Noosphere: rational forecast, scientistic vision, or hackneyed chant of science charlatans? Column for Kompyuterra #112

←
Dmytro Shabanov
→

The zoologist's credo, or What can we learn from our own animal nature? The noosphere: a rational forecast, scientific and technological vision, or a common spell of charlatans from science? From chaos of observations to dynamic typology: discussion on the example of population systems of green frogs

{"translated_text":"←\nDmytro Shabanov\n→\n\nThe Zoologist's Creed, or What Can We Learn from Our Own Animal Nature?\nNoosphere: Rational Forecast, Scientistic Visionary Work, or a Common Incantation of Science Charlatans?\nFrom the Chaos of Observations to Dynamic Typology: Discussion Using Population Systems of Green Frogs as an Example\n\nColumn for Kompyuterra #111\nColumn for Kompyuterra #112\nColumn for Kompyuterra #113\n\nI am finishing the chapter on human ecology for a university textbook on ecology (a \"mass grave\" in terms of authorship). I have written what seemed necessary to me, but one topic is still hanging: a discussion of the noosphere concept. It's a popular topic: everyone knows that V. I. Vernadsky's concept of the noosphere is one of the greatest achievements of twentieth-century science. The noosphere is mentioned in school programs; serious officials in Russia and Ukraine reference it during pompous speeches... How can one ignore such a famous scientific achievement?\nIt all began when the famous Russian scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky gave lectures on geochemistry in Paris in 1922–1923. In Ukraine, Vernadsky is mentioned primarily as one of the founders and first president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (created under Hetman Skoropadsky). Vernadsky was primarily interested in the geochemical functions of the biosphere.\nThe concept of \"biosphere\" has a long history. The great French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck first used it in 1803 to denote the total sum of living organisms on the planet (Vernadsky used the term \"living matter\" for this purpose). This concept was brought into wide circulation in 1875 by Austrian geologist Eduard Suess, in a work devoted to the geology of the Alps. For Suess, the biosphere is the Earth's shell occupied by life. Vernadsky seriously reconsidered the concept of the biosphere, but still used it in slightly different senses in different works. The correctness of both approaches can be confirmed by references to the classic's works.\nIn formal interpretation, the biosphere is the Earth's shell within which life occurs. In functional terms, it is the planet's shell, the leading factor in the development of which is life. \"The biosphere is the Earth's shell, the composition, structure, and energetics of which are determined by the combined activity of living organisms.\"\nWhich of these interpretations is correct? Do you remember how Alice's dispute with Humpty Dumpty about the meaning of unfamiliar words ends? \"The question is, who is to be master—that's all,\" said Humpty Dumpty, and he was absolutely right. Another question is more interesting—which interpretation is more useful, the use of which provides greater understanding? It seems to me the answer is obvious. The functional interpretation is more useful, as it draws attention to the non-trivial quality of a certain terrestrial shell. Life spreading through it intercepts solar energy, conditions the environment, and influences the composition and movement of substances on the planet's surface.\nThus, Vernadsky recognized the geochemical role of living matter. In his Paris lectures, among other things, he spoke about those changes in geochemical processes that are related to human activity. And he was heard.\nAmong others, two people united by a tendency toward Catholicism, Bergsonism, and simply friendship attended Vernadsky's lectures—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Edouard Le Roy. The figure of Teilhard (Teilhard is the surname, de Chardin is the title) cannot fail to impress. A descendant of Voltaire, a member of the Jesuit order, a professor at the Catholic University, a paleoanthropologist, an evolutionist... At one time, his \"The Phenomenon of Man\" seriously changed my attitude toward reality.\nIt was not easy for Voltaire's descendant to combine scientific research in the field of human evolution with performing the duties of a priest and a member of a monastic order. Again and again, the order's authorities recommended that Teilhard express his views cautiously. If you thought that Jesuits were bothered by evolution, you are mistaken. They were disturbed by Teilhard's willingness to modernize Christianity.\nThe idea of the noosphere was made public in 1927 by Edouard Le Roy. He did not assert this directly, but it seems he primarily voiced Teilhard's ideas (in whose formation Vernadsky could also have participated). Subsequently, the concepts of the noosphere were developed independently by both Teilhard and Vernadsky.\n[IMG_1]\n\"Fathers\" of the noosphere: Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, 1881–1955; mathematician and Catholic modernist Edouard Le Roy, 1870–1954; geochemist, representative of Russian cosmism Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, 1863–1945\n\nConsidering the evolution of the Universe (i.e., the cosmos, everything that exists), Teilhard believed that both the origin of life and the origin of humans were inevitable stages of this process. The complication of developing systems during evolution leads, according to his views, to the emergence of systems of ever higher order. To describe the unification of evolving systems into supersystems of a higher level, Teilhard developed a specific version of dialectics, the main principle of which was differentiating (intensifying differences) unification. Functional differentiation leads to the growth of interdependence and integration...