis with these rulers or are associated with the production of various types of weapons. Unification, integrity - this is another ideology of the “golden age”, which can only dominate the entire world at once. And we live under the dominance of the ideology of separation for the sake of power and enrichment ()
Why are environmental initiatives blocked? (the view of a “typical Russian”)
Recently, questions have been increasingly raised in the media about the need to increase the role of environmental education and education of the population and environmental culture. They are discussed at various regional and all-Russian meetings, conferences and forums, and are also included in the agendas of meetings of district administrations, the Government of the Russian Federation, Public Chamber under the President of Russia, State Duma RF, etc....
However, in most cases, all these initiatives of environmentalists do not find proper understanding in the government and are not included in the texts of adopted laws, codes and other regulations.To understand the reason for this, it is necessary to understand what needs the “typical Russian” has. ()
Why environmental initiatives are not accepted and sustainable development is not possible
V.S. Shevtsov. Postmodernity, Cold War, Democracy and Freedom in Sustainable Development
I present to your attention a very relevant work by the Director of the Public Organization “Belarusian Green Cross” (Minsk, Belarus) Vladimir Semenovich Shevtsov, which vividly and vividly describes the ideology and society of neophytes of our time, serving the new god - mammon. This work is an excellent addition to the works of A. Kornazhek “Divide and Conquer” posted on the site. The division of society, science, religion and other spheres of life is beneficial to those in power. Nine differences between technocracy and harmony" ... )
Readalso my work"Communism and capitalism: a 25-million-year-old confrontation (about the connection between Freemasonry, Christianity, the ideology of the solar gods and the secret government of Agharti - Shambhala, which controls the development of mankind)"
Ecology (from Greek. oikos - house and logo- doctrine) - the science of the laws of interaction of living organisms with their environment.
German biologist is considered the founder of ecology E. Haeckel(1834-1919), who first used the term in 1866 "ecology". He wrote: “By ecology we mean the general science of the relationship between an organism and the environment, which includes all “conditions of existence” in the broad sense of the word. They are partly organic and partly inorganic in nature.”
This science was originally biology, which studies populations of animals and plants in their environment.
Ecology studies systems at a level above the individual organism. The main objects of its study are:
- population - a group of organisms belonging to the same or similar species and occupying a certain territory;
- , including the biotic community (the totality of populations in the territory under consideration) and habitat;
- - area of distribution of life on Earth.
To date, ecology has gone beyond the scope of biology itself and has turned into an interdisciplinary science that studies the most complex problems of human interaction with the environment. Ecology has traveled a difficult and lengthy path to understanding the “man-nature” problem, relying on research in the “organism-environment” system.
The interaction of Man with Nature has its own specifics. Man is endowed with reason, and this gives him the opportunity to realize his place in nature and purpose on Earth. Since the beginning of the development of civilization, Man has been thinking about his role in nature. Being, of course, part of nature, man created a special habitat, which is called human civilization. As it developed, it increasingly came into conflict with nature. Now humanity has already come to the realization that further exploitation of nature may threaten its own existence.
The urgency of this problem, caused by the worsening environmental situation on a planetary scale, has led to "greening"- To the need to take into account environmental laws and requirements- in all sciences and in all human activity.
Ecology is currently called the science of man’s “own home” - the biosphere, its characteristics, interaction and relationship with man, and man with the entire human society.
Ecology is not only an integrated discipline where physical and biological phenomena are connected, it forms a kind of bridge between the natural and social sciences. It is not one of the disciplines with a linear structure, i.e. It does not develop vertically - from simple to complex - it develops horizontally, covering an ever wider range of issues from various disciplines.
No single science is capable of solving all the problems associated with improving the interaction between society and nature, since this interaction has social, economic, technological, geographical and other aspects. Only integrated (generalizing) science, which is what modern ecology is, can solve these problems.
