The problem of the relationship between man and nature in its entirety has always been a subject of deep philosophical interest. One way or another, the greatest thinkers of the past turned to it, trying to determine the place and role of man in the universe. In this regard, the question arises: how does the environmental problem, which has become one of the most pressing and requiring urgent natural scientific, technical, economic and socio-political solutions, relate to the eternal philosophical problem of the relationship between man and nature?

The philosophical field of analysis extends from man, taken in his entirety, to nature in its three main meanings: the universe, the part of the universe related to human society, and the inner basis of man. The ecological field is narrower. The basis for ecology is the concept of environment, drawn from the conceptual apparatus of animal and plant ecology. The environment can be defined as the part of nature in which a person exists, the focus of which he is, directly encountering it in his activities.(9)

There is no impassable gap between the philosophical and concrete ecological levels, as well as between the concepts of “nature” and “natural environment”. The totality of the characteristics of the natural environment taken into account increases as a person receives more and more information about the influence of nature on his existence and turns more and more of nature into his habitat.

Man's dependence on nature, on the natural habitat, existed at all stages of human history. It, however, did not remain constant, but changed in a dialectically contradictory manner.

On the one hand, as the productive forces of society developed, as man’s relationship with the natural environment became increasingly mediated by the “second nature” he created, man increased his protection from the negative influences of nature and natural Disasters, which made it possible not only to provide more stable comfortable living conditions, but also to develop more and more new territories for habitation and productive work.

Since the main channel of communication between man and nature goes through production, the specifics of man’s relationship with the natural environment and their prospects significantly depend on the level of development of the productive forces of society and the nature of production relations. The rapid growth of the former and the discrepancy between them and the latter determine the social roots of environmental difficulties, but also create the corresponding prerequisites for overcoming them. The formation of class society, the development of a system of commodity-money relations and class-based forms of division of labor, accompanied by the “division” (F. Engels) of the individual, alienation of his result of labor and labor activity, and therefore alienation itself, leads him to alienation from the transformed natural environment, to the feeling of his break with nature.

Nowadays, this dependence is often revealed in an extremely dramatic way, since the scale of use of many types of resources necessary for economic activity, and simply for the existence of mankind, leads to the depletion of the reserves of these resources available on the planet. Into orbit human activity a steadily expanding range of processes, phenomena and substances of nature is involved, which are also used with increasing intensity, so that human society is drawn into ever closer and more diverse connections with the natural world.

Thus, not only man depends on nature, but also surrounding a person nature depends on him, on the scale, forms and directions of his activity. And this dependence of nature on man is manifested not only in intense, reaching extreme values, involvement in his activities natural resources, but also in the profound and often negative impacts of this activity itself on the environment.

The interaction of man and nature, society and its environment as a result of the rapid growth of industrial production throughout the world, and production that relies on existing waste technologies, has reached extreme, critical shapes and sizes. The question of the threat to the very existence of humanity as a result of the depletion of natural resources and the pollution of its habitat, which is dangerous to human life, has arisen in full force. It is these contradictions in the relationship between society and nature that determine the essence of the environmental problem.

Two opposing concepts are becoming widespread: conquering nature and subjugating it. In the first option, people are obliged to further intensify the fight against nature and lose sight of the fact that man is fighting the nature that gave birth to him, i.e. with the natural basis of its existence, and therefore, such a struggle must be waged very carefully. The opposite option (only the subordination of man to nature) is also fraught with dangers, primarily because it requires the abandonment of the creative, transformative activity of people in relation to nature.

Nature acts as a prerequisite and condition for the development of society.

Society is an isolated part of nature, man is the pinnacle of evolution.

“It constitutes an inevitable manifestation of a large natural process that naturally lasts for at least two billion years” (5).

Being a part of nature, man gradually, in the process of work and communication, formed as a social being. Actually, in philosophical and methodological terms, the problem - “society - nature” - faces us as a problem of the relationship between a biosocial being - a person and his natural environment. Nature is the basis of human life, his physical and spiritual development.

Man in progress practical activities gradually subdued the animal and plant world to his will, put the “organic force of nature” at his service, and began production. From that time on, we can say that man finally violated the unwritten “contract” with nature and only after millennia did he learn to more or less foresee the long-term consequences of his active intervention in nature. He realized that his actions had upset the balance in nature. One of the first philosophers to raise the question of humanity’s payment for progress in the productive forces was F. Engels, who wrote that we should not be too “too deluded by our victories over nature. For every such victory she takes revenge on us. Each of these victories, however, first of all has the consequences that we were counting on, but in the second and third place completely different ones, unintended consequences, which very often destroy the meaning of the first ones” (15). In essence, after defeating the animal and plant world, man has only one enemy left - himself.

Today it has become clear to us that these unforeseen consequences extend not only to nature, but also to many areas human life.

How can we ensure that transformations in the means of production reduce their negative impact on the natural sphere, so that the flourishing of science and technology does not devalue the emotional and moral sphere?

The “disconnection” of different axes of social progress leads to a truly crisis situation. In other words, humanity was faced with the task of learning to combine changes in the scientific, technical, social and spiritual spheres so that the natural harmony between them would not be destroyed.

Realizing its responsibility to nature, society gradually developed a whole system of religious prohibitions and state laws regulating man's relationship with the environment. It is known that many primitive tribes punished violators of such prohibitions with immediate death. The same fate awaited those who killed more animals than were necessary for food. We must pay tribute to the peoples of the ancient states of Asia, who were the first to develop decrees on the protection of animals and flora. It is believed, for example, that the Mongols turned up the toes of their boots in order not to damage the grass cover of the steppes.

