Humanitarian problems of ecology. Let's solve environmental problems together. The structure of modern ecology

The right to a favorable environment is enshrined in the Constitution Russian Federation. A number of bodies monitor compliance with this standard:

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Russia;
Rosprirodnadzor and its territorial departments;
environmental prosecutor's office;
organs executive power subjects of the Russian Federation in the field of ecology;
a number of other departments.

But it would be more logical to consolidate everyone’s responsibility to conserve natural resources, minimize consumer waste, and take care of nature. A person has many rights. What does nature have? Nothing. Only the duty to satisfy the ever-growing needs of man. And this consumer attitude leads to environmental problems. Let's figure out what it is and how to improve the current state of affairs.

Concept and types of environmental problems

Environmental problems are interpreted in different ways. But the essence of the concept boils down to one thing: this is the result of thoughtless, soulless anthropogenic impact on the environment, which leads to changes in the properties of landscapes, depletion or loss of natural resources (minerals, flora and fauna). And it boomerangs on human life and health.

Environmental problems affect the entire natural system. Based on this, there are several types of this problem:

Atmospheric. In the atmospheric air, most often in urban areas, there is an increased concentration of pollutants, including particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxide, and carbon monoxide. Sources – automobile transport and stationary objects ( industrial enterprises). Although, according to the State Report “On the state and protection of the environment of the Russian Federation in 2014,” the total volume of emissions decreased from 35 million tons/year in 2007 to 31 million tons/year in 2014, the air is not getting cleaner. The dirtiest Russian cities according to this indicator are Birobidzhan, Blagoveshchensk, Bratsk, Dzerzhinsk, Yekaterinburg, and the cleanest are Salekhard, Volgograd, Orenburg, Krasnodar, Bryansk, Belgorod, Kyzyl, Murmansk, Yaroslavl, Kazan.
Aquatic. There is depletion and contamination of not only surface, but also groundwater. Let's take, for example, the “great Russian” river Volga. The waters in it are characterized as “dirty”. The norm for the content of copper, iron, phenol, sulfates, and organic substances is exceeded. This is due to the operation of industrial facilities that discharge untreated or insufficiently treated wastewater into the river, and the urbanization of the population - a large share of household wastewater through biological treatment plants. The decrease in fish resources was influenced not only by river pollution, but also by the construction of a cascade of hydroelectric power stations. Even 30 years ago, even near the city of Cheboksary it was possible to catch a Caspian beluga, but now you won’t catch anything larger than a catfish. It is possible that the annual campaigns of hydroelectric power engineers to launch fry of valuable fish species, such as sterlet, will someday bring tangible results.
Biological. Resources such as forests and pastures are degrading. We mentioned fish resources. As for forests, we have the right to call our country the largest forest power: a quarter of the area of all forests in the world grows in our country, half of the country’s territory is occupied by woody vegetation. We need to learn to treat this wealth more carefully in order to preserve it from fires, and promptly identify and punish “black” lumberjacks.

Fires are most often the work of human hands. It is possible that in this way someone is trying to hide traces of illegal use forest resources. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Rosleskhoz lists Transbaikal, Khabarovsk, Primorsky as the most “burning” regions. Krasnoyarsk region, the Republics of Tyva, Khakassia, Buryatia, Yakutia, Irkutsk, Amur regions, Jewish Autonomous Region. At the same time, huge amounts of money are spent on eliminating fires: for example, in 2015, over 1.5 billion rubles were spent. There are also good examples. Thus, the republics of Tatarstan and Chuvashia did not allow a single forest fire in 2015. There is someone to follow by example!

Land. We are talking about the depletion of subsoil, the development of minerals. To save at least part of these resources, it is enough to recycle waste as much as possible and reuse it. In this way, we will help reduce the area of landfills, and enterprises can save on quarry development by using recyclable materials in production.
Soil - geomorphological. Active farming and deforestation lead to gully formation, soil erosion, and salinization. According to the Ministry of Agriculture of Russia, as of January 1, 2014, almost 9 million hectares of farmland were subject to degradation, of which over 2 million hectares of land were degraded. If erosion occurs as a result of land use, then the soil can be helped by: terracing, creating forest belts for protection from the wind, changing the type, density and age of vegetation.
Landscape. Deterioration of the condition of individual natural-territorial complexes.