Thus, from a dependent discipline within biology, ecology has turned into a complex interdisciplinary science - modern ecology- with a pronounced ideological component. Modern ecology has gone beyond the boundaries of not only biology, but also in general. The ideas and principles of modern ecology are ideological in nature, therefore ecology is connected not only with the sciences of man and culture, but also with philosophy. Such serious changes allow us to conclude that, despite more than a century of environmental history, modern ecology is a dynamic science.
Goals and objectives of modern ecology
One of the main goals of modern ecology as a science is the study of basic laws and the development of the theory of rational interaction in the “man - society - nature” system, considering human society as an integral part of the biosphere.
The main goal of modern ecology at this stage of development of human society - to lead Humanity out of the global environmental crisis onto the path of sustainable development, in which the satisfaction of the vital needs of the current generation will be achieved without depriving future generations of such an opportunity.
To achieve these goals, environmental science will have to solve a number of diverse and complex problems, including:
- develop theories and methods for assessing the sustainability of ecological systems at all levels;
- explore the mechanisms of regulation of population numbers and biotic diversity, the role of biota (flora and fauna) as a regulator of the stability of the biosphere;
- study and create forecasts of changes in the biosphere under the influence of natural and anthropogenic factors;
- evaluate states and dynamics natural resources And environmental consequences their consumption;
- develop methods for managing environmental quality;
- to form an understanding of the problems of the biosphere and the ecological culture of society.
Surrounding us living environment is not a disorderly and random combination of living beings. It is a stable and organized system that developed in the process of evolution of the organic world. Any systems can be modeled, i.e. it is possible to predict how a particular system will react to external influences. Systems approach— the basis for studying environmental problems.
The structure of modern ecology
Currently, ecology divided into a number of scientific branches and disciplines, sometimes far from the original understanding of ecology as a biological science about the relationship of living organisms with the environment. However, all modern trends in ecology are based on fundamental ideas bioecology, which today represents a combination of various scientific directions. So, for example, they distinguish autecology, exploring the individual connections of an individual organism with the environment; population ecology, dealing with the relationships between organisms that belong to the same species and live in the same territory; synecology, which comprehensively studies groups, communities of organisms and their relationships in natural systems (ecosystems).
Modern ecology is a complex of scientific disciplines. Basic is general ecology, studying the basic patterns of relationships between organisms and environmental conditions. Theoretical ecology explores the general patterns of the organization of life, including in connection with the anthropogenic impact on natural systems.
Applied ecology studies the mechanisms of human destruction of the biosphere and ways to prevent this process, and also develops principles for the rational use of natural resources. Applied ecology is based on a system of laws, rules and principles of theoretical ecology. The following scientific directions are distinguished from applied ecology.
Ecology of the biosphere, studying global changes, occurring on our planet as a result of the impact of human economic activity on natural phenomena.
Industrial ecology, studying the impact of enterprise emissions on the environment and the possibilities of reducing this impact by improving technologies and treatment facilities.
Agricultural ecology, which studies ways to produce agricultural products without depleting soil resources while preserving the environment.
Medical ecology, which studies human diseases associated with environmental pollution.
Geoecology, studying the structure and functioning mechanisms of the biosphere, the connection and interrelation of biosphere and geological processes, the role of living matter in the energy and evolution of the biosphere, the participation of geological factors in the emergence and evolution of life on Earth.
Mathematical ecology models environmental processes, i.e. changes in nature that can occur when environmental conditions change.
Economic ecology develops economic mechanisms for rational use of natural resources and environmental protection.
Legal ecology develops a system of laws aimed at protecting nature.
Engineering ecology - A relatively new direction of environmental science, it studies the interaction of technology and nature, the patterns of formation of regional and local natural-technical systems and methods of managing them in order to protect the natural environment and ensure environmental safety. It ensures compliance of equipment and technology of industrial facilities with environmental requirements
Social ecology arose quite recently. Only in 1986 did the first conference dedicated to the problems of this science take place in Lvov. The science of “home”, or the habitat of society (person, society), studies the planet Earth, as well as space - as the living environment of society.
