Ecology: biology of interaction. II-02. Noosphere

II-2. The Noosphere
"I feel myself to such a degree one with all that lives, that I am indifferent to where the separate begins and where it ends."
Albert Einstein
An achievement of the scientific thought of the past century, which is often mentioned, is the concept of the noosphere. No generally accepted interpretation of this concept exists. The idea of the noosphere is not a scientifically grounded generalisation but rather an attempt to put into words an intuitive conjecture that humanity in the future must change.
The principal author of the concept "noosphere" was most likely Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a French priest and evolutionary scientist. Teilhard was a member of the Jesuit order, and therefore the ideas he expressed publicly were constrained by the discipline of the order. The Jesuit leadership did not obstruct Teilhard's palaeontological research, but was concerned that he, as a priest and member of the order, would not voice views that revised Christianity. As a result, the idea of the noosphere, which originated with Teilhard, was made public in 1927 by his friend, the philosopher and mathematician Édouard Le Roy. As both Teilhard and Le Roy emphasised, an important source of this idea was the lectures on geochemistry that V. I. Vernadsky delivered in 1922–1923 in Paris. Subsequently, the concept of the noosphere was developed independently by both Teilhard and Vernadsky.
Considering the evolution of the Universe (i.e., the Cosmos, all that exists), Teilhard regarded both the origin of life and the origin of humanity as regular stages of this process. The increasing complexity of systems developing in the course of evolution leads, in his view, to the emergence of systems of ever higher levels. To describe the unification of evolving systems into higher-level supersystems, Teilhard developed a specific version of dialectics, whose principal principle was differential unification (i.e., one that reinforces differences). Functional differentiation gives rise to increasing interdependence and integration... Human consciousness, according to Teilhard, is the most complex result of the evolution of the Universe. Overcoming fragmentation, individual human personalities unite into a planetary sphere of mind — the noosphere. According to Teilhard, the emergence of the noosphere is a process extended in time and still incomplete. Each of us participates in this process. The most important quality emerging in the evolution of the world order at the human level is the capacity for reflection — the creation not merely of a model of reality, but also of an image of oneself within it.
The evolution of the Universe has led to the fact that within it, it (the Universe) has found the capacity for self-cognition. The Cosmos arrived at this state through countless cycles of differential unification. Will this process stop with us? What comes next? And here Teilhard finds an answer that, among other things, allows one to resolve the problem of theodicy in a new way. Teilhard, a veteran of World War I and a witness to World War II, could not ignore the cruelty and injustice of our world. How can a benevolent God permit such horror? God, according to Teilhard, did not rid the world of evil because He Himself is still in the process of becoming through evolution. Biogenesis passes into noogenesis, and noogenesis passes into Christogenesis. The noosphere is one of the stages in the development of God (as Teilhard believed — the very same God preached by Christianity). At the end of time, a God will appear in the Universe in whom all human souls will be embraced. His timeless attraction will become one of the factors of the evolution of the Universe, ensuring differential unification.
The idea of the noosphere in Teilhard's interpretation is a mind-boggling thought, one stage in the development of conceptions concerning the relationship between God, humanity, and the world, but certainly not a scientific concept. It bears the imprint of the remarkable personality of its creator — a priest, scientist, and mystic, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
"The principal achievement in P. Teilhard de Chardin's approach to the noosphere turned out to be precisely that which was lacking in V. I. Vernadsky's approach. He found the inner source of reason — reflection. By this word he denoted the capacity of consciousness 'to concentrate upon itself and to take possession of itself as an object of thought,' 'the capacity not merely to know, but to know that one knows.' Humanity, encompassing with its reflective mind not only itself but the whole surrounding Nature, becomes in this case the centre of the Universe, which has embarked, with its help, upon self-cognition and thereby upon self-awareness of itself."
The fundamental resolution of the problem of reason was facilitated for Teilhard de Chardin by the deeply experienced faith, religious culture, and theological education he possessed. [...] In its essence, Teilhard de Chardin's rational-religious doctrine diverged from the Book of Genesis only by the replacement of two verbs of the perfective aspect with verbs of the imperfective aspect: "The Divine Plan has not only been unfolded but continues to unfold before us in the form of the world order being created by Him"
(O. S. Rautian, 2001).
Vernadsky's ideas expressed in connection with the concept of the noosphere are closely linked with his principal area of interest — geochemistry. The main ones are as follows:
— humanity is a geological force;
— the source of humanity's power is its reason and will, the result of its sociality;
— humanity transforms geochemical cycles, altering the functions of the biosphere;
— humanity evolves in the direction of separation from the rest of the biosphere.
