The Human Being in The System of Social Relations

Humanity and The Cosmos

In considering the position of humanity within the universe and its relation to nature and the cosmos, it is essential to clarify several key concepts. The term "cosmos," first proposed and employed by Pythagoras, refers to the ordered unity of the world, standing in stark contrast to chaos. Harmony among the spheres was deemed the primary characteristic of the cosmos. Throughout the history of philosophical thought, the concept of the cosmos has either led to the recognition of a creator (demiurge) or to the deification of the cosmos itself, in line with pantheistic or cosmotheistic beliefs. With the advent of space exploration, the notion of the cosmos has increasingly become associated with humanity’s endeavor to conquer parts of the solar system and the universe.

The relationship between humanity and the cosmos has been understood in various ways throughout philosophical history. From the time of Ptolemy, geocentrism and anthropocentrism prevailed, which were eventually supplanted by cosmocentrism in the 17th century. In the 20th century, humanity found itself unable to consider itself the center of the universe, grappling instead with the notion of its imperfection on a cosmic scale. Yet, individuals do recognize themselves as organic components of the cosmos. According to the anthropic principle, the rhythms of the universe and humanity are closely aligned or even coincide. The universe is structured in a manner that allows for human understanding and assimilation. This is further underscored by synergetics, which posits that humanity acts as a significant factor in the evolution of the universe, where processes of instability are increasingly at play.

Thus, it becomes imperative that certain moral norms regulating interpersonal relations account for the foundations of humanity's interaction with nature and the cosmos. In other words, if the universe has facilitated the emergence and evolution of humanity, then humanity must strive to preserve the cosmos and comprehend its underlying principles. This encompasses the idea of cosmic ethics, which entails specific behavioral guidelines for humanity in the exploration of cosmic space, as well as during potential encounters with representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations.

Two and a half millennia ago, Pythagoras and Plato proposed teachings about numbers as the foundation of the cosmos and the concept of the eidos as a kind of spiritual algorithm underlying the construction of physical reality. Indeed, humanity is a microcosm embedded within the structure of the macrocosm and possesses the freedom to choose its conduct. This implies that one of the principal issues surrounding the formation of individual consciousness at the turn of the 20th to the 21st century lies in its self-definition in relation to the cosmos and nature, based on a philosophical understanding of nature.

The term "nature" is multifaceted. Since ancient times, nature has been interpreted as the origin of things (genesis) and as the elemental substance or essence of a thing. Broadly speaking, nature encompasses all that exists; in a narrower sense, it refers to that which has given rise to and surrounds humanity, serving as an object of knowledge.

The relationship between nature and society constitutes an eternal and ever-relevant issue in philosophy. How does humanity relate to the living and non-living spheres of the planet, and can they continue to coexist and evolve? These questions touch upon all forms of human activity.

In its endeavors, humanity often stands in opposition to nature, yet simultaneously, it is a part of and a product of the vast "Mother Nature." Nature, in turn, is interconnected with itself, as humanity is but a fragment of it. Thus, the cultural history of humanity was preceded by a natural prehistory, during which the natural conditions for social life were established.

However, nature for humanity is not merely a condition for existence or a sphere for transformative activity. Other forms of relationships between humanity and nature arise and develop from these foundations, particularly beyond the practical dimension; the cognitive relationship manifests primarily in the natural sciences, while evaluative attitudes towards nature are reflected in concepts such as goodness, beauty, and virtue. In the modern world, for the first time in history, humanity is compelled to take responsibility for preserving the portion of nature that is intertwined with the development of societal productive forces, a sphere that is increasingly expansive.

Consequently, humanity, society, and culture simultaneously oppose nature and organically integrate into it. This contradiction generates various interpretations of the relationship between humanity and nature, which will be explored further.

The most general understanding of the interaction between humanity and nature is encapsulated in the term "environment," or, in contemporary parlance, "surroundings." This environment is typically divided into natural and artificial surroundings, or into the so-called first, uninhabited nature that exists independently of humanity and its activities, which has not yet been subjected to practical transformation and remains a potential object of knowledge and exploration (sometimes referred to as "natural nature") and the second, that is, nature as already encompassed by human practical activity, the result of which is the cultural environment.

The natural environment includes the geosphere and biosphere, comprising the material systems that have arisen outside of and independently from humanity but have become or could become objects of its activity. With the onset of space exploration, certain parts of the solar system can also be considered as such objects, referred to as near space. Thus, the natural environment is not confined solely to the geographical setting. The concept of "geographical environment" was introduced into geography and social philosophy by the French scholar J. Reclus (1830—1905) and the Russian naturalist L.I. Mechnikov (1838—1888), the brother of the eminent physiologist. Until the beginning of the space age, this concept adequately reflected the essence of the issue. However, in contemporary times, only that part of nature which society interacts with directly at a particular historical moment can be deemed geographical; it encompasses merely the Earth’s surface, constituting an extraordinarily significant but not singular subsystem of the natural environment in which humanity exists, as previously discussed in this text.