\nHuman psyche, according to Teilhard, is the most complex result of the evolution of the Universe. Overcoming fragmentation, individual human personalities unite in an all-planetary sphere of mind—the noosphere. According to Teilhard, the emergence of the noosphere is a process stretched in time and not yet completed, in which each of us participates. The most important quality arising in the evolution of the universe at the human level is the capacity for reflection, for creating not just a model of reality, but also of oneself within it, \"the ability not just to know, but to know oneself; not just to know, but to know that one knows.\"\nThe evolution of the Universe has led to the fact that in us it has gained the ability for self-knowledge. The universe arrived at this state, passing through many cycles of differentiating unification. Will this process stop with us? What comes next?\nAnd here Teilhard finds an answer that allows, among other things, to solve the problem of theodicy (justification of God) in a new way. Even if we consider that moral ideas are implanted in us by God (note: I am presenting this point of view, not agreeing with it!), we can evaluate not only our actions with their help, but also God's actions manifested in the structure of the universe. And in the world around us we see a vortex of evil and injustice; Teilhard, as a veteran of the First World and witness to the Second World War, could not ignore them. How can a benevolent God permit such horror?\nThe obvious solutions to the problem of theodicy do not satisfy our moral sense. One can, following Leibniz, argue that any other world would be even worse, and its Creator simply cannot make it harmonious. One can say that evil is needed for demonstrating the goodness of good. One can find comfort in the fact that those tormented in this, \"unreal\" life victims of injustice receive reward in heavenly immortality. One can suppose that the source of good and the source of evil are partners, playing out our fates in a game of some universal chess, as in the Book of Job...\nNone of these solutions creates the image of a good God whom one wants to love and trust, and it was precisely such a God that Teilhard needed. And he was able to create such an image, projecting it into the future.\nGod, according to Teilhard, did not purge the world of evil because He is in the process of becoming during evolution. Biogenesis passes into noogenesis, and noogenesis into Christogenesis. The noosphere is one of the stages of God's development (as Teilhard believed—the very God that Christianity teaches about). At the end of time, a God will appear in the Universe into which all our souls will merge. His timeless attraction will become one of the factors of the Universe's evolution, ensuring differentiating unification.\nIn presenting Teilhard's views, I have jumped ahead a bit: in full form they are presented in \"The Phenomenon of Man,\" which was published after the author's death; however, it seems that Teilhard's thoughts moved in this direction from the beginning.\nTeilhard's texts bear the imprint of the attractive force of this remarkable man. He was very sincere and honest. In his words addressed to God, as it seems to me, broke through that desire for love which, due to his monastic status, he could not direct toward people. His fate was influenced by altered states of consciousness that he experienced. The most acute was the sensation he felt while alone conducting an Easter mass in the Mongolian desert, where he was on a paleontological expedition. He felt that as Easter gifts he was handing over the entire globe. One of the translations of the book in which Teilhard described the ideas that visited him then was called \"The Mass over the World\"—I really like that title. And I was also strongly impressed by Teilhard's account of the \"shadows of faith,\" and the torments and fears that doubts about the existence of God and the possibility of immortality caused him...\nVernadsky also developed the term published by Le Roy. Vernadsky's main ideas expressed in connection with the concept of the noosphere were closely connected with his main area of interest—geochemistry. These include such thoughts:\n— humanity is a geological force;\n— the cause of humanity's power is its intellect and will, the result of its sociality;\n— humanity transforms geochemical cycles, changing the functions of the biosphere;\n— humanity is evolving in the direction of separation from the rest of the biosphere.\nAccording to Vernadsky, the transition of the biosphere into the noosphere is inevitable and unavoidable. In some cases Vernadsky speaks of the noosphere as something that will arise in the future, in others—he seems to find its manifestations already in the first half of the twentieth century.\nIn modern science, established concepts of the noosphere have still not emerged. Probably, this idea is not a scientifically grounded generalization, but an attempt to put into words an intuitive guess that humanity must change in the future. I will mention a joke I like, the author of which I do not know. It concerns the ecological crisis of our time: \"the biosphere felt the noosphere on itself and is trying to throw it off.