Refusal of Expansion? Column in KompyuterraOnline #41

←

Dmytro Shabanov

→

Markov and Human Evolution

Refusal of Expansion?

A Diet Without Phosphorus?

Column in "Komp'yuterra Online" No. 40

Andso,itseemsmethatthepositiveidealofhumanfuturethatofferedbytheenvironmentalprotectionideologylacksthatexactinspirationswhichrefreshedRussia'sstagnantpoliticallife.

Column in Komp'yuterra Online #42

Life is Expansion. - A.D. Sakharov The New Year and Christmas holidays have finally passed. Fortunately, there was even time for reading. I read both specialized literature, fiction, and current news, and I want to tell you about what has formed in my mind at the intersection of various information streams. Finally, I got around to a sensible book about the transition to stable relations with the environment. This is "Myths and Errors in Ecology" (2010) by the outstanding nature conservation theorist, Professor of Moscow State University Kim Sergeevich Losev. And I also read a new utopian novel (or rather, dystopian) during these holidays. Like many other dystopias, this book describes our future as degeneration. Among other things, I, of course, read all sorts of periodicals: I felt the uplifted mood that a part of Russian society, stylistically close to me, is in. Not long ago, the future seemed planned for a long time by someone else. And now there is a feeling of hope: many feel that something depends on them. There is a drive in Russian life, and this cannot but please! And, you know, it seemed to me that the positive ideal of human future, which the ideology of nature conservation offers us, is devoid of that very inspiration that has refreshed Russia's stagnant political life. Do not misunderstand me as rejecting the transition to stability. The ideology of renunciation (if not now, but over time) of economic and demographic growth, which modern ecology offers, seems to me the only way to preserve humanity. Present-day humanity has grown to incredible proportions, exists at the expense of non-renewable resources, and destroys natural ecosystems. This is a continuation of the same expansion that Sakharov considered the essence of life. In biological evolution, there is no planning, no far-sighted calculation for the future. The goal of evolution is not in the future, but in the present. The term "expansion" is very apt, as it combines reproduction, settlement, and adaptation, inherent in all organisms, and even life in a relatively independent cultural space, characteristic only of our species. Each of us who lives is a descendant of an immense series of winners: organisms that managed to develop to maturity and leave successful, adapted offspring. Think about it: when one of us dies without leaving children, he becomes the first such loser in the line of his ancestors, spanning almost four billion years! Each of us, both winner and loser, is shaped by this dizzying experience of victories. The most important tool for increasing the efficiency of our expansion has been our ability to build complex models of reality and, with their help, look into the future. It is in us, in our culturally determined behavior, that evolution has acquired the ability to predict! And this ability of ours to predict tells us about the need to stop expansion – both in terms of our numbers and the resources we use. But do we even have an answer to the question of what we will become after abandoning expansion? I fear not. This is paradoxical, as the long-term preservation of humanity is the most serious challenge it can face. We must not postpone its solution. I recall, by the way, that not so long ago I convinced CT readers that this task is the best basis for educational reform, for giving learning a purpose. For modern physiology, the theory of functional systems proposed by Petr Kuzmich Anokhin is important. One of its main ideas is that the functional systems of our organisms become interconnected wholes through the solution of external adaptive tasks. I think this principle can be applied to higher biological and social systems. For the parts of the educational mechanism to work in unison, to self-organize in their development, they must face a complex external task. Training a qualified consumer does not qualify as such a task, but saving the future of humanity does. But here is the wonder. In the restructuring of our relationship with the biosphere, I see a source of inspiration, but in the vague ideal of such harmonious relations – for some reason, no. It is quite possible that this is simply because I cannot imagine the stable existence of humanity after the cessation of demographic and resource expansion. Attempts to imagine such a state through utopias and dystopias help little and are more likely to repel. The prospect of humanity's continued existence attracts me, but a modest life that does not deplete resources – ultimately, no. Generally speaking, this is a typical case. Building communism was a more interesting task than a cloudless life after it. Fighting temptation and striving for grace are more interesting than endless enjoyment of heavenly bliss. Perhaps some flaw is manifesting in me, corresponding to the principle "movement is everything, the final goal is nothing"? Yes, yes, Putin not so long ago disapprovingly mentioned this slogan and called it Trotskyist. However, the credo belongs not to the permanent revolutionary Trotsky, but to the revisionist Bernstein – to some extent his antipode within Marxism. But, starting the movement, we must understand where we are going. How to describe