Biosphere and the noosphere

The term biosphere was coined in 1875 by the famous Austrian geologist Eduard Suess 

The term ecosystem was coined in 1930 by Roy Clapham to denote the combined physical and biological components of an environment (Willis 1997). British ecologist Arthur Tansley later refined the term, describing it as The whole system,. .. including not only the organism-complex, but also the whole complex of physical factors forming what we call the environment (Tansley 1935). He championed the term ecosystem in 1935 and ecotope in 1939 (Cooper 1957). Vladimir 

Vernadsky defined ecology (originally intended as the economy of nature ) as the science of the biosphere. 

Vernadsky first took up the term noosphere in 1931, as a new dimension of the biosphere under the evolutionary influence of humankind (Vernadsky 1944). He wrote The Noosphere is the last of many stages in the evolution of the biosphere in geological history (Vernadsky, 1945). The biosphere became a real geological force that is changing the face of the earth, and the biosphere is changing into the noosphere. In Vernadsky s interpretation (1945), the noosphere is a new evolutionary stage of the biosphere, when human reason will provide further sustainable development both of humanity and the global environment  

In our century the biosphere has acquired an entirely new meaning it is being revealed as a planetary phenomenon of cosmic character... In the twentieth century, man, for the first time in the history of earth, knew and embraced the whole biosphere, completed the geographic map of the planet earth, and colonized its whole surface. Mankind became a single totality in the life on earth. .. The noosphere is the last of many stages in the evolution of the biosphere in geological history (Vernadsky 1945, p. 10). 

---

The mature views of Vernadsky on the problem of demarcation are presented most extensively in the book, JScientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon . During the years between these two works (1902-1938), Vernadsky founded geochemistry and biogeochemistry and created the biosphere and the noosphere concepts. It is interesting to note how his views on the subject changed over time. 

Vernadsky s and Teilhard s different interpretations of the biosphere and the noosphere concepts can be said to be connected with two divergent properties. Firstly, they had different theoretical premises, in that Teilhard connected the appearance and future development of the human consciousness with the concept of dichotomous matter, while Vernadsky aimed to place humankind into the geological history pointing out the impassable border between hving and inert substances. Lastly the Offering scientific experience of both theoreticians causafvastty contrasting approaches. 

Levit G. (2000) The Biosphere and the Noosphere Theories of V. I. Vernadsky and P. Teilhard de Chardin A Methodological Analysis", Archives Internationales D Histoire des Sciences, December. 

Both theoreticians helped to give birth to the biosphere and noosphere concepts, however Vernadsky s and Teilhard s concepts of the biosphere and the noosphere differ in crucial points. They based their theories on a comparable body of empirical data, and pursued similar general objectives. However, they created two different theoretical worlds. 

Vernadsky, V. I. (1945) The biosphere and the noosphere. Scientific American 33, 1-12 Verschueren, K., Ed. (2009) Handbook of environmental data on organic chemicals. Four Volume set, Fifth Edition, John Wiley Sons, 4358 pp. 

AII the fears and reasonings of the philistines, representatives of the humanities, and philosophy about the possibility of the fall of civilisation are tied up with an underestimation of the power and depth of geological processes like the one we are now experiencing, namely, the transition of the biosphere into the noosphere (Vernadsky, 1991, p. 45). 

The way of prediction the appearance of human thought is result of the whole terrestrial evolution, hence the further evolution of the biosphere into the noosphere is iiievitable and the noosphere will exist forever. 

The main objective of Vernadsky s theoretical activity was to support the idea of transition of the biosphere into the noosphere with adequate evidence and arguments. Yet, in our view, he did not succeed in achieving this objective. As I have shown, each part of this theoretical system taken separately and ttw theoretical system as a whole manifests contradictions and methodological inconsistoicies. To sum up the claims of Vernadsky about the inevitable transition of the biosphere into the noosphere do not follow the empirical base of the biosphere theory. The space-time theory also cannot be used in order to claim the irreversibility of the evolutionary process and of the coming of the noosphere in particular. Vernadsky also did not support well the claim that science performs the leading role in the iMosphere. 

