Before mankind once with all acuteness there will be a dilemma: either entering into the epoch of a noosphere, or a way of gradual, more or less slow degradation.

(Academician N. N. Moiseyev)

In scientific study of biosphere there is the root of the decision of many not only scientific, but also philosophical problems, concerning the human being.

(Academician V. I. Vernadsky)

Any actions of "greens" also the present state measures cannot solve the ecological problem, because these are aimed not to elimination of the deep reason of ecological crisis, these cure the symptoms and consequences only. But it is the same to try to cure AIDS by painting the ulcers on a body of the patient with the green antiseptic. To relieve mankind of ecological threat (also of neediness, wars, totalitarian dictatorships), it is necessary at first correctly to ascertain the diagnosis, that is to say scientificly to open the deep cause and the mechanism of illness.

The threat of ecological catastrophe approaches simultaneously from different directions: pollution and impoverishment of the seas, oceans, rivers, underground waters, pollution and destruction of woods and agricultural grounds, pollution and change of the atmosphere, reduction of the protective ozone layer, pernicious changes of a climate, the rising of the ocean level, accumulation of deadly radioactive substances made by uncountable nuclear power stations, impoverishment of the vegetative and animal world, exhaustion of resources of the planet. Global and versatile character of the ecological crisis point out fundamental character of its reasons and, accordingly, requires fundamental, radical changes in life of mankind. So, what are the reasons?

It is baby's prattling that the publicists and even the philosophers speak about the reasons of ecological crisis and other disasters of mankind. It is known the wars go also in the animals world - for example between lions prides. But in philosophers opinion, the deep causes of wars are: "envy" (Vladimir Solovyev), national prejudices, "dissociation" and "ideologies". It is turned out that the reason of existence of wars - is the misunderstanding and lack of upbringing. The revolution in Russia, in their opinion, has taken place also because of bad upbringing and of either Marx had not understood something, or Marx was understood incorrectly. And the reason of ecological crisis in general and of the Chernobyl accident in particular - as if in "mentality of nature-conquest" or that the people could, but do not want to refuse convenience of a civilization and progress. But an academician Velikhov - concerning atomic engineering - has told absolutely another. He has told: "We have no choice". So the human history is being set in motion not by whims and misunderstanding but necessity.

In the majority of ECOLOGY textbooks - as it is a branch of biology - there is talk only about biology but the question on the reason of ecological crisis of mankind is not put at all, and even there isn't talk about the crisis. But in K. M. Petrov textbook of "General Ecology" the question is elucidated widely, however the answer is absent. In the textbook it is told: "The reason of crisis is the contradictions in mutual relation (read: notorious "infringement of harmony") between society and nature". But it is not the answer, but tautology, circulation on a circle, it all the same what to tell: "the reason of bad state of health of the man that he is ill". Therefore it is necessary to repeat the question: well, but what is the reason of this "contradictions in mutual relation", what is the reason of "infringements of harmony"?

But the biologists, ecologists don’t think about this question seriously. Everybody beforehand (a priori) have agreed, that the reason is immorality of the society, of a man, almost the "Adam's sin". Therefore biologists answer: "But it is not our competence any more, the sociologists and philosophers should answer this question". But the sociologists with the philosophers can not answer too. Because ecology is not their competence. But it is necessary to search the reason of ecological crisis, together with all other disasters of mankind, just in ecology. But not in "infringement of its laws", not in "the contradictions with nature", not in "authorities over nature" - but in laws of ecology, in laws of biosphere, according to which mankind still lives and by which mankind, similarly to animals, still is held in servitude. As Teillhiard De Chardin spoke: as a matter of fact, the Homo Sapiens just only has departed a point of the occurrence, the human history still is a natural history.

The ecological problem is not at all a product of scientific and technical progress, nor product of a European civilization, or "of superfluous consumption". We see a heavy ecological situation even in the underdeveloped countries (destruction of woods, desertification of grounds) and we know, that the local antropogeneous ecological crises and disasters resulting in destruction of civilizations happened also earlier when there was no today’s technique anywhere. "Ecology" is not exclusively human problem. I remind a definition: what is ecology. It is a biological science, a science about interinfluence of a population of any particular biological species (it isn’t obligatory just of Homo sapiens) - and its environment. At this interinfluence the main characteristic of a population is its number, and the main characteristic of environment is quantity of available resources necessary for life of this species. If, for example, in closed volume the bacteria live, and they have no enemies, they will have propagated themselves and then will perish - either because of famine when they will have exhausted resources necessary for their life, or, if they find new resources, they will have propagated themselves further and will perish because of a poisoning of environment by their own scraps.

This example with bacteria is very similar to a situation of mankind:

The scientific and technical progress enormously had increased resources, accessible to mankind. It had resulted in the demographic explosion. (The diagram is taken from an A. Barnett's book "The Human Species". Penguin Book, 1961.)