The works of Descartes and Bacon laid the foundation for a tendency, characteristic of classical natural science, to justify the omnipotent role of the human mind as the main instrument of knowledge and conquest of nature. Humanity, gradually freeing itself from the oppression of natural bonds and from the influence of authorities that fetters initiative, through the mouth of these two thinkers, declared its uniqueness in the system of nature and its limitless possibilities in the upcoming process of developing its riches. F. Bacon paid great attention to developing ways to free the human mind from the tutelage of dogmas and authorities (idols), bringing the time of its “improvement” closer, which should be followed by “improving the position of man and expanding his power over nature” (4). He called on people to leave mutual strife and unite their efforts to capture nature “by storming impregnable fortresses” (3).

R. Descartes considered his main task to be the creation of a “practical” philosophy, with “the help of which, knowing the power and action of fire, water, air, stars, heaven and all other bodies surrounding us as clearly as we know the various occupations of our artisans, we could use them in exactly the same way for all sorts of uses and thereby make them masters and masters of nature” (10).

Thus, summarizing all of the above, two trends can be noted in the development of the relationship between man and nature:

Since the distant past, the extent of man’s dominance over nature has been constantly expanding, the composition of substances and energies involved in the sphere of productive labor is increasing at an accelerating pace, and modern scientific and technological revolution opens up perspective absolute power man over natural processes on a planetary scale,

2) disharmony in the relationship between man and nature is steadily increasing. Each qualitatively new step in mastering the forces of nature turns out to be “progress” in the destruction of the natural basis of human existence. The consequence of these trends was the emergence of ecology - the study of the relationship of organisms with the environment at various levels of the organization of living things.

Introduction

The relationship between people and the environment natural world is an important problem of social philosophy, and, like any other philosophical problem, it is quite complex and multifaceted. The aggravated environmental situation gives particular relevance to the philosophical understanding of this problem. It is worth paying attention to the fact that the entire complex and developing range of people’s relationships to nature within the framework of social philosophy is explored and revealed to the extent that it contributes to the understanding of society.

When studying the relationship between society and nature, they should not be considered as purely externally, mechanically separated parts of the world, and society is often interpreted as something higher in comparison with nature, standing above it. The basic thesis of materialism “nature is the natural basis of human life and society” should be understood quite deeply - in terms of “inclusion” natural characteristics in various aspects of social life.

Understanding the essence of society as natural phenomenon allows you to expand and deepen your understanding of the dialectics of society and nature. This dialectic appears as an extremely complex, multidimensional, contradictory, continuously developing process of active interaction between society and nature. The entire history of the existence of human society is inextricably linked with nature, but one should not lose sight of and underestimate the fact that it was people’s own active (and primarily material-transformative, i.e. nature-transformative) labor activity that became the basis for the emergence And further development society.

Modern problems of the relationship between man and nature

Philosophy gives self-knowledge to culture, semantic guidelines for human life. It was rightly emphasized that true philosophy is the living soul of culture. Of course, the social origins and social meaning of philosophical teachings depend on the social forms that bring them to life.

World philosophy, in essence, revolves around “eternal” problems. Among them is the problem of the relationship between man and nature, which, at the current turning point in human history, has, unfortunately, acquired a tragic sound. Among the numerous socially significant problems, the main place was occupied by the problem of the survival of Humanity and all life on Earth. Human existence is threatened by self-destruction. This circumstance, as well as environmental, scientific, technical and other aspects, have been repeatedly interpreted by thinkers of the most diverse ideological orientations.

Sharply manifested in last years The negative consequences of anthropogenic activity for nature and man himself force us to take a closer look at the system of ecological relationships and think about the problem of their harmonization. Why should we talk specifically about the harmony of man with nature, and it is not enough to talk, for example, only about their unity? The fact is that, due to its objective dialecticity, the contradictory unity of man with nature also takes place at those stages of their relationship when these relations are aggravated, as, for example, at the present time. At the same time, the need to get out of the current crisis situation necessitates the establishment of a special form of unity between man and nature, which would ensure this. This is the harmony of man with nature.

Man, like all living things on Earth, is inseparable from the biosphere, which is a necessary natural factor of his existence. Nature is the prerequisite and natural basis of human life, and their full life activity is possible only in adequate natural conditions. A person can exist only within a fairly defined and very narrow framework of the natural environment, corresponding to the biological characteristics of his body. He feels the need for that ecological environment, in which the evolution of humanity took place throughout its history.

The possibility of the existence of society can be guaranteed only in the context of the development of the biosphere, and then only in a relatively narrow range of its parameters. Knowledge of this range is a vital necessity for people. Of course, every person has the ability to adapt to changing (within certain limits) conditions of the natural environment, a new habitat for him. J. Weiner notes that “All representatives of the species Homo Sapiens are capable of demonstrating the necessary plasticity of reactions in response to changing external conditions.” However, for all their breadth and mobility, the adaptive capabilities of the human body are not unlimited. When the rate of change in the natural environment exceeds the adaptive capabilities of the human body, then pathological phenomena occur, leading ultimately to the death of people.

