On the problems of nature and civilization. Lecture: The natural factor in the aspect of the theory of history The role of nature in the development of civilization

This topic has been brought up many times.. Many writers, scientists, artists and simply caring people of past centuries and the present have spoken about the problems of nature and civilization, nature and man, but these problems have not lost their relevance today. Man is a child of the Earth. He was born in earthly conditions. Air, water, earth, the rhythms of natural processes, the diversity of flora and fauna, climatic conditions - all this determined human life. A person must stand on the ground, breathe clean air, eat and drink regularly, endure heat and cold. We must not forget that wherever a person is, throughout his life he is surrounded by nature.

It would be more accurate to say that man lives in the midst of nature, has lived ever since he emerged from nature, being an integral part of it. Today, the desire of people to spend their free time in nature, affection for animals and plants testifies to the connection of man with nature. It is no coincidence that there are elevated solemn sayings: “Man is the king of nature”, “Man is the pinnacle of all living things”, but also “Man is a child of nature”. Man and nature are one system. Its parts depend on each other, change each other, help or hinder in development. And to live, you need to be in harmony with the environment constantly. The main difference between people and other living beings lies in the special role of man in the life of the planet. That is why modern human society considers concern for the protection of nature so important and necessary, adopts just laws prohibiting violating its unity.

"We are all passengers of the same ship named Earth." This figurative expression of the French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery is especially relevant today, when humanity has crossed the threshold of the 21st century. For a long time, the words were uttered with special pride: “My native country is wide, there are many forests, fields and rivers in it ...” But if there is a lot of everything, does this mean that there is no need to preserve natural resources? Modern civilization is exerting unprecedented pressure on nature. In their "triumphal procession" people often leave behind salt marshes, flooded swamps, pitted with quarries, territories unsuitable for life and management. Caring for the appearance of our Earth seems to me very important. The origins of filial feelings for the homeland lie in the upbringing in a person from early childhood of a caring attitude towards nature and people.

But, unfortunately, most people do not have the real ability to love and see nature, understand and appreciate it. Without such skill, some demonstrate their “love” for nature in a very peculiar way: they destroy it, disfigure it. Seeing a lily flower in the lake, every “connoisseur of beauty” will surely pick it, although he knows that he will not take him home. And there are those who, having met a nightingale's nest on their way, can scatter the chicks, although they themselves are very fond of his singing, and having met a hedgehog, they will definitely catch him and bring him to a city apartment, so that in a day or two they will be half-dead on the sidewalk. Unfortunately, today, for a fairly wide range of people, many moral and cultural values ​​are reduced to a minimum. And even more so, no one cares about the protection of nature. I believe that it is we young people who should think about the conservation of natural resources. The future of our country and our planet is in our hands.

Finally I would like to say that man and nature are constantly in close interaction: man directly affects nature, nature gives him everything he needs, gives him joy from contemplating her beauty. Therefore, such close cooperation is very sensitive to any gross intrusions and has a strong mutual influence. The relationship between man and nature is surprisingly complex and surprisingly inextricable, and the importance of such relationships should never be underestimated.

Scientists have long paid attention to the fact that all ancient civilizations arose in special climatic conditions: their zone covered territories with a tropical, subtropical and partly temperate climate. This means that the average annual temperature in such areas was quite high - about +20 °C. Its biggest fluctuations were in some areas of China, where snow could fall in winter. Only a few thousand years later, the zone of civilizations began to spread to the north, where nature is more severe.

But is it possible to conclude that favorable natural conditions are necessary for the emergence of civilizations? Of course, in ancient times, having still imperfect tools of labor, people were very dependent on their environment, and if it created too great obstacles, this slowed down development. But the formation of civilizations did not take place under ideal conditions. On the contrary, it was accompanied by severe trials, a change in the usual way of life. In order to give a worthy response to the challenge that nature threw them, people had to look for new solutions, improve nature and themselves.

Many civilizations of the Old World were born in river valleys. Rivers (Tigris and Euphrates, Nile, Indus, Yangtze and others) played such a huge role in their lives that these civilizations are often called river civilizations. Indeed, the fertile soil in their deltas contributed to the development of agriculture. Rivers linked together different parts of the country and created opportunities for trade within it and with its neighbors. But using all these advantages was by no means easy. The lower reaches of the rivers usually swamped, and a little further away the land was already drying up from the heat, turning into a semi-desert. In addition, the course of the rivers often changed, and floods easily destroyed fields and crops. It took the labor of many generations to drain the swamps, to build canals for a uniform supply of water to the entire country, to be able to withstand floods. However, these efforts paid off: crop yields increased so dramatically that scientists call the transition to irrigated agriculture an "agrarian revolution."

The theory of "challenge and response" was formulated by the famous English historian A. Toynbee (1889-- 1975): the natural environment, by the very fact of its existence, sends a challenge to people who must create an artificial environment, struggling with nature and adapting to it.

"Rivers are the great educators of mankind." (L.I. Mechnikov, Russian historian, 19th century).

Of course, not all ancient civilizations were riverine, but each of them faced difficulties depending on the characteristics of the landscape and climate.

"Challenge encourages growth... conditions that are too good tend to encourage a return to nature, a cessation of all growth." (A. Toynbee).

So, in a special geographical situation, Phoenicia, Greece and Rome developed - seaside civilizations. Farming here did not require (unlike many civilizations of the East) irrigation, but the peninsular position was another challenge of nature. And the answer to it was the birth of navigation, which played a crucial role in the life of these maritime powers.

So, with all the variety of natural conditions in which civilizations of antiquity existed, the civilizational process everywhere went inextricably linked with the development and transformation of the natural environment.

Civilizations of the ancient world have a number of common features. This stage in the development of mankind, as we shall see later, differs significantly from subsequent epochs. However, even then two large regions stand out - East and West, in which civilizational features begin to take shape, which determined their different fate in antiquity, and in the Middle Ages, and in modern times. Therefore, we will consider separately the civilizations of the Ancient East and the Mediterranean civilizations, on the ruins of which Europe was born.

The problem of relationships in the system "Man-Nature-Civilization" refers to among the eternal philosophical problems. Without delving too far into the history of its formation and development, we note, however, that the first environmental crises (of a local nature) were known in antiquity and were the basis that served as a clear illustration of the vital importance of this problem.

Being essentially an integral part of Nature, Mankind has gone through a number of stages in its relations with it: from complete deification and worship of natural forces to the idea of ​​complete and unconditional power of man over nature. We are reaping the catastrophic consequences of the latter in full measure today. The relationship between Man and Nature in the 20th century has become a kind of center in which various aspects of the economic, social and cultural life of people converge and are tied into one knot. As F. Girenok notes, modern man "needs to realize the fact that there is no privileged place for him either in nature or in space." 55 Girenok F.I. Ecology, civilization, noosphere.-M.1992, p.3.

Nature and society have always been in unity, in which they will remain as long as the Earth and Man exist. And in this interaction of nature and society, the natural environment, as a necessary natural prerequisite and the basis of human history as a whole, has never remained only a passive side that is constantly affected by society. It has always had and continues to have a significant impact on all aspects of human activity, on the very process of social life, on social progress in general, slowing down or accelerating it, and its role in different regions and in different historical eras was different. So, at the dawn of the development of human civilization, when people were content mainly with the appropriation of finished products, society was in absolute dependence on the external environment. Like a herd of animals, primitive people, after the depletion of food resources in one place, moved to another, where there were enough natural means of subsistence. In other words, the depletion of natural resources, the degradation of nature led to certain social changes - population migration. In the future, as the productive forces developed, the dependence of society on nature constantly decreased, and man more and more got out of the power of her elemental forces. But this independence of man from nature turned out to be illusory, since intense impact on the environment leads to a sharp deterioration in the conditions of his existence, i.e. environmental discomfort. Moreover, the growth of environmental dangers calls into question the very existence of earthly civilization, the preservation of the habitability of the planet Earth. All this testifies to the fact that in the process of man's isolation from nature, his dependence on it did not weaken, but, on the contrary, increased. Social progress has taken place in history only because the ecological environment has been constantly reproduced. And today, the interests of ensuring the future of the human race are forcing people to increasingly reckon with the laws of the functioning and development of the biosphere. However, the dialectic of the interaction between society and nature is also manifested in the fact that not only the environment has an impact on society, but also a person in the process of life leaves an indelible imprint on nature. As K. Marx and F. Engels noted, "history can be viewed from two sides, it can be divided into the history of nature and the history of people. However, both sides are inextricably linked; as long as people exist, the history of nature and the history of people mutually determine each other. ". 66 Marx K., Engels F. Works., vol. 3, p. 16.

Already in antiquity, in the conditions of antiquity and the Middle Ages, the impact of society on the environment was very significant, which led to local ecological crises, as a result of which the ruins of once flourishing civilizations were buried under the sands of the deserts. So, one of the reasons for the death of the Mayan state, this outstanding civilization, was the depletion of land due to the use of slash-and-burn agriculture. Local (or regional) ecological crises have taken place in all eras of the development of human society. History knows quite large environmental disasters caused by human economic activity, and in those distant times, when the population density in the countries that suffered these disasters, by today's standards, was negligible, and there was no industry in its modern sense at all. Suffice it to recall the sad experience of Mesopotamia and Greece, where rich pastures were overgrown by cattle, or the lands of Lebanon, where desertification was caused by the felling of the Lebanese cedar. In the XX century. environmental problems developed into a general environmental crisis on a planetary scale, largely "thanks" to the fact that it was during this period that man became the active side of interaction in the "man-nature" system and, with his ill-considered actions, sharply upset the balance of ecological balance. In general, until the XX century. the active side of the interaction was, as a rule, nature. Climate change, natural disasters had a greater impact on people's lives than the latter's life activity on nature. From the time when a person "violated" the law of natural evolution, got out of its subordination, found a path of development different from the path of development of other living organisms, socio-natural history begins - the history of the relationship between two sovereign principles: society and nature.