The artificial environment encompasses the material and social conditions of human life, as well as the aesthetic and moral constructs that shape humanity's relation to nature. This includes material objects created by humanity that do not exist in nature; plants and animals bred through natural selection or genetic engineering; social relations tied to the social form of material movement and conducted through conscious human activity; as well as spiritual, moral, and aesthetic values, among others. The artificial environment inevitably encroaches upon the natural, consuming it. This leads to contradictions, and, according to many contemporary scholars, to a struggle between the "two worlds"—the natural and the artificial.

Today, humanity has created an artificial environment for its existence that is many times more productive than the natural one. Furthermore, it is essential to consider the technogenic impact of humanity, which results in alterations to geological structures, the creation of artificial bodies of water, changes to the atmosphere, and even the luminescence of the Earth, or alterations in its radiation due to artificial energy processes.

At the same time, the natural environment is not merely the material conditions for human activity and the initial object of production; it also serves as the subject of a specific aesthetic and moral attitude. Therefore, humanity's relationship with nature cannot be defined solely by utilitarian, mercantile interests; it also encompasses a deeper understanding of the human soul.

Biosphere and Noosphere. The term "biosphere" was first employed by the Austrian geologist E. Suess in 1875. However, it gained profound scientific significance in the 20th century, particularly following the publication of the work "Biosphere" by the distinguished Ukrainian naturalist V.I. Vernadsky (1863—1945).

Biosphere (from Greek bios — life and sphaira — sphere) is the entirety of the Earth's envelope, imbued with life and qualitatively transformed by it. Its structure and the energy-informational processes within it are shaped by the past and present activities of living organisms. Additionally, it is influenced by cosmic and deep subterranean energies. Spatially, the biosphere encompasses the troposphere, which is the lower part of the atmosphere extending up to 10-15 kilometers; the weathered crust down to 2-3 kilometers beneath the Earth's surface; and the entire hydrosphere to its maximum depths. According to certain specialists, the living substance — the "biomass" — weighs approximately 2.42 × 10^12 tons.

The increasing role of human practical activity and its impact on nature heralds the beginning of a new stage in the geological history of Earth, during which humanity must establish its relationship with nature on scientific foundations, with science permeating all societal endeavors, including its interactions with the natural world. Thus, the concept of the biosphere in the 20th century evolves towards the understanding of the noosphere.

The term "noosphere" (from Greek noos — mind and sphaira — sphere) emerged in the 1920s. It was proposed by French philosophers E. Leroy and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who understood it as an expression of the divine spirit. The scientific concept of the noosphere was developed by V.I. Vernadsky, who perceived it as a sphere of interaction between society and nature, within which intelligent human activity becomes the primary determining factor — a realm reconstructed by collective intellect. Vernadsky believed that humanity, armed with scientific thought, must become the decisive force that will define the evolution of our planet moving forward.

The essence of the noosphere can be succinctly articulated as follows: while the coherence of processes in the inanimate world is ensured by mechanisms of self-regulation, the harmony between the characteristics of the natural environment and society can be achieved through reason and will. This implies that the discussion is not about destructive intervention in nature but rather about scientifically substantiated preservation of conditions conducive to life and happiness for humanity on Earth. The determining factor should not be the chaos of natural development but the intellect of humanity.

The scholar regarded the noosphere as a future state of the biosphere, recognizing that humanity is still far from achieving this state. In his final work, "A Few Words on the Noosphere," he outlined several general conditions necessary for its establishment, notably: humanity must unify in its informational and economic connections; the noosphere is a globally planetary phenomenon, necessitating the complete equality of races, nations, and the like; and the noosphere cannot be realized until wars on Earth cease.

The theory of the noosphere formed in the 1920s and 30s, during which the world comprised three interconnected elements: nature, humanity, and society. Subsequently, a fourth, significant element emerged — technology, created by humans and now the primary factor in planetary change (the so-called technosphere), especially since the onset of the scientific and technical revolution in the late 1950s, marking a giant leap in both science and technology. This has led to ecological crises — among the most dangerous of the global problems facing humanity today. There has been a gradual erosion of the relationships between people and their attitudes toward nature. As a result, optimism has receded into the background, giving way, not without justification, to pessimistic sentiments and assessments.

Thus, the doctrine of the noosphere inherently contained an element of utopia from the outset, intertwining value-based and existential approaches without delineation. Hence, it is crucial to differentiate between understanding the noosphere as a utopia and as a tangible state; one should not overshadow the other. Considering the actual state of relations between humanity and nature, the perspective of several contemporary scholars, including domestic thinkers, that the noosphere signifies the beginning of a downward phase in humanity's development is indeed plausible.

Humanity and society are not directly connected to all of nature but rather to a specific part of it — the geographic environment, which includes that segment of nature (the Earth's crust, atmosphere, water, soil, flora, and fauna) engaged in the productive process and utilized in the material life of society.

