The noospheric future of mankind: scientific prediction or quasi-scientific myth?

Abstract

The article discusses the teaching of the noosphere by V.I. Vernadsky, which absorbed the idea of the future autotrophy of humanity. The concepts of the followers of Vernadsky  Academician N.N. Moiseyev, who coined the term “epoch of the noosphere” as a historical stage, where the Collective Intelligence of man and his Collective Will will be able to ensure the co-evolution of nature and society, as well as a number of other thinkers. The author concludes that the doctrine of the noosphere fits into the modern worldview of society and is taken as evidence without proper critical consideration. There is a criticism of this doctrine from a number of today Russian philosophers, in particular, they speak about the negative attitude of R.S. Karpinskaya to this idea, about doubts A.N. Chumakov in the possibility of the noosphere. The problem of life and its origin is considered in the concept of academician G.А. Zavarzin, who rejects the doctrine of the noosphere and introduces the term “kakosfera” to denote the area of disharmonious development created by man. According to his concept, in the process of the historical development of the earth, it is not the noosphere with its mind that arises, but an anthropogenic ecosystem. In his works, he records the role of humanity in disrupting the course of the natural processes of our planet: the disappearance of old species and the emergence of new ones as a result of anthropogenic influences. The scientist considers humanity not as the pinnacle of the progressive development of life, but as a violator of the natural processes on our planet. The overall picture of the development of the life of G.A. Zavarzin is radically different from the ideas of V.I. Vernadsky, N.N. Moses and other followers of the noosphere theory. In conclusion, the author comes to the conclusion that the noospheric model was originally based on progressive values and depends on the worldview of the modern era, as well as on the value preferences of its creators. These general ideas are not based on the data of modern science, they go beyond the scope of scientific understanding and sometimes lead to quasi-scientific ideas about reality.