\"\nBe that as it may, Teilhard's noosphere lies outside the strictly scientific domain, and Vernadsky's noosphere could not exceed the bounds of dreams, quite vulnerable to criticism.\n\"It is necessary to say a few words about the common (especially in 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, if Teilhard de Chardin understood by noosphere primarily the global development of 'collective mind,' then Vernadsky believed that this 'collective mind' should transform the biosphere, improving conditions for human life on the planet. Vernadsky proceeded from a scientistic view of relations between man and nature, i.e., he believed that science could solve practically any problems, including managing the basic cycles of substances and transitioning humanity to 'autotrophic nutrition' with direct use of solar energy for food production (bypassing the mediating role of plants). Vernadsky's views on the noosphere are an example of ecological utopianism.\" (M. B. Mirkin, L. G. Naumova, 2005).\nAt the end of the twentieth century, the concept of the noosphere was reconsidered by N. N. Moiseev within the framework of his concept of coevolution (joint evolution) of the biosphere and human society. From this point of view, the noosphere is the state of humanity in which it evolves together with the biosphere. Moiseev wrote that humanity would pass through a bifurcation point with an unpredictable outcome. If humanity can reconcile its decreasing capabilities of the biosphere, it will have to change fundamentally. Our descendants and us await both a new way of life and a new morality; this will be a new stage in the evolution of our species.\nAn interesting turn in the development of the noosphere idea, relating already to the current century, is the idea of the kakosphere, expressed by G. A. Zavarzin. He proposed a term for the state of the biosphere that is the antipode of the noosphere. The root in this word is the same as in cacophony and even in \"caca\": the Greek \"kakos\"—bad, poor. The kakosphere is a biosphere deformed and destroyed by human activity, an area of disharmonious development. Discussing this concept, Academician Zavarzin also uses the term \"kakocracy\" (rule of scoundrels, a management method characteristic of our countries) belonging to Academician B. V. Raushenbach, and introduces the term \"kakology\" (a branch of knowledge examining the kakosphere).\n\"The only thing that will prevent the recognition of kakology as an independent scientific discipline that has taken a systemic approach is the unbecoming name of a specialist in such an important scientific discipline\" (Zavarzin, 2003).\n...No, I will not insert into the textbook a fragment devoted to the noosphere. Everything in this topic is too shaky and unstable; the share of ideological constructs here is excessively large, and the contribution of generalizations based on empirical data is clearly insufficient.\nThe title of this column is a question; probably, I should answer it. My version of the answer is as follows. The idea of the noosphere lies outside the sphere of strictly rational science. For Teilhard, the main author of this idea, it was the result of some amalgam of scientific and religious views, something like para-scientific mysticism or, if you like, scientistic visionary work. Vernadsky never managed to place his own reflections and dreams about the noosphere within the framework of a scientific concept. Modern speakers who reason about the idea of the noosphere as a guideline for our development are most often charlatans; in their mouths, the concept of the noosphere turns out to be an incantation for fooling simpletons. I think both Teilhard and Vernadsky would be grieved by such profanation of the result of their efforts..."}

{"translated_text":"←\nDmytro Shabanov\n→\n\nThe Zoologist's Creed, or What Can We Learn from Our Own Animal Nature?\nNoosphere: Rational Forecast, Scientistic Visionary Work, or a Common Incantation of Science Charlatans?\nFrom the Chaos of Observations to Dynamic Typology: Discussion Using Population Systems of Green Frogs as an Example\n\nColumn for Kompyuterra #111\nColumn for Kompyuterra #112\nColumn for Kompyuterra #113\n\nI am finishing the chapter on human ecology for a university textbook on ecology (a \"mass grave\" in terms of authorship). I have written what seemed necessary to me, but one topic is still hanging: a discussion of the noosphere concept. It's a popular topic: everyone knows that V. I. Vernadsky's concept of the noosphere is one of the greatest achievements of twentieth-century science. The noosphere is mentioned in school programs; serious officials in Russia and Ukraine reference it during pompous speeches... How can one ignore such a famous scientific achievement?\nIt all began when the famous Russian scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky gave lectures on geochemistry in Paris in 1922–1923. In Ukraine, Vernadsky is mentioned primarily as one of the founders and first president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (created under Hetman Skoropadsky). Vernadsky was primarily interested in the geochemical functions of the biosphere.