Noospheregenesis of the Arctic: forming environmental world outlook of students

Education without outlook?

«Beauty will save the world — these popular words of F.M.Dostoevsky has become the maxima.

But why even beauty will save the world?» A.I.Subetto

More and more evident, though not always doubtless, is becoming the historic limitation of such mass types of a man as: economical man, partial member, liegeman and Homo Faber. When not always complete negation of ethic and outlooking marks, but always their smearing impose students and young people upon «consumer society». Modern civilization, and it raises no doubts, is characterized with increase of direct and indirect dangers to life and health of a man. But in the era of global ecological crisis, correspondingly in the paradigm «noospheric phase of development» it is already developing the process of transformation of ideas of «humanism» and content of «ecology» [1]. These ideas must become, to the author’s point of view, main directions of evolution (modernization) of Russian educational system. These circumstances are redoubled and actualized by discomfortable and extreme conditions (challenges) of the Arctic and European North.

Northern University (NArFU), to our point of view, must firstly develop scientific outlook of students, which will be necessary for them for their future active participation in effective strategic management of Arctic development. But anyway to bring this mission to life education processes and scientific researches must hold some validity.

In the context of our topic let’s address the point of view of a clever theorist of general ecology N.F. Reimers. He objectively resumed transformation of scientific biological ecology into independent integrated science [4]. Reimers thought, and we think the same, that ecology «…has left native wall of biologically clear house, and pushed aside mother science — bioecology…». Philosopher R.S. Karpinskaya, admitting that ecological approach is considered to be result of biology, noticed that it has overgrew frames of biology [5]. Nowadays ecological approach included that social-formed goal. It means that in its content it is practically realizing connection between natural science and humanities knowledge. According to it we intent to understand social ecology as a science and practice on formation of noosphere. And only in such a way there will be no doubts practical challenges of ecology of a man, formulated by B.B. Prohorov: «creation on the whole territory of the country of ecologically clear, safe and socially comfortable environment of a man» [6]. As well as special attention which he payed during solution of a problem of demographic behavior and people’s health conditions.

We see the problem of not always effective scientific close support of Russian Arctic exploitation in oblivion of noospheric approach in strategic management of special northern socionatural environment. Nowadays integral approach in education process in NArFU is practically impossible. There is neither department nor even laboratory of noospheregenesis (social ecology), and orientation to scientific biological ecology is still going on. Social hygiene is substituted by chemistry of environment or the so-called technosphere safety, community medicine by the so-called healthy lifestyle and health promotion technologies; there is no place for political economy and social safety. Essentially students are prepared for life for Ministry for Civil Defense of the Russian Federation, Emergency Management and Natural Disasters Response (EMERCOM) charges, but not for sustainable development. And it is by that integrative approach (noospheric) to natural scientific and humanitarian knowledge on the basis of ecology let researchers enter out of institutional, philosophy interpretation of globalization processes in the RFAZ. Naturally nowadays in NArFU we can cheer that in Russia socio-ecological problems is excluded from lines of «so-rokinskiye readings» and is absent in register of leading sociologist institutes. Even in International independent ecology-political university (IIEPI) there is no major «social ecology» [7]. Urgency of an issue also strengthens by the fact that traditional official philosophy appeared to be irresponsive to new development of Arctic and Russian European North. In NArFU, to our mind, still continues to rule the dominant oriented to direct rule of thumb.

Philosopher-noospherist A.I.Subetto also referred «universalism», regionalism, fundamentalism; the first, the second and the third priority development» to the number of common principles, which determine university education of the 21st century [8]. University education in NAr-FU, and it is true for the paradigm of glam-science, is in difficult times and obtains more and more narrow technocratic (practically oriented) character 1. We mark that this phenomenon wasn’t specific for traditions of native (imperial and Soviet) classical universities. And in this terms the question of a student from NArFU to President V.V. Putin about necessity of history as a subject is impossible to consider private 2.

