Subject and main stages of the development of modern environmental science

The term "ecology" was proposed in 1866 by the German Darwinist biologist Ernst Haeckel. The word is derived from the Greek "oikos," which means house or dwelling, and "logos," meaning teaching or science. Thus, literally, ecology is the science of the home. Here, "home" is understood in the very broad sense of a habitat.

In the modern sense, ecology is the science of the relationships between living organisms and their habitat.

The subject of ecology is the study of the following aspects:

• the laws of the existence and development of nature;
• the patterns of nature's reaction to human impact;
• the maximum permissible loads on natural systems that society can afford.

The scientific basis of ecology is Charles Darwin's theory of the struggle for existence. In this theory, he included not only the competition of organisms for life resources but also their reactions to environmental factors, through which living organisms adapt to existence in specific conditions.

The foundation of ecology consists of such biological sciences as physiology, genetics, and biophysics; it is also connected with non-biological sciences: physics, chemistry, geology, geography, mathematics, etc.

Ecology is reasonably considered the scientific basis for environmental engineering.

Recently, concepts such as "engineering ecology" and the like have become widespread.

Engineering ecology is understood as a system of engineering and technical measures aimed at preserving the quality of the environment under the conditions of growing industrial production.

Successful resolution of environmental problems by engineering methods is possible only if a specialist possesses certain knowledge in the field of ecology, allowing them to evaluate their production from an environmental perspective, i.e., possesses the ecological thinking necessary for everyone.

Let us make a brief excursion into history. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was among the first countries in the world to start creating nature reserves: Moritsala in Latvia (1911), Lagodekhi in Georgia (1912), Barguzinsky at Lake Baikal, and Kedrovaya Pad in the Far East (1916). Even during the difficult years of the Civil War, reserves such as the Astrakhan (1919) and the Ilmensky in the Urals (1920) were created. A committee for nature reserves was organized, and the largest specialists, such as, for example, P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, were involved in discussing projects for creating a network of protected areas. The level of development of domestic ecology was extremely high. It is enough to mention the name of V.I. Vernadsky, who developed the theory of the biosphere. The brilliant Moscow ecologist G.F. Gause, at the age of 19-24, conducted a series of classic experiments on the study of the struggle for existence among organisms. His monograph was first published in the USA in 1934 and was repeatedly republished abroad in the Classics of Science series. The level of domestic ecology back then was such that today in the USA, they defend dissertations and write monographs on this chapter of the history of Soviet science. In 1988, Professor Douglas Weiner of the University of Arizona published a book on the history of nature conservation in the USSR in the 1920s-40s. He revealed to us the world priority of our science in the development of the theory of nature conservation. At that time, such classics of ecology as V.N. Beklemishev, D.N. Kashkarov, and N.V. Timofeev-Ressovsky were working. Ecology held just as high a place in the world as genetics did under N.I. Vavilov, and just like genetics, ecology was crushed in 1948. The ideologue of Lysenkoism, I. Present, put forward a speculative slogan that it was ridiculous to protect nature from the Soviet man, and the entire beautiful system of nature reserves was destroyed. The area of reserves was reduced from 0.56% of the country's territory to 0.06% — only 40 out of 128 reserves remained. Up until 1967, in schools, biology was replaced by Lysenko's pseudoscience. I.V. Michurin's words about the need to "take favors from nature" were canonized. Progress was associated with smoking chimneys, tons of extracted coal, smelted steel, and millions of kilowatts of electricity.

The cult of urbanism and technocracy, which arose during the years of the first five-year plans, remains resilient to this day, but it can be said with certainty that the importance of environmental protection issues is understood by our society. This can be seen in social movements, the press, etc. Ecology acutely affects everyone's interests, as it is connected with the protection of the health of current and future generations.

Further development of civilization cannot rely solely on the natural course of events and the spontaneous ingenuity of humans. Knowledge, the collective intelligence of humanity, and its purposeful will are becoming the main factors on which the future of humans will depend. The principle of man conquering nature must be replaced by the principle of their coevolution (coordination). Otherwise, if humans do not change their way of life, the protective forces of the biosphere will destroy its destroyer.

Throughout its history, the biosphere has emerged from various crises. Within its composition, aggressive life forms with excessive energy potential have occasionally arisen, suddenly spiraling out of control and destroying their habitat. A typical example is the late Mesozoic reptiles. By the end of the Mesozoic era, they had conquered all elements of the biosphere (flying, running, climbing, and swimming). Intensive destruction of their habitat, in turn, led to their large-scale decline. Those that have survived to the present day (crocodiles, turtles, snakes, lizards) are a pathetic shadow of their former diversity and power.

Until very recently, human activity led to changes in the natural environment that manifested in the character of societal life only over long periods—for tens of generations, people lived in virtually the same natural conditions.

Negative human impacts on nature could, of course, accumulate and eventually lead to explosive catastrophes. A classic example is soil salinization in Mesopotamia due to unskilled irrigation, which eventually, after a millennium of prosperity, led to the collapse of the Sumerian civilization. The catastrophe was so sudden and had such an all-destroying character that even the existence of this ancient civilization was erased from human memory for millennia.

