NooDigest is the information guide and educational resource for mutual understanding, consciousness evolution toward sustainable planet.

NOOSPHERE – spiritual Biosphere, integral concept uniting theo-cosmism of

P. Teilhard de Chardin and bio-cosmism of Vladimir Vernadsky.

The best description of the Noosphere concept on the web:

Critique of Economic Reason monograph by Kenneth M. Stokes

URL: www.iuj.ac.jp/faculty/kmstokes/mono/

…The concept of the Noosphere is also the concept of a global humanism. It is a doctrine that returns us to the inspirational sources of humanism and rekindles ideas of the ancient Greeks about the unity of gods, humankind and the cosmos. Indeed, the word Noosphere is composed from two Greek terms "noos" mind, and sphere, the last used in the sense of an envelope of the Earth. The emergence of the Noosphere refers to a stage in the evolution of the Biosphere in which man becomes aware of his capacity to influence the further course of biospheric evolution. But it also constitutes a moment in the dialectic of reason that corresponds to the rationalization of rationality.

Faith in the life of reason found expression in the great Russian philosopher V.I. Vernadsky. Vernadsky was impressed by the concept of the Noosphere, as first introduced by the French philosopher and follower of Bergson, E. LeRoy. Published in 1928, E. LeRoy's Origins of the Human Race and Evolution of Reason examined the reasons and mechanism of man's formidable power over his physical environment. [I think it is the right place to stress that LeRoy was aware of the Biosphere concept, developed by V.I. Vernadsky in his famous lectures held at Sorbonna in 1922-1923 (NooDigest)]. LeRoy stressed that a profound philosophical analysis of human activities and, above all, of the role of reason on Earth, are required. Noting the significance of labor and creativity in the reshaping of the planet, LeRoy reflected on the power of human intellect to transform the Biosphere into the sphere of reason--the Noosphere. He applied the term "Noosphere" to the envelope of the Earth which includes human society with its industry, language and other activities. Analyzing the principles and mechanisms of the formidable power of man over the environment, LeRoy stressed that a profound philosophical analysis of human activities, as well as the role of reason on Earth, are required.

The concept of the Noosphere was further elaborated by LeRoy's colleague, the paleontologist and Catholic theologian P. Teilhard de Chardin, in The Phenomenon of Man. Teilhard de Chardin's principle of the unity of humankind called for the overcoming of racial prejudice, autonomous individualism and a number of other faults of the Modernity Project. At times he took up the position of an observer discussing humankind's movement towards some final Omega, at point at which there would occur the complete synthesis of humankind--reason, will and ego--into a unitary whole. He regarded the finality of the human predicament and the end of its evolutionary path as Omega. Teilhard, consistent with Hegel, and not unlike an eschatological Marx, viewed history as the march of the spirit toward freedom. For both Hegel and Teilhard freedom can only be found in self-consciousness whose absolute is to be found in God. Teilhard's finalistic image of the Noosphere is a thoroughly spiritual one; through a process of "molecularization" society may achieve a unity with Christ. [ P.T. de Chardin, Hymm of the Universe , (New York: Harper & Row, 1965):31.] "The task of the world consists not in engendering in itself some supreme reality but in bringing itself to fulfillment through union with a preexistent Being."

Unlike Teilhard's idealist conception, the materialist concept of the Noosphere was introduced by V.I. Vernadsky. In Vernadsky's formulation, the Noosphere refers to that part of space which experiences influences that originate in man's mind. Vernadsky wrote that: "The development of the Biosphere into the Noosphere is a natural phenomenon, more profound and powerful in essence than human history." He had a more constructive temperament, although he was far from attempting to formulate any kind of emancipatory program for the study of ways of moving from the Biosphere to the Noosphere. [ Moiseev 1989:600.] He expressed the idea that the Noosphere did not just mean the rationalization of reason, its emergence necessarily had to be accompanied by the perfection of the bearer of reason, i.e. the human being and human society, and that it had to adapt to the new conditions emerging on Earth. [ Ibid.] With Kant, he shared the view that pure reason might become congruent with practical reason.