In general, the following stages of interaction between nature and society can be distinguished: (5)

1. Prehistoric (pre-civilizational), when unconscious cooperation takes place, and the confrontation is non-antagonistic;

2. Historical (civilizational, modern). For this stage are distinctive: the growth of confrontational, antagonistic relations between nature and society; productive activity leading to the destruction of the natural habitat, the rapid change of natural landscapes by anthropogenic ones, the gradual realization of the disastrous nature of confrontational relations.

3. Post-historical, post-civilizational (future). It assumes the existence 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 of Part II of this work.

So, 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 possible consequences; the system "ManNature", in which the arrows are sharply shifted towards the transformative activity of man. Since the Renaissance, when man was placed at the center of the universe, and Nature was overthrown to his service, a type of technocratic thinking was gradually taking shape. With the birth of the industrial revolution and industrialism, a corresponding set of ideas about the place and role of man in nature and society took shape. Gradually, the most developed scientific ideas of the physical sciences, especially mechanics, formed the basis not only of the physical picture of the world, but also became the core of the worldview. This mechanistic worldview was, above all, anthropocentric. It actually allowed the permissiveness of human activity in nature. At the same time, being purely mechanistic, it actually ignored the moral aspect in social and ecological practice. A person who has mastered the worldview ideas of the industrial era, very schematically-mechanistically imagined the socio-historical process of social and socio-natural development, he assessed their evolution in terms of quantitative transformations, forgetting about the possibility of qualitative changes.

The dogmatism of the mechanistic worldview hindered the search for new approaches to understanding the theory and practice of the interaction between nature and society, and the conservation of the industrial type of development of society, in turn, determined the vitality of the old worldview guidelines. The philosophical justification for this existing system (in a simplified version) is as follows: Man is mostly considered as an extra-natural object, Nature is considered as an inanimate storehouse of resources and wealth that can and should be used in accordance with the will and desire of Man. In other words, in parallel with the increased pressure on the natural environment, the corresponding philosophy of conquering nature was being formed. It began to be taken for granted that man is the "king of nature" and can change the environment as he pleases. Such aggressive-consumer anthropocentrism is the ideological basis of the ecological crisis. Now, at the end of the century, all the obvious and secret vices of such a position have fully manifested themselves, initiating the situation in which Mankind finds itself. The illusion that it will be possible to achieve a final victory over nature is possible only if the fact that man himself is a part of nature is forgotten, and the destruction of nature means thereby the physical and spiritual death of man.

The disharmony of the relationship between Man and Nature, partly caused by the drug-like habit of consuming more and more natural resources, has now manifested itself in a series of crises, each characterized by an increasingly destructive clash of civilization and nature. As mentioned above, earlier all threats to the environment were local and regional in nature, but today they have acquired a strategic dimension. The ozone hole over Antarctica and the decrease in the ozone layer at all latitudes, the greenhouse effect, as well as the possible destruction of the climate balance that makes our Earth habitable - all this suggests that the contradictions between man and nature, between nature and civilization are becoming more stronger.

The victorious march of a rationalistic attitude towards nature, which has recently been so noticeable in modern natural science and technology, can turn into an unprecedented enslavement of man. After all, man, being a bodily being, is also nature, and his domination over nature also means dominance over man, first over another, and then over himself.

The dialectic of technology is as follows: on the one hand, it proves the superiority of man over nature, it is based on the ability of man to see things differently from what they are in their natural context, and thereby make them suitable for their purposes. But on the other hand, it is just as clear that technology contributes to the fastest, both extensive and intensive satisfaction of needs, and first of all, the needs of nature. Technocratic civilization, freeing man from the power of nature, at the same time binds him to it again, because technology creates new needs, namely, metaneeds, that is, the need for a certain technically mediated way of satisfying the needs themselves. Man's dependence on civilization also appears in the form of problems of food, raw materials, energy and other so-called global problems. It turned out that the resources are exhaustible, that there is no solid support for civilization if it destroys the structure of the biosphere, carries the moral degradation of man. 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 the activity of people will go in accordance with the objective requirements of these laws, and not contrary to them, the change of nature by man will become a way of preserving it, and not destroying it. The unjustified shift of philosophical accents in the "Man - Nature" system leads to the fact that, by crippling nature, the environment, a person also cripples his own human nature. Scientists believe that the rise in the number of mental illness and suicide worldwide is due to the ongoing violence of the subsurface environment. Communication with non-crippled nature can relieve stress, tension, inspire a person to be creative. Communication with a mutilated environment depresses a person, awakens destructive impulses, destroys physical and mental health. It is now clear that a way of life that requires more and more of the planet's non-renewable resources is futile; that the destruction of the environment leads to the degradation of a person, both physical and spiritual, causes irreversible changes in his genotype. It is indicative in this respect that the current ecological situation has evolved in the course of people's activities aimed at meeting their growing needs. Such an anthropocentric strategy for the transformation of the natural environment, changes in individual elements of the natural environment without taking into account the systemic organization of nature as a whole, led to changes in a number of factors that, in their entirety, lower the quality of the natural environment, necessitating more and more efforts, means, and resources to neutralize them. Ultimately, the following happened: striving to achieve immediate goals, a person ended up with consequences that he did not want and which are sometimes diametrically opposed to those expected and can cross out all the positive results achieved. The threat of a global ecological crisis testifies to the exhaustion of the possibilities of self-regulation of the biosphere in the conditions of an increase in the intensity of human activity in nature. The earth cannot be regarded as something separate from human civilization. Humanity is only a part of the whole; turning our gaze on nature, we turn it on ourselves. And if we do not understand that man, being a part of nature, has a powerful and growing influence on the whole world around him, that man, in fact, is the same natural force as 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.

If in the past, despite the irreversible changes in the environment that occurred at the local or regional levels, nature itself coped with industrial and other waste entering the biosphere, since their total volume did not exceed its ability to self-purify, then at the present time, when the total amount of pollution of nature significantly exceeds its ability to self-purify and self-repair, it is no longer able to cope with the growing anthropogenic overload. In this regard, humanity is forced to take responsibility for the preservation of the natural habitat in a viable state. There was an urgent need to provide a healthy living environment for present and future generations by the forces of man himself.

Reflections on the coming day become an urgent need of society. Technocratic civilization has found itself at a crossroads, and the proposed choice cannot be called rich: either further following the path of destabilization and destruction to a global environmental catastrophe, or a fundamentally new path of development based on completely different moral and philosophical principles, on the idea of ​​the balanced coexistence of Man and Nature. The problem of philosophical aspects in the relationship "ManNatureCivilization" is extremely extensive and multifaceted. The purpose of this section was to highlight the main ones, describing the situation in which mankind found itself as a result of an unjustifiably sharp shift in value orientations and a general imbalance of relations in the most complex system of "ManNature". The main philosophical positions on this issue, the projects for overcoming the crisis offered by scientists and philosophers of the 19th-20th centuries, the possibilities of alternative ways of development will be considered in the next section of the work.

The influence of the natural factor on the level of wealth of society, demographic growth, the speed of historical development throughout history has been exceptionally strong. That is why the image of nature has always been the most important in the spiritual life of society, people deified it, sang about it, feared it and were grateful to it for its generosity. Global climatic changes (glaciation, warming, drying up of the steppe, etc.) played an important role in the formation of mankind and its history. The natural environment was able to enormously speed up or slow down various processes. This has been reflected in various theories, which are discussed below. In the early periods of history, the life of an individual and human collectives depended on the characteristics of nature to an incomparably greater extent than today. However, even modern society, having solved many important problems, not only failed to escape the influence of nature, but unexpectedly faced global and very complex environmental problems. The life of modern man, despite the enormous successes of science and civilization, is still connected with nature by countless threads (through food, water, air, microorganisms, etc.) and depends on it. Ultimately, everything that modern man possesses, except for knowledge and information, is made from natural material, albeit transformed. The study of the mutual influence of nature and society in the past and present is one of the most important tasks of both historical and many other sciences.

1. SYSTEM "SOCIETY - NATURE"

Natural (geographical) environment. Society cannot exist outside the natural (geographical) environment. This environment is a complex set of different conditions (climate, topography, soils, minerals, and much more). The influence that it has on the life of society is called the natural (geographical) factor. . It is quite clear that in relation to each specific society, the natural environment will be part of the planet, in relation to humanity in general - the entire globe and the space surrounding it (including outer space). Society and nature form a single system, since between them there is: a) metabolism; b) mutual influence; c) mutual transformation; d) the formation of common for both elements. Some researchers, in order to analyze social development proper, have repeatedly tried to take the natural environment out of the "brackets" of society as something external, but most often such attempts for social science turned out to be not particularly productive.

The structure of the natural environment in terms of its relationship with society, it can be represented as consisting of three parts: 1) cultivated nature, that is, included in the economic turnover; 2) "reserve”, that is, not yet used, but suitable for economic needs at a given level of development; 3) uncultivated, that is, unsuitable for economic needs with available opportunities. Cultivated nature, with the further influence of people, begins to turn into artificial geographic environment or even technosphere.