\nThe concept of \"biosphere\" has a long history. The great French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck first used it in 1803 to denote the total sum of living organisms on the planet (Vernadsky used the term \"living matter\" for this purpose). This concept was brought into wide circulation in 1875 by Austrian geologist Eduard Suess, in a work devoted to the geology of the Alps. For Suess, the biosphere is the Earth's shell occupied by life. Vernadsky seriously reconsidered the concept of the biosphere, but still used it in slightly different senses in different works. The correctness of both approaches can be confirmed by references to the classic's works.\nIn formal interpretation, the biosphere is the Earth's shell within which life occurs. In functional terms, it is the planet's shell, the leading factor in the development of which is life. \"The biosphere is the Earth's shell, the composition, structure, and energetics of which are determined by the combined activity of living organisms.\"\nWhich of these interpretations is correct? Do you remember how Alice's dispute with Humpty Dumpty about the meaning of unfamiliar words ends? \"The question is, who is to be master—that's all,\" said Humpty Dumpty, and he was absolutely right. Another question is more interesting—which interpretation is more useful, the use of which provides greater understanding? It seems to me the answer is obvious. The functional interpretation is more useful, as it draws attention to the non-trivial quality of a certain terrestrial shell. Life spreading through it intercepts solar energy, conditions the environment, and influences the composition and movement of substances on the planet's surface.\nThus, Vernadsky recognized the geochemical role of living matter. In his Paris lectures, among other things, he spoke about those changes in geochemical processes that are related to human activity. And he was heard.\nAmong others, two people united by a tendency toward Catholicism, Bergsonism, and simply friendship attended Vernadsky's lectures—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Edouard Le Roy. The figure of Teilhard (Teilhard is the surname, de Chardin is the title) cannot fail to impress. A descendant of Voltaire, a member of the Jesuit order, a professor at the Catholic University, a paleoanthropologist, an evolutionist... At one time, his \"The Phenomenon of Man\" seriously changed my attitude toward reality.\nIt was not easy for Voltaire's descendant to combine scientific research in the field of human evolution with performing the duties of a priest and a member of a monastic order. Again and again, the order's authorities recommended that Teilhard express his views cautiously. If you thought that Jesuits were bothered by evolution, you are mistaken. They were disturbed by Teilhard's willingness to modernize Christianity.\nThe idea of the noosphere was made public in 1927 by Edouard Le Roy. He did not assert this directly, but it seems he primarily voiced Teilhard's ideas (in whose formation Vernadsky could also have participated). Subsequently, the concepts of the noosphere were developed independently by both Teilhard and Vernadsky.\n[IMG_1]\n\"Fathers\" of the noosphere: Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, 1881–1955; mathematician and Catholic modernist Edouard Le Roy, 1870–1954; geochemist, representative of Russian cosmism Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, 1863–1945\n\nConsidering the evolution of the Universe (i.e., the cosmos, everything that exists), Teilhard believed that both the origin of life and the origin of humans were inevitable stages of this process. The complication of developing systems during evolution leads, according to his views, to the emergence of systems of ever higher order. To describe the unification of evolving systems into supersystems of a higher level, Teilhard developed a specific version of dialectics, the main principle of which was differentiating (intensifying differences) unification. Functional differentiation leads to the growth of interdependence and integration...\nHuman psyche, according to Teilhard, is the most complex result of the evolution of the Universe. Overcoming fragmentation, individual human personalities unite in an all-planetary sphere of mind—the noosphere. According to Teilhard, the emergence of the noosphere is a process stretched in time and not yet completed, in which each of us participates. The most important quality arising in the evolution of the universe at the human level is the capacity for reflection, for creating not just a model of reality, but also of oneself within it, \"the ability not just to know, but to know oneself; not just to know, but to know that one knows.\"\nThe evolution of the Universe has led to the fact that in us it has gained the ability for self-knowledge. The universe arrived at this state, passing through many cycles of differentiating unification. Will this process stop with us? What comes next?\nAnd here Teilhard finds an answer that allows, among other things, to solve the problem of theodicy (justification of God) in a new way. Even if we consider that moral ideas are implanted in us by God (note: I am presenting this point of view, not agreeing with it!), we can evaluate not only our actions with their help, but also God's actions manifested in the structure of the universe. And in the world around us we see a vortex of evil and injustice; Teilhard, as a veteran of the First World and witness to the Second World War, could not ignore them. How can a benevolent God permit such horror?