The cornerstone of the theory of the Noosphere is to be found in the idea of the unity of nature, the earth, the cosmos and in the idea of their coevolutionary interdependence. The further coevolution of man and the Biosphere and the development of the Noosphere must become governed by a systems-oriented rationality. As man accepts responsibility for his further development he will have to not only design strategies for the use of the resources, but also purposefully change and perfect his own institutions. A shift must inevitably take place from their spontaneous evolution to reasoned activities and to their adaptive restructuring in meeting the new conditions of coevolutionary existence. [ Moiseev 1988.]

The concept of the Noosphere and the coevolutionary perspective has an historic tradition. Scientists of all times spoke extensively about harmony between man and Nature. It was an important subject for ancient philosophers, the French Encyclopedists and the Russian cosmists. The Physiocrats, Mercier de la Rivere, for instance, contemplated this harmony in terms of man's behaviour being constrained to accord with the Earth's natural development. It implied minimal interference with Nature, a preservation of its pristine condition and the greatest possible "closeness" of man and Nature. In some respects these views were naive and lacked rigor. They reflected a bucolic image and expressed an innate desire of people to be close to Nature, to "remove" all the contradictions between man and Nature. [ Moiseev 1986.] They sought a return to a more pristine world lost to modernity.

The task of science and human action is not to preserve the world in its primordial condition but to find forms of man-Biosphere interaction which ensures the development of the Biosphere and of the human population as an inseparable component of the former. Peccei asserts that it is imperative that a synthesis of science emanate from generalized and integral knowledge, and that any progress can be uniquely scientific when it delineates "a moral, social or political advancement, an improvement in our customs and behaviour. ... In a word ... our scientific progress must be cultural above all." [ A. Peccei, "Facing Unprecedented Challenges: Mankind in the Eighties" Laxenburg, Austria, International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, 1980:21,89. ] We are no longer spectators on the sidelines, but form a constituent part of the universe and are able to influence the whole character of its development. [ Moiseev 1989:599.]

Soviet Academician N.N. Moiseev notes that among Vernadsky's most important works is entitled Scientific Thinking as a Planetary Phenomenon. [ Ibid.] Reason, Vernadsky argued, has enabled humankind to use energy and matter to an ever increasing degree and to turn the whole of our planet into its ecological niche. Hence, human life and planet-wide processes are becoming more and more independent.

Vernadsky was the first to point to the necessity of the guided development of the Biosphere. In the last years of his life he wrote:

We live in an unprecedented, geologically significant epoch. Man by his work, and his conscious attitude toward life, is remaking a terrestrial envelope, the geological domain of life, the Biosphere. He is transforming it into a new geological state, the Noosphere. ... Statesmen should be aware of the present elemental process of transition of the Biosphere into the Noosphere. [ Vernadsky 1944:487-488, 499.]

It by no means follows from what the future may have in store for us that society's transition to the age of the sphere of reason will proceed spontaneously. We must be able to establish on Earth a rule of law and social institutions that will guarantee the coevolution of the man and the Biosphere. [ Moiseev 1989:597.] This is what we understand as the epoch of the Noosphere. [ Vladimir I. Vernadsky "The Biosphere and the Nosphere". American Science vol.33 no.1, (1945).] Clearly, the development of the Biosphere into the Noosphere is a phenomena, more profound and powerful in essence than all of human history.

However, the further coevolution of man and the Biosphere characterizes a situation of interdependence which calls for the consideration of subordinating narrowly defined norms of science, technology and the economy to those of living processes, wedding the life of reason to the art of life.