In vegetative world because of constant overpopulation there is the struggle for each square centimeter of a place under the sun. In animals world by the most rigid way each calorie of energy is being saved, all scraps are being utilized. It is possible to say that a poet F. Schiller had formulated the main law of biosphere and the main law of ecology, when he had written: "Love and famine rule the world". Certainly here "love" is an euphemism, it means sex. And "famine" is a generalization of disasters increasing at excessive number of the population and furthering to reduction of number, that the "love" tries to increase. Thus "love" and "famine" adjust the vegetative, animal and human population in the world, it means they "rule the world". And, except for famine, the second main regulator in the animal and vegetative world is violence - that is to say the struggle between a predator and a victim. In human world the famine, illness and wars lose the importance as a regulator of number of the population. That is why the ecological disasters had appeared as the sole - for the time being the sole - regulators of the population number that already has exceeded the norm¹ 10 times and steadily destroys the biosphere by their economic activity, by craving for the further economic growth.

(FOOTNOT 1: About this excess 10 times of the norm of population see: Vinogradov M. E., Mikhailovsky G. E., Monin A. S. "Onward to nature" in "The Bulletin of Russian Academy of Sciences", vol.64, No 9, 1994, p.811.)

However in a stock there are two alternative regulators of population number. The first regulator is a global totalitarian dictatorship such as described in George Orwell's book "1984". Such the dictatorship quite can will be established all over the Earth for ever - and it really will be "the End of History". The dictatorship will have arisen as a result of political catastrophe, that will inevitably follow the ecological catastrophe and economic collapse. It is clear, that such outcome is a disaster for mankind too.

And at last, the sole favorable variant of the future is probably prompt transition to noosphere, that is to regulation of number of a human population not with the aid of disasters, as it has a place in biosphere, but with the aid of reasonable planning and stimulation at a state level. Therefore, by achieving reduction of number of the population, each country improves own life first of all, but by not achieving, they punishes itself first of all. Only recently it have understood in China. It seems, in other countries it will has been understood, how in China, too late, and then it will necessary to accept the same rigid measures, as has accepted in China now. For now the various authors, using Chinese demographic policy as a bugbear, try to prove impossibility by state influence to reduce a population number and even impossibility to stop its growth, - just exactly according to the proverb "who wants to do - searches for ways, and who does not want - searches for the reasons - to do not".

Meanwhile the simple and quite not terrible ways and the measures necessary for reduction of birth rate, obviously, should be the following:

1. explanatory work. The public should comprehend the circumstances mentioned in this article so that they could agree with the measures offered below . A duty of all educated and understanding people - to join in those explaining actions, instead of to be hidden in their professions as in an "ivory tower".

2. A state should announce the norm "one child in a family" and the principle "the supporting of children is a business of their parents". But thus it would be unreasonable to hope for "enthusiasm" and "consciousness" of the population. You see if the "conscious" part of the citizens will be limited to one child on a family, it will increase material resources of a community, the level of living and will allow "irresponsible" ones to have 2-4 children. So, except for admonitions, it is necessary:

3. To stop all grants and privileges, that the parents receive for their children. Certainly it does not exclude the social help to the people who lives in misery really.

4. And only in those countries, where the listed measures will not give due result, the child-birth tax will be necessary. If a man wants to have whether one or several children, this his desire is naturally and it is impossible to censure him. But let him everything he wants to have, he has for his own money, the community should not aid reduction of the planet resources and moreover should to prevent this by tax.

Frequent objection is "it is necessary to apply the different approach" to different countries and regions. They say, in one countries the population grows quickly, and in others - does not grow almost or even decreases from time to time. But here also it is offered the different approach: where now on an average there are 4 children for a family, it is offered the reduction of the norm from four up to one, but where 2 children on family are - the reduction from two up to one in all. Also we shall not forget the usual answer-back accusation outgoing from the countries with the quickly growing population: "But at you per one your inhabitant is made of pollution, is consumed of energy and resources it is more than at us per ten our inhabitants". So we see that at an excessive population neither riches of the country, nor economical poverty do not relieve of destruction of environment, but in "rich" (to be exact, in technically advanced) countries excessive there is a population in 10 times smaller, than in the undeveloped countries.

Probably, it will be not possible to achieve exact observance of the norm "one child for a family", but the greater reduction of birth rate it will be possible to achieve, the more probable, the mankind will be in time to decide the economic and ecological problems and will survive. Only when as a result of such two-way efforts these problems will be decided, the norm of birth rate can be increased up to two children for a family, that will ensure constancy of a population of the Earth subsequently.