Vernadsky. Living Matter and the Biosphere. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 647-656 [in Russ]. Yanshina, F. T. (1996) The Evolution of V. I. Vernadsky s Views on the Biosphere and the Development of the Noosphere Doctrine. Nauka, Moscow [in Russ.]. 

When man is guided by a scientific (and neither a philosophical, nor a religious) concept of world, he ought to understand that he is not an incidental, independent, from the surrounding world - the biosphere or the noosphere - freely acting natural phenomenon. 

So far it is clear that Vernadsky s noosphere is not a scientific concept in its entirety. However, we could save this idea, at least partially, if we could find in the persuasive arguments the texts of Vernadsky in favour of statements (1.2.) and (3). In short, in order to substantiate the noosphere concept, we must, first of all, prove that science is a lawful geological phenomenon inevitably turning the biosphere into the noosphere. 

And now, when at the stage of the noosphere, which is a stage of the revolutionary reorganization of the whole process of the planetary development, the determining factor of evolution is human activity, we should realize that Mind becomes a participant of the evolutionary process, exactly the participant which with all its power follows the common laws. And under such conditions, considering all limits, barriers inherent to Nature, we have the right to speak about the directed development of the biosphere. ... 

Indeterminate teleology results from a mixture of stochastic and deterministic events. Vernadsky (1997, p. 55) wrote that the biosphere will transform (in one way or another, sooner or later) into the noosphere". That is the way the noosphere created and the final form of the noosphere is not predetermined. The only thing which is determined is the direction of the evolution of the biosphere. The biosphere evolves in the direction of increasing stability, increasing degree of self-regulation and ultimately transfoims into the noosphere. 

The noosphere concept of Vernadsky is a system of ideas about the future of the planet Earth based on empirical generalisations of the biosphere theory. That is why it is more correct to talk about the theory of the biosphere and its transition into the noosphere. 

Vernadsky understood the noosphere as a lawful stage in the evolution of the biosphere. The crucial characteristic of his last stage of biospheric evolution is the dominance of scientific reason. Science influences, accelerates, transforms and takes under its control the natural biospherical processes. At the same time, science is also a natural planetary phenomenon. From Vernadsky s viewpoint the noosphere is not a new sphere on the Earth s surface, because all noospherical events take place in the frame of the biospheric geological stratum. There is no mysticism in this view, and Vernadsky never discussed the temporal limits, or the possiMe end of the noosphere. ... 

Teilhard saw the noosphere as a transitional stage of evolution from the biosphere to the Omega-Point. He describes the noosphere as a layer over the biosphere, because to him it is the begiiming of a separation process. The radial energy enters a stage of visible dominance and partial separation on the way to total independence. 

The noosphere, that is, the biosphere reworked by scientific thought, produced by a process that took place during millions, perhaps billions of years, and created thsHoma sapiens faber, is not a short-tinie and transient geological phenomenon. Processes which took many billions of years, cannot be transient, cannot cease. It follows that the biosphere will transform (one way or another, sooner or later) into the noosphere, that is, in the history of the peoples populating it, those events will happen which are necessary for this transformation, and do not contradict it (Vernadsky, 1991, p. 40). 

Vernadsky and Teilhard de Chardin constructed different concepts of the noosphere and biosphere according to their purposes by interpreting the empirical facts in favour of their theoretical demands. This is clearly shown by their interpretation, of molecular dissymmetry. In 1848, L. Pasteur discovered a phenomenon that he later defined as molecular dissymmetry". He discovered that some of the basic organic compounds found in living matter (crystals) are structurally different from those usually found in the inert envirorunent. Although there are two possible isomers of these organismal compounds which could theoretically exist, one finds pure steric compounds in the... 

An original interpretation of Vernadsky s concept was proposed by Moiseev et al. (1985). He defines organism as a system which has certain goals and the abilities to follow these goals. According to Moiseev the biosphere is actually not yet an organism, but will become one once it turns into the noosphere. 

Vernadsky s theory of the biosphere and its transition into the noosphere.53... 

---