In this regard, there is an urgent need to correlate the rate of environmental change with the adaptive capabilities of humans and the human population, to determine the permissible limits of their impact on the biosphere based on the permissible limits of its change. ""Humanity is like living matter is inextricably linked with the material and energy processes of a certain geological shell of the Earth with its biosphere,” Vernadsky emphasized. “It cannot be physically independent of it for one second.” In other words, a person as a biosocial being needs not only high-quality social environment, but also in the natural environment of a certain quality. This means that, along with material and spiritual needs, there are objectively environmental needs, the entirety of which is affected by the biological organization of man. Ecological needs are a special type of social needs. Man needs a certain quality of the natural environment his habitat.

Only by maintaining the proper quality of such fundamental conditions for the existence of people as air, water and soil is their full life possible. The destruction of even one of these vital components of the environment would lead to the death of life on Earth.

Thus, environmental needs are as ancient as human needs for food, clothing, housing, etc. Throughout previous history, their satisfaction occurred automatically and people were convinced that they were provided with enough air, water and soil for everything time. Sobering came only a few decades ago, when, due to the growing threat of the environmental crisis, the shortage of clean air, water and soil became increasingly acute. Today it is clear to everyone that she is healthy environment no less significant than material and spiritual needs. It would be a great misconception to believe that the environmental crisis can be dealt with through economic measures alone. The ecological crisis is caused by the “arrows” that directed the movement of our technocratic civilization towards specific values ​​and categories, without the adjustment of which it is impossible to begin radical changes. When reorienting categories, the concept of nature should become central, so that man’s very relationship to nature will be different than it was before. It is important to understand and accept new value guidelines, semantic attitudes, to create a new image of a person - as opposed to a person who is a consumer of a person who is humane in relation to himself and nature. without this global philosophical restructuring of relations in the system" Man-Nature"All measures of an economic, environmental, scientific and technical nature will have only partial significance and will not be able to become any serious obstacle to the impending environmental catastrophe. The final conclusion of philosophers dealing with this problem is quite cruel: "Either he (the person) must change , or he is destined to disappear from the face of the Earth."

In the 19th century, as the environmental situation worsened, an increasing number of philosophers and scientists were drawn into solving the problem of the harmonious relationship between Man and Nature. Even new branches of knowledge have emerged: philosophy of ecology, socio-natural history, born at the intersection of natural and humanities disciplines, which was caused by the scale and diversity of the problem.

2. Unity of man and nature

It seems simpler - to separate natural and social principles - to attribute some objects to nature, and others to society. It's actually not that simple. The trees in the garden were planted by man. Their seeds and growth process are a fact of nature. Soil is that part of nature educated by man. Domestic animals are objects of nature in which, to a certain extent, human goals are realized through artificial selection. Buildings are built by man, and the materials used for this are a gift from nature. Man is a finite, natural being; he is the crown of nature, the highest biological species. But he is first and foremost a social being. Man lives on earth within its thin shell - the geographical environment. This is that part of nature that is in particularly close interaction with society and which experiences its influence. The geographical environment includes not only a river, which is directly or indirectly connected by human activity, but also a canal, not only a bank, but also a dam, not only a forest, but also an artificial forest belt, as well as fields, pastures, and pastures, and meadows, and cities, and all other settlements, climatic and soil conditions, minerals, plant and animal kingdoms.

Life arose and develops in the geographical environment. The history of mankind is a continuation of the history of the Earth; these, according to A.I. Herzen, are two chapters of one novel, two phases of one process, very distant at the edges and extremely close in the middle. The geographical environment is that part of nature (the earth’s crust, the lower part of the atmosphere, water, soil and soil cover, vegetation and animal world), which amounts to necessary condition life of society, being involved in the process of social existence. We are connected to the geographical environment by “blood” ties, and outside of it our life is impossible: it is the natural basis of human life. There is no gap between natural and social principles, which, of course, does not mean the absence of qualitative specificity. Despite all its qualitative differences, society remains part of a larger whole - nature.

What do we even mean by nature? Although the word “nature” is associated with very diverse meanings, when one speaks of nature in general, without any immediate definition, then, according to V. Solovyov, some essential and in itself unified principle is always implied, producing all things from itself. This is consistent with etymological meaning the word “nature”, which indicates in it the beginning of the work or generation of things. Since nature produces everything from itself, we find in it the basis of all things: it is their single common basis.

Since the appearance of society on Earth, three types of processes have taken place: strictly natural, specific social and, as it were, fused processes that combine both.

The dialectic of interaction between nature and society is such that as society develops, its direct dependence on nature decreases, and its indirect dependence increases. This is understandable: by learning more and more the laws of nature and transforming nature on their basis, man increases his power over it; At the same time, society, in the course of its development, comes into ever wider and deeper contact with nature. Man, both historically and ontogenetically, constantly, day after day, communicates with nature. This is how things are, according to I.A. Ilyin, for the farmer and the laboratory scientist, the railway watchman and the artist.

Each of them interacts with nature in their own way. Everyone learns from her, everyone tries to adapt to her, to use her for their own purposes, to somehow persuade her. And this listening persuasion of nature, this learning from it that takes possession of it, this careful overcoming and subjugation of it is for every spiritual living person one of the joys in earthly life. It happens that nature makes him wise, refines his aesthetic feelings with its beauties, sometimes punishes him, and sometimes rewards him a hundredfold.

Nature requires reciprocity: you need to not only take from it, but also give. Nature in the early stages of the formation of society was either an all-powerful despotic mother, as V. Solovyov says, of an infant person, or a slave, a thing alien to him. In this second era, an unconscious and timid feeling of love for nature arose as an equal being that has or can have life in itself.