\nThe obvious solutions to the problem of theodicy do not satisfy our moral sense. One can, following Leibniz, argue that any other world would be even worse, and its Creator simply cannot make it harmonious. One can say that evil is needed for demonstrating the goodness of good. One can find comfort in the fact that those tormented in this, \"unreal\" life victims of injustice receive reward in heavenly immortality. One can suppose that the source of good and the source of evil are partners, playing out our fates in a game of some universal chess, as in the Book of Job...\nNone of these solutions creates the image of a good God whom one wants to love and trust, and it was precisely such a God that Teilhard needed. And he was able to create such an image, projecting it into the future.\nGod, according to Teilhard, did not purge the world of evil because He is in the process of becoming during evolution. Biogenesis passes into noogenesis, and noogenesis into Christogenesis. The noosphere is one of the stages of God's development (as Teilhard believed—the very God that Christianity teaches about). At the end of time, a God will appear in the Universe into which all our souls will merge. His timeless attraction will become one of the factors of the Universe's evolution, ensuring differentiating unification.\nIn presenting Teilhard's views, I have jumped ahead a bit: in full form they are presented in \"The Phenomenon of Man,\" which was published after the author's death; however, it seems that Teilhard's thoughts moved in this direction from the beginning.\nTeilhard's texts bear the imprint of the attractive force of this remarkable man. He was very sincere and honest. In his words addressed to God, as it seems to me, broke through that desire for love which, due to his monastic status, he could not direct toward people. His fate was influenced by altered states of consciousness that he experienced. The most acute was the sensation he felt while alone conducting an Easter mass in the Mongolian desert, where he was on a paleontological expedition. He felt that as Easter gifts he was handing over the entire globe. One of the translations of the book in which Teilhard described the ideas that visited him then was called \"The Mass over the World\"—I really like that title. And I was also strongly impressed by Teilhard's account of the \"shadows of faith,\" and the torments and fears that doubts about the existence of God and the possibility of immortality caused him...\nVernadsky also developed the term published by Le Roy. Vernadsky's main ideas expressed in connection with the concept of the noosphere were closely connected with his main area of interest—geochemistry. These include such thoughts:\n— humanity is a geological force;\n— the cause of humanity's power is its intellect and will, the result of its sociality;\n— humanity transforms geochemical cycles, changing the functions of the biosphere;\n— humanity is evolving in the direction of separation from the rest of the biosphere.\nAccording to Vernadsky, the transition of the biosphere into the noosphere is inevitable and unavoidable. In some cases Vernadsky speaks of the noosphere as something that will arise in the future, in others—he seems to find its manifestations already in the first half of the twentieth century.\nIn modern science, established concepts of the noosphere have still not emerged. Probably, this idea is not a scientifically grounded generalization, but an attempt to put into words an intuitive guess that humanity must change in the future. I will mention a joke I like, the author of which I do not know. It concerns the ecological crisis of our time: \"the biosphere felt the noosphere on itself and is trying to throw it off.\"\nBe that as it may, Teilhard's noosphere lies outside the strictly scientific domain, and Vernadsky's noosphere could not exceed the bounds of dreams, quite vulnerable to criticism.\n\"It is necessary to say a few words about the common (especially in 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, if Teilhard de Chardin understood by noosphere primarily the global development of 'collective mind,' then Vernadsky believed that this 'collective mind' should transform the biosphere, improving conditions for human life on the planet. Vernadsky proceeded from a scientistic view of relations between man and nature, i.e., he believed that science could solve practically any problems, including managing the basic cycles of substances and transitioning humanity to 'autotrophic nutrition' with direct use of solar energy for food production (bypassing the mediating role of plants). Vernadsky's views on the noosphere are an example of ecological utopianism.\" (M. B. Mirkin, L. G. Naumova, 2005).\nAt the end of the twentieth century, the concept of the noosphere was reconsidered by N. N. Moiseev within the framework of his concept of coevolution (joint evolution) of the biosphere and human society. From this point of view, the noosphere is the state of humanity in which it evolves together with the biosphere. Moiseev wrote that humanity would pass through a bifurcation point with an unpredictable outcome. If humanity can reconcile its decreasing capabilities of the biosphere, it will have to change fundamentally. Our descendants and us await both a new way of life and a new morality; this will be a new stage in the evolution of our species.