Properly speaking, the question is about quality of university education, and university to our mind is not mechanical reckoning of Bachelor's and Master’s programs. From the other side, university form of higher education cannot still be the only one. Public needs ask to add the institutional setting of higher education with different forms of non-university higher education: engineer, pedagogic and economic institutes, drill and other schools as well as academies of applied sciences. Russian education demands for institutionalization. And speaking about it we share the opinion of director of Institute for education development (IED) of National Research University — Higher School of Economics I.V.Abankina. Scientist doesn’t make «any sense» in experiment on applied Bachelor’s program, which was started by Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in 2009. Bureaucrats meet the needs of rather wide Russian public wishes, who essentially don’t accept any other education except higher education. And the Ministry has decided hastily and hotheadedly to create educational chimera. Mixture of higher and secondarylevel education lies at the heart of this pedagogic chimera. Quality of secondary-level education in Russia surely doesn’t increase, but of the higher education will be certainly become lower!

UNO conference on environment and development in 1992 declared as the first principle of sustainable development (SD) providing to be concern for people, who have rights for fruitful life. One of the main problems which stands before researchers at the current stage of social ecology formation is considered to be performance of consistent approach to understand of its subject. In his work on theory of people’s behavior in urban environment in 1921 R. Park and E. Berdges used the term «social ecology» for the first time. With this term as synonym to definition «ecology of a man» Chicago sociologists underlined, that in this context we speak not about biological, but about social phenomenon, which has also biological characteristics. In 1970 at the World sociologist congress in Varna was created International Sociological Association Committee on social ecology. In Russia social ecology (theory of noosphere) still continues to be in the sidelines of its biological neighbor, which claims the status of scientific ecology. At the same time in our country appears the necessity to «hide» eco-social problematic into other disciplines [7].

Out of institutional philosophical conceptualization

We became rich in knowledge, but poor in wisdom.

K.G. Jung

A.I. Subetto rightly named the era of the 90s of the 20th century as «era of glut of innovation-pedagogical activity». Together with it, we would firstly remember that this «glut» was initiated by social, political and economic reforms. Neoliberalists conducted it under negotiation of traditionalism and grounds of Soviet educational system and contention of the so-called «deideo-logisation», «pluralism» and «liberalism». Secondly, we must take into account that any pedagogical system must have the status of anthropogenic system. Thirdly , special place in innovation process must be payed to proofing of national language, and Russian in the educational system still continues to be stood for English. And, finally , it is necessary to forbid those virtual pedagogic innovations, which destroy culture and a man. Logic of thoughts about the desired idea of modern education gives us a real answer that it is new anthropocentrism.

A.A. Seredkin agrees with common idea that chief approaches to modern concept of social ecology and environmentalism were formulated in three key for ecology development publications [9]. These are: «Bounds of growth», «Plan of survival» with foreword made by famous biologist Ehrlich and «Small is beautiful» by Fritz Schuhmacher. Even in 60s of the 20th century it became evident that problems of environmental safety and prevention of ecological crisis couldn’t be cured by technological means. We need radical changes of basic institutions of urban society and transition to alternative social system. We got the development of theory which studies laws and forms of interaction between society and environment, variety of connections between social changes and changes in life-supporting economic conditions of social processes.

During last 50 years the world was proposed a complex of ideas, ideologies and programs of society rebuilding and changes in its management system. Up to the middle of 1980s these were concepts of eco-socialism and eco-anarchism. In 1990s they were changed into theory of modernity, concept of sustainable development, ideas of «green capitalism» and «ecological modernization». The concept «sustainable development» (SD) became the philosophy of ecological politics of developed Western countries. This concept gives the possibility for rather wide rendering of the definition of SD, but it connects environmental safety with economic growth and is considered to be main politics in countries, which are «the core of market». In Russia social ecology is understood as the study of noospheregenesis, where were developed the ideas of V.I. Vernadsky. By the end of the 20th century scientific knowledge allowed people to understand all the infinity of range of problems, which demanded for their interpretation. Integrative approach (noospheric) to scientific and humanities knowledge based on ecology let the researchers to enter the concept of Arctic globalization processes. But, from the other side, evidently, N.N. Moiseev’s

Арктика и Север. 2014. № 17 point of view is fair, as he noticed that social studies appeared to be not ready to understand and accept deepened process of globalization and ecological crisis.