3. Interaction between society and nature

Each society transforms the geographical environment, using the achievements of previous eras, and, in turn, passes it on as an inheritance to future generations, turning the wealth of natural resources into means of cultural and historical life. An immeasurable amount of human labor was spent on transforming nature, and all this work, according to D.I. Pisarev, was put into the ground, as if into a huge savings bank. Human labor has cut down forests for farming, drained swamps, built dams, founded villages and cities, intertwined the continents with a dense network of roads, and done many other things. Man not only moved various types of plants and animals to other climatic conditions, but also changed them.

It is impossible to analyze society without taking into account its interaction with nature, since it lives in nature. The impact of society on nature is determined by the development of material production, science and technology, social needs, as well as the nature of social relations. At the same time, due to the increasing degree of influence of society on nature, the scope of the geographical environment is expanding and some natural processes are accelerating: new properties are accumulating, increasingly moving it away from the pristine state. If we deprive the modern geographical environment of its properties, created by the labor of many generations, and put modern society to the original natural conditions, then it cannot exist: man has geochemically remade the world, and this process is no longer reversible.

But the geographic environment also has an important influence on the development of society. Human history is a clear example of how environmental conditions and the contours of the planet's surface contributed to or, on the contrary, hindered the development of mankind. If in the Far North, in this icy element, man wrested the means of subsistence from the inhospitable, harsh nature at the cost of painful efforts, then in the tropics, in this kingdom of bright fragrant flowers, eternal greenery and juicy fruits, the unbridled splendor of plant nature leads man like a child, on the leashes. The geographical environment as a condition for the economic activity of a society can have a certain influence on the economic specialization of countries and regions.

In general, the following stages of interaction between nature and society can be distinguished:

1. Prehistoric (pre-civilization), it covers the period from the emergence of the species Homo sapiens to the advent of cattle breeding and agriculture. During this period, man was in unity with nature, did not stand out from it in any noticeable way and did not have a tangible impact on nature. The so-called “appropriating” economy, including gathering, hunting, and fishing, was based on primitive tools and low development of the mind.

2. Historical (civilizational, modern) is associated with the emergence and development of cattle breeding and agriculture, which characterizes the transition to a “producing” economy, since man began to actively transform nature, to produce not only tools, but also means of subsistence. But social production (construction of irrigation structures, cutting down forests for arable land, breeding activities, etc.) also had a reverse side, destructive for nature, which was still characterized by locality and limited consequences. At this stage, the difference between society and nature is already quite clearly evident.

3. Post-historical, post-civilizational (future). It assumes the presence of an alternative: either an ecological catastrophe on a planetary scale, or a complete restructuring of the philosophical basis of the relationship between Nature and Man. The latter path will be the subject of consideration in Part II of this work.

So on at this stage we have a civilization of a technocratic type, the main priorities of which are aimed at further expanding power over nature without taking into account the possible consequences; the “Man-Nature” system, in which the arrows are sharply shifted towards the transformative activities of man. Since the Renaissance, when man was placed at the center

4. Biosphere and noosphere

The natural environment of society is not limited to the geographical environment. A qualitatively different natural environment of his life is the sphere of all living things - the biosphere, which includes the upper part inhabited by organisms. earth's crust, waters of rivers, lakes, seas and oceans, as well as the lower part of the atmosphere. Its structure and energy-information processes are determined by the past and present activities of living organisms. It is influenced by cosmic as well as deep underground influences: it is a gigantic natural biophysical and biochemical laboratory associated with the transformation of solar energy through the green cover of the planet. As a result of long-term evolution, the biosphere has developed as a dynamic, internally differentiated equilibrium system. But it does not remain unchanged, but, being a self-organizing system, develops along with the evolution of the Universe and all living things. The history of life on our planet shows that profound transformations have occurred more than once, and a qualitative restructuring of the biosphere led to the disappearance different types animals and plants and the emergence of new ones. The evolutionary process of the biosphere is irreversible.

Our outstanding naturalist and thinker V.I. Vernadsky, being one of the creators of anthropocosmism, representing in unity the natural (cosmic) and human (social and humanitarian) sides of objective reality, studied the problem of the transition of the biosphere to the noosphere. It was he who introduced the very concept of “noosphere”.

In addition to plants and animal organisms, the biosphere also includes humans: humanity is part of the biosphere. Moreover, its influence accelerates the process of change in the biosphere, exerting an increasingly powerful and intense impact on it in connection with the development of science and technology. With the emergence of humanity, a transition takes place to a new qualitative state of the biosphere - the noosphere (from the Greek nooc. - mind, mind), which is the sphere of the living and intelligent. The noosphere, thus, is not an abstract kingdom of reason, but a historically natural stage in the development of the biosphere, created primarily by the growth of science, scientific understanding and the social work of mankind based on it. We can say that the noosphere is a new special reality associated with deeper and more comprehensive forms of the transformative impact of society on nature. It involves not only the use of natural and humanities, but also reasonable cooperation between states, all of humanity, and high humanistic principles of attitude towards nature - the native home of man.

5. Ecology - the science of the home

Ecology (from the Greek oikos - abode, residence) is the science of the home of humanity, of the living conditions of those who inhabit it. In a more strict definition, ecology is a complex scientific field that studies the patterns of interaction of living things with the external conditions of their habitat in order to maintain the dynamic balance of the society-nature system.

It is known that human activity is the channel through which constant “exchange of substances” takes place between man and nature. Any changes in the nature, direction and scale of human activity underlie changes in the relationship between society and nature. With the development of practically transformative human activity, the scale of his interference in the natural connections of the biosphere has also increased.

