It will be that a person, as a whole world, is also a part of nature. In relation to it, a person is in dialectical unity: on the one hand he experiences the influence of the environment, and on the other hand changes the conditions of this environment. Often in the worst for themselves, for the sake of immediate benefits.

Today in science there is a whole branch of biology, which can be called human ecology.

The impact on health of what has already been created by the person himself and acts to his own detriment is generally recognized. Modern - natural, man-made and social - the environment that man has created and continues to create, is already dangerous not only for man himself, but also for life on Earth. The pollution of the atmosphere, water and soil is progressing with every minute!

All these factors are dangerous not only for a specific, now living, person, they are dangerous at the genetic level. We are talking about improving and even facilitating living and working conditions, but their impact is completely ambiguous. First of all, they lead to a reduction in physical labor, but an increase in neuropsychic overloads. Motor activity decreases, muscular costs decrease, psychoemotional tension intensifies. And what leads to irrational food and bad habits?

Logic and reason are inferior to instincts.

The imbalance in the relationship between man and nature is obvious. And how does this lead to norms and an elementary balance? Will the promotion of environmental knowledge help? Or are they useless in immoral governments and presidents?

What kind of ecology is possible where presidents can be cannibals? Jean Bedel Bokassa, a friend of the leaders of the USSR and Russia, is probably only one of them ... Or where the president looks indifferently at the plundering of the country's natural resources? Such indifference means that he is the chief robber, instigator and destroyer of the nature of the planet.

Meanwhile, scientists, filling Wikipedia with materials about cannibals and presidents, at the same time continue to assert that man is part of the biosphere, his health can not be viewed in isolation from the natural currents occurring in the universe and the biosphere of the planet. They come to the conclusion that the threat to the existence of mankind is most hidden in the ecological situation and environmental illiteracy of man, than in the existence of nuclear weapons.

And the existence of nuclear weapons is not directly related to the immorality and total immorality of the presidents elected by the society? Why should not science begin to answer such questions?

In our time, the rate of harmful influences on the environment is so great that biological structures do not have time to adapt to them. Consent nature does not ask a person. And your mind? What is he guided by, if not by reason? Is not it time to answer this question to science and scientists who spend acres of forests (papers) on their work and reports? Before whom, why, with benefit for whom?

As a result of them, scientists, actions uninhabitable for life are the vast expanses of the world's ocean and land. An average static person or society can not be blamed for this, it's like blaming an unreasonable creature in indulging his instincts and lusts. But there is a special kind of beings whose vocation is to think and protect the species - scientists, people of science, people of facts and evidence, logic and reason. Where is the propagation of knowledge of this species? Why does their propaganda not prevail over all the others and, perhaps, even serves the destroyers of nature and humanity? Why can not you see the practical actions of science in solving environmental problems? And such a solution is another algorithm and another inertia of the vital activity of human societies, where any harm to nature punishes instantly and relentlessly only the authors, in whose brains the idea of ​​harm is born ...

Living organisms, probably, never will wait for that moment when the instinct of the majority will be armed with logic and reason. This is exactly what the whole activity of homo sapiens has been telling in its entire history.

But are there any beings in which logic and reason prevail over instinct? Or are they still not there?

The solution of the environmental problem depends on the answer to the last two questions in this post. Without him, the idea of ​​solving this problem is impossible.