The phrase «everything is relative» nowadays is repeated practically at every step and by practically every scientist. There is firmness that it is impossible to know everything authentically or comprehensively, that the veracity is no longer than figment of the mind or imagination. This is the source of many our problems: controversies, created by the theory of the world culture multipolarity to discussions on modern condition of environment. But when «everything is relative» than probably the idea that «everything is relative» is not true?

And it’s not surprising that most of people in the Post-Modernism period «despaired» to find some unique conditionalism to take it as a basis of their ideology as a universal principle. The Idea of «Post-Modernism» as the basic problem of modernity, characterized by confrontation of different thinking paradigms and life-forms, was firstly introduced at the end of 70s of the 20th century by philosopher Jean-François Lyotard ("La condition postmodern", 1979). Post-Modernism confirms impossibility of outer knowledge and proclaims the idea of fatuity of human being. The most important in modern scientific ideology is digestion of the new paradigm of world view. It is necessary to know, understand and adopt that most of object which cause our interest are considered to be open, unbalanced systems, controlled by non-linear laws (cosmical chaos) [10]. These are ecological, natural and socio-natural complexes, living organisms, cities, enterprises, economic structures, etc.

To our point of view, in the era of the first stage of global ecological crisis there happened no essential changes of economic and political power distribution. Confirmations about «death of classes» also seem to be evidently exaggerated and premature. In such a way, conceptualization on class antagonism and power of capital could be considered to be strict frames of noospheric futurology! Nowadays the challenge of ecological knowledge is to help young people understand what objective reality causes advantages and disadvantages of globalization. We anyway suggest the thesis on the role of universals, obtained by science. Without them people just have many individual ideas at the level of commonplace sense, traditions created by different peoples. Our position a priori provokes objections among mythologists who are defenders of the position «every-thing is relative».

Some scientists, for example, claim that each science supports the mark of cultural and national specialities, and that’s why we can speak of «Indian», «Chinese» or about «western», «Eu-ropean» science. By that each of national sciences is thought to have its own methods and priorities, what doesn’t exclude the veracity of these sciences. Author in particular knows suggestion on veracity of «Russian epidemiology». In a dispute over the main the question is universals, whether they are objective, real or they are just names of things.

It is characteristic that Post-Modernism was presented as new, progressive alternative to traditional science, as new modern world perception. Post-Modernism world perception was firstly pointed as alternative to bourgeois styles in pictorial art (impressionism, cerebralism). Modern, constructivism in architecture. Improvisation as free art. Jazz in music. Then the chain: blues, rhythm-n-blues, rock-n-roll, rock. Then punk as anarchy, highest expression of freedom in music, pop music and pop culture. In historical science: concept of local civilizations of Spengler (realization of extremity of civilizations and culture), «ecumenism» of Toynbee. Then «new sciences» appeared, for example, valeology, pedagogical psychology, family studies, regional studies, gender studies, etc.

We protest against how heartily the radically gender world view is settled in our students’ minds. It claims that traditional science is full of patriarchal (masculine) tone and masculine rowdy words, as well as of aggressive methods. Radicality of gender world view knows no bounds! Even battles in different countries’ parliaments and armed conflicts the followers of gender science are trying to explain by «masculine politics». Gender view strongly demands to counter «masculine science» with more mild, calm «feminized» science. It is evident that the goal of «gender view», inoculated to us by «progressive human beings», is to prepare our youth to hyper-tolerance in relation to homosexual marriages? Legal equality of men and women is substituted for biological sexual equality! And the main, where in this philosophy is the place for scientific view on the processes of globalization so necessary to create sustainable development of the Arctic?

In belief emptiness of consumer society exception is done only to confirmation of private property and consumption inviolability. In people’s minds we can notice displacement of care from progress to ideological fluctuation of civilization development. People try to find asylum in religious fundamentalism or in fascism, what externalizes in nationalism, Eurasianism, «Orange revolutions» in Arabian countries and in Ukraine. And it is evident that those scientists are right, who underline connections of future noospheric civilization not only with changes in economic basis of society, but with transformation of collective consciousness, world outlook and ideology [11].