Modern world environmental problems

Local and global environmental problems are closely interrelated. What happens in a particular region ultimately affects the overall situation throughout the world. Therefore, environmental issues must be approached comprehensively. First, let's highlight the main global environmental problems:

Ozone layer depletion. As a result, protection from ultraviolet radiation, which leads to various diseases of the population, including skin cancer.
Global warming. Over the past 100 years, the temperature of the surface layer of the atmosphere has increased by 0.3-0.8°C. The snow area in the north has decreased by 8%. There was a rise in the level of the world's oceans to 20 cm. Over 10 years, the rate of increase in the average annual temperature in Russia was 0.42°C. This is twice the rate of increase in Earth's global temperature.
Air pollution. Every day we inhale about 20 thousand liters of air, saturated not only with oxygen, but also containing harmful suspended particles and gases. So, if we consider that there are 600 million cars in the world, each of which daily emits up to 4 kg of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, soot and zinc into the atmosphere, then through simple mathematical calculations we come to the conclusion that the vehicle fleet emits 2.4 billion kg of harmful substances. We must not forget about emissions from stationary sources. Therefore, it is not surprising that every year over 12.5 million people (and this is the population of the entire Moscow!) die from diseases associated with poor ecology.

Acid rain. This problem leads to pollution of water bodies and soils with nitric and sulfuric acid, cobalt and aluminum compounds. As a result, productivity falls and forests die. Toxic metals get into drinking water and poison us.
Soil pollution. Humanity needs to store 85 billion tons of waste a year somewhere. As a result, the soil under authorized and unauthorized landfills becomes contaminated with solid and liquid industrial waste, pesticides, and household waste.
Water pollution. The main pollutants are oil and petroleum products, heavy metals and complex organic compounds. In Russia, the ecosystems of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs are maintained at a stable level. The taxonomic composition and structure of communities do not undergo significant changes.

Ways to improve the environment

No matter how deeply modern environmental problems penetrate, their solution depends on each of us. So what can we do to help nature?

Use of an alternative fuel or alternative means of transport. To reduce harmful emissions into the air, it is enough to switch your car to gas or switch to an electric car. A very environmentally friendly way to travel by bicycle.
Separate collection. It is enough to install two garbage containers at home to effectively implement separate collection. The first is for waste that cannot be recycled, and the second is for subsequent transfer to recycling. Price plastic bottles, waste paper, glass is becoming more and more expensive, so separate collection is not only environmentally friendly, but also economical. By the way, so far in Russia the volume of waste generation is twice as high as the volume of waste use. As a result, the volume of waste in landfills triples over five years.
Moderation. In everything and everywhere. An effective solution to environmental problems requires abandoning the consumer society model. A person does not need 10 boots, 5 coats, 3 cars, etc. to live. WITH plastic bags It’s easy to switch to eco-packages: they are stronger, their service life is much longer, and the cost is about 20 rubles. Many hypermarkets offer eco-bags under their own brand: Magnit, Auchan, Lenta, Karusel, etc. Everyone can independently evaluate what they can easily refuse.
Environmental education of the population. Take part in environmental events: plant a tree in your yard, go to restore forests damaged by fires. Take part in a cleanup event. And nature will thank you with the rustling of leaves, a light breeze... Foster in children a love for all living things and teach them proper behavior while walking in the forest or on the street.
Join the ranks environmental organizations. Don't know how to help nature and preserve a favorable environment? Join the ranks of environmental organizations! These could be the global environmental movements Greenpeace, Wildlife Fund, Green Cross; Russian: All-Russian Society for Nature Conservation, Russian Geographical Society, ECA, Separate COLLECTION, Green Patrol, RosEco, Non-Governmental Environmental Foundation named after V.I. Vernadsky, Movement of Nature Conservation Teams, etc. A creative approach to preserving a favorable environment and a new circle of communication await you!

Nature is one, there will never be another. Already today, by starting to jointly solve environmental problems, by combining the efforts of citizens, the state, public organizations and commercial enterprises, we can improve the world around us. Issues of environmental protection concern many, because how we treat them today determines the conditions in which our children will live tomorrow.