the state we should strive for? How little concrete can we say about it! Dionysius the Areopagite divided theology into cataphatic (describing the transcendent essence using positive statements, indicating what is inherent to it) and apophatic (characterizing the indescribable by discussing what it is not). The state to be achieved, in my opinion, has not been described cataphatically! In our ecology textbook, we characterized the necessary restructuring of thinking apophatically, through a set of myths that must be abandoned. Losev builds his book in a similar way. Let's recall Anokhin: the absence of an adaptive task will not allow humanity to integrate into a single whole, depriving it of the ability to achieve any results. How is the positive ideal set within the framework of international cooperation? Through profound definitions. The International Commission chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland formulated the following in 1987. "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present but does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The main (second) part of this definition is apophatic. Even the Russian translation of the concept "sustainable development" causes disputes. Most often it is translated as "ustoychivoe razvitie" (stable development), but "nevyisnazhayushchee razvitie" (non-depleting development) fits the meaning better, and Losev argues that the most adequate translation is "podderzhivaemoe razvitie" (supported development). One interpretation considers sustainable development as stable growth (as opposed to the current unstable growth). For example, for Al Gore, "US stability will be based on a dynamically developing economy." Losev rightly considers this interpretation a dangerous mistake, a departure from the essence of the problem being solved. In reality, sustainable development means a relatively stable, low human population and sustainability in resource consumption (probably exclusively renewable ones!). Perhaps, so that the word "development" does not mislead, it would be worth talking about "inexhaustible state"? By the 1991 Rio de Janeiro conference, a cataphatic, but very vague, definition was prepared: "sustainable development is the improvement of the quality of life of people living within the carrying capacity of ecosystems." The human population will remain constant, but the people composing it will live better and better... The concept of the carrying capacity of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole is linked to the idea of the active role of natural biocenoses in maintaining the current, far-from-equilibrium state of our planet. The world we live in is the result of the continuous activity of living systems, and it will be suitable for our life only as long as the biosphere's "capacities" that maintain this state cannot be weakened below a certain level. Another thing is that no one really knows what this limit is. For example, the St. Petersburg theorist of global ecology V. G. Gorshkov hopes that the inexhaustible human population can be calculated based on the energy flow distribution characteristic of animals of different sizes in natural ecosystems. This is a fairly logical approach, but far from the only possible one. Other methods of estimating carrying capacity may yield different results. Suppose we have determined this capacity. What next? It is unclear. Recommendations on the level to which the human population should be reduced do not contain a description of the technology for transitioning to the desired state. Do not forget that catastrophes and wars not only reduce the human population but also decrease the carrying capacity! But here I would like to suggest thinking about something else: what, besides physiology and hedonism, will be the stimulus for maintaining sustainable development (or an inexhaustible state) when it is achieved? Unfortunately, the modern environmental movement thinks very little about this. Of course, we cannot but be pleased by the activity of conscious housewives, consumers of eco-advertising and eco-friendly products. My stylistic rejection of eco-glamour is due to the fact that it is aimed not at solving the problem, but at a cozy imitation of concern about it. "Caring for the environment" gives a sense of participation in something great and good, without requiring special effort for it. I cannot believe that this will be the inexhaustible state of future humanity. If we become like this, we will prove to be unviable. I will give a distant analogy. Relative stability was achieved at one time in medieval China (which greatly distinguishes it from modern China). The competition for an official position included contests in artistic representation of the same classical themes. No other civilization has existed for so long, but from a European perspective, it seemed artificial, unreal. This is Balmont, "The Great Nothing": I love the monotonous dream In the works of Chinese artists, The beauty frozen like frost, Like the frost of dreams, sparkling, not melting. <…> But more than all this, in them I love the gap of lyrical heat. I love to comprehend through a light, delicate verse The boundless despair of peace. How not to go against one's own nature, preserve the foundation for the further existence of humanity, and not fall into the boundless despair of peace over time? I think that an absolutely essential characteristic of the desired state for our future must be expansion – cosmic, scientific, aesthetic (what else?)... But how to achieve this?

←