In general, the role of natural factors in production is decreasing, and the role of artificial ones is growing, although new spheres of nature are constantly being mastered: space, the depths of the sea, etc. Thus, in a certain sense, history appears as a transition from the natural environment (biosphere) to the social and to what is often called the technosphere. But, unfortunately, until now, the attitude of man to nature often resembles the actions of a barbarian who, in order to find a stone for construction, breaks down a temple. Unfortunately, one researcher's morbid humor that the process of civilization is "a transition from a wild place to a rubbish pit" also remains true.

Changing the natural environment occurs in two senses: a) absolutely (physically), including under the influence of man (plowing the land, clearing forests, etc.); b) relatively, in connection with the growth of the technical capabilities of society (for example, earlier oil was extracted only on land, now it is also from the bottom of the seas). When a new level of human development is reached, new sources of natural wealth open up for it. Thus, one and the same nature as a geographical environment will change with the development of society, both absolutely and relatively. And with the growth of population density, the level of science, technology, the size of states, etc., the former boundaries set by the geographical environment are overcome, and its structure changes.

Two types of influence of nature on society: direct and indirect. Direct influence is not mediated by society, it is expressed: a) in the genetic changes of people under the influence of various natural factors or due to the selection of certain qualities, for example, when eating a particular food; b) in destabilizing phenomena, both negative (catastrophes, climate deterioration, epidemics, etc.) and positive (for example, climate improvement). Indirect influence is realized through social relations, labor, distribution of wealth obtained from the use of nature, social consciousness, etc. Therefore, the influence of the same natural factor on different societies (and the same society in different eras) can cause different reactions depending on the level of development of society, its structure, historical moment, and a number of other circumstances.

The more complex the interaction of nature and society, the less the direct influence of nature on society and the more indirect. At the same time, the direct influence is either a constant if the surrounding nature does not change (then society, once adapted to it, already functions according to certain rules), or this influence is associated with very sharp changes (during catastrophes, etc.), which causes strong but not systemic changes in society. Indirect influence turns out to be much more systemic and, as a result, more important, since any technological or major social changes, as well as changes in demographic proportions in society, inevitably change to some extent: a) the relationship between people about the possession of certain natural resources ; b) the relationship between people and nature, including psychological and technological. The latter may be associated, for example, with a more or less careful attitude to nature, more or less intensive use of its resources.

The aspect of the more important (but not so obvious at first glance) indirect influence of nature on society was underestimated by the thinkers of the past, who mainly tried to find direct forms of the influence of nature on society (for example, arguing that the climate shapes the character of the people). That is why it is so important to study the mechanisms and channels by which the natural environment indirectly influences the structure of society.

The growing complexity of the interaction between nature and society, including the growth of indirect influence, can be represented as a complication of the productive forces (see Diagram 1), where with each level the role of nature in the direct provision of people with the products of labor becomes less, but the degree of complexity of the interaction between nature and society increases.

natural level characteristic of a hunting-gathering society; socio-natural- for agrarian and handicraft; socio-technical level- for industrial; scientific information- for modern.

The role of the natural environment is the greater, the greater the place it occupies in the social system, especially in the composition of the productive forces.. In other words, the role of the geographical environment is greater, the older the period.

However, although in some aspects the dependence of society on nature is decreasing, another type of dependence between nature and society must be taken into account: the more complex and larger the society, the more dangerous the change in natural conditions becomes. As the complexity and integration of society grows, changes in the natural environment can cause more and more global consequences, since due to the complexity of society, any fluctuations can lead to stress and destruction of the system. That is why climate change in the XXI century. can be very dangerous for humanity. And although, of course, society has many opportunities to eliminate the consequences, but, firstly, not all consequences can be eliminated, and secondly, such elimination will require monstrous costs and great sacrifices.

Forms of relationship between nature and society. There are five main forms of relationship between man and nature: a) adaptation; b) unconscious negative or positive influence (characteristic of all periods, especially pre-industrial); c) cultivation for economic and other purposes (arose with the advent of agriculture); d) influence on natural processes with the help of science (arose in industrial production); e) conscious regulation of the functioning of the natural environment in order to preserve it (some elements of such influence are currently being formed).

These forms often appear as different aspects of the same actions. After all, wherever people lived, they somehow not only adapted to the environment, but also adapted it to some extent. At first - only the places of their direct habitat, then over the centuries - millions and millions of hectares of arable land, and today the question is how to plan the impact on nature on a global scale. Before the invention of agriculture, people used mainly the first two forms of relationship with nature. The invention of agriculture led to the beginning of the cultivation of the natural environment (plowing, clearing, irrigation, etc.). In the era of industrial production, people began to use science and the laws of nature they discovered to consciously influence natural processes, and in the modern period, ecological methods of regulating nature are being formed (but they are still in their infancy).

Gradually, the role of transformation grows, and adaptation decreases, but does not disappear.. As new levels of human achievement in its relationship with nature, new opportunities and sources of wealth open up.

THE ROLE OF THE NATURAL FACTOR IN HISTORY

In the era of the appropriating economy, adaptation (adaptation) man to nature It was main driving force development, thanks to which people settled almost all over the planet. The whole way of life - the size of collectives, tools of labor, methods of managing, basic social relations - depended on the surrounding natural conditions, with the change of which it was necessary either to adapt again or move. For many millennia there was a glaciation on Earth. Adapting to the cold climate, man invented warm clothes, food preparation, learned to hunt the largest animals. As a result, people already had a sufficient level of development of productive forces and sociality, so that part of the collectives could not only survive in more severe conditions, but even prosper on the basis of obtaining a certain surplus of production. Warming has also brought huge changes. Then, about 14–10 thousand years ago, the climate changed a lot. Warming began, the glaciers retreated, as a result of which there were fewer large mammals. People in a number of regions switched to individual hunting (Markov 1979: 51; Child 1949: 40), invented bows, traps, nets, harpoons, axes, etc., which ensured the autonomous existence of small groups and even individual families. Primitive people generally achieved relative prosperity and, according to the theory of M. Sahlins (1999), even managed to achieve relative abundance. Gradually, people settled almost all over the planet. The nature of the relationship between people and the environment varied significantly, but in general it was adaptive to the natural environment (see, for example: Leonova, Nesmeyanov 1993; see also: Grinin 2006: 82–83).

Agrarian-handicraft society. Agriculture first appeared in the Middle East. The transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture (as well as the transition to irrigated agriculture) required special conditions. Thus, the cultivation of wild-growing cereals, according to V.I. Gulyaev (1972), could occur only in mountainous arid regions with a warm subtropical climate, with an abundance of natural microdistricts in a relatively narrow area, which had the richest and most diverse flora. Here we see an important pattern regarding the interaction of nature and society: for the primary transition to a new level of development until the last centuries of history, society required special natural conditions.

In the agrarian era, the nature of the relationship between nature and society is changing due to the transition to a fairly meaningful and active transformation of the environment on a large scale (artificial irrigation, cutting down and burning forests, plowing virgin lands, fertilizing, etc., not to mention the creation of cities , roads, etc.). The use of natural forces is also expanding significantly, including the power of animals, wind and water (previously only fire was actively used). Natural raw materials are transformed into completely new things and materials (metals, fabrics, pottery, glass). The transition to a productive economy and its development led to a huge demographic growth. The population of the earth has increased tenfold.

During the industrial period society overcomes many of the limitations set by nature and strengthens its own influence on it. People are mastering the forces of nature, previously completely or mostly inaccessible to them (the energy of steam and electricity), creating new materials (with the help of chemistry), developing new mechanisms based on the laws of physics, defeating previously incurable diseases. Huge areas are used for cities, roads, mining. During this period, the idea is affirmed that man conquered nature and became its master. As a result of predatory exploitation, many species of animals were exterminated, many forests were cut down, many million hectares of soil were spoiled, etc.

Contradictions between management and nature as a result of its predatory exploitation begin to escalate.

In the modern period of the scientific information society human influence on nature has become global. People have mastered new types of energy (including nuclear), created a huge amount of new materials and genetically modified organisms. The volumes of mining and environmental pollution have become colossal. At the moment, humanity is facing gradual climate change, which can lead to very big problems. The growth of the negative impact on nature has increased so much that the attitude towards nature is gradually changing. An ecological consciousness is being formed, measures are being taken to preserve nature (systems of reserves have arisen, emission standards are being introduced, etc.).

2. DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS ON THE ROLE OF THE NATURAL FACTOR

Early ideas

Antiquity. The image of nature has always been the most important in the spiritual life of society. However, the comprehension of these relationships at the philosophical and theoretical level arose relatively late. Nevertheless, interesting observations about the role of the geographical environment can be found in some ancient Eastern thinkers, and especially in ancient philosophers and historians. Since historiography played an important role in ancient societies (see: Grinin 2010: Lecture 2), and since the beginnings of political science, political economy and social philosophy appeared, it becomes clear why ancient authors touched upon the problems of the conditionality of social phenomena by the geographical environment. Among the ancient writers, Aristotle (384-322 BC), Polybius (200-120 BC), Posidonius (c. 135 - c. 51 BC) deserve special mention. e.), as well as the geographer Strabo (64/63 BC - 23/24 AD), the physician Hippocrates (460-370 BC) and the architect Vitruvius (I century BC). Ancient authors noted the influence of the environment and especially climate on the physical type of peoples, their customs and mores, the level of development of society and its political forms, types of occupations, and population. At the same time, the nature of Greece and the Mediterranean was considered the most favorable for human life. A number of ideas of ancient authors, especially concerning the influence of climate on the nature of the population and its customs, were developed in modern times by J. Bodin and C. Montesquieu.