State institution of higher professional education
"Saratov State Technical University named after Yu.A. Gagarin"
Balakovo Institute of Engineering, Technology and Management

Faculty: VZO
Department: "PGS"
Specialty: "PGS"

Test

by discipline:
"Political Sociology"

Topic 10: " Humanitarian and socio-political problems of ecology»

Checked:

Balakovo 2011
Content

Introduction………………………………………………………………………..…2
1. Causes and manifestations of the modern environmental crisis………….…..4
2.Social and environmental policy of the state and influence
public for its implementation………………………………………………………..5
3. Formation of environmental thinking as necessary
condition for the survival and future development of humanity…………………………8
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….10
Bibliography…………………………………………………….…. eleven

Introduction
Nature is an intuitively clear and at the same time difficult to define concept due to its ambiguity. In a broad sense nature - it is all that exists in all the diversity of its manifestation. In this understanding, “nature” in content coincides with such concepts as the Universe, Space, matter. It is this meaning of nature that is the subject of philosophical analysis.
Understanding nature in the narrow sense can be considered in two aspects. The first is nature as the totality of the natural conditions of existence of man and humanity. The second is nature as a set of objects of study of natural science.
A significant role in establishing the modern approach to nature was played by: ecology, the concepts of the biosphere, noosphere, and the principle of co-evolution of man and nature. Ecology - this is the science of the relationships of plant and animal organisms and the communities they form among themselves and with the environment; on permissible technical impacts on the natural human environment. Ecology studies various connections at the “organism-environment” level, but pays special attention to the position of humans in the ecosystem; anthropogenic impacts on the biosphere; relationships between society and nature; the formation of systemic environmental thinking, ecological culture, and other global problems of our time.
The global problems of our time include environmental, demographic, problems of cultural crisis, problems of war and peace. The main causes of global problems are the increased growth of humankind's needs, the scale of technical means of influencing societies on nature, and the depletion of natural resources.
Global environmental problems are concentrated in the system of relations “man-society-biosphere”. They require that scientists and entrepreneurs increase responsibility for the consequences and results of their activities, as well as strengthen control by the state and government structures for the implementation of proposed projects and developments. The reaction of science to the global environmental problem was the creation of a new branch - social ecology. It is aimed at studying extreme situations, identifying the factors causing the environmental crisis and finding optimal ways out. Consequently, it is clearly visible that the environmental problem occupies a significant place in the life and existence of mankind. Since an environmentally carefree regime is currently considered unacceptable. It is the non-compliance with the principles and regimes of environmental management, the rapid development of technology that constitutes the environmental problem itself.
It is also necessary to determine the philosophical meaning of the environmental problem, why such a science as philosophy studies the problem of ecology. And the point is that philosophy itself is a system consisting of ideas that theoretically explain man’s relationship to the world. And ecology is the most direct human relationship to nature, to the world as a whole. Therefore, philosophy, through its ideas, directs a person’s thought so that he improves a unique ecological consciousness, which is so necessary to prevent global environmental problems. Philosophy forms an ecological culture in the subconscious of people, which is the basis, the basis for the correct perception and use by man of what is provided by nature. And with the right thinking and the right actions in relation to ecology and nature in general, the issue of environmental problems will not arise.
Thus, scientists publicly declare the global problems of our time, which include problems covering the “world-person” system as a whole and which reflect the vital important factors human existence. Global problems are not local, but have an all-encompassing planetary nature. The prevention of the global crisis of modern civilization, the functioning of society, the fate of humanity, the state of the natural environment, and social progress depend on their solution.

