 | Tangentium |
March '04: Menu
All material on this site remains © the original authors: please see our submission guidelines for more information. If no author is shown material is © Drew Whitworth. For any reproduction beyond fair dealing, permission must be sought: e-mail drew@comp.leeds.ac.uk. ISSN number: 1746-4757 |
The Biosphere and the NoösphereDrew WhitworthPage 1 ¦ Page 2 ¦ Page 3 ¦ Page 4 ¦ Printer-friendly version 3. Resources, environments and adaptabilityAlthough we suggested that the existence of a cultural "artifact" such as Romeo and Juliet was strongly dependent on the noösphere, this does not mean that sphere can be considered in isolation from the others. In the first place, we as humans require the resources of all the other spheres of the Earth to stay alive and thereby interact with and continue to reproduce the noösphere. As Samson and Pitt say, "without the biosphere there could be no noösphere, irrespective of how one defines the latter" [10]. We observed above how, despite recognising separate processes within the various spheres, they are impossible to separate out, and the same is true here. In addition, describing Romeo and Juliet as a cultural artifact should lead to the recognition that we often interact with such things through "physical" artifacts. We often record information in artifacts such as books or DVDs, or we otherwise make use of technology to communicate. Technological artifacts can best be seen as an interaction of the noösphere with other spheres of reality. Information is "coded" within them, via the scientific understanding which gives rise to particular artifacts, the industrial processes by which they are made, and the uses to which they are put (which themselves cause changes in the biosphere and the non-living spheres). For more information here, see this month's feature essay. It is then fair to state that not only humanity, but every organism and non-living process on Earth, is influenced by all five spheres simultaneously. Even if this influence is indirect, it nevertheless exists through such processes as observation, humanity's cultural relationship with its environment, photosynthesis and other such exchanges. What we think of as our environment, and the environment of any other ecosystem or organism, is therefore drawn from a mixture of all five spheres. If we accept that the spheres interact, we should also postulate that there will be similarities in the structure of each sphere. The most important shared characteristic is that each sphere exists at multiple scales. Each is a literally global phenomenon, yet at the same time this global scale is built from interacting sub-levels, right down to individual "units". The biosphere, for instance, can be seen as being made up of ecosystems and biomes of many scales from continental down through regional and local, until at the lowest end of the scale there are individual organisms and ultimately the genes themselves. Global-scale events influence localities, but the actions of individuals can also influence the global scale. Although this happens on timescales almost inconceivable to human minds, the global biosphere (and certain features of the other spheres) is merely the accumulated record of the activity of every organism that has ever existed, however humble, going about its daily business of self- and species-perpetuation. The same is true of the noösphere. Certain values are often held at a more-or-less global scale; the value that says murder is wrong, for example. Some cultural icons are globally recognised. Other values or icons, however, are more localised, with some having meaning only in terms of very small communities. Yet even the global aspects of the noösphere are continually validated by its individual members -- people -- even if they are not aware of this at the conscious level. Though political leaders or other influential figures may take decisions or act in ways which have substantially greater impact on the biosphere and noösphere than "ordinary people", "[e]ach of us helps write the morality by which we all shall live." [11] The spheres also share the characteristic of dynamism. Each is in a constant state of change that has been termed chaotic; at the same time, patterns can be viewed in each sphere. One should note that the development of chaos theory came just as much from looking at fluctuations in commodity prices as it did from looking at the climate or animal populations. [12]. Despite this constant change, however, there is also a broad stability in the Earth system. Few of these constant micro-adjustments become significant enough to affect even the local scale. Systems usually work to dampen changes via negative feedback before the change becomes serious enough to affect that system's environment. Sometimes, however, micro-changes can accumulate into global events: a literary (noösphere) metaphor for this being "For want of a nail... the kingdom was lost", and the scientific (biosphere) metaphor being the "Butterfly Effect". Although large-scale change in an environment is a rare event, it can take place; we are talking here of significant "phase changes" such as the shift from a warm climate to an Ice Age, or from capitalism to communism. Such changes can be induced by outside events (meteorite strikes, say) or by nothing more than the actions of the systems themselves - remember that the central point here is that systems are not at the mercy of their environments, but actively shape them. This process is not always beneficial for a given system or species, however; indeed, in that systems are usually perfectly adapted to their environment, any change is likely to have a negative impact. Changes may be rapid and catastrophic, or slow and incremental, but in either case, organisms or systems will only survive them if they can adapt. Adaptability, reaction and control are intertwined: think of a tightrope walker. When we say that a tightrope walker has balance or equilibrium we are not saying she has nothing more than the ability to stand upright on solid ground in unvarying conditions. Instead, her balance is dynamic, a constant process of minute adjustments. She is not at the mercy of the rope but nor does she entirely control it. We have already noted Dobzhansky's suggestion that the adaptability of organisms, ecosystems or the biosphere as a whole is a direct function of genetic diversity. He wrote: "The process of adaptation can be understood only as a continuous series of conflicts between [the system]... and its environment. The environment is in a state of constant flux, and its changes, whether slow or catastrophic, make the genotypes of the past generations no longer fit for survival." [13] Dobzhansky recognised the same processes at work in individual personalities or organisational cultures, and this insight has become incorporated into mainstream theories of business organisation [14]. It is from diversity that systems can draw on either the genetic or cultural variation which they need to adapt to the environmental changes. Footnotes10. Samson and Pitt, op. cit., p. 18. return 11. Zohar, Danah (1990). The Quantum Self, London, Flamingo, p. 178. For the different "levels", or scales, of both biosphere and noösphere see E. P. Odum (1993), Ecology and our Endangered Life-Support Systems, Sunderland, Mass., Sinauer, p. 26. return 12. The best layperson's introduction to these ideas is Gleick, James (1988), Chaos: Making a New Science, New York, Sphere. return 13. Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1937). Genetics and the Origins of Species. New York, Columbia University Press, pp. 126-7. return 14. For a review see Morgan, Gareth (1997), Images of Organization, 2nd. ed., London, Sage, chapter 3. return | |