\nAn interesting turn in the development of the noosphere idea, relating already to the current century, is the idea of the kakosphere, expressed by G. A. Zavarzin. He proposed a term for the state of the biosphere that is the antipode of the noosphere. The root in this word is the same as in cacophony and even in \"caca\": the Greek \"kakos\"—bad, poor. The kakosphere is a biosphere deformed and destroyed by human activity, an area of disharmonious development. Discussing this concept, Academician Zavarzin also uses the term \"kakocracy\" (rule of scoundrels, a management method characteristic of our countries) belonging to Academician B. V. Raushenbach, and introduces the term \"kakology\" (a branch of knowledge examining the kakosphere).\n\"The only thing that will prevent the recognition of kakology as an independent scientific discipline that has taken a systemic approach is the unbecoming name of a specialist in such an important scientific discipline\" (Zavarzin, 2003).\n...No, I will not insert into the textbook a fragment devoted to the noosphere. Everything in this topic is too shaky and unstable; the share of ideological constructs here is excessively large, and the contribution of generalizations based on empirical data is clearly insufficient.\nThe title of this column is a question; probably, I should answer it. My version of the answer is as follows. The idea of the noosphere lies outside the sphere of strictly rational science. For Teilhard, the main author of this idea, it was the result of some amalgam of scientific and religious views, something like para-scientific mysticism or, if you like, scientistic visionary work. Vernadsky never managed to place his own reflections and dreams about the noosphere within the framework of a scientific concept. Modern speakers who reason about the idea of the noosphere as a guideline for our development are most often charlatans; in their mouths, the concept of the noosphere turns out to be an incantation for fooling simpletons. I think both Teilhard and Vernadsky would be grieved by such profanation of the result of their efforts..."}

←
Dmytro Shabanov
→

The zoologist's credo, or What can we learn from our own animal nature? The noosphere: a rational forecast, scientific and technological vision, or a common spell of charlatans from science? From chaos of observations to dynamic typology: discussion on the example of population systems of green frogs

{"translated_text":"←\nDmytro Shabanov\n→\n\nThe Zoologist's Creed, or What Can We Learn from Our Own Animal Nature?\nNoosphere: Rational Forecast, Scientistic Visionary Work, or a Common Incantation of Science Charlatans?\nFrom the Chaos of Observations to Dynamic Typology: Discussion Using Population Systems of Green Frogs as an Example\n\nColumn for Kompyuterra #111\nColumn for Kompyuterra #112\nColumn for Kompyuterra #113\n\nI am finishing the chapter on human ecology for a university textbook on ecology (a \"mass grave\" in terms of authorship). I have written what seemed necessary to me, but one topic is still hanging: a discussion of the noosphere concept. It's a popular topic: everyone knows that V. I. Vernadsky's concept of the noosphere is one of the greatest achievements of twentieth-century science. The noosphere is mentioned in school programs; serious officials in Russia and Ukraine reference it during pompous speeches... How can one ignore such a famous scientific achievement?\nIt all began when the famous Russian scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky gave lectures on geochemistry in Paris in 1922–1923. In Ukraine, Vernadsky is mentioned primarily as one of the founders and first president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (created under Hetman Skoropadsky). Vernadsky was primarily interested in the geochemical functions of the biosphere.\nThe concept of \"biosphere\" has a long history. The great French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck first used it in 1803 to denote the total sum of living organisms on the planet (Vernadsky used the term \"living matter\" for this purpose). This concept was brought into wide circulation in 1875 by Austrian geologist Eduard Suess, in a work devoted to the geology of the Alps. For Suess, the biosphere is the Earth's shell occupied by life. Vernadsky seriously reconsidered the concept of the biosphere, but still used it in slightly different senses in different works. The correctness of both approaches can be confirmed by references to the classic's works.\nIn formal interpretation, the biosphere is the Earth's shell within which life occurs. In functional terms, it is the planet's shell, the leading factor in the development of which is life. \"The biosphere is the Earth's shell, the composition, structure, and energetics of which are determined by the combined activity of living organisms.\"\nWhich of these interpretations is correct? Do you remember how Alice's dispute with Humpty Dumpty about the meaning of unfamiliar words ends? \"The question is, who is to be master—that's all,\" said Humpty Dumpty, and he was absolutely right. Another question is more interesting—which interpretation is more useful, the use of which provides greater understanding? It seems to me the answer is obvious. The functional interpretation is more useful, as it draws attention to the non-trivial quality of a certain terrestrial shell. Life spreading through it intercepts solar energy, conditions the environment, and influences the composition and movement of substances on the planet's surface.\nThus, Vernadsky recognized the geochemical role of living matter. In his Paris lectures, among other things, he spoke about those changes in geochemical processes that are related to human activity. And he was heard.