In the past, man's use of the forces of nature and its resources was predominantly spontaneous: man took from nature as much as his own productive forces allowed. But the scientific and technological revolution has confronted man with a new problem - the problem of limited natural resources, a possible disruption of the dynamic balance of the existing system, and in connection with this the need to take care of nature. We must not forget: we live in a world where the law of entropy reigns, where reserves of resources useful to us for industry and food are “dissipated” or, in other words, are irretrievably exhausted. If, therefore, the past type of attitude of society to nature was spontaneous (and more often unresponsive) in nature, then the new conditions must correspond to new type– the attitude of global, scientifically based regulation, covering both natural and social processes, taking into account the nature and limits of the permissible impact of society on nature with the aim of not only its conservation, but also its reproduction. Now it has become clear that human influence on nature should not occur contrary to its laws, but on the basis of their knowledge. Apparent dominance over nature acquired by violating its laws can only have temporary success, resulting in irreparable damage to both nature itself and man: we should not be too deluded by our victories over nature, for every such victory it takes revenge on us. F. Bacon also said: “Man must dominate nature, submitting to it.”

A person not only adapts to the conditions of the natural environment, but in his interaction with it constantly adapts it, transforming it in accordance with his needs and interests. However, human impact on nature tends to upset the existing balance of ecological processes. Humanity has come face to face with global environmental problems, which threaten its own existence: atmospheric pollution, depletion and damage of soil cover, chemical contamination of the water basin. Thus, as a result of his own activities, man came into a dangerously acute contradiction with the conditions of his habitat. “Under the heavy veil of gray skies, under this leaden sky on a poisoned, tormented earth,” says S.N. Bulgakov, “life seems like some kind of accident, some kind of allowance, the condescension of death.”

Surrounded by a ring of death, constantly surrounded by the open mouth of non-existence, life timidly and meagerly huddles in the corners of the Universe, only at the cost of terrible efforts saving itself from final extermination: the biosphere groans under the weight of industrial civilization.

We are all at war with nature, but we need to coexist peacefully with it. And not only in a narrow pragmatic sense, but also on a broad moral scale: after all, we are called not to rule over nature (and, of course, not to conquer it), but, on the contrary, being her children, we must cherish and love her like our own mother.

Awareness of the possibility of a global environmental crisis leads to the need for reasonable harmonization of interactions in the technology – man – biosphere system. Man, turning more and more of nature into his habitat, thereby expands the boundaries of his freedom in relation to nature, which should sharpen his sense of responsibility for the transformative impact on it. Here the general philosophical principle associated with the dialectic of freedom and responsibility finds its concrete expression: the more complete the freedom, the higher the responsibility.

This principle also has a deep moral and aesthetic meaning.

The modern ecological situation requires from a person precisely such an attitude towards nature, without which it is impossible to solve the practical problems facing him, much less improve the person himself as a “part” generated by nature itself. Man, as he develops, has always been characterized by not only a rational, purely practical, but also a deep emotional, moral and aesthetic attitude towards nature. A person's moral attitude towards nature is determined by his moral attitude towards people. The commandment of human labor itself says: to cultivate nature with effort for oneself, for all humanity and for itself.

In the face of an environmental disaster, it is difficult not to realize the unity of nature and society, their organic connection and man’s responsibility to his mother nature.

Conclusion

People cannot stop changing nature, but they can and should stop changing it thoughtlessly and irresponsibly, without taking into account the requirements of environmental laws. Only if people's activities proceed in accordance with the objective requirements of these laws, and not contrary to them, will the change of nature by man become a way of preserving it, and not of destroying it. An unjustified shift in philosophical emphasis in the “Man - Nature” system leads to the fact that, by crippling nature and the environment, man cripples his own human nature. Scientists believe that the rise in rates of mental illness and suicide around the world is linked to ongoing environmental violence. Communication with undamaged nature can relieve stress, tension, and inspire creativity. Communication with a disfigured environment depresses a person, awakens destructive impulses, and destroys physical and mental health. It is now clear that a lifestyle that requires ever more of the planet's non-renewable resources has no future; that the destruction of the environment leads to human degradation, both physical and spiritual, causing irreversible changes in his genotype. It is significant in this regard that the modern environmental situation has developed in the course of human activities aimed at meeting their growing needs. Such an anthropocentric strategy for transforming the natural environment, changing individual elements of the natural environment without taking into account the systemic organization of nature as a whole has led to changes in a number of factors, which together reduce the quality of the natural environment, necessitating an increasing expenditure of effort, money, and resources to neutralize them. Ultimately, the following happened: in an effort to achieve immediate goals, a person ultimately received consequences that he did not want and which are sometimes diametrically opposed to those expected and can cancel out all the positive results achieved. The earth cannot be considered as something separate from human civilization. Humanity is only a part of the whole; By turning our gaze to nature, we turn it to ourselves. And if we do not understand that man, being a part of nature, has a powerful and growing influence on the entire world around him, that man, in fact, is the same natural force as the winds and tides, we will not be able to see and realize all the dangers of our endless efforts to throw the Earth out of balance.

Literature

1. Philosophy: Textbook / A.T.Spirkin. 2nd ed. – M.: Gardarika, 2001. – 736 p.

2. Ecology: Textbook / A.D. Potapov. – 2nd ed., rev. and additional – M.: graduate School, 2004. – 528 p.

3. Specificity of philosophical knowledge and the problem of man in the history of philosophy. - M., 1989, - 316 p.

4. ZhibulN.Ya. Ecological needs: essence, dynamics, prospects. - M., 1991. – 423 p.

5. Protasov V.F., Molchanov E.V. Ecology, health and environmental management in Russia: Uch. manual - 2nd ed., rev. and additional – M.: Higher School, 1995. – 375 p.

