Nature

The Natural Environment in Human Life

While knowledge of the universe is undeniably fascinating and valuable, it is the natural conditions that people encounter in their daily lives that concern them most. Consequently, in scientific and political discourse, the terms "geographical environment" or "natural environment" are employed more frequently. The former concept was introduced and actively utilized by the French geographer and political anarchist Élisée Reclus (1830-1905) in his 19-volume work New Universal Geography: Earth and Humanity. Through the writings of G. V. Plekhanov (1858-1918), it gained considerable traction in Marxist literature for a significant period. The geographical environment refers to the part of nature—specifically, the Earth's geographical shell—in which the historical process unfolds. However, since the latter half of the last century, the term "natural environment" has become more commonplace, as technological progress has demonstrated that the geographical shell no longer confines the spatial limits of human activity.

Thus, it can be stated today that the natural environment encompasses that portion of nature which surrounds humans, influences them, and which they, in turn, affect through their productive activities. The concept of the natural environment immediately evokes at least two fundamental aspects.

Firstly, it acknowledges a simple fact: the natural environment is the external natural surrounding, the environment in which humans exist. In focusing on this aspect, we observe that not only humans but also all individual entities of both the living and inanimate world exist within the natural environment. At this stage, no particular distinction of humans is evident. If we were to hypothetically place ourselves in the position of a solitary tree, insect, or animal and trace their life journey from their own "subjective" center, we would perceive in the collective of all other natural beings an environment for the habitation of our chosen representatives. Some entities may be passive "subjects," like a stationary stone or tree, while others possess the ability to actively seek food and conditions for reproduction. The totality of these interactions among individual "subjects" constitutes what is referred to as nature. To some extent, humans also fall under this schema of consideration, as they are composed of the same chemical elements as other living beings, consume natural substances, move within space, and collectively form part of the overall natural totality. Since we have approached the examination of nature from the perspective of humanity and society, it is evident that the entire environment, relative to this chosen center (and for it), constitutes the natural environment.

The second aspect serves as a continuation of the previous one, indicating the differentia specifica of purely human relationships with nature. Let us set aside the times when the ancestors of modern humans belonged to the animal kingdom and bore little distinction from other highly developed primates in their relationship to the natural environment. Like any other living beings, they were part of the general natural processes of material and energy exchange. The detachment from the rest of the animal kingdom occurred approximately 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, when modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) emerged. From that point onward, the growing distinction of humans in their relationships with the natural environment begins to take shape. Three stages can be delineated in the evolution of such relationships.

The first stage extends from the completion of human formation as a modern species until about 10,000 years ago. The initial phase of this period was marked by the separation of primitive humans, in terms of their way of life, from the general circulation of natural processes in which their ancestors had once been embedded alongside the rest of the animal world. Rather than pure biological adaptation to the environment, a form of natural utilization emerged, mediated through cultural forms. Natural utilization involved the appropriation of ready-made products from nature through primitive tools. This included gathering, hunting, fishing, and utilizing natural shelters for habitation. The chief achievement of this period was the mastery of fire and the selective cultivation of useful plant and animal species. At that time, the global human population was approximately 5 million.

The second stage commenced around 8,000 BCE, when humans gradually acquired the skills necessary for agriculture. This is known as the Neolithic Revolution. Thanks to this revolution, humans transitioned to a sedentary lifestyle, paving the way for increased prosperity, the development of trade and crafts, and a significant rise in the Earth's population (which reached around 100 million by the fourth millennium BCE). The Neolithic Revolution safeguarded (albeit not immediately or permanently) humanity from the threat of reversion to a wild state and a return to the animal world. A process of active appropriation of the Earth's nature began, incorporating its components into the social circulation of goods. Consequently, natural substances, through their properties beneficial to humanity, gained a reliable social function. Everything natural that entered into the cycle of human activity was appropriated by humans, attaining the status of "second nature," meaning it was assimilated and mastered through a form of activity unique to humans—namely, labor. Hence, elements of the natural environment could simultaneously exist within both natural and social relationships.

The third period is the industrial one, which begins with the industrial revolution of the 18th century, marked by the mass adoption of machinery in production and a sequential transition in the utilization of energy sources from steam to electricity and nuclear fuel, as well as other unconventional forms of energy. A vast array of mineral and organic substances entered the economic circulation, with significant consumption of oxygen and water, intensified agricultural production, urbanization, the development of new means of transportation and communication. By the end of the 20th century, the global population reached 6 billion, compared to approximately 800 million on the eve of the industrial revolution.