1. Causes and manifestations of the modern environmental crisis
The contradiction between the limitless needs of the development of society and the limited capabilities of the biosphere to satisfy them is the main cause of the environmental crisis, which has become global in nature, which requires universal efforts to eliminate it. However, the selfishness of a relatively small part of the Earth's population collides with the interests of other people. At the end of the 20th - 21st centuries. Every person born in a “developed” Western country uses tens of times more of the planet’s resources than a resident of the “third” world. This development model leads “to risks and imbalances.”
Many foreign philosophers explain environmental difficulties by material reasons, an insufficiently mature level of scientific and technological progress, and imperfect technology. This leads to the conclusion about the need for further progress in science and technology, but without changes in the social system of free enterprise. This is the concept of technocratic optimism.
The use of the latest technical means has turned human activity into a powerful geological force, surpassing in its scale the action of the spontaneous forces of nature. Nowadays, vast territories are involved in economic turnover. It is estimated that humans exploit about 55% of the land, use 50% of forest growth, and extract about 150 billion tons of minerals. All this affects the nature of natural processes. Modern industrial production, which has led to the emergence of crisis phenomena in life due to the negative consequences of scientific and technological revolution. It should be noted that the negative consequences of scientific and technological revolution also include the accumulation of nuclear weapons, terrorism, etc. After all, if a nuclear war breaks out, this will lead to the death of millions of people, to the destruction of all life on our planet.
One of the main reasons for the environmental crisis is seen in the fact that the environment, from a thing-objective environment, becomes an information-sign environment. In this case, the natural is replaced by the artificial, for which nature is the material, and relations with it acquire a predominantly functional form, a form of activity. But in addition to answering the question “How to change the world and nature?”, it is necessary to think about why and whether this should always be done, and if done, then how?
The cause of environmental difficulties is also seen in the spiritual sphere, in the field of ideological attitude towards nature (Peccei, White). It is indicated that to overcome the environmental crisis it is necessary to improve morality and environmental consciousness of man.
Thus, the global environmental crisis indicates the self-destruction of the world created by man; it has a destructive effect on the life, health and psyche of the individuals who make up the society. The way out of the crisis presupposes the elimination of social antagonisms, the intensification of international activities aimed at introducing legal measures for environmental management, measures to achieve global balance.

2.Social and environmental policy of the state and influence
public for its implementation
It is obvious that the problems of ecology and the prospects of human existence, both in the current conditions of the 21st century and in the historical perspective, are an important component of modern sociocultural knowledge and scientific research.
Before looking for solutions, it is necessary to determine the main aspects of studying environmental problems. The main place in the study of the problem is occupied by the scientific aspect of study. Science responded to the global environmental problem by creating a new branch - social ecology. Its objectives are: studying extreme situations that arise as a result of an imbalance in the interaction of society and nature, identifying anthropogenic, technological, social factors causing the environmental crisis and finding optimal ways out of it, identifying means of minimizing the negative destructive consequences of environmental disasters, creating programs for solving environmental problems. problems. Consideration of ways of ecological reorientation of the economy, technology, education and social consciousness in general.
Scientific analysis shows the dimensions of the crisis situation. Since the beginning of technogenic development, about a third of the forest area on Earth has been destroyed, and ocean pollution with petroleum products, toxic chemicals, and insoluble plastic has reached catastrophic proportions. At the present stage, the technization of society has covered all its spheres, which negatively affects living nature.
The role of science in overcoming the global environmental crisis is associated not only with awareness of the causes of environmental collapse, the nature and diversity of risks and negatives for human development, criticism of technophobia and calls for liberation from the “demons of technology”. Science fully manifests itself as an active productive force and a factor in the regulation of social development; it offers real measures on waste treatment technology, the possibility of switching production to closed cycles, environmentally friendly technologies, the transition to machine-free and waste-free production, and the efficient use of solar energy.
It is important to highlight the socio-philosophical aspects of studying the environmental problem. Since global environmental problems have reached extreme severity, their solution requires the combined efforts of all countries to overcome the danger of environmental disaster.
Deepening cooperation between states, a thorough analysis of the life of society in all countries, without exception, taking into account their geographical location, size of territory, level of economic and social development, is the only real way to create a well-thought-out system of environmental protection measures. International cooperation in solving global environmental problems is an objective need of the modern stage of social development, a condition for the existence and progress of humanity.
The peculiarity of the socio-philosophical aspect is that with its help they study environmental problems from the side of people’s consciousness, from their understanding of the seriousness and danger of further growth of environmental problems, all the harmfulness and globalization of environmental “trauma” of nature. And it is by influencing the subconscious and thinking of people with philosophical ideas that the concept of preventing environmental dangers, of preserving the surrounding world and humanity in its integrity will be improved.
The ethical aspects of studying environmental problems mean the moral and ethical education of people in relation to the environment. Thus, an ethically educated society, humanity will not allow violations of environmental protection rules, inappropriate attitude towards nature, violation of established environmental management standards, etc. Therefore, we should begin with the self-education of society, people, and individuals. Only in this case will the ecological culture and environmentally correct behavior in relation to nature be improved.
Thus, the solution to their environmental crisis, as well as the resolution of a number of other global problems, is seen by the progressive world community in the final approval of the ecological paradigm of environmental management. Of course, the formation of a value-based attitude towards nature and technology is a difficult task; it encounters powerful opposition from the military-industrial complex, subjective, group interests, and stereotypes of thinking. A change in worldviews (their gradual greening) and the solution of a number of problems in the field of environmental management are required:

3. Formation of environmental thinking as necessary
condition for the survival and future development of humanity
Ecological thinking is the ability of a specialist to analyze the state and development trends of complex ecological systems, identify general and particular patterns of their functioning, transform real environmental phenomena into cartographic material, into legal documentation and into mathematical models.
Environmental contradictions that have reached a global level have led to the realization that the future development of society will largely depend on the level of environmental culture and human environmental foresight. Therefore, for a real transformation of socio-natural relations, it is necessary to carry out the greening of public consciousness. The ecologization of the consciousness of society is associated with the formation of certain environmental orientations in people and consists in the transformation of environmental attitudes and guidelines, which form a solid foundation of environmental thinking, into the basis of activity attitudes.
etc.................

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.

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, galaxy Milky Way, 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.

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.

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, 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 .

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 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?

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 its evolution that gave birth 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 it is caused by cosmic and solar radiation falling on the geosphere from the outside and the 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 scientific knowledge, we 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, 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.

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 “ Scientific basis strategy for sustainable development, which can be obtained only 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 was no longer available to anyone alive and, nature divided into irrational and reasonable, began to exist in parallel as phase state non-miscible principles, like 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 scientific 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 a 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.

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. A person’s ability 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.

The article presents the main trends and scientific approaches used in solving environmental problems - integration and greening, ecological and ecosystem approaches. Special meaning in ensuring the integrity of knowledge of environmental problems, social and environmental education is given, which is based on the following key ideas: systematicity and synergy, humanitarian-axiological orientation, sustainable development, safety, environmental responsibility and environmental activities. The new ecological paradigm in science includes scientific, activity, normative, and value aspects. Scientificity in human activity is the most important component of his actions, worldview and determination of position, leading to the harmonization of relations in the “nature - man - society” system.

socio-ecological education.

social ecology

ecosystem approach

ecological approach

integration

greening

1. Belkin A. S., Zhukova N. K. Vitagenic formation. Holographic approach. - Ekaterinburg, 1999. - 135 p.

2. Vernadsky V.I. Reflections of a naturalist. Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon. - M.: Nauka, 1977. - 191 p.

3. Gorelov A. A. Ecology: Tutorial. - M: Center, 2002. - 240 p.

4. Zagladin V.V. Ecology and socialism // Ecology: ways of survival and development of humanity. - M., 1988. - P. 5.

6. Russell-Einstein Manifesto // World of Science. - M., 1979. - No. 3. - P. 11.

7. Niyazova A. A. Regional problems of social ecology: Monograph. - Tobolsk, 2009. - 148 p.

8. Panin M. S. Scientific, methodological and methodological foundations for the formation of environmental education and culture // Pedagogical education and science. - 2005. - No. 2. - P. 4-11.

9. Subbotina V.I. Social and philosophical problems of greening sciences // Scientific problems of humanitarian research. - Pyatigorsk, 2008. - P. 115-120.

10. Yanitsky O. N. Ecological paradigm as an element of culture // Sociological studies. - 2006. - No. 7. - P. 83-93.

Humanity, having entered the third millennium, began to more deeply comprehend the problems that have accumulated over the entire history of its existence. Some of the problems are local in nature, but there are also global ones, in particular, socio-ecological ones, which consider the problems of interaction in the “society - nature” system.

In 1955, a call for a global vision of the world was made in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto “... we act not as representatives of this or that people, continent and creed, but as biological beings, as representatives of the human race, the continued existence of which is in doubt.” V.V. Zagladin rightly notes: “... in general, we are seriously late not only in analyzing the environmental problem under socialism, but, strange as it may sound, even in stating the fact of its existence.”