In the Middle Ages the problem of the role of the geographical environment was given very little influence due to the dominance of the theology of history. The only exception was perhaps Ibn Khaldun(1332–1406), prominent Arab historian and sociologist, and some Chinese authors. Ibn Khaldun explained the differences in life, way of life, mental make-up, character and customs of certain tribes and peoples by differences in the natural, mainly climatic, conditions of their existence.

Return to the problems of the role of the geographical environment. Only work Jean Bodin(1530–1596) Six Books on the State introduced the question of the role of the geographical factor into the arsenal of the theory of history, although this question became truly important for the theory of history only during the 18th–20th centuries. In the views of Boden, as well as his ancient predecessors, there is a lot of naive and incorrect. But it is important that for the first time he considered in sufficient detail and systematically the question of the influence of nature on society, expressing the following ideas, which were later developed by Montesquieu:

1. The conditionality of the mental make-up of the people by the totality of the natural-geographical conditions in which this people develops. Bodin, in particular, noted the dependence of the temperament of the people on latitude and longitude. Boden divides the peoples into northern, southern and those living in the middle lane, he prefers the mental warehouse of the latter.

He also notes (which the ancient authors did not have) the influence of longitude, emphasizes such features of the climate as greater or lesser humidity, proximity to the sea.

2. Dependence of laws and institutions on climate. Bodin believed that the temperament of the people influences legislation and customs. Thus, legislation to a large extent depends on geographical conditions, since different nature requires different socio-political institutions.

3. Features of the influence of natural conditions on a particular people, according to Boden, can be weakened or eliminated by social factors, as well as by human will and education. Thus, Bodin does not act as an absolute determinist.

The development of views in the eighteenth century.

Enlightenment ideas. J. J. Rousseau, A. Turgot, C. Montesquieu. Thinkers of the 17th century, being busy searching for general social laws similar to the laws of physics and geometry, did not leave detailed theories about the influence of the geographical environment. But the philosophers of the Enlightenment in France and in other countries, exploring the nature of man, began to pay more attention to the role of climate and nature in the life of society. This was also facilitated by the fact that during the great geographical discoveries a huge number of different facts related to such influence accumulated. In particular, J. J. Rousseau (1712–1778) developed the theory of a natural man (savage) who lives in harmony with nature, believing that civilization further adversely affects human society. Considerable attention was paid to the question of the role of climate, soils, natural communications, etc., by those educators who studied the historical stages in the development of the economy and material art (crafts), progress, and other problems. It is also worth remembering that in the XVIII century. theories of the stages of economic development of mankind also appear: from hunting and gathering to shepherding, from it to agriculture, and from the latter to trade and industry (see: Grinin 2010: Lecture 8). The authors of these theories, of course, could not ignore the role of the natural factor in the transition from stage to stage. In particular, A. R. Turgot (1727-1781) in his work “Reflections on the Creation and Distribution of Wealth” comes to the important conclusion that the historical forms and scales of social organization are determined by the prevailing methods of obtaining means of subsistence. Hunters and gatherers live in small groups as they require a large area. Shepherd peoples, having received a more generous source of food, have a larger population than hunters, and a higher level of development of society. Agriculture makes it possible to feed an even larger population, as a result of which cities and crafts appear, etc. But although Turgot noted a certain influence of natural geographical conditions on the development of society, he did not share the views on their decisive influence.

The most famous study of the relationship between geographical and socio-political factors, in fact, theory of geographical determinism, gave Charles Montesquieu(1689–1755) in his essay On the Spirit of the Laws.

The most important idea of ​​Montesquieu natural factors determine the form of government and laws. The list of important factors that shape the character of the people and the state now includes soil, landscape, size of territory, etc. The hot climate and high soil fertility, according to Montesquieu, contribute to the development of laziness, which in turn leads to the formation of despotism as a form of government . Infertile soil and a temperate climate form the desire for freedom. The philosopher is right in pointing out some obvious relationships and relationships (correlations), for example, between the size of society and the form of government. In fact, a republic is more likely to develop on a small territory, and a despotism on a large one, than vice versa. But forms of government change faster than natural conditions (in the 19th century, republics were formed in large states), which means that theory needs to be changed.

The main disadvantage of the Montesquieu theory. The brilliant form of presentation of Montesquieu and his wide erudition ensured great interest in his ideas. However, the lack of historical facts, as well as the nihilistic attitude towards them characteristic of the Enlightenment, clearly showed the limited possibilities of using the Montesquieu method. Its main drawback (like its predecessors and some later adherents of the idea of ​​the geographical factor) was in attempts to find direct (and invariant) forms of the impact of nature (climate, territory) on society and people.

To overcome this shortcoming, it was necessary to see the mechanisms through which nature influenced social institutions, as well as how, when a higher level of material life and production was achieved, the previous restrictions and factors were removed, new aspects of the geographical factor began to influence, how new systemic relationship between geographic environment and society.

To a certain extent, A. Barnave advanced in this direction, but, unfortunately, his ideas remained unknown to his contemporaries.

A. Barnav(1761–1793). Montesquieu's ideas were actively discussed and reasonably criticized, and the problem he raised was developed in the works of some philosophers. Among them was, in particular, Barnave - one of the most interesting and profound French philosophers of the Enlightenment. He developed, in today's language, the theory of the factors of historical development. He was looking for causes, the cumulative action of which constitutes the "nature of things", which are in a certain relationship with each other, but act and interact differently. The first among such factors, in his opinion, is the geographical environment, which has both direct and indirect influence on all other factors. However, compared with Montesquieu, Barnave took a step forward, because, unlike him, he believed that the influence of the geographical environment on people's lives is manifested mainly not through the psyche, but through their economic activity, determining the specific material conditions of this activity and the direction of social development. Anticipating the ideas of T. Bockl, he pointed out that soils are one of the main reasons for changing the nature of society, including due to the peculiarities of the distribution of wealth. An important conclusion of Barnave was that the impact of the geographical environment on the economic and political system is passive (and to a certain extent indirect), while the dominant type of economic activity actively and directly forms the type of distribution of the main social wealth. He notes that the geographical environment can accelerate or slow down the transition to a new level of development, in particular from the agricultural to the industrial stage of development. According to Ilyushechkin (1996), the views of A. Barnav can be called geographical and economic materialism.

The development of views in the first half of the XIX century.

The geographical factor among other factors of the historical process. In the 19th century Philosophers and philosophizing historians moved from searching for the unchanging foundations of human nature to searching for the historical roots of contemporary phenomena, the causes that contribute to the organic (and systemic) development of society (for more details, see Grinin 2010: Lecture 9). Among various factors (such as the "spirit of the people", the development of law, class and racial struggle, forms of ownership, economic and demographic development, great personalities), a prominent place was occupied by geographic factor. One of the main tasks of researchers was to explain why, under the same natural conditions, different peoples (as well as the same people in different eras) demonstrate different successes and forms of socio-political life.

geographic determinism. Historical and geographical school in Germany made a great contribution to the analysis of the role of the geographical environment, but it was dominated by geographical determinism, that is, the desire to explain all the features of society by its geography. The views of geographical determinism, the French eclectic philosopher Victor Cousin (1792-1867), who himself did not belong to a school of geography, presented it as follows: “Give me a map of the country, its outlines, climate, waters, winds - all its physical geography; give me its natural fruits, flora, zoology, and I undertake to say in advance what kind of person this country is, what role this country will play in history, and not by chance, but out of necessity, and not in one era, but in all eras. .

Carl Ritter(1779–1859), one of the founders of modern geography, was the largest representative of the historical-geographical school. In his most important work "Earth science in relation to nature and to the history of people, or general comparative geography" he considers the problem of the influence of geographical conditions on the history of mankind. Ritter's strength was that he was a professional geographer, brilliantly knowing the features of each region of the Earth, his weakness was that he was not familiar enough with history.

The main ideas of K. Ritter:

1. Pre-established harmony between nature and the people inhabiting the area. According to Ritter, the geographical features of a certain area exactly coincide in their influence on a person with the features of the people who should inhabit this area. In other words, every nation develops according to the divine plan. Here Ritter caught the circumstance that during long-term residence in a certain territory, people very closely adapt to nature, in particular, they educate and cultivate those qualities of character that are best suited to the environment. But, of course, we should not talk about pre-established harmony, but about adaptation, which always - both in the animal and in the human world - strikes with its correspondence.

2. The uniqueness of each nation depends on the characteristics of the geographical environment where it lives. Due to the diversity of the geographical environment, each people has certain specific conditions and institutions inherent in it alone.

3. The need for slow change. Since the geographical environment changes extremely slowly, the history of peoples is determined by the same basic factors. The slowness and gradualness of changes in the geographical situation, according to Ritter, should serve as the basis for the slowness and gradualness of historical development.

4. The idea of ​​close interaction between nature and culture, interconnectedness of all elements that form a historically specific geographical area.

Advantages. If the predecessors in this area (Bodin, Montesquieu, and others) very primitively considered the direct influence of climate and relief (heat or cold, mountainous or flat terrain) on the character of a particular people, then Ritter analyzes the entire set of geographical conditions and more often speaks of a hidden or indirect rather than direct influence. This approach was undoubtedly an important step forward. He was characterized by reliance on numerous facts, systematic in the study of certain individual aspects.

Flaws. Ritter sought to discover permanent, unchanging factors on the basis of which it would be possible to prove the need to avoid any major changes in society (this approach was generally characteristic of the historical school in Germany). Ritter, like other representatives of the geographical school, underestimated the results of cultural diffusion and mutual influence of different societies and peoples. Often, the impact of the natural environment was presented in such a way that this or that people lived in isolation as a culturally independent unit (for more details, see Kosminsky 1963). If Ritter considered the Earth as a single organism, then instead of a single humanity he saw separate peoples, the uniqueness of which is predetermined by the peculiarities of the geography of their habitat. Significant shortcomings include the desire to rely in explanations on mystical ideas.