A distinctive feature of the contemporary developmental phase is that the complex of problems surrounding the relationship between humanity and nature (the Cosmos) has assumed a global, planetary character. However, this does not imply uniform approaches to the sources of these problems or universal paths for their resolution. Primarily, it concerns different types of worldviews that underpin attitudes toward nature. Among these, at least two significantly different types can be identified. According to the first, originating from religious consciousness, nature is regarded as a divine creation, necessitating a reverential attitude towards it. This delineates the boundaries for human intervention in nature, as no one has the right to infringe upon the "divine providence."

Conversely, the second type views nature as a vast natural mechanism that must be adapted to human needs for addressing life’s challenges. In this framework, nature possesses no ethical status; "it is not a temple, but a workshop, and humanity is its worker." Such an approach serves as a theoretical foundation for various projects aimed at "subduing" nature. While environmental protection measures are indeed considered, they are solely for the preservation of resources. The study of nature adopts a strictly scientific form, with all issues to be resolved by specialists. The formation of ecological culture is regarded as a phenomenon of rationality, upon which human behavior and attitudes toward nature may be transformed.

This worldview has gained particular prevalence in contemporary conditions, driven by scientific and technical progress, rising demands, and the expansion of technical capabilities for their satisfaction. In such circumstances, a vicious cycle emerges: the desire for comfort and pleasure fuels the continuous emergence of new scientific and technical achievements, exacerbating ecological problems that can again be resolved only through technical means. Thus, a situation of "bad infinity" (Hegel) is created, in which the dominant value system, focused on satisfying the need to "have," clashes deeply with another human need — "to be," that is, to live and develop independently of one's possessions (E. Fromm). The latter is possible only through a system of moral, religious, and aesthetic values that must today prevail over material interests.

Hence, the essence of the ecological crisis lies within the intrinsic nature of the individual and its interests, which partly accounts for the psychological unpreparedness of millions to recognize this danger. The theoretical foundation for overcoming the crisis could be the formulation of a universal ecological imperative for activity, based on the concept of coevolution (i.e., the collaborative, harmonious evolution) of nature and humanity. The core of this ecological imperative involves the international recognition of a "prohibitive boundary" for technological experiments that harbor negative consequences for both humanity and nature. The aim of implementing this ecological imperative is to achieve the coevolution of Nature and Human Reason. This historical task is critical, as only its resolution can ensure the survival of humanity as a biological species and transition to a state of the noosphere. Humanity must take responsibility for the development of the biosphere and society, learning to direct this development. To accomplish this, fundamental changes in the character and type of thinking of millions are necessary, along with a renunciation of the idea of primitive anthropocentrism, where human needs can be satisfied at the expense of the limitless exploitation of nature. The pace of the technical and technological advancement of civilization has proven significantly swifter than the natural evolution of the biosphere and human self-awareness. Harmonizing these relationships based on international programs, including international legal norms, is of paramount importance.

For a long time, the ideas of this new ecological paradigm attracted only a limited circle of scholars, and it was only in the 1970s, amid the ecological crisis, that it gained new significance. Its sources stemmed from social-reformist orientations: conservationism, biocentrism, and environmentalism. The principles of conservationism include ensuring economic growth, preventing irrational expenditures in resource utilization, and egalitarian distribution of natural resources. The core thesis of biocentrism is the preservation of wild nature, which possesses intrinsic value regardless of its utility. The scientific model of environmentalism is based on objective natural and scientific laws, with humanity obligated to ensure the optimal functioning of ecosystems, preventing disruptions in ecological processes.

The "new ecological paradigm" has been articulated in opposition to the "paradigm of human exceptionalism," which has dominated worldview for the past 400 years. The latter rests on four tenets: that the human being is a unique socio-natural entity due to possessing culture; that culture evolves far more rapidly than human biological traits, thus playing the central role in the social development of individuals and communities; that human behavior is primarily determined by social rather than natural factors; and that social progress is limitless, enabling the future resolution of all societal issues.

All these postulates, as affirmed by proponents of the "new ecological paradigm," have demonstrated not only their limitations throughout the 20th century but also their theoretical inadequacy, as they continue to ignore society's dependence on the natural environment and fail to grasp the problems of limited natural resources, which have intensified in recent decades.

In essence, the "new ecological paradigm" has emerged not only as a scientific construct that allows for the description and explanation of a "new social reality" — that is, the reality of ecological crises and potential limits to economic growth, as well as shifting societal value orientations — but also as a concept that accumulates and integrates a new value system, prescribing corresponding behavioral patterns for political elites and broad segments of the population aimed at preserving nature and humanity's right to a clean, safe environment.

A characteristic feature of the "new ecological paradigm" is its foundation upon post-material values. This paradigm embodies a belief in the necessity of enhancing concern for immaterial values, which have been overshadowed by material values in recent centuries. Adherents to this paradigm view ecological processes as social phenomena shaped by human actions and choices. This understanding emphasizes that ecology is, in essence, a social science. Thus, human values must be applied to the environment, necessitating a transition from anthropocentrism to eco-centrism, where humanity recognizes its interconnectedness with nature, promoting a more holistic view of existence.