The global environmental crisis is associated with the increasing destructive anthropogenic and technological impact on the environment. Environmental disasters are based on ill-considered human activity, his attitude towards others, nature, and his health. Comprehending the laws of nature and mastering the forces of nature, man, nevertheless, is not able to change these laws or subordinate them to social laws. A feature of the modern ecological situation is the intersection and interaction of these heterogeneous patterns in the conditions of a social system interconnected with a specific ecosystem. Therefore, today there is an increasingly noticeable turn towards taking into account social factors, both in the emergence of an environmental problem and in its solution.

The identification of the presence of a number of objective and subjective factors that impede the successful solution of environmental problems led to the formation of a new trend in science - the greening of natural science and humanitarian knowledge. Greening is:

consideration of any issues taking into account environmental factors;
using an environmental approach in solving any problems;
taking into account environmental requirements.

In general terms, greening means taking into account possible consequences human impact on the natural environment in order to minimize the negative results of environmental educational activities. This trend is an urgent need modern society, therefore, its development is intended to solve the environmental problem at all levels: global, regional and local.

Greening today is considered in the scientific and technical development of industry, agriculture, commercial and urban farming, as well as in the social life of society. That’s why they distinguish: greening the economy (I.M. Aleksandrovich, A.S. Shcheulin), greening legislation (E.R. Shamsutdinov), greening education (N.M. Mamedov). Ecologization, according to A. A. Gorelov, helps to overcome conflicts between cognitive and transformative human activities.

One of the most characteristic features of the greening of science is the desire for a comprehensive study of the behavior of natural systems in interaction with society. The use of the principle of complexity in the greening of science helps to increase the theoretical level of research into the relationship between society and the natural environment and its connection with practical human activities. Therefore, an essential aspect of the greening of science should be a tolerant attitude towards nature, which is important for all forms of social consciousness, including science. Modern science makes it possible to reach harmony with nature, but how a person uses this and whether he uses it depends on him.

The greening trend is associated with the integration of the scientific knowledge system. In a large encyclopedic dictionary, integration (from Latin integrum - whole; Latin integratio - restoration, replenishment) generally means unification, interpenetration. Integration of sciences is a process of bringing together and connecting sciences, caused by the emergence of complex scientific problems.

The environmental problem is a general scientific problem. Regarding the convergence of sciences on problems, V.V. Vernadsky said: “The growth of scientific knowledge is quickly erasing the boundaries between individual sciences. We are increasingly specializing not in sciences, but in problems.”

Integration in education is a reflection of those trends that characterize all spheres of human activity today, therefore it is necessary to talk about the formation of an integrative style of thinking. In the study of V. A. Ignatova we find two types of levels of knowledge integration:

horizontal, associated with the area of overlap of subject fields in three layers - intra-subject, intra-cycle and inter-cycle;
vertical, reflecting the depth of interaction of integrated knowledge at three sublevels - empirical, theoretical, methodological.

The interrelation of horizontal and vertical analysis of the relationship “man - society - biosphere” forms the basis of fundamental socio-ecological research. In this case, we can talk about a holographic approach, which should reflect the unity and interconnection of natural phenomena, processes, and therefore the system of relationships “man - society” and “man - nature”. The holographic approach means a system of methods and technologies in education aimed at a voluminous, multidimensional study of knowledge corresponding to the peculiarities of the multidimensionality of perception of the surrounding world and the stock of life experience. The technology of the holographic approach makes it possible not only to rely on the past, but also to predict the future of Man, not only to consolidate, but also to discover new knowledge.

The overall responsibility in the 21st century for the theoretical and practical development of ways to promote the rational exploitation of the Earth’s natural resources, conservation and purposeful transformation of the natural environment must be assumed by the currently existing basic science, represented by both its natural history, humanitarian, and technical, socio-economic systems.

The path to fulfilling such a duty of modern science to society lies through the consistent “greening” of the relevant sciences or the “ecological aspiration” of the majority of scientific research conducted. In this case, ecology, fulfilling the role of a system-forming, integrating factor in the movement of scientific knowledge towards unity, acts as one of the main ways of interconnection of sciences.

Science, having its own methodological basis, does not stand still, but each time presents new views, theories, approaches to the problems being studied. Social ecology as an independent comprehensive science is aimed at solving socio-ecological problems and optimizing relationships in the “man - nature - society” system.