At bottom, «Philosophy of postmodern» reflects common crisis of New world humanistic philosophy. Post-Modernism in philosophy appeared from radical doubt of possibility of the philosophy itself as some kind of belief-theoretical and genre unity. It didn’t keep some pseudoscientists from suggesting impossibility of objective knowledge on existence, and the idea of hu-

Арктика и Север. 2014. № 17 man being fatuity is proclaimed. Now the philosophy doesn’t solve such problems as: what is good and just, how this world is arranged and what is the reason for being [12].

• S.A. Stepanov wrote about «feeling of isolation of modern Russian philosophy, and its indifference to current underground processes of world reorganization» [13]. To his point of view, integrative approach based on ecology out of traditional official philosophy created such schools as «outinstitutional philosophy»: philosophy of ecology; philosophy of global studies; philosophy of sustainable development; philosophy of technics. Strictly speaking, these schools can’t be parts of traditional philosophy, and we can speak only of studying common principles. As an example of «outinstitutional philosophy» in social ecology, to our mind, could be generalization of academician N.N. Moiseev. S.A. Stepanov considers «ecological imperative» of Moiseev to be the «basic category and foundation of new history-philosophical direction — philosophy of ecology», which is associated with imperative of Kant.

It is true that N.N. Moiseev tried to define the strategy (not worldview!) for mankind's survival in the 21st century. Global conscious human activity must become its basis. He thought that such an activity must limit itself by creation of «…rigid boundaries of development, necessity to coordinate its activity with development of the rest biosphere. These directives are so strict, that they could be called «an ecological imperative» [14]. Later a scientist-noospherist A.I. Subetto introduced into scientific use a related term «imperative of human being survival». To the scientists’ point of view, this term «in the XXIst century means imperative of transition to new stability of socio-natural evolution». And scientist-ecologist A.G. Shmal noticed the idea of social ecology in regimentation, that means in consent restriction of human activity [15]. But now, in the context of political understanding of the term «sustainable development» (SD), adopted in RHS-92 summit, rich countries impose restriction of development for developing countries, including Russia. And this is with the assumption that level of consumption in Western countries even today is higher than rational.

Stepanov also thinks, that in the backbone of a theory of social ecology must be also included the «concept of universal evolutionism of N.N. Moiseev». His universal evolutionism of N.N. Moiseev is a configuration of world evolution progress expansion, which reflected in works of the academician. N.N. Moiseev defined co-evolution of nature and society as such a development of mankind, which doesn’t destroy the stability of both biosphere and mankind. Actually, this is definition of the goal, which the planetary society must achieve. But whether this goal could be achieved?

We must point the position of ideological opponent of N.N. Moiseev, who was professor V.I. Danilov-Danilyan [16]. He proceeded from the assumption that «evolution of biota is realized through the process of speciation…». By that average life time of species adopted by him is about

3 mln. years. He concludes on wrongfulness of co-evolution of nature and man because of difference «in speeds of bio-evolution and technical evolution (five times!). Danilov-Danilyan considers also to be incorrect to equate terms «co-evolution» and «sustainable development» as N.N. Moiseev thought.

Critics of co-evolution theory adduce different arguments, which, to their point of view, speak for impossibility of such form of human being development and biosphere. But when making away with different misconceptions and variants, there is only one question is left: human control by biosphere is impossible as a matter of principle, because flow of information in all the computers of modern civilization is 1020 times less than flows of information in biota (all the living organisms, plants and animals, including people) of the Earth. Opponents of co-evolution theory hold that by such a great difference it is impossible to create an adequate model of biosphere, and consequently, to control its condition. Logic of such reasonings is mistaken inasmuch as it allow use in control processes of just such models, which are absolutely master copies of objects (in our instance copy of biosphere, which describe all its details up to behavior of particular organism). In reality behavior of systems, composed of great amount of elements, is described by statistical laws, and to control biosphere models with courtesy of individual organism are absolutely unnecessary.