\nAmong others, two people united by a tendency toward Catholicism, Bergsonism, and simply friendship attended Vernadsky's lectures—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Edouard Le Roy. The figure of Teilhard (Teilhard is the surname, de Chardin is the title) cannot fail to impress. A descendant of Voltaire, a member of the Jesuit order, a professor at the Catholic University, a paleoanthropologist, an evolutionist... At one time, his \"The Phenomenon of Man\" seriously changed my attitude toward reality.\nIt was not easy for Voltaire's descendant to combine scientific research in the field of human evolution with performing the duties of a priest and a member of a monastic order. Again and again, the order's authorities recommended that Teilhard express his views cautiously. If you thought that Jesuits were bothered by evolution, you are mistaken. They were disturbed by Teilhard's willingness to modernize Christianity.\nThe idea of the noosphere was made public in 1927 by Edouard Le Roy. He did not assert this directly, but it seems he primarily voiced Teilhard's ideas (in whose formation Vernadsky could also have participated). Subsequently, the concepts of the noosphere were developed independently by both Teilhard and Vernadsky.\n[IMG_1]\n\"Fathers\" of the noosphere: Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, 1881–1955; mathematician and Catholic modernist Edouard Le Roy, 1870–1954; geochemist, representative of Russian cosmism Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, 1863–1945\n\nConsidering the evolution of the Universe (i.e., the cosmos, everything that exists), Teilhard believed that both the origin of life and the origin of humans were inevitable stages of this process. The complication of developing systems during evolution leads, according to his views, to the emergence of systems of ever higher order. To describe the unification of evolving systems into supersystems of a higher level, Teilhard developed a specific version of dialectics, the main principle of which was differentiating (intensifying differences) unification. Functional differentiation leads to the growth of interdependence and integration...\nHuman psyche, according to Teilhard, is the most complex result of the evolution of the Universe. Overcoming fragmentation, individual human personalities unite in an all-planetary sphere of mind—the noosphere. According to Teilhard, the emergence of the noosphere is a process stretched in time and not yet completed, in which each of us participates. The most important quality arising in the evolution of the universe at the human level is the capacity for reflection, for creating not just a model of reality, but also of oneself within it, \"the ability not just to know, but to know oneself; not just to know, but to know that one knows.\"\nThe evolution of the Universe has led to the fact that in us it has gained the ability for self-knowledge. The universe arrived at this state, passing through many cycles of differentiating unification. Will this process stop with us? What comes next?\nAnd here Teilhard finds an answer that allows, among other things, to solve the problem of theodicy (justification of God) in a new way. Even if we consider that moral ideas are implanted in us by God (note: I am presenting this point of view, not agreeing with it!), we can evaluate not only our actions with their help, but also God's actions manifested in the structure of the universe. And in the world around us we see a vortex of evil and injustice; Teilhard, as a veteran of the First World and witness to the Second World War, could not ignore them. How can a benevolent God permit such horror?\nThe obvious solutions to the problem of theodicy do not satisfy our moral sense. One can, following Leibniz, argue that any other world would be even worse, and its Creator simply cannot make it harmonious. One can say that evil is needed for demonstrating the goodness of good. One can find comfort in the fact that those tormented in this, \"unreal\" life victims of injustice receive reward in heavenly immortality. One can suppose that the source of good and the source of evil are partners, playing out our fates in a game of some universal chess, as in the Book of Job...\nNone of these solutions creates the image of a good God whom one wants to love and trust, and it was precisely such a God that Teilhard needed. And he was able to create such an image, projecting it into the future.\nGod, according to Teilhard, did not purge the world of evil because He is in the process of becoming during evolution. Biogenesis passes into noogenesis, and noogenesis into Christogenesis. The noosphere is one of the stages of God's development (as Teilhard believed—the very God that Christianity teaches about). At the end of time, a God will appear in the Universe into which all our souls will merge. His timeless attraction will become one of the factors of the Universe's evolution, ensuring differentiating unification.\nIn presenting Teilhard's views, I have jumped ahead a bit: in full form they are presented in \"The Phenomenon of Man,\" which was published after the author's death; however, it seems that Teilhard's thoughts moved in this direction from the beginning.