Human ecology - part of social ecology, which considers the interaction of man as a biosocial being with the world around him.
- one of the new independent branches of human ecology - the science of quality of life and health.
Synthetic evolutionary ecology- a new scientific discipline, including particular areas of ecology - general, bio-, geo- and social.
A brief historical path to the development of ecology as a science
In the history of the development of ecology as a science, three main stages can be distinguished. First stage - the origin and development of ecology as a science (until the 1960s), when data on the relationship of living organisms with their habitat was accumulated, the first scientific generalizations were made. During the same period, the French biologist Lamarck and the English priest Malthus first warned humanity about possible negative consequences human impact on nature.
Second phase - formalization of ecology into an independent branch of knowledge (after the 1960s to the 1950s). The beginning of the stage was marked by the publication of works by Russian scientists K.F. Roulier, N.A. Severtseva, V.V. Dokuchaev, who first substantiated a number of principles and concepts of ecology. After Charles Darwin's research in the field of evolution of the organic world, the German zoologist E. Haeckel was the first to understand that what Darwin called the “struggle for existence” represents an independent field of biology, and called it ecology(1866).
Ecology finally took shape as an independent science at the beginning of the 20th century. During this period, the American scientist C. Adams created the first summary on ecology, and other important generalizations were published. The largest Russian scientist of the 20th century. IN AND. Vernadsky creates a fundamental doctrine of the biosphere.
In the 1930-1940s, the English botanist A. Tansley (1935) first put forward concept of "ecosystem", and a little later V. Ya. Sukachev(1940) substantiated a concept close to him about biogeocenosis.
Third stage(1950s - to the present) - the transformation of ecology into a complex science, including the sciences of protecting the human environment. Simultaneously with the development theoretical foundations ecology, applied issues related to ecology were also resolved.
In our country, in the 1960-1980s, almost every year the government adopted resolutions to strengthen nature protection; Land, water, forest and other codes were published. However, as the practice of their use has shown, they did not give the required results.
Today Russia is experiencing an environmental crisis: about 15% of the territory is actually an environmental disaster zone; 85% of the population breathe air polluted significantly above the MPC. The number of “environmentally caused” diseases is growing. There is degradation and reduction of natural resources.
A similar situation has developed in other countries of the world. The question of what will happen to humanity in the event of degradation of natural ecological systems and the loss of the biosphere’s ability to maintain biochemical cycles is becoming one of the most pressing.
Awareness of the planetary dependence and responsibility of countries towards each other began to come as local environmental problems affecting individual regions grew into global ones, on the solution of which the very existence of humanity now depends.
A number of global environmental problems can be identified.
1. Reduction of biological diversity as a result of direct (trapping, shooting) and indirect (pollution and economic use of habitats) destruction of many species of animal and plant organisms. And since each species is a regulator of the number of other species (through participation in food chains and competition “for a place in the sun”), sudden changes in the species composition of ecosystems and the entire biosphere lead to a disruption of the dynamic balance in nature, to the over-reproduction of undesirable organisms or also to accelerate desertification processes. Moreover, with the loss individual species The original properties of adaptability, which could be used in genetic engineering of the future, are forever lost.
2. Climate change (at this stage towards warming, although a sharp turn towards cooling is not excluded in the future) as a result of an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, preventing the reflection of heat rays from the Earth's surface. The reason for this is the increasing rate of its release during the combustion of various types of organic fuel, on the one hand, and the destruction of plant organisms (including oceanic phytoplankton) capable of absorbing the resulting excess carbon dioxide, on the other. The consequences of this process are multifaceted and can manifest themselves in a catastrophic increase in the intensity of rains, hurricanes, mudflows and snow avalanches, flooding of the coastal part of the continents (which is the most populated), a sharp decrease in agricultural yields as a result of a shift in climate indicators favorable for them (temperature, humidity) in places with unsuitable soil composition and duration daylight hours(although in some places the opposite effect is also possible - increasing productivity).