Askar Ackaev points that academician N.N. Moiseev didn’t delude himself about practical possibility to conduct co-evolution of a man and biosphere [17]. N.N. Moiseev came into his pessimistic position and thought, that «in modern world with its system of values it is considered to be hardly possible the opportunity to subject human activity to realization of circumstances, which provide co-evolution of society and nature demands». He supposed, that before it must be formulated common civilizational moral imperative, which will be equal to ecological imperative.

Governability of society of the era of noosphere, essentially, is considered to be the antithesis to spontaneity of the world capitalist market. And this antithesis is also part of N.N. Moiseev’s theory, who thought, that «when this era will take place, it must anyway possess rational organization. Without it will be impossible to organize the regime of co-evolution!». But in the 20th century, in spite of great scientific success, who allowed to create new examples of technology and gradually to make over the whole peoples’ lifestyles, concepts of rationalism began to receive different criticism.

First of all, from the Church! It couldn’t be in another way. For slovenly in thought the truth is one forever, that mechanism of creation was once neglected by some Highest Force or Higher Reason. In one word, God has never fitted in the schemes of classical rationalism, or according to

Арктика и Север. 2014. № 17 the words of Laplass, to explain functioning of the Universe, a human being wasn’t in need for a hypothesis for God’s existence.

In the theory of noospherism we must anyway include the problem of production and division of value of «negative welfare». In the second half of the 20th century scientists-economists finally arrived at a decision that, because values of negative welfares (unwanted products, h.e. contaminates) are not considered to be the goods, the market is anyway not able to control them. Really, in market conditions each producer must either pollute or suffer from positions degradation in competitive struggle!

Moreover, industrialists’ expenses, on which basis are produced traditional calculations of profitability, are objectively not appeared to be standards of real products’ costs. This is also ecological imperative, which dispels a myth about social responsibility of business. In reality, this myth is not just a misbelief. This is legal camouflage of large-scale robbery, which overrides everything what was spoken about by earlier socialists-utopianists and even their followers Marxists, when they criticized exploitation of man by man, which was followed by new-born system of private enterprise. Western scientists-economists in this respect gave different points of view (according to their preferences). But most of them were solid in that it is essentially necessary state regulation of nature management.

In such a way, ecological crisis and perspective of ecological catastrophe are connected not by biology of a man, but by concrete form of human civilization (structure of society and predominated values). Such an approach, which could be called as socio-ecological, foresees the cause of ecological disasters in authoritarian industrial form of civilization, whereby concentration of energy in arms of slender and estranged from society elite is possible. Technocratic culture, culture of material consumption is becoming apparent force, which supports the structure of industrial society. Globality of the process demands for control from the side of world society.

Already since the 21st century it has become narrow in the frames of plane lineal determinism. And rationalism began to receive criticism not only by theologians, but already by scientists. Even physiologist I.M. Sechenov, about whom bio-ecologists often forget, underlined necessity of human being study in unity of its «body, soul and nature». The finishing stroke on starting worldview positions of classical rationalism was made by physics in the 19—20th centuries. And special attention must be paid to the fact that rigorous stroke to rational thought in Europe was delivered by the Einsteinian theory of relativity and the Niels Bohr quantum mechanics. Right quantum mechanics gave first demonstrative and incontestable evidence on involvement of a man as an active element in world evolution process. And in this context it is worth noticing the role of

Darwinism (concept of a man as being thinking animal), socio-Darwinism (shift of laws of wildlife with its «struggle for existence» to human society). Freud (libido) and Jung (archetype) played their roles. And surely two World and Cold wars, Holocaust, collapse of the Soviet Union and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia!

Self-organization is a characteristic of all nonlinear medium, when elements of the environment or their summation acquire the status of part of the whole. When characteristics of parts are determined by the characteristics of common, but not vice versa. In particular, everything happens around us we could consider as the process of self-organization, thus the process which is moved by means of internal stimulus, which doesn’t ask for interference of exogenous factors, which doesn’t pertain to system. From these positions, the global economic crisis and different forms of deviation are the result of interaction of internal components of system of the world capitalist market at a point of fabrication.