Ritter's ideas influenced the formation of a new direction in social thought - geopolitics.

The development of views in the second half of the XIX century.

Geographical determinism, especially in Ritter's version, naturally, could not satisfy social science for a long time, since the unscientific nature and falsity of such a view became more and more obvious. As Ritter's student E. Reclus (1995: 221) wrote, "the naive faith in a benevolent nature that protects us in our lives" was destroyed, and more productive views came to replace it. By the middle of the XIX century. it was confirmed or re-elucidated that nature strongly (and even fatally) influences the political and military structure of societies; geographical location may impede or encourage war, trade, and other contacts; the natural environment influences production, forms of ownership, religion, etc. One of the main achievements was the position that the natural factor is capable of colossally slowing down or accelerating development. It was important to further see the specific forms of the influence of the geographical environment on different societies, to understand the mechanisms of such influence, since nature does not directly affect relations. One of the most important tasks was to find out the optimal limits of the influence of the geographical environment, to combine geographical and production (as well as demographic) factors into a single concept. The last task is still relevant today.

Henry Buckle(1821-1862) spent his whole life preparing to write the history of world civilization, but managed to write only two volumes of The History of Civilization in England. Of particular interest are the first and second chapters of this work. In them, he outlines the problems of the influence on the organization of society and the characters of people of such factors as climate, food, soil, etc. Like the enlighteners of the 18th century. and representatives of the geographical school, Buckle sought to somehow directly connect the geographical environment with customs, religion, legislation, and forms of government.

But he also has new ideas, which ensured a long life for his work and were developed, in particular, by L. I. Mechnikov and F. Ratzel:

1. Wealth as a result of the interaction of nature and society. Buckle took a step forward in order to find mechanisms for the indirect influence of the geographical environment on the social life of society. According to Buckle, "the fertility of the soil" determines the possibility of accumulating wealth in society (by wealth, he actually means the volume of the product produced). The accumulation of wealth is in many respects the most important consequence of natural influence, since it determines the possibilities of population growth, exchange, forms of property and distribution in society, division of labor, growth of knowledge, which ultimately leads to the development of civilization.

2. Buckle begins to see that the degree of influence of the geographical environment is not constant, depends on the level of development of the society. In particular, he notes that among less civilized peoples, the increase in “wealth” comes mainly from external natural forces (“soil fertility”), while among more civilized peoples, from rational activity leading to the accumulation of knowledge. The first increment has a limit, the second does not have such a limit, which removes restrictions on further accelerated development. Buckle concludes: if earlier the richest countries were those whose nature was most abundant, now the countries in which man is most active have become the richest.

3. Uneven development of societies. The difference in wealth, population and culture, resulting from the fertility of soils and geographical features, Buckle quite logically explains some of the reasons for the uneven development of civilizations.

Lev Ilyich Mechnikov(1838-1888) in his work "Civilization and the Great Historical Rivers", like his associate E. Reclus (1830-1905), tried: a) to get away from what they called geographical fatalism; b) to identify such forms of interaction between nature and society that would explain the progressive course of human development.

Philosophical and historical concept of L. I. Mechnikov. humanity goes through the following stages in its development, related to its relationship to the most important aspect of the geographical environment - water: first, people move on to the development of great rivers, irrigation; then the river period is replaced by the sea, but people master only the inland (Mediterranean) seas. The third period - oceanic - begins with the period of great geographical discoveries. Although such a picture does not reflect the diversity of the existence of human societies, it reflects one of the most important lines of the historical process.

Mechnikov's new approaches:

1. Drawing attention to the study of an understudied aspect of the geographical environment- large rivers, on the banks of which the first civilizations arose. Pointing to the role of the great rivers - the Nile, the Tigris and the Euphrates, the Huang He and the Yangtze, the Indus and the Ganges - in the transition from barbarism to civilization, Mechnikov showed an important milestone in the development of mankind and its individual societies, in fact, a certain regular repetition in the history of individual peoples.

2. The theory of the historical process is built on the basis of the changing role of the geographic environment rather than the unchanging one. The historical value of natural conditions changes over the centuries and at different stages of civilization. Man gradually frees himself from the absolute power of the environment, and as he develops, many natural conditions begin to be used, which were previously useless or even harmful. This was an important step forward in the development of the theory of the role of the geographic environment.

3. Geographical environment as a catalyst or a brake on development. Mechnikov developed the important idea that the natural factor is capable of colossally slowing down or accelerating development.

4. The way of interaction between the environment and society can be different. According to L. I. Mechnikov, the nature of civilization depends on the form of adaptation to environmental conditions that a given people practices.

5. The geographical environment exerts, first of all, an indirect influence "through labor and the nature of adaptation to nature."

The disadvantages of the approach Mechnikov, however, quite excusable, were: a) exaggeration of the role of cooperation in the process of mastering the natural environment and underestimation of the importance of conquests and conflicts; b) misunderstanding that the transition to civilizations required special natural conditions, without which neither labor nor cooperation could produce an effect; c) not taking into account the fact that in pre-industrial societies the environment often placed absolute barriers to development for many peoples.

Marxist school did not make too much contribution to the development of the theory of the geographical environment. In addition to Marx (see below), it would be worth highlighting only G. V. Plekhanov (1856–1918), who, in particular, in his work « On the question of the development of a monistic view of history" (1895) pointed out the special role of the geographical environment (albeit in a rather general form) in the development of hunter-gatherer societies, in their transition to agriculture and cattle breeding, and also in influencing the fate of states. Plekhanov also explains the differences in the level of development of different societies by the natural factor. “The difference in the results (stages of cultural development) achieved by different human societies is explained precisely by the fact that the surrounding conditions did not allow different human tribes to equally use their ability to“ invent ”in business” (Plekhanov 1956: 614). (Note that although this explanation is partly fair, it is still one-sided.)

Marxists recognized the importance of the natural environment, but believed that its role is only that it can slow down or accelerate the development of society. This position stemmed from the fact that the main factors of development, according to Marxism, are internal, in particular class struggle and revolution. And since the natural environment is an external factor, its role, although it can be significant, is, as a rule, not decisive for society. In fact, this underestimated the role of the geographical environment for pre-industrial societies, for which the natural environment acted as a shaping force. An important merit of Marxism: he accepted the idea that the role of the geographical environment changes with the development of society. So, for example, G. V. Plekhanov wrote: “The relationship between a social person and the geographical environment is extremely changeable. It changes with each new step achieved by the development of man's productive forces. As a result, the influence of the geographic environment on a social person leads to different results in different phases of the development of these forces” (cited in Anuchin 1982: 38).

It should be noted, however, that Marx made a significant contribution to the development of the question of the influence of nature on the form of society and social relations. He pointed out the most important channel of their interaction through the inclusion of a part of the natural environment ( subject of labor) in the composition of the productive forces (which also includes the means / tools of labor). The subject of labor- these are the natural objects to which labor is directed (cultivated soil, deposits, exploited forests, etc.). Unfortunately, this idea has not been developed in this aspect until recently, and in the 1960s–1970s. many Marxist scholars even came up with a proposal not to consider the object of labor as part of the productive forces, since this allegedly leads to concessions to geographical determinism (see: Socialism ... 1975: 40–41).

The influence of geographical theories on the development of historical science in the 19th century. The general ideas that took place in the development of historiography throughout the 19th century were associated with the desire to: a) put into circulation the greatest number of facts and find ways to verify them; b) focus primarily on national histories; c) find the key aspects of the theory that would help explain the features of national history (national spirit), the current state of society and its institutions (for more details, see Grinin 2010: Lecture 9). Therefore, many historians assigned a large place to the analysis of the role of the natural environment, since they saw in the peculiarities of the geography of their country one of the keys to understanding the "spirit" of its people and the main intrigue of its history. In particular, Russian historians (A.P. Shchapov, S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others) analyzed the problems of changing the mentality of the Russian people in connection with the resettlement from the steppe zone to the forest zone in the 12th–14th centuries, developed the concept of the struggle between the "forest" (that is, Russian lands) and the "steppe" (nomads) and the impact of this on the entire national history.

Change in the direction of research in the last third of the 19th - early 20th centuries.

During this period, there were significant changes in the methods and approaches of philosophy, ethnography, history and other social disciplines due to the great successes of the natural sciences. Among the most important points, we note the growth of progress in biology and the spread of the method of analogy of society (social organism) with a biological organism. One of the first such method was applied by the outstanding English philosopher Henry Spencer(1820–1903). It became clear that society as an organism, firstly, constantly adapts to the environment and its changes, and this external influence makes society evolve and change. Together with the works of G. Spencer (but especially with "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" by C. Darwin), the idea of ​​"natural" social selection as a factor in social evolution also appeared. It consisted in the fact that in the process of adaptation to natural conditions and as a result of the struggle for resources, etc., the most adapted societies survive, while the unadapted are destroyed or perish. As a result, there is not just a selection of forms capable of development, but in general there is social progress. In many ways, especially for the early periods of history, this is true and helps to explain both the causes and directions of social development (for more details, see Grinin 2007; Grinin and Korotaev 2009: ch. 1). However, the ideas of the survival of the most adapted societies and social groups began to be unduly transferred to the modern struggle of classes and states (the so-called social Darwinism arose, which was used to justify the inequality of peoples and races, as well as social exploitation). The ideas of natural selection among states and the analogy of a society (state) with an organism influenced the emergence of a new science - geopolitics, which also combined interesting and fruitful approaches with reactionary conclusions.