3. Thinning of the ozone layer, which serves as an obstacle to the penetration of deadly short-wave ultraviolet radiation. The consequence may be an increase in morbidity and increased aggressiveness of people and animals, a decrease in the yield of some crops, etc. One of the reasons for the formation of ozone holes is considered to be the entry into the upper layers of the atmosphere of freons, which are widely used in production and in everyday life (refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosols, etc.) .d.).
4. Pollution of the planet’s hydrosphere (the World Ocean, inland waters, groundwater) with a variety of waste, including petroleum products and radioactive substances, which leads to an increase in morbidity and mortality from the consumption of low-quality water, a decrease in seafood production, and an imbalance between the consumption and release of oxygen and carbon dioxide. etc.;
5. Acid precipitation (rain, snow) as a result of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide entering the atmosphere during the combustion of various types of fossil fuels and improper storage, use of fertilizers, etc. This leads to acidification of soils and waters, the death of aquatic organisms, increased mobility of aluminum, as a result of which it enters the body of plants, harming them, and through the food chain penetrates into the body of animals and humans, causing various diseases, premature destruction of architectural and sculpture monuments, as well as other consequences. In this case, the source of the release of pollutants may be located in one country, and acid precipitation may fall over the territory of another country.
6. Exhaustion of the assimilation capabilities of the natural environment.
7. A sharp increase in the Earth's population and its uneven distribution across its territory. Already, more than seven billion people live on earth, with an ecological optimum of no more than five.
There are other intractable problems, such as deforestation, desertification, and decreased soil fertility.
IN last years In some of the most developed countries, measures have been taken to mitigate the severity of environmental problems, but humanity is on the verge of a second wave of the modern environmental crisis associated with the accelerated development of third world countries that do not have the means to simultaneously solve environmental problems.
More developed countries will have to take on a significant part of the corresponding efforts and costs in the interests of preserving our common biosphere, and this requires significant adjustments to the entire system of international relations.
International cooperation can be carried out on a bilateral and multilateral basis. Its history goes back more than a hundred years. Initially, the object of concluding treaties and conventions was the protection of certain animals (for example, the agreement concluded by Russia, Japan and the United States on the joint use and protection of fur seals, the African Wildlife Conservation Convention). However, in the mid-twentieth century, with the realization that it is impossible to save any species, including humans, by destroying its habitat, joint efforts to prevent pollution and destruction of the natural environment came to the fore. Thus, in 1954, the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Oil was concluded, and in the 70s - by other wastes, including radioactive ones. The most important was the Moscow Treaty (1963) banning the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, space and under water.
Currently, more than 200 different international agreements have been concluded, and behind each there is hard, painstaking work to reconcile the sovereign interests of the economic development of each country with the interests of ensuring the survival of all humanity. After the ratification of each convention, there is a need for changes in national regulations and, in some cases, major changes in the economy. For example, fulfilling the requirements of the Convention for the Conservation of the Ozone Layer could deal a painful blow to the chemical industry of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the agreements reached sometimes cannot come into force for years.
At the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (COED-92), a number of agreements were adopted in a much softer version than expected, and on some issues it was not possible to reach a consensus at all. Also in 1992, the CIS, instead of a large-scale Agreement on cooperation in the field of environmental protection, had to adopt a narrower and less effective Recommendatory Legislative Act “On the principles of environmental safety in the Commonwealth states.”
But even if any agreement has been concluded and entered into force, the main incentive for compliance with its terms is still only considerations of the country’s prestige, and this is not enough, given the universal importance of the issues being regulated. Of course, in the event of an aggravation of any global environmental problem, the world community can use direct pressure, but it is much more reasonable to use economic instruments of influence.
Active work Financial institutions such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the World Bank (WB) are leading in this direction. Thus, there is an international mechanism within which the Environmental Fund, created by the World Bank, can purchase part of the state’s foreign debt, subject to the fulfillment of certain environmental obligations.