At the end of the Neolithic period, i.e., at the dawn of history, humanity also experienced a global ecological crisis and stood on the brink of extinction—the planet's population probably decreased tenfold. Humanity was saved by an epiphany: it managed to survive thanks to agriculture and livestock. The transition from nomadic hunter-gatherer communities to communities of settled farmers first took place in the territory of the modern Middle East about 12,000 years ago. This was the first turning point in human history, fundamentally changing the character of anthropogenic impact on nature. The second turning point was the beginning of the use of fossil fuels and the subsequent industrial revolution, which began in England in the 18th century.

Human activity began to cause ever greater damage to nature as tools improved and production grew.

In the 20th century, the ratio of the roles of social and natural factors began to change particularly rapidly. Global environmental changes that we have now begun to realize—changes occurring in the soil, water, and atmosphere—are mainly the consequence of two centuries of industrialization, as well as the modern needs and aspirations of 7 billion people. In recent years, that is, in practically the 60 years separating us from the end of the bloodiest war humanity has ever known, science and technology have brought truly amazing changes to the life of the planet. Space exploration, the mastery of nuclear energy, the creation of a global computer network. Each of these events could have constituted an entire epoch in the history of civilization, but they are far from exhausting everything that has happened over the last 60 years. Polymer materials, high-speed jet liners, unprecedented growth in labor productivity, and much more that has completely changed the character of our lives—all these are also fruits of the scientific and technological revolution.

Immediately after the war, the restructuring of the entire technological basis of our civilization began at an unprecedented pace. Society transitioned into a new state, characterized by an ever-increasing rate of new scientific discoveries, the creation of new technologies, and unprecedented rates of development of productive forces. Within the lifetime of a single generation, the living conditions of the population change quite significantly. Now, even two neighboring generations in developed countries begin to live in conditions that are substantially different. And the pace of scientific and technological progress shows no tendency to decline; life shows no inclination to return to the path of calm, moderate development.

We cannot now imagine our lives without everything that modern scientific knowledge and engineering skill provide us. Never before has civilization provided humanity with as many benefits as it does now. One can speak of their uneven distribution, and yet never in all of human history has the average earthling consumed as much as they do now, nor have they ever been provided with the quantity of services they are provided with today.

However, the growth of civilization's power has led to a manifold increase in the intensity of anthropogenic impact on the biosphere. The fates of humanity and nature are becoming increasingly intertwined. The atomic bomb blasts in Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed that man is capable of destroying not only cities and countries but also the foundation of foundations of our being—Nature.

The interaction between society and nature can be represented as a model of social metabolism and energy, Fig. 1.1.

The model reflects the extraction of substances and energy from nature, the processing of substances, the assimilation of processed elements of nature by society, and the discharge of waste into the environment. At all stages of the interaction between society and nature, pollution of the natural environment occurs, which, in turn, affects society.

Nuclear war is not the only manifestation of the power of modern civilization capable of pushing humanity to the brink of catastrophe. There are other human actions that could lead to changes in living conditions on our planet, which would exclude any possibility for the continued existence of civilization.

For example, a decrease in evaporation from the ocean surface due to its pollution will sharply reduce the amount of precipitation, and it is already in short supply in most regions of the planet. And water is life; its reduction means that people will possess fewer food resources. A 20–30% reduction in these resources with a continuously growing population will have catastrophic consequences that are even difficult to assess.

Let us consider another fact. All the splendor of modern civilization is a consequence of the enormous amount of artificial energy that humanity has now begun to produce. We do not live on the energy of the Sun, like plants and animals, but consume the reserves of oil, coal, gas, and shale that the biosphere has accumulated over hundreds of millions of years. These non-renewable reserves are being consumed rapidly, and if the sources of oil and coal run out tomorrow, trains and automobiles will stop, and the supply of energy will cease. Not only will industrial production come to a halt, but the production of agricultural products will also sharply decrease.

The danger also lies in the very quantity of energy produced by humans. The Earth receives a huge amount of energy from the Sun and maintains an approximately constant temperature; therefore, the input and output of the amount of energy must be balanced, otherwise, the system will one day lose its stability.

Agriculture is completely dependent on the fragile thermal balance of our planet. Life on Earth has been maintained for centuries by a slight imbalance between solar energy incoming from space and heat reflected by the planet back into space. Today, this equilibrium is being disrupted due to the active release of energy from organic and nuclear fuels, which leads to the gradual heating of land, ocean, and atmosphere.

• An increase in the average temperature of the Earth by 4–5 °C
• A rise in the global sea level by many tens of meters

The change in heat balance has already begun, and its consequences directly affect field working conditions. The energy produced by humanity dissipates into the environment, accelerating global warming. Without considering these changes and without understanding the prohibited ecological boundaries, it is impossible to build long-term development plans for crop production.

Soil fertility crisis and environmental constraints

The modern relationship between humanity and nature has reached a dead end, which is called the global environmental crisis. The resource and environmental capabilities of the biosphere can no longer keep up with the development of production. Practical crop production is among the first to take the hit of these changes, and the signs of a global crisis are already visible to every agronomist.

• gradual global climate warming;
• chemical and industrial pollution of the environment;
• rapid decline in the natural soil fertility of arable fields;
• general depletion of available fossil natural resources.

The time of permissiveness in nature management has gone irrevocably. Today, one cannot develop production and solve the economic problems of an enterprise while ignoring the profound interdependence of natural and social processes. The survival of the agricultural sector and the preservation of the biosphere are possible only through the search for optimal solutions based on fundamental ecological knowledge.