Everyone knows that man and nature are inextricably linked with each other, and we see it every day. This is the blowing of the wind, and sunsets and sunrises, and the ripening of buds on the trees. Under her influence, society took shape, personalities developed, and art was formed. But we also have to the world reciprocal influence, but most often negative. The environmental problem was, is and will always be relevant. So, many writers touched on it in their works. This selection lists the most striking and powerful arguments from world literature that address the issue of the mutual influence of nature and man. They are available for download in table format (link at the end of the article).

1. Astafiev Viktor Petrovich, “Tsar Fish”. This is one of the most famous works the great Soviet writer Viktor Astafiev. The main theme of the story is the unity and confrontation between man and nature. The writer points out that each of us bears responsibility for what he has done and what happens in the world around him, no matter whether good or bad. The work also touches on the problem of large-scale poaching, when a hunter, not paying attention to prohibitions, kills and thereby wipes out entire species of animals from the face of the earth. Thus, by pitting his hero Ignatyich against Mother Nature in the person of the Tsar Fish, the author shows that the personal destruction of our habitat threatens the death of our civilization.
2. Turgenev Ivan Sergeevich, “Fathers and Sons.” A disdainful attitude towards nature is also discussed in Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons”. Evgeny Bazarov, an avowed nihilist, states bluntly: “Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it.” He does not enjoy the environment, does not find anything mysterious and beautiful in it, any manifestation of it is trivial to him. In his opinion, “nature should be useful, this is its purpose.” He believes that you need to take what she gives - this is the unshakable right of each of us. As an example, we can recall the episode when Bazarov, being in bad mood, went into the forest and broke branches and everything else that came in his way. Neglecting the world around him, the hero fell into the trap of his own ignorance. Being a physician, he never made any great discoveries; nature did not give him the keys to her secret locks. He died from his own carelessness, becoming a victim of a disease for which he never invented a vaccine.
3. Vasiliev Boris Lvovich, “Don’t shoot white swans.” In his work, the author urges people to be more careful about nature, contrasting two brothers. A reserve forester named Buryanov, despite his responsible work, perceives the world around him as nothing other than a consumption resource. He easily and completely without a twinge of conscience cut down trees in the reserve in order to build himself a house, and his son Vova was even ready to torture the puppy he found to death. Fortunately, Vasiliev contrasts him with Yegor Polushkin, his cousin, who with all the kindness of his soul takes care of the natural environment, and it’s good that there are still people who care about nature and strive to preserve it.

Humanism and love for the environment

1. Ernest Hemingway, “The Old Man and the Sea.” In his philosophical story “The Old Man and the Sea,” which was based on a true event, the great American writer and journalist touched on many topics, one of which was the problem of the relationship between man and nature. The author in his work shows a fisherman who serves as an example of how to treat the environment. The sea feeds the fishermen, but also voluntarily yields only to those who understand the elements, its language and life. Santiago also understands the responsibility that the hunter bears to the halo of his habitat, and feels guilty for extorting food from the sea. He is burdened by the thought that man kills his fellow men in order to feed himself. This is how you can understand the main idea of ​​the story: each of us must understand our inextricable connection with nature, feel guilty before it, and as long as we are responsible for it, guided by reason, then the Earth tolerates our existence and is ready to share its riches.
2. Nosov Evgeniy Ivanovich, “Thirty grains”. Another work that confirms that a humane attitude towards other living beings and nature is one of the main virtues of people is the book “Thirty Grains” by Evgeny Nosov. This shows the harmony between man and animal, the little titmouse. The author clearly demonstrates that all living beings are brothers by origin, and we need to live in friendship. At first, the titmouse was afraid to make contact, but she realized that in front of her was not someone who would catch him and be locked in a cage, but someone who would protect and help.
3. Nekrasov Nikolai Alekseevich, “Grandfather Mazai and the Hares.” This poem is familiar to every person since childhood. It teaches us to help our smaller brothers and take care of nature. Main character— Grandfather Mazai is a hunter, which means that hares should be, first of all, prey and food for him, but his love for the place where he lives turns out to be higher than the opportunity to get an easy trophy. He not only saves them, but also warns them not to come across him during the hunt. Isn't this a high feeling of love for Mother Nature?
4. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, “The Little Prince”. The main idea of ​​the work is heard in the voice of the main character: “You got up, washed, put yourself in order and immediately put your planet in order.” Man is not a king, not a king, and he cannot control nature, but he can take care of it, help it, follow its laws. If every inhabitant of our planet followed these rules, then our Earth would be completely safe. It follows from this that we need to take care of it, treat it more carefully, because all living things have a soul. We have tamed the Earth and must be responsible for it.