For Vernadsky the transformation of the Biosphere through human action was the process of noo"genesis--the creation of the Noosphere. He believed that the growth of science and technology would transform inadvertent human interference in global biogeochemistry to a more deliberate and purposeful intervention. This change would constitute the transition from Biosphere to Noosphere. According to Vernadsky, human development would be enhanced and sustained in the Noosphere through respect and management of biogeochemical cycles--the limits of planetary life-support systems. [ Rafal Serafin, "Noosphere, Gaia, and the Science of the Biosphere" Environmental Ethics , Vol. 10, (Summer 1988):127.] He was convinced that this transition was taking place through the influence scientific achievement and was impatient for humanity to recognize this phenomenon and to direct it consciously. He reasoned that securing the transition to the Noosphere constituted the greatest challenge facing humanity, namely, "the problem of reconstruction of the Biosphere in the interest of freely thinking humanity as a single totality." [ Vernadsky 1945:9.] For Vernadsky, the international pursuit of science was not just the major goal of human intellectual activity, but the only hope for the human species, since only science had a universal binding force. [ Serafin 1988:128.]

The theory of the Noosphere is today taking a new course. From being a theory of a primarily general scientific and philosophical nature, it is gradually becoming the theory of the development of the Noosphere--noo"genesis--which studies possible strategies for the transition of society to the age of the Noosphere. Its first stage is to define the permissible limits of economic activity. We know that there is some kind of "forbidden limit" beyond which humankind may not cross in any circumstances. Beyond it begin irreversible processes that will convert the Biosphere to a new state wherein there may be no room for humankind. The risk of forfeiting the future is far too great to allow the human race to cross that boundary…

These objectives must be accepted by people, and must become their own objectives. Therein lies the main difficulty of the transition of humanity into the Noosphere. [ N.N. Moiseev "Noogenesis -- Fundamental Problem of Our Time." ]

The transition of the Biosphere into the epoch of the noosphere cannot take place spontaneously, but it must happen rapidly; for we do not have the millions of years that were required for the period of anthropogenesis. We may have not even a dozen generations to achieve this restructuring! The coming century must become a century of a qualitatively new transformation of human civilization. The speed at which the environment is changing, and especially the growth of anthropogenic pressure upon the Biosphere, is so great that the problem of the strategy of noo"genesis and the choice of concrete actions to prevent possible ecological catastrophes are clearly becoming the principal area of basic research, the most important sphere of activity of political and social institutions in all countries, on all continents. [ Ibid.]

We shall yet have to formulate a strategy for the development of mankind. It will cover a very wide range of questions which concern practically all areas of human activity. This circumstance is stimulating intellectual life, the establishment of an array of alternative paths of human development and a new view of the world. [ Moiseev 1989:596.] It calls for a new synthetic life-affirming discipline for the theory of noo"genesis must merge natural and social forms of knowledge. [ Erich Jantsch, Design for Evolution , (New York: Brazilier Books, 1975):296.]

In recent years we have come to understand that entering the age of the Noosphere requires the practical reconstruction of the worldwide order and the establishment of a new thinking, a new scale of values and a new morality. [ Moiseev 1989:601.] There is no alternative to it: humankind and civilization cannot have a future outside the Noosphere. We simply have no other option! Either we start along the road leading to the age of the Noosphere or there will occur in the shorter or longer run the fragmentation and degradation of human society. The history of the modernity project has thrust upon us this predicament. [ Ibid.]

The Coevolution of Man and the Biosphere

…To raise institution building to a new level of consciousness is a primary task of the Noogenesis. The process of consciously building socially legitimated and viable institutions infused with new and relevant meaning is referred to as social architecture. [ Perlmutter 1984.] This usage restores the original Greek meaning of architectoniki which referred more to institutional than to physical building. But the new design of adaptive institutions demands a paradigm shift.

Such a program collides with the "reason" of traditional economic science. For while the focus of post-classical economic analysis is on the cybernetic properties of self-regulating market systems, the postmodernist project of noo"genesis calls for a more general conceptual basis appropriate for analyzing the coevolutionary cybernetics of economic and biospheric processes. In this connection the further development of the classical branch of political economy continues to be relevant. Fundamentally concerned with the social problem of avoiding disharmonies between forms of social organization, the classical branch identifies specific qualities that must be addressed by institutions if they are to effect a reembedding of economy in polity.

