Каталог статей из сборников научных конференций и научных журналов- Ecologization of culture: moral and humanistic aspect of development

O. Yu. Kolosova, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, assistant professor,

Stavropol branch of Krasnodar university of Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation,

Stavropol, Russia

In the modern world environmental problems and protection of the surrounding environment dominate. [16, p. 241]. The environmental problems, started with local pollution, have grown to the threat of global disasters. Rapid growth of basic elements of global system is the main reason for it: population, industrial production, production of food, consumption of natural resources and, respectively, their processing waste. Even with all things considered there is almost full ecological illiteracy of the population.  All this tragically affects environmental pollution.

It is to be recalled that ecology (from Greek oikos – a house, homeland, a residence + logos - a concept, a doctrine) is a science about the relations of plant and animal, including human, bodies and communities formed among themselves and with the surrounding environment. Objects of ecology are population of organisms, types, communities, an ecosystem and the biosphere in general [2, p. 142–145]. Due to the universal technogenic pollution of the surrounding environment, destruction of  nature of Earth by unreasonable activity of ecologically ignorant part of mankind, for ecology and for a reasonable part of mankind these questions are more and more dominating and becoming the most current [13, p. 73–78]. For the solution of these problems so-called ecological (environmental) ethics  has appeared, which as moral values of the person consider not only wellbeing and social connections of people, but also responsibility for the benefit of future people, domestic animals and other life forms [1, p. 83–86]. Rates of use by mankind of the major types of natural resources, irrational structure of production and consumption have led to formation of many types of environmental pollution which has already exceeded admissible limits [12, p. 282–284]. At the same time an ecological factor is not one of the main factor while adopting economic decisions both at regional and state level, and worldwide [5, p. 43–46]. Many reasonable people understood long ago that the increasing technogenic press has created and continues to multiply negative problems in the interaction of the person with the surrounding environment in the course of industrial and agricultural productions carrying both short-term, and long-term nature. Culture of modern behavior means existence of ecological consciousness, that is a set of ecological and nature protection knowledge and representations which motivate ecological behavior - specific actions and acts of people, directly or indirectly led to preservation and development of an ecosystem, maintenance of ecological purity and order, manifestation of comprehensive care of nature surrounding us [8, p. 18–22]. These actions, careful and safe for biosphere, first of all have to be directed to the maximum utilization of all waste at home, in the district, in the country in general and also systematic updating of ecosystem – planting new trees and bushes, clarification and fish cultivating in the reservoirs, nutrition of wild birds and animals. In civilized countries ecological culture, ecological skills is cultivated nationwide from early age. As a result the level of national ecological consciousness constantly grows, forming ecological thinking [3, p. 80–85]. Keeping of biodiversity and health of natural systems, maintenance of reproductive abilities of nature defines life and health of the person [10, p. 37–40]. No matter how much the person wants to be allocated from the nature, oppose himself to it, he always remains its organic part. However it is impossible to be healthy in the sick environment. Meanwhile universal anthropogenic impact on the nature assumes a scale of environmental disasters and extensive zones of ecological catastrophe [15, p. 82–89]. Though there are no frontiers for ecological disasters. Ecologically all mankind is forced to stay in one biosphere of the Earth [11, p. 29–31]. For this reason the environment surrounding us, if we will not keep it, in its turn will stop providing the person with necessary resources, no matter the continent, deprive him an opportunity to breathe clean air, consume clear water and products, be protected from space radiation with the ozone layer, stay in the favorable natural environment.

Natural opportunities of self-cleaning of the environment are behind the increasing technogenic activity of the person [6, p. 27–30]. On the other hand the number of responses of the human body to thousands of new and various ecological influences is extremely limited. Results of environmental pollution are an increasing number of diseases of the person. Modern civilization can't refuse development of production at those rates which constantly increase impacts on the environment [14, p. 39–44]. But it is capable to control and dose this impact. Damage caused to the nature and health of the person by industrial and household pollution can't be justified by any economic benefits from neglect an ecological rules [7, p. 139–144]. Healthy environment is expensive environment, but health of the person is even more invaluable, so environment surrounding him has to be even more valuable.

Civilized countries of the world have realized the majority of environmental risks. All natural is recognized as initially self-valuable, having the right for existence, irrespective of usefulness or harm for the person. A person as an ordinary member of ecological community has no special privileges. A person, as the most reasonable being in nature, can have only additional duties in relation to nature and himself.

Bibliography

1. Бакланов И.С. Социокультурное и коммуникативное наполнение понятия рациональности в современной социальной философии // Вестник Северо-Кавказского федерального университета. - 2011. - № 5. - С. 83-86.

2. Бакланова О.А Методологические измерения социальности в современной социально-теоретической рефлексии // Вестник Северо-Осетинского государственного университета имени Коста Левановича Хетагурова. -  2013. - № 2. - С. 142-145.

3. Болховской А. Л., Говердовская Е. В., Ивченко А. В. Образование в глобализирующемся мире: философский взгляд // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2013. - № 5. - С. 80-85.

4. Говердовская Е. В., Добычина Н. В. Взаимные референции между реальным и виртуальным пространством: новая коммуникационная среда // Социально-гуманитарные знания. - 2014. - № 7. - С. 118-124.

5. Гончаров В. Н. Концепция «информационного общества»: социально-философский анализ // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. - 2009. - № 1. - С. 43-46.

6. Гончаров В. Н. Социальная концепция информационного общества // Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. 2011. - № 6-2 (12). - С. 27-30.

7. Деркачев Г.И., Бакланов И.С. Проблемы и истоки легитимации власти в современной России // Социально-гуманитарные знания. - 2009. - № 9. - С. 139-144.

8. Ерохин А. М. Религиозное сознание в контексте общественных отношений // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. - 2015. - № 2 (81). - С. 18-22.

9. Ерохин А. М. Научно-информационный аспект исследования социокультурного развития общества в области культуры и искусства // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2015. - № 2. - С. 123-128.

10. Камалова О.Н., Джиоева Д.А. Перспективы развития сенсорных технологий и проблема расширения чувственных возможностей человека // Северо-Восточный научный журнал. - 2011. - № 1. - С. 37-40.

11. Камалова О. Н. «Созерцание» в философско-культурологических построениях И. Ильина // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. 2012. № 6. С. 29-31. 

12. Лобейко Ю. А. Социальная активность личности в обществе: социально-педагогические аспекты формирования // European Social Science Journal.  - 2014. - №7-2 (46). - С. 282-284.

13. Лобейко Ю. А. Социально-психологические проблемы общения в контексте межличностных общественных отношений // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2015. - № 4. - С. 73-78.

14. Матяш Т.П., Несмеянов Е. Е. Православный тип культуры: идея и реальность // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. - 2015. - № 3 (82). - С. 39-44.

15. Месхи Б.Ч., Несмеянов Е.Е. Теология или лженаука: что на самом деле разрушает отечественное образование // Гуманитарные и социальные науки. - 2014. - № 4. - С. 82-89.

16. Микеева О. А.  Анализ методологии и направлений исследований современной социальной реальности // Социально-гуманитарные знания. -2009. - №9. - С. 241.