Environmental problem

• Rasputin Valentin “Farewell to Matera”. Valentin Rasputin showed the strong influence of man on nature in his story “Farewell to Matera”. On Matera, people lived in harmony with the environment, took care of the island and preserved it, but the authorities needed to build a hydroelectric power station, and decided to flood the island. So, an entire animal world went under the water, which no one took care of, only the inhabitants of the island felt guilty for the “betrayal” of their native land. Thus, humanity is destroying entire ecosystems due to the need for electricity and other resources necessary for modern life. It treats its conditions with trepidation and reverence, but completely forgets that entire species of plants and animals die and are destroyed forever because someone needed more comfort. Today, that area has ceased to be an industrial center, factories do not work, and dying villages do not need as much energy. This means that those sacrifices were completely in vain.
• Aitmatov Chingiz, “The Scaffold”. By destroying the environment, we destroy our lives, our past, present and future - this problem is raised in the novel “The Scaffold” by Chingiz Aitmatov, where the personification of nature is a family of wolves that is doomed to death. The harmony of life in the forest was disrupted by a man who came and destroyed everything in his path. People started hunting saigas, and the reason for such barbarity was that there was a difficulty with the meat delivery plan. Thus, the hunter mindlessly destroys the environment, forgetting that he himself is part of the system, and this will ultimately affect him.
• Astafiev Victor, “Lyudochka”. This work describes the consequence of the authorities’ disregard for the ecology of the entire region. People in a polluted, waste-smelling city have gone wild and are attacking each other. They have lost naturalness, harmony in the soul, now they are ruled by conventions and primitive instincts. The main character becomes a victim of gang rape on the banks of a garbage river, where rotten waters flow - as rotten as the morals of the townspeople. No one helped or even sympathized with Lyuda; this indifference drove the girl to suicide. She hanged herself on a bare crooked tree, which is also dying from indifference. The poisonous, hopeless atmosphere of dirt and toxic fumes reflects on those who made it so.

Introduction

Approaches to studying the problem

Solution

Selected examples

Bibliography

If the entire existence of our planet is conventionally taken as one year, then Homo sapiens appeared on it on December 31 in the afternoon. First ancient civilizations arose 36 seconds ago, only 12 seconds have passed since the birth of Christ. But in the last half a second, humanity managed to invent a nuclear bomb, mustard gas, a plastic bottle, DDT, anti-personnel mines, and destroyed most of the planet's forests. Today, radioactive waste alone has accumulated so much that it will last for 15 thousand generations in the future, while known human civilizations number about 300 generations.

Introduction

Man is part of nature. This cannot be denied. In the classification of the living nature of the Earth, homosapiens occupies exactly the same place as any other living creature. And at the same time, a person noticeably stands out from the general flow of life. What's the difference? Why was Homo sapiens able to populate, with few exceptions, the entire landmass of planet Earth?

It is enough to look at each other to understand how weak the human body is in the face of severe trials. There is almost no hair on the body of a modern representative of our species, the teeth and digestive system cannot digest food if it is not properly cooked, many of modern people blind, hard of hearing, chronically ill, weak - in a word, helpless.

Why are there so many of us? How was it possible for the most seemingly unadapted species to spread throughout the world? The answer may lie in our species name itself. "Reasonable" is one who uses intelligence to survive.

Survival of the fittest - this law of life was, in a sense, violated by our ancestors. While all living organisms strived to adapt to their environment, man found a surprisingly simple substitute for the endless and terribly slow race called evolution. He did not change himself, with his mind it was much easier for him to change EVERYTHING around him for his own convenience...

Ancient man lived with the knowledge that he did not walk alone in the world. Around him he saw a lot of incomprehensible things, but nevertheless he tried to explain a lot. Feeling like one of many who are trying to survive in the primitive world, man himself came up with explanations for what he could not explain. He could already make fire from the stone himself, but he could not understand who lights the red circle in the sky every morning. Who makes the wind bend the trees and boiling waves crash against the rocks? It's scary to live among the unknown. To get rid of fear, people came up with myths, fairy tales and legends, and then told them to their children so that they would become the keepers of great knowledge about the structure of life.

This is approximately how paganism appeared. The sun could be lit by the same people, only invisible, the wind was generated by the invisible wings of huge birds, the waves were generated by fish hiding in the depths of the ocean.

Primitive peoples had countless ritual actions related to the surrounding world. However, it is possible to describe some of their main categories. The first group includes rituals whose purpose is to provide people with food. They bring good luck in hunting or fishing, or call for rain so that crops are not destroyed by drought.

Totemism occurs when people are divided into clans (tribes) and each clan has its own totem talisman used in rituals. The totem is chosen from the natural world - usually an animal or plant.

A taboo is a prohibition against performing certain actions. The reason for this is that these actions involve something that is considered either sacred or, conversely, unclean in the world of society or nature. In this case, it is believed that breaking a taboo entails misfortune.

Man in those days loved nature, because you can’t help but love the one who gives you every morning new life.

Each new generation became smarter. The accumulated knowledge sometimes made it possible to make useful tools; constant observations and tests helped people improve first in gathering, then in hunting. Later, dogs, horses, and grains came to serve man. Slowly, but at an ever-accelerating pace, the human race grew. But hunters, farmers, and cattle breeders still loved their mother, prayed to her and asked for help.

And then the moment came when man realized that he was quite capable of conquering nature. This is what he has been doing until now. People populated any territory that was at least somewhat suitable for habitation. Clothing helped them not to freeze in the snowy winter, irrigation allowed them to live where desert lizards silently groan from thirst.

The old wise gods were forgotten, almost all over the world they began to worship one almighty GOD. He spoke only to people and only about people. He was called father, his brothers were killed for him. Some argued about the true name of the one God, but all these disputes only led to endless wars.

Hunting turned into harvesting - a crop that no one planted, which no one looked after, but which for some reason the man sincerely considered his own.

The pagan Mother-Raw Earth was divided among themselves. Someone said: “This piece of land (now with a small letter) is mine!” "No! He is mine!" - the other objected. Thus, they say, private property appeared, and with it new reasons for war.