According to Vernadsky, the transition of the biosphere to the noosphere is regular and inevitable. In some cases Vernadsky speaks of the noosphere as something that will arise in the future; in others, he finds its manifestations already in the first half of the twentieth century.
On the whole, it can be said that the noosphere is a state of the biosphere in which the intelligent activity of humanity becomes the principal factor of its development, although the interpretation of this concept varies even among its creators. The conception of the relationship between the biosphere and the noosphere cannot be regarded as established even today. One aspect of these relations is reflected in the semi-jocular formulation concerning the ecological catastrophe of the present day: "the biosphere has felt the noosphere upon itself and is trying to shake it off."
Be that as it may, Teilhard's noosphere lies outside science, while Vernadsky's noosphere was unable to go beyond dreams, which are highly vulnerable to criticism. However, one of the interesting ideas of our time is the search for parallels between Teilhard's noosphere and the modern Network, the Internet. There are now no grounds for doubting that the unification of a large number of people (and that merely through channels of communication, not through mystical unity) has led to the emergent appearance of a new quality that substantially influences the evolution of humanity. In this connection, the conceptualisation of the network ideology called Web 2.0 is of interest. Web 1.0 refers to websites belonging to particular individuals and organisations and developed by particular persons according to a prescribed plan. The principal figure in Web 1.0 is the administrator (website administrator, network administrator). Web 2.0 — structures in a decentralised network that become all the more powerful the greater the number of people who use and develop them. Their development is determined not by particular individuals but by society as a whole. Social networks, Wikipedia, the Linux community, and the R language are examples of Web 2.0 (even though administrators play an important role in their functioning).
Some scholars consider the concept of the noosphere to be devoid of concrete meaning.
"It is necessary to say a few words about the widespread (especially on the pages of popular 'green' ecological publications) term 'noosphere,' which was independently introduced into ecological usage by P. Teilhard de Chardin and V. I. Vernadsky. However, whereas Teilhard de Chardin understood the noosphere primarily as the global development of 'collective reason,' Vernadsky held that this 'collective reason' must transform the biosphere, improving the conditions for human life on the planet.
Vernadsky proceeded from a scientistic view of the relationship between humanity and nature, i.e., he believed that science can solve practically any problems, up to the management of the principal cycles of matter and the transition of humanity to 'autotrophic nutrition' with the direct use of solar energy for the production of food products (bypassing the intermediary role of plants).
Vernadsky's views on the noosphere are an example of ecological utopianism. The system of relationships in the biosphere ('the biospheric market') is so complex that humanity cannot manage it"
(M. B. Mírkin, L. G. Naúmova, 2005).
At the close of the twentieth century, the concept of the noosphere was reconsidered by the Soviet and Russian cyberneticist Mykhailo Moíseyev within the framework of his concept of coevolution (co-development) of the biosphere and human society. From this point of view, the noosphere is a state of humanity in which it evolves together with the biosphere.
"…I consider that the fulfilment of the conditions of coevolution is indeed necessary for the assurance of our future, because humanity can exist only in a biosphere whose parameters satisfy extremely stringent conditions. If humanity does not enter the epoch of the noosphere, it faces degradation and gradual disappearance from the face of the Earth. But can humanity actually accomplish such a transition? The answer to it does not seem to me to be as obvious as Teilhard de Chardin and Vernadsky thought.
It seems to me that half a century ago both thinkers had more grounds for optimism. [...] At that time nothing was yet known about nuclear weapons, and no one supposed that humanity, in the foreseeable future, would have to overcome an ecological crisis of extraordinary acuteness. And the transition to the epoch of the noosphere will NOT be a smooth and painless merging of 'races, Nature, and God,' as Teilhard de Chardin thought, but will most likely become a bifurcation with an unpredictable outcome.
Indeed, such a transition would mean a radical reconstruction not only of the public structure of humanity but of the entire character of its evolution. What awaits us is not simply the creation and use of new technologies. Nor even the creation of a new ecological niche. Humanity must learn to harmonise its needs with the diminishing capabilities of the planet. People will have to subordinate their lives to new and very stringent constraints. In essence, to create a new morality and to follow it in their everyday life. [...] This will be an absolutely new stage in the evolutionary history of the species Homo sapiens"
(M. M. Moíseyev, 1994).
On the whole, this approach corresponds to the definition of the concept of the noosphere given above (in which it is linked with the development of the biosphere).