A central economic problem, in the substantive view, pertains to the reinstitutionalization of socio-economic relations consistent with the broader imperatives of life. It is in this sense that the role of institutions is identified as one of neutralizing and "harmonizing" contradictions that might otherwise lead to disruptions. It is in the attempt to fashion and adapt institutions appropriate for man in the epoch of the Noosphere that mankind may well meet its ultimate test. The institutions for noo"genesis that require development are not institutions whose purposes the individual would serve but institutions which would emancipate individuals to pursue their ideals.

The age-long struggle to make power responsible has hitherto been the struggle to secure the political rights of individual men. For several centuries in the history of this struggle, it seemed that the only responsibility of the individual was the responsibility to be watchful in defense of his rights. However, liberty can no longer to be bought at a price so cheap as eternal vigilance. It becomes necessary to design institutions whose socially legitimated rights and obligations extends to new responsibilities ensuring broad participation in the design, construction and operational phases of technically feasible complexes by neutralizing potentially dangerous or undesirable though technically feasible possibilities. For responsibilities, not rights, give meaning to personal and political life. To fashion these contexts is a critical aspect of the social architectural task of noo"genesis. [ Perlmutter and Trist 1986:24.] For never before has mankind felt such a great need for critical reflection and publicity on all questions affecting the problem of stability of the global Biosphere. While it is imperative for economic science to develop a form of analysis that transcends conventional economic reason, the emancipatory dimensions of noo"genesis must also embrace practical reason…

…At the zenith of its development mankind is challenged by phenomena that will be registered as one of epoch-forming dimension. For mankind has now attained to an era in which it becomes aware of its capacity to influence the further course of the evolution of the Biosphere. The present period in the history of both the human race and the planet is marked by an intense acceleration of all evolutionary processes, by the consolidation of a highly interdependent world systems, and by an erosion of the boundaries between human evolution and human ecology. Neither the strategy of waiting offstage while an alternative society builds up in minority groups, nor that of permiting spontaneous orders to emerge is appropriate. The former would be too slow to prevent severe disorders and a number of disasters from occurring. The latter may admit pathological possibilities. Moreover, the rate of dysfunctionality in modernity is proceeding at a rate faster than either strategy can meet. The degree of suffering that will occur if one waits for the decadence, decay or collapse of the modernity project to begin before attempting proactive social architectural intervention is too great to be acceptable to those concerned with a "human" future.

We appear to be capriciously entering into an era marked not by the end of ideology, but rather hegemonic extension of liberalism. However, the further socialization of man must be guided by the further rationalization of rationality. It is this which inaugurates the epoch of the Noösphere; that stage in which the power of socio-technological systems must be restructured to renounce that form of rationality which has spawned the unthinking destruction of nature and debasing of cultures, in favor of that which supports the cultivation of the inner aspirations of life. But it is also in the attempt to re-invent institutions appropriate for man in the epoch of the Noösphere that mankind may well meet its ultimate test.

Social change is incessant: here dramatic, there imperceptible. Much of this change revolves around the interaction of technology and institutions, especially the adjustment of institutions to technological changes. Changes in the technical apparatus, organization, or knowledge of the social, material process create tensions mandating adjustment in mores, laws, and guiding principles. Noo"genesis pleads that this adjustment must not be simply a matter of one-sided adjustment to guided by economic reason narrowly defined, but also the shaping or restricting of action by norms that attach to life and culture--that which obtain from the coevolutionary imperative…

The coevolutionary imperative of noo"genesis must take account not only of the wide variations in individual ability and experience, but also common needs. The imperatives must be powerful enough to resolve or contain conflict, yet sensitive enough to change when change is required, either to preserve some system against lethal imbalance or to make room for some new norm which the culture may generate by its own historical processes. The epoch of the Noösphere is a postmodernism which denies "the sense of ending," or "the deconstruction of man," the end of the humanist credo and the eclipse of reason. It is the Enlightenment's yet-unfulfilled promise, the rationalization of rationality with the promise of a political economy in the substantive sense embracing a life-affirming imperative.

Critique of Economic Reason.

NOOSPHERE Information Fund

Contact: abin@mail.ru

October 2001