With the development of technology, there are fewer and fewer people who need to fight for life, look for food, and shelter. In developed countries, people have a lot of time aimed only at pleasure. And there are more and more people who prefer forest, grass and sky to four well-furnished walls in a residential area of ​​the city.

Meanwhile, Mother Earth has not disappeared anywhere. She feels bad, she is choking on toxic smoke, choking on waste, drowning in slop. The wounds on her body from the senseless wars between her own sons do not have time to heal. How should a MOTHER feel in this case?

Approaches to studying the problem

In the first half of the 20th century. Possibilism dominated in the cultural sciences, viewing the natural environment as a passive foundation on which various types of human societies can arise and develop. The natural environment plays only a limiting role - it is recognized as a significant factor in explaining why some cultural phenomena are absent, but does not explain why they occur.

After the Second World War, possibilism was replaced by ecological anthropology, which explains the mutual influence of the natural environment and cultures. The term “ecological anthropology” was introduced into scientific circulation in 1955 by the American anthropologist M. Bates. Ecological anthropology differed from classical versions of geographical determinism in two ways. Firstly, the interaction between nature and culture was analyzed, i.e. the influence of culture, even at the pre-industrial level, on the ecological environment was taken into account. Secondly, the environment was considered only from the point of view of the resources and conditions used by humans, and not as the totality of all the natural features of a particular territory.

In environmental anthropology, there are several approaches to studying the interaction of nature and culture. The most common is associated with the research of J. Steward (1902-1972). His concept was called cultural ecology. The main focus of the concept is the study of society's adaptation to the environment. Its main goal is to find out whether internal social changes of an evolutionary nature begin with adaptation. Cultural adaptation is a continuous process, since not a single culture has adapted so completely to the environment as to become static. A significant role in J. Steward’s theory is played by the concept of “cultural type,” defined as a set of traits that form the core of culture. These features arise as a consequence of the adaptation of culture to the environment and characterize the same level of integration. The core of culture is a set of traits most directly related to the activities of producing means of subsistence and to the economic structure of society. In addition, the core of culture also includes social, political and religious institutions that closely interact with the production of means of subsistence.

In the 60s and 70s, ecosystem or population anthropology emerged in the United States, which included the individual in the field of research from the point of view of his biological and demographic characteristics. In the field of theory, this approach is distinguished by functionalism, i.e. studying the patterns of systems that combine natural and socio-cultural phenomena. The most important representatives of ecosystem anthropology are E. Vaida and R. Rappaport. The main object of their research is human populations. The main task is to explain the action of those mechanisms in culture that constantly maintain the ecosystem under study in a state of homeostasis, or dynamic equilibrium. R. Rappaport proposed dividing the concept of “environment” into the concepts of “real” and “perceived”, or “cognitive”, in other words, existing in the minds of the people being studied.

Deterioration environmental situation became especially noticeable since the 60s of the 20th century. It was then that reports began to widely appear in the press about the consequences of the use of DDT and other pesticides, a sharp increase in anthropogenic waste that was not digestible by nature, a shortage of material and energy resources, etc., released into the atmosphere and hydrosphere.

During the same period of time, public environmental organizations begin to gain strength - due to the enthusiasm of individual “strong” individuals and the already understandable evidence of an inevitable catastrophe.

Humanity now faces two major problems: preventing nuclear war And ecological disasters. The comparison is not accidental: anthropogenic pressure on the natural environment threatens the same as the use of atomic weapons - the destruction of life on Earth.

Can not imagine modern man who is not subject to stress. Accordingly, each of us experiences such situations every day at work, at home, on the road; some sufferers even experience stress several times a day. And there are people who constantly live in a stressful state and don’t even know it.

Life is a strange and complex thing that can throw up several dozen troubles in one day. However, it is worth remembering: any trouble is a lesson that will definitely come in handy sometime in the future. If a person is an honest student, then he will remember the lecture the first time. If the lesson was unclear, life will confront you with it again and again. And many people take this literally, making their lives more difficult! But sometimes you shouldn’t tolerate certain things, looking for life lessons in them! What specific situations is it worth stopping?

Everything seems dull and gray, loved ones are annoying, work is infuriating and thoughts arise that your whole life is going somewhere downhill. In order to change your own life, you don’t have to do something supernatural and difficult. Sometimes the simplest and most accessible actions for every person can significantly increase energy levels and make you feel much better. Try to implement 7 effective practices into your life that will dramatically change your life for the better.

Anyone who is engaged in self-development knows that he cannot do without a feeling of discomfort. Quite often, people confuse discomfort with a bad streak in life and begin to complain, or even worse, try to avoid change. But as experience shows, only by going beyond comfort can we find and gain all the benefits we need.

Many people cannot imagine their day without one or more cups. And it turns out that drinking coffee is not only tasty, but also healthy! If you do not complain of serious health problems, then you can drink a few cups of this delicious drink without remorse and enjoy its benefits.

Laziness is a character trait that each of us has to a greater or lesser extent, so this article is dedicated to all readers without exception.

Self-pity is difficult to notice immediately, from the beginning of its appearance. It penetrates a person’s life very slowly, and it is very difficult to remove it later. And only at the moment when the first alarm bell rings does understanding come. Despite the fact that it appears when the situation already requires an immediate solution. Therefore, it is important to know and understand in advance what self-pity is and how it manifests itself.

10 truths of life that everyone should remember

Perfectionism is the belief that an ideal can and should be achieved. A perfectionist always strives for perfection, whether appearance, work task or environment. In this article we will talk about 5 lessons taught by perfectionism.