V.V. Zagladin, exploring the problem of relations in the “man - nature” system in the history of the development of civilization, identified three types of “man - nature” relations. The first type of relationship is based on the idea of a person’s complete dependence on his natural environment. The second type comes from the interpretation of man as the “crown of creation,” that is, his dominant role in the system of natural connections and relationships. Finally, within the framework of the third type of relationship, man and nature are considered as two forces acting and coexisting in the same sphere, which predetermines the harmonious nature of their relationship.

Analysis of the identified types of relationships in the named system shows that the empirical experience accumulated by mankind, the development of socio-ecological knowledge, as well as the introduction into science of such approaches as greening, integration, holography, etc. contributed to man’s awareness of his connection with the natural environment, as well as a change in views people on global problems.

In light of the above, the concept of noospheric development by V.I. Vernadsky, which is based on the affirmation of the unity of man - nature - society, becomes relevant at the present stage. This concept is aimed at the formation of noospheric consciousness in humans, which includes several aspects:

science aimed at obtaining new environmental knowledge and correct application them in practical activities;
ecological consciousness, understanding of the unity of the organic world;
nurturing the humanistic orientation of the individual, the desire for solidarity with other people, etc.

An ecological approach allows us to consider the diversity of evolutionary paths of a social system as a source of its modification, carried out through its interaction with other systems. An ecological approach can serve as the basis for a cultural synthesis that will go beyond science and connect it with other branches of culture. Of great importance in the development of the ecological approach in theory and practice is the idea of open systems. By an open system, V. M. Zelichenko understands a system that exchanges energy, matter and information with the environment. The ecological approach allows us to consider in a broad sense the harmonization of a person and his social and physical environment, and in a narrower sense - the mutual adaptive processes necessary for such harmonization. In science, the ecosystem approach is highlighted as an independent direction.

The essence of the ecosystem approach is to ensure the successful socio-ecological functioning of a person through the development of individuality, identity, self-worth as an active carrier of subjective experience. The means of activity in this approach are interactions - connections that arise in the process of life, with the help of which a person builds his environment and changes himself under its influence. Within the framework of the ecosystem approach, the following tasks are solved:

building an individual trajectory for solving social and environmental problems in accordance with ethnic, cultural, religious, socioeconomic preferences;
development of socio-ecological education in alternative forms depending on age and individual characteristics student;
expansion of resource space by including new forms of interaction in the process of solving socio-ecological problems various systems relationships, etc.

In the ecosystem understanding, the individual and his environment in the socio-natural environment are inseparable, since they exist only through interaction with each other, are complementary, complementary.

New approaches in science contribute to the progress of society in various sectors and spheres of human activity. We attach particular importance to the development of socio-ecological education, which ensures the integrity of knowledge of environmental problems. Currently, the development of socio-ecological education can be defined in several directions:

from environmental education to education for sustainable development (socio-economic aspect);
from environmental education of the population to environmental culture (ecological and cultural aspect);
from environmental knowledge to environmental competence as a mandatory component in human professional activity.

The methodology of modern socio-ecological education is based on the following key ideas: systematicity and synergy, humanitarian-axiological orientation, sustainable development, safety, environmental responsibility and environmental activities.

The idea of systematicity and synergy reflects the interdisciplinary nature of modern scientific thinking, combining natural science and humanities knowledge in understanding and solving environmental problems.

The idea of a humanitarian-axiological orientation is aimed at carrying out educational activities in the eco-humanitarian paradigm, understanding the ways and technologies of humanization and humanitarization of the educational space.

The idea of sustainable development guides schools, colleges, and universities towards organizing educational process, connecting its following components: environmental, economic, social and cultural.

The idea of educational safety presupposes the interaction of the teacher and the student in conditions - environmental, social, psychological, pedagogical, cultural, criminogenic, etc., where the degree of risk should be minimal.

The idea of environmental responsibility and activities in the field of the environment orients the education system towards developing in students the skills and abilities to follow the environmental imperative and rules healthy image life, lead research work to study the state of the environment and, on its basis, take feasible actions to optimize relationships with the environment.