Examining all three stages in their sequential connection leads to the conclusion that the history of the relationship between humanity and nature has unfolded according to the following schema: from adaptation to the environment, through appropriative economy to productive economy mediated by advanced technology. This progression reveals a twofold process. On one hand, the dependence of humans on the conditions of life and production dictated by the natural environment has progressively diminished; on the other, the impact of human activity on nature has significantly increased. Both aspects of this process are not infinite; they possess limits that have become particularly evident in the eyes of the contemporary generation.

Regarding the first aspect, the influence of the natural environment largely determined the character of production, the distribution of productive forces within society, domestic life, and even the psychological makeup of the people. The presence of large rivers, reserves of natural resources, suitable climate, and other factors contributed, all else being equal, to the greater progress of those peoples endowed with such advantages. Furthermore, under the prolonged dominance of traditional forms of life, natural conditions fostered what is known as national character. In particular, the well-known Ukrainian historian of philosophy D. I. Chizhevsky noted that the steppe served as the foundation that most suited the establishment of a number of psychological traits among Ukrainians, adding, “The steppe is undoubtedly a form of natural existence that can be placed alongside the Western European landscapes, which are the principal carriers of grandeur. The sense of the boundless and powerful, or the infinitely great, evoked by the sea, forest, and mountains, also assumes a specific form in the steppe, combining the expanse and breadth of the landscape with the exuberant flourishing of nature... Like the sea, forest, and mountains, the steppe too has its ’dangers’; the sense of the sublime here engendered a peculiar—and historically conditioned—’unease,’ for the steppe had long been a source of perpetual threat from nomads, with waves of destruction ever rising anew.”

The steppe and forest-steppe environments facilitated the ancient emergence of agriculture in our lands and sustained its prevalence until the industrial rise at the end of the 19th century, when industrial regions began to form in Ukraine based on coal and ore deposits, and the development of manufacturing industries. Overall, even today, for nearly 50 million people living in Ukraine, which spans over 600,000 square kilometers, the natural environment remains conducive to life and economic activity. Seventy percent of the country’s territory is flatland, 25% consists of uplands, and only 5% is mountainous. Its depths are rich with various natural resources, including coal, iron ore, gas, oil, salts, sulfur, phosphates, and many others. The climate is moderately continental, humid in the west, dry steppe in the south, and Mediterranean on the southern slopes of the Crimean Mountains. Winter lasts from 55 to 75 days in the southwest to 120 to 130 days in the northeast. Ukraine is home to over 71,000 rivers and streams, with a total length of 248,000 kilometers. The average density of the river network is 0.25 kilometers per square kilometer. Scattered throughout the country are lakes, totaling around 20,000, both large and small. The total hydropower resources amount to approximately 45 billion kilowatts per year. The total land area is 60 million hectares, of which 42 million hectares are agricultural land, including 34 million hectares of arable land. One-third of the world’s chernozem reserves are found in our country. Forests are limited, covering only 15% of the territory. Forest-steppe landscapes are widespread over more than one-third of the area. In total, forests and steppes host around 4,000 species of plants, while the animal kingdom is represented by 100 species of mammals, 360 species of birds, and 200 species of fish.

These fundamental geographical indicators outline the natural complex with which Ukraine entered into independent statehood at the beginning of the 1990s. When discussing the aforementioned first aspect, namely the reduction of society's dependence on natural factors, one can confidently assert that the economic potential of the country is capable of ensuring stable prosperity for its population despite all climatic whims, imperfections in natural conditions, and even shortages or limitations of certain types of raw materials and energy sources. All of this can be compensated for through international labor distribution and equivalent exchange of its results. There are sufficient countries in the world with thriving economies despite possessing far fewer natural resources and less favorable climates. If one were to draw a general conclusion regarding the critical limit of detachment from the natural environment, it is evident: humans cannot completely transcend nature; they are, in fact, natural beings, consuming natural products (water, air, plant and animal food), requiring natural components for production, and therefore cannot leap beyond nature. In this regard, the dependence of humans on the natural environment remains unbroken.