Ratzel and the beginning of geopolitics. German scientist and traveler Friedrich Ratzel(1844–1904) was one of the founders of political geography. He continued to develop the ideas of the geographical school on the influence of the environment on the forms and characteristics of the socio-political organization. According to his not unreasonable opinion, for example, natural borders (mountains, sea) contribute to the emergence of isolated social groups with underdeveloped political power, and the plains - to centralization and strong power to protect against nomadic raids, later turning into a large socially and culturally integrated state organization.

The main ideas of F. Ratzel:

1. Considering states as social organisms, that operate under the conditions of selection. The survival of states (nations or cultures) is related to their ability to expand and improve their geographical position. The growth of states contributes to the differentiation of the world into strong (viable) and weak countries.

2. Innovative was the analysis of the problem of the spatial location of states and the influence of geographical location on the political status of the state.

3. Consideration of borders as peripheral organs of the state. Ratzel explored the geographical transitional zones where land and sea meet, and identified their influence on the formation and structure of states.

Flaws. The fascination with the method of analogy inevitably led to exaggerations and biologization speculations, especially when explaining the spatial expansion or reduction of states. The works of Ratzel laid the foundations of a new science - geopolitics (among the classics of which one can mention R. Kjellen, K. Wittfogel, K. Haushofer, H. Mackinder, etc.).

3. MODERN RESEARCH (XX - early XXI century)

The challenge of nature and the response of society. Arnold Toynbee(1889-1975), one of the most famous philosophers of the history of the twentieth century, became famous for his theory of civilizations, set out in the 12-volume work "Comprehension of History". Toynbee did not deal specifically with the problems of geographic factor analysis, but he has methodological approaches that can be useful for this problem as well. In particular, this refers to his idea, formulated briefly: "challenge - response." From time to time, society faces complex problems (“challenge”) that need to be solved in one way or another (give an “answer”). The whole future fate of society (people, civilization) often depends on the nature of the answer. But the nature of the answer is not predetermined, it largely depends on the characteristics of society and sometimes on the characteristics of a particular moment.

Carl Wittfogel(1896-1988) became famous with the book "Oriental Despotism" (1957). In this work, Wittfogel comes to the conclusion that the economic and geographical conditions of ancient irrigation societies (Egypt, Babylon, China, India, Mexico, Peru) determined the development of despotism and the absence of private property in them. Despotism arose from the need to organize large masses of people for irrigation (the construction of dams, dams, canals, etc.) and agricultural work in order to obtain high yields. Wittfogel identifies three main types of despotism. The first is the political regimes of the ancient "hydraulic societies" of Egypt, Babylon, China, India, Mexico, Peru, etc., which have the most pronounced signs of despotism. Despotisms of the second type are formed in states where agriculture is not conditioned by artificial irrigation. The state builds roads, collects taxes, and maintains public order. Byzantium is a classic example. Despotisms of the third kind - societies like Tsarist Russia and Sultan's Turkey. The functions of the state are limited in them to the collection of taxes and organizational activities. K. Wittfogel considers this to be the minimum necessary to maintain despotism.

Study of the "society - nature" system and the channels of interaction between them. In domestic science in the 1970s–1980s. there were ideas about the inclusion of part of the geographical environment in the composition of the productive forces. Later they were developed into a more coherent theory based on the concept natural production basis of society(for details see Grinin 1997: 42–78; 2006: 21–26) . The fact is that natural elements played a large role in the production structure of pre-industrial societies, for example, energy sources (fire, solar heat, wind energy) and natural communications (rivers, seas), which constitute, as it were, the “lower floor” of the productive forces, or their natural level (see diagram 2).

This approach makes it possible to better take into account the capabilities of pre-industrial societies (which are often belittled) and make comparisons between past and present societies. On the other hand, the poorer nature is, the stronger the technical and technological part of the productive forces must be developed in order to compensate for this scarcity. The idea of ​​the natural-production basis of society, therefore, makes it possible to take into account both the close relationship between the productive forces and the natural environment, and the mobility of the role of each of them in the life of society, depending on the era, the characteristics of nature and cultural interaction.

Other areas of research in the twentieth century.(only a few are listed):

1. Global forecasts related to the analysis of natural resource scarcity and global problems. The most famous are reports to the Club of Rome in the 1960s–1980s. (D. H. Meadows, D. L. Meadows, E. Pestel, M. Mesarovic and others), dedicated to the limits of the extensive growth of mankind due to limited resources (see: Meadows et al. 1991; 1999; Tinbergen 1980; Pestel 1988; Mesarović, Pestel 1974; see also Peccei 1984; 1985). In general, the general idea can be expressed in the words of A. Peccei: “Man… imagined himself as the undivided master of the Earth and immediately began to exploit it, neglecting the fact that its size and physical resources are completely finite” (Pecchei 1985: 295).

2. Attempts to find new aspects of the direct impact of nature on society weren't successful. The most famous in this regard are the theories of the physicist A. L. Chizhevsky (1897–1964), who connected the rise of social activity and cataclysms (wars, revolutions, epidemics) with 11-year peaks of solar activity, and the historian L. N. Gumilyov (1912 -1992), who suggested that the birth and activity of ethnic groups (peoples) in a certain place and at a certain time are associated with the action of the unclear nature of the cosmic factor that affects the emergence of a special socio-psychological energy ( passionarity) . This hypothesis does not carry the necessary heuristic beginning. The idea that the life span of any ethnic group is 1500 years, that each ethnic group goes through the same phases of life, also seems rather far-fetched. However, Gumilyov's general idea that the nature of ethnic groups (especially in the pre-industrial period) is very closely related to the climate and landscape features of the territory where he appeared and lived is not without foundation.

3. Studies of the transformations of societies in connection with changes in natural conditions, including various reactions of societies (for example, nomadic) to the drying up and moistening of the steppes, agricultural civilizations - to cooling and warming, primitive societies - to changes in flora and fauna as a result of glaciation and warming.

4. Study of the dynamics of climate change and other natural aspects(soils, seas, coasts, etc.) over long time periods; as well as the impact on societies of catastrophes and other negative factors (for example, epidemics). Two very famous works in this direction are "History of the climate since the year 1000" by E. Le Roy Ladurie and "Epidemics and peoples" by W. McNeill.

5. Study of the role of the natural factor in the process of epochal evolutionary changes, for example, the agrarian revolution (G. Child, J. Mellart, V. A. Shnirelman), the origin of states (R. Carneiro), etc.

6. The influence of the natural factor on the features of the formation and development of various civilizations, as well as the eastern and western ways of development of world history.

7. Connection of natural conditions with demographic processes.

There are a number of other areas of research into the history of interaction between society and the natural environment. However, despite this, this problem has not yet been studied enough.

Anuchin, V. A. 1982. The geographical factor in the development of society. M.: Thought.

Grinin, L. E.

1997. Formations and civilizations. Philosophy and society 3: 42–78.

2006. Productive forces and the historical process. Moscow: Komkniga.

2011. From Confucius to Comte. Formation of the theory of methodology and philosophy of history. M.: URSS. In the press.

Ilyushechkin, V.P. 1996.The theory of the staged development of society: History and problems. Ch. 1. M.: Vost. lit.

Isaev, B. A. 2006. Geopolitics: textbook allowance SPb.: Peter.

Mukitanov, N. K. 1985. From Strabo to the present day. The evolution of geographical representations and ideas. M.: Thought.

Society and nature: historical stages and forms of interaction / otv. ed. M. P. Kim. Moscow: Nauka, 1981.

Rozanov, I. A. 1986. Great catastrophes in the history of the Earth. M.: Science.

Smolensky, N. I. 2007. Theory and methodology of history. ch. 8.3. M.: Academy.

McNeill, W.H. 1993. Plagues and Peoples. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Monticello.

Wittfogel, K.A. 1957. Oriental Despotism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Further reading and sources

Aron, R. 1993. Stages of development of sociological thought/ per. from fr. Moscow: Progress-Univers.

Barnave, A. 1923. Introduction to the French Revolution. Reader on French materialism. T. 2. (pp. 187–212). Pg.

Barulin, V. S. 199. social philosophy. Part 2. Ch. XI. M.: publishing house of Moscow State University.

Bodin, J. 2000. Method of easy knowledge of history. M.: Science.

Buckle, G. 2007. History of civilizations. History of Civilization in England. Moscow: Direct-Media.

Geopoliticians and geostrategists: reader: at 5 o'clock / ed. B. A. Isaeva. SPb.: Balt. state tech. university, 2003–2004.

Hippocrates. 1994. About air, waters and localities. B: Hippocrates Selected books. M.: Svarog.

Grinin, L. E., Markov, A. A., Korotaev, A. V. 2008. Macroevolution in wildlife and society. Moscow: LKI/URSS.

Gumilyov, L. N. 1993. Ethnogenesis and biosphere of the Earth. M: Michelle.

Zubov, A. A. 1963. Man inhabits his planet. M.: Geography.

Kosminsky, E. A. 1963. Historiography of the Middle Ages: V century. - mid 19th century M.: MSU.

Le Roy Ladurie, E. 1971. Climate history since 1000. Moscow: Hydrometeorological Publishing House.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. A., Randers, J., Behrens, S. W. 1991. Limits to Growth. M.: MSU.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. 1999. Beyond the Tolerable: A Global Catastrophe or a Sustainable Future? New post-industrial wave in the West/ ed. V. L. Inozemtseva (p. 572–595). Moscow: Academia.