With the help of credit and investment instruments, the banks mentioned above are trying to support environmentally attractive projects or make it difficult to finance environmentally hazardous ones. The most important documents in the system of international environmental relations are:
– The World Conservation Charter, which proclaimed and protected the right of all life forms to survive;
– Convention on the Prohibition of Military and Any Other Hostile Use of Means of Impact on the Natural Environment;
– Climate Change Convention;
– Convention on Biological Diversity;
– Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer;
– Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES);
– Declaration on the Human Environment, which is a set of fundamental principles of international cooperation;
– Convention on Wetlands;
– Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and a number of other documents.
International organizations monitor the implementation of accepted agreements, coordinate joint efforts to protect nature and attract public attention to environmental problems. They can be intergovernmental (intergovernmental) or nongovernmental (public).
The most important among intergovernmental organizations is UNEP, created by the UN in 1972 to implement an environmental protection program. It is engaged in monitoring the natural environment, coordinating all types of international environmental activities, developing the scientific basis for managing biosphere resources and finding ways to solve the most pressing problems of our time, such as reduction of biological diversity, deforestation, soil degradation, etc.
Other UN departments are also involved in certain aspects of environmental activities, such as UNESCO (environmental education and education of the population, protection of the world cultural and natural heritage), the Commission on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Bottom of Seas and Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction, etc.
Medical and sanitary aspects of environmental protection are considered by WHO (World Health Organization). Monitoring compliance with the rules for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants is carried out by the IAEA - the International Atomic Energy Agency, created under the auspices of the UN in 1957. Currently, it includes 120 states. For Russia and other CIS countries, the creation of the Interstate Environmental Council (1992), which coordinates environmental activities and assists in resolving environmental disputes between Russia and other Commonwealth states, is of particular importance.
Among international non-governmental organizations, the most important is IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), founded in 1948. The main directions of its activities are the publication of Red Books on rare and endangered species of organisms, the organization of nature reserves and national natural parks, environmental education, etc. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is actively involved in the conservation of biological diversity. A huge contribution to understanding the current crisis state of the biosphere has been made by the Club of Rome, an international scientific non-governmental organization created in 1968 and uniting about 100 scientists from more than 30 countries. This organization gained worldwide fame from its work on mathematical modeling of the future development of mankind, its relationship with the biosphere and the search for ways that would help avoid the soon-threatening environmental catastrophe. The most famous international public organization is Greenpeace (“Green World”), whose main activity is combating radioactive pollution of the environment. There are several hundred environmental organizations in the world.
One of the most important areas of international cooperation is the organization of various meetings, meetings and conferences, both scientific and practical, with the participation of not only scientists, but also heads of relevant government agencies, including prime ministers and presidents. At these meetings, scientific ideas are discussed, experience in environmental management is exchanged, and programs are adopted further development and international agreements are concluded.
For the first time, the problem of environmental protection as a complex global problem of protecting the biosphere as a whole, and not just individual species of plants and animals, was considered at the UN at the Intergovernmental Conference in 1968. The result of this conference was the adoption of one of the largest scientific programs"Man and the Biosphere". The greatest influence on environmental protection was also exerted by the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment (1972), the opening day of which (June 5) was declared World Environment Day, and the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992 g.) (KOSR-92). The first contributed to the transition to an intensive comprehensive study of the interaction between the biosphere and humanity and the creation of UNEP, and the second summed up some results and adopted a program of action to achieve the sustainable development of civilization in the 21st century.
The most important result All this activity is a call for the transition of society to the path of sustainable development. Society can live and develop only within the biosphere and at the expense of its resources, therefore it is vitally interested in its preservation. Since the evolution of nature is very slow, and social evolution human - very quickly, the stability of ecosystems is disrupted. Humanity must consciously limit its impact on nature in order to preserve the possibility of further co-evolution.
1. What are the main reasons for the globalization of environmental problems?
2. What are the main ways to solve global environmental problems?
3. Name the main international organizations and forms of cooperation in solving environmental problems.