To thoroughly address the question of the limits of society's dependence on the natural (geographical) environment, it is essential to recall the long-standing philosophical, historical, and sociological tradition that prioritizes geographical (natural) circumstances among the factors of social, political, and spiritual change. This theoretical stance has given rise to an entire “geographical school” in social thought, which encompasses both vulgar-naturalistic variants that directly derive all the peculiarities of national life from natural circumstances, as well as moderated versions that take into account internal social determinants of societal development. One of the founders of the geographical school in social science is recognized as the French Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu, who believed that the geographical environment—particularly climate—was a decisive cause of differences in the forms of governmental power and legislation. At his time, this notion held progressive significance, as it aimed to seek an objective basis for the forms of social life. However, within the potential of geographical determinism, certain concealed reactionary elements emerged. Between the two world wars, a movement arose in Germany that sought to apply geographical concepts to politics. This aspiration manifested in the term geopolitics. The term “geopolitics” was introduced by Swedish political scientist Rudolf Kjellén in 1916, who, in turn, developed the foundational tenets of geopolitics using the analogy of the German geographer Friedrich Ratzel, who compared the state to an organism that requires space for growth. Thanks to the efforts of another German geographer, Karl Haushofer, who during the Nazi regime published a specialized journal on geopolitics, the term acquired a reactionary connotation. Today, this reactionary significance has nearly dissipated (though this does not guarantee against its revival), and the term geopolitics simply denotes aspects of the general political doctrine, taking into account the geographical factors of national and state life when determining their strategic position within the coordinates of international life.

Finally, let us turn to the other aspect of the relationship between humanity and nature, namely the powerful reciprocal influence of humans on the natural environment. This influence has reached such a level that by the 20th century, it became evident: uncontrolled, potent industrial activity on the part of humanity has assumed proportions that threaten the very natural foundations of existence for humans and all living beings. The indicators of the destructive consequences of such activity have long since become commonplace. Let us recall some of them.

Over the past century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 18% (20% in urban areas), and atmospheric dustiness has increased to the point that sunlight reaching the Earth's surface has diminished by 10%. A likely consequence of this will be a significant transformation of the planet's climate. The Earth's radio emissions at meter wavelengths, transmitted through radio and television, have increased a millionfold, equating them to the emissions from the Sun. Millions of tons of anthropogenic toxins circulate in the natural environment. The world’s oceans are covered with powerful oil slicks, obstructing photosynthesis and killing plankton, which serve as food for many marine creatures. Between 1900 and 1980, during which a particularly strong negative impact on nature took shape, industrial production surged fifteenfold, leading to a substantial increase in demand for raw materials and non-renewable energy resources. By the end of this period, humanity was consuming 100 billion tons of organic and inorganic substances annually, while the final output of production aimed at meeting needs constituted only about 1.5% of the initial volume of natural resources involved in production; the remainder was discarded as waste. However, waste itself has long since become a problem, as its accumulation in burial sites alters the natural geochemical cycle, creating alarming concentrations.

Overall, the destructive feedback on nature has added another global problem to humanity's woes: the ecological crisis. For nearly forty years, the progressive forces of the world have been increasingly engaged in discussions surrounding this complex issue. The activities of the Club of Rome, an international non-governmental organization focused on studying global problems, first gained significant resonance. Established in 1968 at the initiative of Italian economist, businessman, and public figure Aurelio Peccei (1908-1984), the Club generated a series of scientifically substantiated reports during the 1970s and 1980s, which were subsequently published in multiple languages, drawing the attention of the general public, scientists, governmental, and civil organizations to the urgent need for collective efforts to prevent ecological catastrophe. Since then, substantial progress has been made. Ecological issues have captured the attention of international organizations, including the UN, as well as national parties and movements. A system of intergovernmental agreements and joint projects has been developed and ratified, alongside the establishment of a corresponding legislative framework. Regarding Ukraine, shortly after gaining independence, its representatives participated in the 1992 UN-sponsored World Conference on "Environment and Development." The legal basis for activities related to natural resource use and environmental protection became established through the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine "On Environmental Protection," enacted on June 25, 1991. Notably, the latter law provides a legal definition of the natural environment: “The surrounding natural environment comprises a set of natural and natural-social conditions and processes, as well as natural resources, both those engaged in economic circulation and those not currently utilized in the national economy (land, subsoil, waters, atmospheric air, forests and other vegetation, wildlife), landscapes, and other natural complexes” (Article 5). Among the adopted laws directed at environmental protection are the Land Code of Ukraine (1992), the Forest Code of Ukraine (1994), the Code of Ukraine on Subsoil (1994), the Water Code of Ukraine (1995), as well as specialized laws such as "On the Natural Reserve Fund" (1992), "On Air Protection" (1992), "On Wildlife" (1993), "On Environmental Expertise" (1995), "On Plant Life" (1999), "On Hunting and Game Management" (2000), among others. These laws and codes are continually being amended and updated, as life compels citizens of Ukraine to enhance their obligations and responsibilities for their ecological safety. The legally established relationships between humans and nature, as well as those among people concerning natural resource use, do not yet resolve ecological problems; however, without this stage, discussions of overcoming them remain moot.