Speaking about the theory of systems, it is necessary to remember the reader on Russian scientist A.A. Malinovsky-Bogdanov, whom rightfully belongs superiority in development of main thesis of systematology theory. His work «Techtology. General organizational science» was significantly ahead of time, and as it is usual in such things, it appeared to be unclaimed for a long time. It was practically unknown for the West, where superiority in this sphere clearly belonged to L. von Bertalanffy, but just at the second attempt. We admire the breadth of A.A. Bogdanov’s thoughts, of this politician, philosopher, sociologist, economist and book critic. As a revolutionist he didn’t share the ideas of Plekhanov and Lenin on ground problems of socialism theory. He created «institute of struggle for viability», was its leader, and died when conducting a risk experiment on blood transfusion with himself.

As notionalist Bogdanov made a talk with conceptual baseline of tectology (from Greek. τέκτων — builder, creator and λόγος — word, study), common organizational science, which represented the idea to give expanded construction of common organizational theory and structure of systems [18]. According to Bogdanov, laws of system organization are single for all the objects, material and mental, because of which it is possible to study them in generalized form. As well as maths, tectology stands against specialisms, which study specific for each area laws and features. Definition of organized system is based on the principle in technology «the entire is more than the total of all its parts». Empiriomonism and tectology came in for knockdown criticism of Russian Marxists.

Methods of tectology are alike common methods of natural science. It is firstly different forms of induction. In the context of our topic it is worth underlining that the ideas of tectology are inclined to modern problematic of current researches, in particular to number of problems, set up as a result of «general systems theory» by L. von Bertalanffy3. On this basis, tectology now must be overviewed as precursor of general scientific notion. Synergy, essentially, is becoming scientific system, «Science of all sciences». In particular, within a matter of synergy scientifically grounded decision genius foresights are found, which ongoing since the dawn of civilization, for example, such as rise of an order from chaos. The term «systemology» itself was suggested in 1965 by Russian philosopher I.B. Novikov.

• V.I. Vernadsky eventually introduces new criterial dimension «humanity as a whole» in the analysis of system connections «man-nature» and transfers social analysis in global surface. In the center of the system of noospheric worldview is a Humanity with concrete system of essential material-economic needs and interests of survive of present and future generations.

The idea of systematic approach is rather easy: all elements of the system and all the operation inside must be overviewed just as a whole, just together, just in connection with each other. Poor experience of attempts to solve systematic problems ignoring this principle is rather well-studied: these are local decisions and consideration of deficient number of factors. Local optimization at the level of particular elements has practically led to ineffective as a whole and even sometimes to dangerous consequences. For example, construction of dike to increase the level of the Caspian sea, which fenced off the bay Kara Bogaz Gol, modernization of educational systems and public health system of Russia or projects of Northern rivers transference.

We agree with the point of view of S.A. Stepanov that «scientific and socio-humanities generalizations of N.N. Moiseev gave to philosophy of ecology prognostic functions…». They correspond to challenges of ecological education in NArFU reconstruction, and «philosophy of ecology of N.N. Moiseev» must be recognized as the theoretical basis and new paradigm of human culture and morality. Scientific heritage of V.V. Vernadsky and N.N. Moiseev, A.I. Subetto and other scien-tists-noospherists allow to interpret in a new integral paradigm processes of globalization and take them to basis of the theory of social ecology (noospherism). Myths are dangerous for formation of rational and moral worldview by young population. Relations between people, nature and society must be overviewed from the positions of synergy and universal evolutionism of N.N. Moiseev. But ecological philosophy of N.N. Moiseev stayed to be unacknowledged by Russian official philosophical community. According to it we can make a deplorable conclusion: in the 21st century in

Russia there is still historically formed model of opposition of institutional (state) university philosophical departments and free philosophers, who are not constrained by official academic frames of professional affiliation.

Alternative to northern technocratic education

The Great Patriotic war was won by «Soviet tenth-grader» A.A. Zinoviyev

We suppose that providing of high level of intellectual and moral development of a student and creation of conditions for acquirement of scientific style of mind experiences must be acknowledged to become chief goals of innovation education in NArFU. It is the direction, which our northern university must follow. NArFU is a young university and, evidently, could not understand the paradigm that «fun-damentalism is the basis of «universalism». Professor Subetto clear and in an easy form explains the idea of the category «fundamentalization» of the university education. The main thing in fundamentalization of education is that it must be anyway include «philosophization» of university education, its direction to formation of the common scientific worldview by graduates, their orientation in geopolitics, global problems, in problems of sustainable development of population and Russia in the 21st century».

