The categories of "living" and "non-living" in the context of the global problems of society and nature interaction

The article studies different forms of mental organization of the scientific and philosophical understanding of nature and attitudes towards it. Upwards the New Age Western European science is developing on the basis of mechanics, or initially the mechanical picture of the world. In such a way, nature turned out to be divided into two parts: non-living nature (Earth and the entire outer space), and living nature (animals, people, society, biosphere). The world's existence began to be described by the categories of “non-living” (almost the whole world), and “living” (the life on Earth). A human as an active rational principle began to be considered the conqueror of "non-living" on Earth and in space, the laws of nature by and by began to be studied according to the standards of non-living and attitude to nature became consumer, utilitarian, predatory... As a result, this gave rise to modern global environmental problems and the path to necrosphere. In the article we contrast the consumer approach to nature with the co-evolutionary approach - a form of scientific philosophical knowledge of nature that developed in antiquity and in Russian cosmism. Here the whole world is a living cosmos, and earthly life is its natural particle, which must exist in harmony with earthly and universal life. Mechanoscience comes into collision with vital science as a form of knowledge about living cosmos. This conception underlies the doctrine of noosphere and the ways of harmonizing human relations with nature. We have considered the problem of co-evolutionary development of natural and social systems in the context of new philosophical and scientific theories.