Today, the multifaceted global ecological movement strives to articulate its own philosophy. Numerous developments in the field of "ecological philosophy" remain rather fragmented and heavily borrow from other philosophical traditions. This discourse advocates for a rejection of expansionist values and corresponding behavioral models, as well as overly urbanized lifestyles, and traditions of industrialism and technocracy. Among the authors aligned with an "ecological" perspective, some condemn contemporary scientific and technological progress, perceiving it as an accomplice to ravenous monopolies that undermine the foundations of ecological safety. Yet a promising idea that does not negate but rather builds upon scientific progress, and around which the complex of "ecological philosophy" may coalesce, is the notion of the "noosphere."

The term "noosphere" was introduced into scientific discourse in the early 1920s by the French mathematician and philosopher Édouard Le Roy (1870-1954), who posited that the gradual growth of spirituality would reach a level of perfection wherein the noosphere would seek to detach itself from the biosphere, much like a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis. According to another French scholar and philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), the noosphere represents the third stage in the Earth's development (the first two being the pre-biosphere and the biosphere, which were previously established envelopes of the Earth): “As vast as it is, yet significantly more integral than all prior envelopes, it is indeed a new covering, a ’thinking layer’ that, having emerged at the end of the Tertiary period, has unfolded ever since above the world of plants and animals—externally to and above the biosphere.” However, a more productive interpretation of the concept of the noosphere was provided by the eminent Ukrainian naturalist, mineralogist, and geochemist, founder and first president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, V.I. Vernadsky (1863-1945).

First and foremost, Vernadsky reexamined the concept of the biosphere. Both Le Roy and Teilhard de Chardin understood the biosphere merely as a film of life on Earth. Vernadsky endowed this concept with the significance of a geological envelope imbued with life, as despite the minuscule weight of living matter within the biosphere (a mere 0.25%), its role in the planet's development holds immense geological significance. Biogenic, or organism-created, substances constitute a substantial portion of the biosphere's mass, and traces of life extend even to the Earth's granite shell. Humanity represents an even smaller mass of the biosphere’s substance; however, humanity's geological influence manifests through its intellect. Just as the biosphere cannot be reduced to a mere collection of organisms, the noosphere must not be merely equated to a collection of thoughts. It is not the intellect itself, but rather the intelligent activity of humanity that transforms humankind into a geological factor. From this, Vernadsky draws several conclusions:

1. The process of scientific creativity is the force by which humanity alters the biosphere in which it exists.
2. This manifestation of change in the biosphere is an inevitable phenomenon that accompanies the growth of scientific thought.
3. The alteration of the biosphere occurs independently of human will, spontaneously, as a natural process.
4. Given that the living environment constitutes an organized layer of the planet—the biosphere—its incorporation of a new factor of change—human scientific endeavor—throughout its geologically prolonged existence is a natural process marking the transition of the biosphere into a new phase, a new state—the noosphere.

V.I. Vernadsky was among the first to recognize that humans, possessing intellect, cannot continue to transform their activities simply into a spontaneous geological force; the negative aspects of this process are today widely acknowledged. He noted that “unprecedented tasks of consciously directing the organization of the noosphere” stand before scientists for the immediate future. While Vernadsky did not complete his development of the doctrine of the noosphere, the direction of his thoughts is clearly defined: the concept of the noosphere encompasses the idea of the necessity for a rational organization of the relationship between society and nature by united humanity.