The noosphere concept

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. 

Our view is that the contradictory character of Vernadsky s concept of demarcation manifested itself in 1938 in the noosphere concept even more clearly than in 1902. 

The idea of the cosmic nature of life is connected with all the important parts of Vernadsky s theoretical system. One of the arguments in favour of the idea of the eternity of life is his space-time theory (2.1.). Through the noosphere concept, this idea is( tied up with the philosophy of science and the main principles of the bi[Pg.38]

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. 

In the noosphere concept, Vernadsky formulates one of his most closely-held intuitive canvietions - his unlimited faith in the power of scientific thought. That is why the noosphere concept is seen, from the viewjjoint of Vernadsky himself, as a culmination of his theoretical system. 

Vernadsky also tried to find evidence for his noosphere concq>t outside of the pure biogeochetnical cycle of thinking in his own space-time theory. Here I point out some coimections between the noosphere concept and the space-time theory of Vernadsky. 

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. 

Argument (1) can be called a biogeochemical argument". I examine this argument in the context of the noosphere concept in the section 2.3.10. 

If we take into attention that hitmans are also, according to Vernadsky, a regular part of the biosphere (see below the noosphere concept of Vernadsky), this approach can be classified as a version of the anthropic principle. 

One can distinguish three basic statements of the noosphere concept which are subject to discussion ... 

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. 

In Vernadsky s view, science is a lawful geological force. This claim is basic to the noosphere concept. If scientific thought occurs to be a matter of mere happenstance, the biosphere carniot be said to be lawfully turning itself into the noosphere by means of scientific thought. 

The noosphere conception of Teilhard de Chardin and the noosphere conception of Vernadsky have nothing in common, outside of the term the noosphere" used by both theoreticians. 

However, the most illustrative example is Vernadsky s statement that the logic of natural science is a function of the biosphere. He called this claim the basic empirical generalisation of his biosphere theory (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 283). It is evidrat that there are no ways to prove this claim by observation or by experiment. At the saine time, this claim plays a central role in Vernadsky s concept of the transition of the biosphere into the noosphere. 

In spite of the extensive literature about the noosphere, there has been little attempts (Kutyrev, 1990 Ghilarov, 1994) to critically analyse this concept. In this chapter, I analyse the arguments of Vernadsky supporting his theory of transition of the biosphere into the noosphere. 

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 emphasised that he approaches the principle of struggle for existence statistically. Thus, on this level, the directedness of evolution is seen by Vernadsky statistically. Kolchinsky (1989, p. 66) remarks that Vernadsky was alien to the conceptions of a strictly (pre-)determined evolution. At the same time, a statistical approach does not exhaust Vernadsky s notion of directedness. Vernadsky (1991, pp. 24, 53) clearly connects the directedness of evolution with the peculiar spatial-temporal features of living matter, i.e. with dissynunetry (for details see 2.1.). The spatial-temporal peculiarity of living matter guarantees the irreversibility of the evolutionary process. Vernadsky also wrote many times about the lawful character of the evolution of the biosphere. It was important for Vernadsky (1997, p. 31) to show that the transition of the biosphere into the noosphere (see below) is a lawful process which has will develop from the whole history of the biosphere ... 

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. 

The example is also illustrative in that it shows that Vernadsky s concept of the evolution of biogeochemical functions serves to describe the main stream of biospheric evolution transformation of the biosphere into the noosphere. 

Thus, the views of Vernadsky are very close to what Barrow and Tipler call S AP. Furthermore, as we will see in 2.3.10., the position of Vernadsky on the question of the eternity of life and his noosphere concept allow to define his views on intelligent life as a preview of the Final Anthropic Wnciple. According to Vernadsky, life is a fundamentally eternal phenomenon. It creates its environment and this process can be spread to the whole universe (Aksenov, 1993, p. 87). 

According to Vernadsky, the irreversibility of the transition into the noosphere appears to be a concept of social evolution based on the biosphere theory. The statements of Vernadsky concerning the irreversibility of the transition into the noosphere are the most debatable in his theory. One of the most illustrative examples shallibe quoted ... 

To sum up the empirical basis of the biosphere theory does not support Vernadsky s claims about the inevitable atuf lawful transition of the biosphere into the noosphere. This does not j ustify to treating the idea of the noosphere as a scientific concept. 

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. 

These two meanings of the term have been widely spread in the 20th century. Plausibly, the most famous user of the term biosphere in the first sense was P. Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), who created an original concept of the biosphere-noosphere evolution. This use of the term can also be sometimes found in current scientific literature (Monod, 1971 KEL, 1978). 

The detailed theory of the biosphere was elaborated by V.I. Vernadsky (1863-1945), who had a personal acquaintance with Suess. Vernadsky gave the term of Suess a quantitative meaning and elaborated a biosphere-noosphere theory, where the biosphere appears as a self-regulating system and geological envelope. As George E. Hutchinson (1970) stated lt is essentially Vernadsky s concept of the biosphere, developed about 50 years after Suess wrote, that we accept today". 

---