So what prevents transition to noosphere? As it turns out, that everyone hope for democracy and market - that should promote increase in manufacture and thus to decide main problems - but anybody does not scientifically consider the really package question: why, despite of enormous escalating of manufacture already resulted from scientific and technical progress, still it is question of survival and the mankind in any way can not decide economic, material problems? Why the revolutionary and international violence and wars for the territories are continue? Why the mankind and biosphere is threatened with ecological catastrophe?

Anybody does not scientifically consider this package question because the answer is obvious. And this answer, as it has just now shown, is the following: as well as all nature, the mankind lives in circumstances of overpopulation. But this answer is taboo because it is not suit the political, scientific and spiritual establishment which in our democratic, populist world are afraid of accusations of "malthusism", are under thumb of short-sighted "interests of people", and therefore shut their eyes to first cause of all calamities - overpopulation - and supports absurd and mad idea of infinite growth covered up by beautiful word "development" as by a fig leaf. The latest fig leaf is "sustainable development". It's something like the perpetual mobile: it means, that instead of one factory there will be two - but the pollution will decrease. Then factories will be three, but the pollution again will decrease and so on up to infinity. An academician N. N. Moiseyev has named the concept of sustainable development as one of most dangerous errors of the modernity (see the "Questions of Philosophy Monthly" No 1, 1995, p.5).

Where there is taboo - there is the self-blinding, there is no science, no reason. The philosophers which are accusing "the consumption and anthropocentrism of modern civilization" in ecological crisis, are recommending to mankind "to not separate themselves from nature and to take from it only that is necessary for the life", are not noticing that elephants, for example, do it by such a way, however they should be shot, otherwise, having propagated themselves, they can do great harm to environment. These philosophers do not notice also, that anthropocentrism is not a fiction, but the fact. Because "Homo sapiens has become a geological force", as Vernadsky had noticed. Moreover, life or death of the biosphere depends from mankind now. The idea of a noosphere is based on this fact of anthropocentrism.

Mankind has no enemies excepting themselves, the disasters of mankind occur from their own unwise actions. Therefore so far it can’t be called "noosphere" - that means "the world where an intellect is ruling" - the thin layer of space on a surface of Globe, into that human beings dominates. Now this still rich and beautiful world collapses because of excessive exploitation by the mankind’s economic activity that enormously has increased in connection with the demographic explosion, that has taken place.At the same time the blind guides of mankind who have a claim to be the mankind intellect try to cure the diseases of a society by the further economic and demographic growth.

Now I am writing the enlarged text with more philosophical bias in comparison with my already published article "THE ECOLOGICAL TAXES INSTEAD OF INCOME ONES, or HOW TO CREATE A NOOSPHERE" there you can find the details. You can read it in the St. Petersburg monthly magazine "Zvezda" ("Star") No 9, 1993. The replacement of the harmful income taxation by useful ecological one will make it possible to have decided the ecological, economic and social problems quickly - but to have decided its provisionally, it will give to mankind a postponement to have time to cope with the overpopulation problem. Because it is necessary about 300 years for painless decreasing of the population number in 10 time. If in the meantime the demographic problem will not be decided, the improvement of life conditions as a result of replacement of the income taxation by ecological one will bring new increase of birth-rate. This law of spontaneous development is already noticed by demographers: as soon as in any country with low birth rate - that is to say with so-called "controllable birth rate" - the economic situation is being improved and the level of the incomes is being rising, the birth-rate at once is rising too. Because this "birth-rate control" actually means only: if I want - I confine myself with one child only, but if I want - I'll have got two, three, four children, if I consider that my means allow it.

Well, but now about urgent problems: economy will limp because of its low profit, the resources will be squandered, the environment will be collapsing - for now there will be a high income taxation and low prices for energy, resources and pollution. It is necessary to make the opposite: to replace the income taxation - that reduces profit and induces shadow economics - by ecological taxation.

In America if a private proprietor buys a land site, where then petroleum or gold is found out, all these are his property, he becomes a rich man. Well, it has developed in America historically, and it is their affair. But it was not with us! We lived at the expense of natural resources, and when the market dogmatists had given up to the private proprietors what was belonging to the state - we had got poorer. Really, what is the reason of the present crash of Russia? Why when communists government, "at the times of stagnation", despite of the mismanagement, the wasting and inefficiency - the state had money for maintenance of the low prices, and for army, science, for astronautics, culture, education, public health services, pensions, for the house-building, and for supporting of the "friendly" countries, also the rulers did not live in misery, - why the government had money for these all? Because then the natural resources rent was got to the state, instead of private proprietor. This rent, as a matter of fact, was a rough prototype of the ecological taxes, that I offer here.

Thus I offer a system of taxation, that allows to connect the best parties of socialism and ones of capitalism, excluding its the worse parties. By the way, famous "the Swedish model" tried to achieve the same purpose - but by the income taxes - and therefore has not achieved, has broken.

25-July-1997.