The use of the above ideas in socio-ecological education has scientific basis Therefore, according to the research of O. N. Yanitsky, “the dominant social paradigm is being replaced by a new ecological paradigm,” which is aimed at forming a new ecological consciousness of people, which has a humanistically oriented basis.”

In general, the following aspects of the new environmental paradigm can be highlighted:

the scientific aspect ensures the development of a cognitive attitude towards the environment. It includes natural scientific, sociological and technological patterns, theories and concepts that characterize nature, man, society and production in their interaction;
the value aspect forms a moral and aesthetic attitude towards the natural environment, overcomes excessive rationalism and consumerism. The younger generation develops the ability not only to see the beauty of the world around them and admire it, but also the willingness to make an appropriate contribution to the protection and restoration of the environment;
the normative aspect is focused on mastering the system of norms and rules, regulations and prohibitions of an environmental nature;
The activity aspect determines the types and methods of human activity aimed at developing cognitive, practical and creative skills of an environmental nature, as well as developing the need and ability to be active in solving environmental problems.

So, the ecological paradigm, the approach to the relationship between man, nature and society should form the basis of a modern worldview, ethics of behavior and a new way of life for a person, which can ensure the safe development of not only the state, society, but also the individual. Therefore, the ecological paradigm is based on the following principles:

an ecosystem approach aimed at regulating all social relations of the sustainable development of the state through the introduction of a scientifically based set of restrictions, standards and rules for conducting economic and other activities;
subordination of regional and local tasks of environmental safety to global and national goals of preventing environmental threats;
mandatory compensation for damage caused to the environment and human health;
ecological and economic balance of development and placement of production forces (principles of environmental capacity and territorial planning);
mandatory assessment of the impact of economic and other human activities on the environment with subsequent environmental impact assessment;
ensuring public access to environmental information and public participation in solving environmental problems;
partnerships in international cooperation and compliance with international law.

Thus, the use of scientific approaches in solving environmental problems contributes to human awareness of ongoing events in the natural and social environment. Scientificity in human activity is the most important component of his actions, worldview and determination of the position leading to the harmonization of relations in the system: “nature - man - society”. We believe that harmonized science will help create a harmonious system of relationships between man and nature and ensure the harmonious development of man himself.

The article was published as part of the financing of the long-term target program “Main directions for the development of education and science in the Tyumen region.”

Reviewers:

Belkin August Solomonovich, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Director of the Institute of Fundamental Psychological and Pedagogical Education of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education vocational education"Ural State Pedagogical University", Yekaterinburg.

Kharitontsev Boris Stepanovich, Doctor of Biology. Sciences, Professor of the Department of Biology, Ecology and Methods of Teaching Natural Sciences of the Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Tobolsk State Social-Pedagogical Academy named after. D.I. Mendeleev", Tobolsk.

Bibliographic link

Niyazova A.A., Sadykova E.F. MAIN SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES USED IN SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS // Contemporary issues science and education. – 2013. – No. 1.;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=8234 (access date: 01/12/2020). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"

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 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 the Periodic Law of D.I. Mendeleev, the particles of which atoms are composed, despite into 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 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 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...

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 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 “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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 represents time, space and the intensity of human influence on nature, resources and the 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 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.

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 emerged in the arena of evolution, acts as a new agent provoking the need for accelerated adaptation of all living things to the 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.

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.

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.

What is the biosphere?

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, 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 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.

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 the physical and chemical conditions of the environment by increasing the complexity of biological organization and separating metabolic and reproductive functions at the intraorganismal level. In the Ordovician, marine ecosystems became multi-tiered, their trophic structure became sharply more complex, 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 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 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 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, 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.

This period of formation of the archaic technologist is not yet accompanied by upright walking. It will appear much later. However, on the path to upright posture, a person will look for mechanisms for improving tools for a long time, 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. Repeated chance in skill development different types archaic people regarding the manufacture of tools 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.

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.

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, proceeding from 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. Special shape 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.V.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. Is theoretical basis design (industrial, household, 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 turns to the moral law of nature through the animal and plant 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 rights did not exist before the advent reasonable person, but with his appearance, for some reason they had 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 of 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 immune system man, and he is clearly concerned about it. 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 the person in the 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 willing to treat it (the animal) in a certain way, that is, to give it 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 proposition is not yet a claim, but an assumption...Collecting a claim for damage is another matter 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.

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.