Biological ecology studies all connections in ecosystems of biosphere. Social ecology studies just specific connections in mega-system «society-environment». Subject of social ecology — is laws of the system «society-environment» development and resulted principles and methods of optimization of human relations with nature. Part of subject is represented by its gnoseological part and is connected with understanding of laws, which according to the level of community are lower than philosophical, but higher than the laws of special and complex sciences. Noospheric studies aimed to learn youth, that collective mind, but not nature must control future destiny of human world. It allows to unite in one humanistic «code of life» different principles, which were founded and successfully approved by different peoples, nationalists and religions. Moreover, such a methodology allows us to preserve anthropocentric position of our civilization.

Nowadays «ecological function of state» could mean only one - to protect right of a person to life. Narrow-scientific environment-oriented approach is fundamentally considered to be unethical, and such a state politics is an unfair game. Dominance of such definitions as «protection of environment» in the university education makes an illusion of simplicity. It creates a myth that biosphere is environment of modern man. Carried to the point of absurdity paradigm «environmen-tal protection» dialectically and consistently passes into its opposition — priorities of administrative, economic and technological regulations.

Social ecology in its scientific meaning enters the cycle of the so-called anthroposophic knowledges — sciences of humanology. Its theoretical basis could and must become the new paradigm of innovational reconstruction of any education. In modern times system-structural approach appeared to be scientific method, and probable, such definition as «ecological» is acceptable only when we speak about purposeful activities, directly connected with optimization of specific ecological relations in the system «man-environment-society», which has the final goal to provide co-evolution of all constituents of this system [19].

A.I. Subetto assigns to education and family function of «reproduction of social intellect». Educational process in the broad sense of the word is overviewed by him as «unity of education -translation of knowledge, nurturing and education». Scientist uses new sociological category «edu-cational society» for dialectic negation of informational society of the end of the 20th century. Educational society aims to remove negatives of informational societies, firstly, appeared during the XXth century by fall of quality of public intellect. Subetto pointed insufficient acquisition of «huma-nistic potential of national and world cultures», insufficiency of noospheric education, adoption and «taking into practice new paradigms in science and culture, what form «half-intelligence» among people with degree in Russian higher educational establishments.

As an axiom we see concept of the idea, that pedagogical educational innovations are not just demonstration of pedagogues work, but «they correspond to the moment of development» of system. Suggested by scientists educational innovations will be adopted only than, when concrete innovation will become the part of the last one, and is always appropriate to «order», «need» of pedagogical system evolution. Propensity of NArFU to «practically-oriented» education, contrary to theory of knowledge and higher education fundamentalization, surely, points to lack of progress in pedagogical evolution of this educational system. We thought good to come to this fact from the perspective of ethics of educational space.

Using the definition «innovational susceptibility» of educational systems, introduced by A.I. Subetto, we agree that different educational systems have correspondingly «particular types of innovational susceptibilities». In educational space innovational susceptibility is determined by science-technical, economic, social, pedagogical and organizational circumstances and has many levels in educational systems. Susceptibility of NArFU to innovations is characteristic not only for the level of concrete university. And to this fact there are many examples of various innovational susceptibility of education systems and higher hierarchy. It is not a secret, that Russian and Soviet education systems couldn’t accept at the full extent Darwinian theory or concept of accident. In Russia, for example, biology (USSR) firstly adopted evolution of Marxist ideology and Lysenkoism

(The persecution of scientists who do not conform to the official governmental opinion on a scientific matter).

Technocratic education, fundamentally, dogmatically leads the society to going to impasse. We have to remind the reader one truth, that there is nothing more practical than the good theory! And it must become the basis for practical economic and engineer developments. Otherwise, we could again wait continuation of modern architecture of Arkhangelsk city and foremost project of «the Northern rivers lift off».