\nTeilhard's texts bear the imprint of the attractive force of this remarkable man. He was very sincere and honest. In his words addressed to God, as it seems to me, broke through that desire for love which, due to his monastic status, he could not direct toward people. His fate was influenced by altered states of consciousness that he experienced. The most acute was the sensation he felt while alone conducting an Easter mass in the Mongolian desert, where he was on a paleontological expedition. He felt that as Easter gifts he was handing over the entire globe. One of the translations of the book in which Teilhard described the ideas that visited him then was called \"The Mass over the World\"—I really like that title. And I was also strongly impressed by Teilhard's account of the \"shadows of faith,\" and the torments and fears that doubts about the existence of God and the possibility of immortality caused him...\nVernadsky also developed the term published by Le Roy. Vernadsky's main ideas expressed in connection with the concept of the noosphere were closely connected with his main area of interest—geochemistry. These include such thoughts:\n— humanity is a geological force;\n— the cause of humanity's power is its intellect and will, the result of its sociality;\n— humanity transforms geochemical cycles, changing the functions of the biosphere;\n— humanity is evolving in the direction of separation from the rest of the biosphere.\nAccording to Vernadsky, the transition of the biosphere into the noosphere is inevitable and unavoidable. In some cases Vernadsky speaks of the noosphere as something that will arise in the future, in others—he seems to find its manifestations already in the first half of the twentieth century.\nIn modern science, established concepts of the noosphere have still not emerged. Probably, this idea is not a scientifically grounded generalization, but an attempt to put into words an intuitive guess that humanity must change in the future. I will mention a joke I like, the author of which I do not know. It concerns the ecological crisis of our time: \"the biosphere felt the noosphere on itself and is trying to throw it off.\"\nBe that as it may, Teilhard's noosphere lies outside the strictly scientific domain, and Vernadsky's noosphere could not exceed the bounds of dreams, quite vulnerable to criticism.\n\"It is necessary to say a few words about the common (especially in 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, if Teilhard de Chardin understood by noosphere primarily the global development of 'collective mind,' then Vernadsky believed that this 'collective mind' should transform the biosphere, improving conditions for human life on the planet. Vernadsky proceeded from a scientistic view of relations between man and nature, i.e., he believed that science could solve practically any problems, including managing the basic cycles of substances and transitioning humanity to 'autotrophic nutrition' with direct use of solar energy for food production (bypassing the mediating role of plants). Vernadsky's views on the noosphere are an example of ecological utopianism.\" (M. B. Mirkin, L. G. Naumova, 2005).\nAt the end of the twentieth century, the concept of the noosphere was reconsidered by N. N. Moiseev within the framework of his concept of coevolution (joint evolution) of the biosphere and human society. From this point of view, the noosphere is the state of humanity in which it evolves together with the biosphere. Moiseev wrote that humanity would pass through a bifurcation point with an unpredictable outcome. If humanity can reconcile its decreasing capabilities of the biosphere, it will have to change fundamentally. Our descendants and us await both a new way of life and a new morality; this will be a new stage in the evolution of our species.\nAn interesting turn in the development of the noosphere idea, relating already to the current century, is the idea of the kakosphere, expressed by G. A. Zavarzin. He proposed a term for the state of the biosphere that is the antipode of the noosphere. The root in this word is the same as in cacophony and even in \"caca\": the Greek \"kakos\"—bad, poor. The kakosphere is a biosphere deformed and destroyed by human activity, an area of disharmonious development. Discussing this concept, Academician Zavarzin also uses the term \"kakocracy\" (rule of scoundrels, a management method characteristic of our countries) belonging to Academician B. V. Raushenbach, and introduces the term \"kakology\" (a branch of knowledge examining the kakosphere).\n\"The only thing that will prevent the recognition of kakology as an independent scientific discipline that has taken a systemic approach is the unbecoming name of a specialist in such an important scientific discipline\" (Zavarzin, 2003).\n...No, I will not insert into the textbook a fragment devoted to the noosphere. Everything in this topic is too shaky and unstable; the share of ideological constructs here is excessively large, and the contribution of generalizations based on empirical data is clearly insufficient.\nThe title of this column is a question; probably, I should answer it. My version of the answer is as follows. The idea of the noosphere lies outside the sphere of strictly rational science. For Teilhard, the main author of this idea, it was the result of some amalgam of scientific and religious views, something like para-scientific mysticism or, if you like, scientistic visionary work. Vernadsky never managed to place his own reflections and dreams about the noosphere within the framework of a scientific concept. Modern speakers who reason about the idea of the noosphere as a guideline for our development are most often charlatans; in their mouths, the concept of the noosphere turns out to be an incantation for fooling simpletons. I think both Teilhard and Vernadsky would be grieved by such profanation of the result of their efforts..."}