Mellart, J. 1982. Ancient Civilizations of the Near East. M.: Science.

Mechnikov, L. I. 1995. Civilizations and great historical rivers. M.: Progress.

Montesquieu, C. L. 1999. About the spirit of laws. M.: Thought.

Pestel, E. 1988. Beyond growth. M.: Progress.

Peccei A.

1984. One hundred pages for the future. Future in the present: Sat. / per. from English. M.

1985. Human qualities. M.: Progress.

Plekhanov, G. V.

1956. On the development of a monistic view of history. In: Plekhanov, G. V., Selected philosophical works: in 5 vols. Vol. 1 (pp. 507–730). Moscow: Gospolitizdat.

Nature and development of primitive society / ed. I. P. Gerasimova. Moscow: Nauka, 1969.

Roman club. History of creation, selected reports and speeches, official materials / ed. D. M. Gvishiani. M.: URSS, 1997.

Strabo. 1994. Geography/ per. with other Greek G. A. Stratanovsky, ed. O. O. Kruger, total. ed. S. L. Utchenko. Moscow: Ladomir.

Tinbergen, Ya. 1980. Redefining the international order/ per. from English. M.: Progress.

Turaev, V. A. 2001. Global problems of the present. M.: Logos.

Turgot, A. R. Zh. 1961. Reflections on the Creation and Distribution of Wealth. In: Turgot, A. R. J., Selected economic works. M.: Sotsekgiz.

Bell, D. 1979. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.

Klimenko, V. V., Tereshin, A. G. 2010. World Energy and Climate in the Twenty-first Century in the Context of Historical Trends: Clear Constraints to the Future Growth. Journal of Globalization Studies, Vol. 1. No. 2, November: 30–43.

Mesarovic, M. D., Pestel, E. 1974. Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to the Club of Rome. Laxenburg: IIASA.

Other used literature

Velichko, A. A. 1989. Correlation of climate changes in the high and low latitudes of the Earth in the late Pleistocene and Holocene. Paleoclimates and glaciations in the Pleistocene/ ed. A. A. Velichko, E. E. Gurtova, M. A. Faustova, p. 5–19. M.: Science.

Gulyaev, V. I. 1972. Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica. M.: Science.

Grinin, L. E.

2007. The problem of analyzing the driving forces of historical development, social progress and social evolution. In: Semenov, Yu. I., Gobozov, I. A., Grinin, L. E., Philosophy of history: problems and prospects(pp. 183–203). Moscow: KomKniga; URSS.

2010. Theory, Methodology, and Philosophy of History: Essays on the Development of Historical Thought from Antiquity to the Middle of the 19th Century. Lectures 1–9. Philosophy and society 1: 167–203; 2: 151–192; 3: 162–199; 4: 145–197.

Grinin, L. E., Korotaev, A. V. 2009. Social macroevolution. Genesis and transformations of the World-System. M.: LIBROKOM.

Evteev, S. A., Perelet, R. A. (ed.) 1989. Our common future. Report of the International Commission on Environment and Development. M.: Progress.

Leonova, N. B., Nesmeyanov, S. A. (ed.) 1993. Problems of paleoecology of ancient societies. Moscow: Russian Open University.

Markov, G. E. 1979. History of economy and primitive culture in primitive communal and early class society. M.: Publishing House of Moscow University.

Podolny, R. 1977. Children of the earth. M.: Thought.

Reclus, E. 1995. Preface to the book: Mechnikov, L. I. Civilization and great historical rivers. Moscow: Progress, 1995.

Sahlins, M. D. 1999. Economics of the Stone Age. M.: OGI.

Socialism: dialectics of productive forces and production relations / ed. V. G. Marakhova. M.: Thought, 1975.

child, G. 1949. Progress and archeology. M.: State. publishing house in. liters.

In many respects (wealth of subsoil and soil, convenience of conditions for laying communications), the dependence of the economy on nature continues to be very strong today. By the way, the countries with the largest population (China, India, Bangladesh, etc.) are precisely those states where intensive farming on fertile soils has long since emerged.

In historical science, to designate the nature surrounding society, the concept is traditionally used. geographical environment, and to denote the influence of nature on society - geographical factor. Therefore, in this lecture, we will use the concepts of "natural environment" and "geographical environment", "natural factor" and "geographical factor" as synonyms (although in principle the concept of the natural environment/factor is wider than the geographical environment/factor).

The concept of "reserve of the geographic environment" facilitates the analysis of society's opportunities, incentives and barriers to its development, and a number of other problems. Thus, the huge stock of land in the United States allowed the formation of the American path of development of agriculture, which created a basis unprecedented in breadth for a powerful upsurge of the most modern industry. If the mode of production has already become a brake on progress, then the presence of a reserve allows the ruling groups of the backward country, who do not want to change anything, to delay its development. The same boundlessness of land in North America fueled slavery in the southern states until it was destroyed by force. The expansion of the land fund in Russia played the same role for the preservation of noble feudal landownership (for more details, see Grinin 1997: 63–64).

Just as the biological needs of people are met in an increasingly social way (for example, initially clothes were needed only to protect against the cold, then prestigious, fashionable clothes appear for every occasion), and the natural environment is increasingly being replaced by an artificial one. But just as biological needs cannot be reduced to zero (and sometimes they make themselves very powerful and rude), so it is impossible to reduce the role of the natural environment to zero. There is no need to say that the process of interaction between society and nature is continuous.

The artificial environment can both favor the development of the economy and communications, society as a whole, and slow it down, since often instead of the natural obstacles of society, others are created: social borders, customs, prohibitions on resettlement, etc. As a very striking example, one can recall the closure for external contacts in the XVIII–XIX centuries. China, Korea and Japan.

For example, with a sparse population, there may be a factor of excess land, and with a dense population, a factor of land shortage arises in the same territory, which leads to numerous social and technological changes (changes in land relations, including forms of personal dependence, for example, for rent debts; in the ways of cultivating the land, the growth of market relations, the growth of social inequality, etc.).

Such channels can be cultivated land (soil) and deposits, some communications (river and sea, for example), which form the whole life of society. The location of water sources in irrigation societies also has a very strong influence. In industrial societies, the established network of communications largely determines the geography of the location of cities, etc. Much depends on the level of wealth and the so-called relatively surplus product, which occurs, for example, in conditions of fertile soils (accordingly, in conditions of poor soils, much less of such an surplus product is produced ). The level of wealth in society, in turn, affects the distribution system and the structure of social stratification (in particular, a layer of landed aristocracy and peasants may appear, one way or another dependent on it, or a powerful state with a bureaucracy, to which land is distributed for service). In conditions of poorer soils, a military stratum more often arises, which receives land for military service. Different soil fertility has a tremendous impact on the density and population, which, in turn, is reflected in the level of state organization. Much also depends on the convenience of contacts and the location of society in relation to its more or less close neighbors.

In this respect, the influence of humans is not too different from that of animal communities.

Thus, irrigation (cultivation) can lead to soil salinization, deforestation - to a change in the water balance, abandonment of arable land - to the appearance of forests and climate change.

The maximum of glaciation and cooling occurred approximately in the period of 20-17 thousand years ago, the temperature fell on average by more than 5 degrees (see: Velichko 1989: 13-15).

Nevertheless, the dependence of a number of societies on nature was so great that there are cases when societies of farmers and pastoralists, under the influence of changed natural conditions, again returned to hunting and gathering. But in general, the “vector” of evolutionary selection turned out to be directed not so much at the ability of societies to adapt to the natural environment, but rather at their ability to survive and thrive in a social environment, which implies the ability to withstand competition with neighbors in the military, commercial, cultural or other spheres.

For example, the followers of A. Saint-Simon expressed the idea that the exploitation of man by man will be replaced by a single form of exploitation: man of nature.

When presenting this section of the lecture, of course, one should take into account the course of development of social ideas in the corresponding eras, the main points of which until the middle of the 19th century. presented by me in the corresponding lectures (see: Grinin 2010: Lectures 1–9). In some places of this lecture I make the necessary references to them, in others they are implied.

We can also mention Herodotus, Democritus, Plato, Lucretius Kara, Tacitus and others.

Thus, for example, he argues that cities that are built on a flat place are less prone to civil strife than cities that are built on hilly places. That is why the history of Rome, which is built on seven hills, is so rich in internecine clashes (see: Kosminsky 1963: 116-117).

But, of course, during this time a number of researchers, especially in France and England, contributed to the development of the ideas of J. Bodin, including in the aspect of the interaction of natural conditions and economic development. It would be especially worth mentioning F. Bacon (1561–1626), U. Temple (1628–1699), B. de Fontenelle (1657–1757), J. B. Dubos (1670–1742).

As I. I. Smolensky rightly points out (2007: 114), it is not the very idea of ​​the influence of climate on people’s lives that turns out to be untenable, which is undeniable, but direct parallels between climate and people’s lives, like this: “the barren soil of Attica gave rise to popular rule there, on the fertile soil of Lacedaemon, aristocratic rule arose, as closer to the rule of one - a rule that Greece at that time did not expect at all. There is a grain of truth in this idea of ​​Montesquieu, but how many places with barren soil did not repeat the achievements of Attica? There were few places with fertile soil, but only in a few places there was a system corresponding to the Spartan helotia.

In particular, from such educators as F. M. Voltaire, K. A. Helvetius, J. Millar. The latter, for example, posed an important problem: why, under the same conditions, different peoples (or the same people) develop differently in different epochs?