In different education guidances in social ecology there are made active attempts to create optimal model of the course taking into account specialities of one or another discipline. Discipline social ecology (beginning of noospheregenesis), to our point of view, could be represented with the wide worldview thematics. Among lecture topics the priority is given to the history of ecological study development, extremity of technocratic philosophy and biologism of traditional ecology; dualism in human sciences, worldview and world outlook, prognostic reports for Rome club. It is necessary to comply the reason for current global ecological crisis at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, American model of market society of consumption and production, evolution of biosphere into techno-sphere.

Special attention must be given to sociological approach in ecology, formation of ecological consciousness and formation of ecological ethics, main bio-indicator of ecological risk, consumer-related idea of current civilization, its objective influence on spirituality, morality and rectitude.

In detail must be overviewed the idea of such definition as «sustainable development» (SD): scientific and political content (RIA-92); «sustainable development» and powerful forces of market and globalization. With this topic will be connected problems of «green» and «red» criticism of global ecological crisis; custom of division of value of negative values through the whole society; pathogenesis (mechanism of development) «sicknesses of civilization» and factors of «new environment». With the result of the summit in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 (RIIO+20) the discipline should be finished.

Conclusion

We agree with points of view of scientists-noospherists, that not market priorities, but social ones will impart momentum to transformations of all our society and will lay the basis for management of its future development [20]. Oblivion of these principles and leads to loss of knowledge and brainwork values, what is considered to be one of the challenges for successful development of our country, by that threat to national security of Russia takes place.

In that connection, speaking about modernization of educational system, we must speak about the necessity of introduction of social ecology in curriculum of main university departments in Northern (Arctic) Federal University, which mission is to secure national interests of Russia. Envi-ronmentalization of the educational system marks level of infiltration of ideas, definitions, principles and approaches of ecology in other disciplines, and also preparation of ecologically trained specialists of the widest profile: engineers, doctors, economists, sociologists, etc.

Why did NArFU appear to be negatively sensitive to integral educational innovation? There are many reasons for that, but the first place is taken by bureaucratization of all the the system of education in Russia. Bureaucratization threatens to destroy Russian education and science, and here is no place to academic freedoms and artistic license. This fact is well understood and in the Russian academy of sciences (RAS), but the Academy itself appeared to be victim of political system and is not able to influence this process.

From our own reasons of NArFU irresponsiveness we would like to name fragments of Arkhangelsk technical and pedagogical institutes’ (and later universities’) traditions. They are far from university concept, but are always self-regemenrated. Secondly, in the HEI (Higher education establishment) appears the idea of non-necessity of human sciences for Arctic development. Thirdly, here we can see admiration of western education systems with their marked functionalism. And this superiority either unrestricted or unintentionally is inculcated to our students! It is probably forgotten that special place in the ethic of pedagogical innovations is given to security of national language. Ethic shows us, that the greatest danger for us is constituted by «aggression of English-spoken words». And the main, that adepts of obsequiousness forget, that progressive and democratic Europe has mostly become history. Fourthly, in the northern university hasn’t still appeared professorial self-regulated community. And, finally, beggarly remuneration of labour of professors and lecturers! Current renumeration of labour of higher-education teaching personnel is not adequate to the idea of this labour. And it doesn’t facilitate progress of educational system.

Social ecology must be taught within the module, when must be included also socio-ecological problems of the Arctic (North), social security, social medicine (hygiene), etc. These disciplines specify and develop principles of out institutional philosophical conceptualization.

We share the idea of academician Moiseev about necessity even nowadays to start ecological public education with orientation to that common, what must contain all civilization of the XXIst century. In this context, probably, right was professor A.G. Busigin [21], who thinks, that even today we must realize two things: escape from total differentiation of knowledge, sciences and educational disciplines; to reconsider priorities of human values (from HV «money — power

— information» to HV «life — health»).

Basis of such programs must be composed from closure of humanitarian concept of ethics by A. Shweizer with natural scientific ecological concept by V.I. Vernadsky. Barrier on this way, we think, is considered to be ongoing differentiation of sciences, which terribly complicates opportunities of knowledge’s synthesis and which is caused not by some particular reasons, but by all the evolution of modern civilization.