In addition to the mentioned enlighteners, a certain contribution to the development of ideas about the role of the natural factor was also made by D. Hume (1711–1776), J. G. Herder (1744–1803), J. Möser (1720–1794).

History of bourgeois sociology of the 19th - early 20th century. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - S. 59.

One of Ritter's students and followers was the famous Russian traveler P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, who popularized Ritter's ideas in his speeches at the Russian Geographical Society and in his publications.

It should be noted that the importance of the differences between “marine” and “continental” civilizations was subsequently pointed out by a number of researchers, in particular J. Pirenne, the author of the seven-volume work “Great Currents of World History” (1945–1957).

Regarding the role of the geographical environment, he wrote as follows: “... we are by no means advocates of the theory of “geographical fatalism”, which proclaims, contrary to the facts, that a given set of physical and geographical conditions plays and should play the same invariable role everywhere. No, the point is only to establish the historical value of these conditions and the variability of this value over the centuries and at different stages of civilization” (Mechnikov 1995: 323).

It was not for nothing that Lenin considered that everything written by Plekhanov on philosophy was the best in all the international literature of Marxism. On the other hand, one should not forget that Soviet Marxists even reproached Plekhanov for exaggerating the role of the geographic environment.

The following approach can be considered quite indicative: “Historical materialism recognizes the great importance of the geographical environment for historical development ... However, historical materialism considers the geographical environment one of the conditions for historical development, but not its cause, and shows that the geographical environment does not directly affect the nature of society. , but indirectly, through the method of production of material goods, which determines the nature of a particular social system ”(Soviet Historical Encyclopedia: in 16 volumes - M., 1963. - T. 4. - P. 220). Behind these outwardly correct formulations, however, was hidden, firstly, that the modes of production in Marxism were determined by the type of property, which actually made it impossible to study pre-capitalist societies on this basis; secondly, it was not taken into account that for pre-capitalist societies a number of natural objects (in particular, fauna, flora, earth) were the most important part of the productive forces (see below about this). Consequently, the volume of the surplus product and the forms of social institutions depended on the abundance or scarcity of the corresponding objects of nature. Even Bockle understood this, but Marxism had difficulty accepting this idea in theory. It follows from this that the geographical environment could very strongly (and even to a decisive extent) influence the forms of society and the direction of its development. Unfortunately, among Marxist scholars, ideas were only occasionally expressed (which were practically never developed) that “the further we go deep into the depths of centuries, the more important is the consideration of the geographical factor” (B. A. Rybakov. Quoted from: Podolny 1977: 122).

See: Kim, M.P. Natural and social in the historical process / M.P. Kim // Society and nature: historical stages and forms of interaction. - M., 1981. - S. 13; Danilova, L. V. Natural and social factors of productive forces at the pre-capitalist stages of social development / M. P. Kim // Society and nature: historical stages and forms of interaction. - M., 1981. - S. 119; Anuchin, V. A. Geographical factor in the development of society. - M., 1982. - S. 325.

Today we can probably already talk about natural basis of global society.

It can even be assumed that in a number of societies of the past, the volume of gross product per capita was very large and, perhaps, even higher than in a number of modern developing countries, if we count the "work" of nature. For example, how many million tons of fertilizer did the silt of the great Nile replace for the Egyptians? Indeed, in order to collect such crops today in Europe, colossal costs are needed. And who counted the “horsepower” of Indian elephants or the millions of tons of fuel that the wind saved in sails and mills? Millions of tons of fish are caught in the ocean today. How much energy and cost will future humanity need to grow this amount of fish artificially? In the American steppes in the XIX century. there were tens of millions of bison. How many countries can boast of such a number of beef cattle? In some tribes of Alaskan Indians, each family harvested up to a thousand salmon fish for the winter (translate to modern prices!). Thus, the huge difference in the structure and development of the productive forces should not obscure the productivity of the economy, since the larger the population and the more exhausted nature, the more one has to "work" for it. And in this regard, the ratio of production volumes between current and former societies will look different. If this is realized, then the basis of ancient societies will appear much more powerful (for more details, see: Grinin 1997: 59–61).

According to the figurative expression of D. Bell, we have grown to a new vocabulary, the key concept in which will be the limit (limit). Limits to growth, environmental plunder, interference with wildlife, weaponry limit, etc. (Bell 1979: xxix). As is known, the International Commission on Environment and Development formulated the concept of sustainable development, which includes two basic concepts: necessary needs and restrictions (see, for example: Evteev, Perelet 1989: 50).

From lat. passio- passion. Passionarity, according to Gumilyov, is characterized by special energy, readiness for a feat, less fear of danger and death, sacrifice, etc. Gumilyov also studied the process of formation of peoples (ethnic groups), which he called ethnogenesis, and phases of the life of the ethnic group.

However, these problems: the reasons for the formation of new peoples, the rise and fall of their activity, the reasons why some (few) peoples were able to leave a very bright mark on history, while many others did not, etc., are very interesting and important questions. There is no doubt that Gumilyov's works have intensified interest in them.

Human society owes its development entirely to nature and its resources. All stages of the history of the development of society are the history of the interaction of nature and society.

The interaction of society and nature is accumulated in the labor activity of man. Labor in the broadest sense is "the process of exchange of matter between society and nature." The stages in the development of the relationship between society and nature as a whole are determined by revolutions in production, the productive forces of society. Productive forces include the object of labor, the means of labor, the subject of labor (a person endowed with certain knowledge and labor skills).

Can be distinguished three revolutionary upheavals in the productive forces:

The so-called Neolithic revolution, associated with the transition from the "appropriating" economy to the producing one, with the emergence of agriculture and cattle breeding.

The Industrial Revolution - the transition from handicraft work to machine production.

The scientific and technological revolution that began in the middle of the 20th century, which should, in the future, exclude routine “non-human” labor from the life of society.

First stage begins with the advent of Homo sapiens. During this period, a person affects nature only by the very fact of his existence, he lives by hunting, fishing, gathering. This is the period of the "appropriating" economy, although man already produces extremely primitive tools. Nature practically determined all the features of the life of a primitive human community, natural determination was predominant. The nature of the occupations of the members of the community, the growth rate of the number of members of the community, and the need for migration, moving to a new place, depended on natural conditions. The difference in "starting" conditions for different peoples in the early stages of human history led to the diversity of the historical process, differences in the destinies of peoples, the originality of traditions and customs of different countries.

Second phase in the interaction of nature and society begins in the primitive era and continues until the emergence of bourgeois relations. The starting point of the new stage is the emergence of agriculture and animal husbandry. There is a transition from an appropriating to a producing economy. Man begins to actively intervene in nature, to plan the results of his activities. Forests are being cut down, irrigation systems are being built. At the same time, labor activity is still dependent on weather conditions, soil, and terrain.

The influence of nature on man is thus already mediated by social structures, the means of production. Man is already beginning to have a devastating impact on nature - he left behind trampled pastures, scorched forests, transferring his activities to other territories. Soil salinization in the Tigris and Euphrates valley was the result of irrigation works. In turn, the deterioration of the quality of the soil led to the decline of the peoples who inhabited these territories. However, the impact of man on nature in the early stages was still local in nature, it was not global.

Already at the second stage of the interaction between society and nature, contradictory trends develop in this process, which are expressed in the emergence of two types of societies - traditional and man-made.

For traditional societies characterized by slow changes in the production sphere, a reproducing (rather than innovative) type of production, the stability of traditions, habits, lifestyles, and the inviolability of the social structure. Ancient Egypt, India, the Muslim East belong to this type of societies. Spiritual guidelines presuppose the affinity of the natural and the social, non-interference in natural processes.

man-made type society flourishes on third stage interaction of nature and society, which begins with the industrial revolution of the XVIII century in England. Technogenic civilization is based on the principle of an active relationship of man to the world. The external world, nature is considered only as an arena of human activity, which has no independent value. In turn, nature is understood as a bottomless pantry miraculously created for man, accessible to his understanding. Human activity ensures both the possession of the products of his labor - the transformed elements of nature, and the right to dispose of them at his discretion. Man becomes the master of nature, and his power should expand in the future. Thirst for novelty, constant imbalance between society and nature, "improvement", "expansion", "deepening", "acceleration" of the impact on the environment, understanding the conquest of nature as progress is also characteristic of technogenic civilization.

New, fourth stage The relationship between society and nature, which began in the 20th century, marks an attempt to overcome the opposition of man and society to nature, to create a new, hitherto unprecedented harmony between them, to harmonize the “strategy of nature” and the “strategy of man”.

Enormous opportunities are opening up in improving the relationship between society and nature, in the so-called "information society" that is emerging before our eyes. For example, the link between the place of residence and the place of work of a person, which seemed so strong, is being destroyed. Electronic means of communication allow the employee to get rid of daily trips to work, and the employer to get rid of the costs of collective organization of labor. Significantly new opportunities are also opening up for the creation of new educational strategies. The city, the source of environmental pollution, may disappear altogether. In the 20th century, a transition is planned from physical models of the world to biological ones. The world is an organism, not a mechanism. For the "biologically formed consciousness" the world appears as information-oriented, holistic, capable of adaptation. Biotechnologies make it possible to get rid of human diseases, protect plants, become the basis of the "green" revolution, as a result of which, perhaps, the food problem will be solved. At the same time, the successes of biology give rise to problems that a person who is accustomed to thinking in terms of technogenic society stops in confusion. How to determine the boundaries of natural and artificial in the body, the boundaries of living and non-living things, what are the boundaries of human intervention in heredity, etc.

The need to change the principles of the relationship between society and nature was expressed by V.I. Vernadsky in his doctrine of the noosphere.