The concept of sustainable development was developed in the process of realizing the causes and working out the measures to resolve the global environmental crisis under the auspices of the UN and international nongovernmental organizations (primarily the Club of Rome). An important contribution to examining the issues related to concretization of the sustainable development concept and its implementation in the practice of social life, both at the international level and especially in Russia, was made by Academician Valentin A. Koptyug (1931-1997). V.A.Koptyug was a world-renowned chemist, President of the International Union of Chemists (1988), Chairman of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and later of the Russian Academy of Sciences (since 1980), and member of the Advisory Council on Sustainable Development under the UN Secretary-General (since 1993). He is also well-known as a social activist and member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Since the late 1980s, V.A.Koptyug set a priority before the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences that he headed to study and develop the methodology for addressing environmental problems in the Siberian regions. He also maintained that studying and finding solutions to environmental problems were priority tasks for the Academy of Sciences (ref.: [1], [2]). In Siberia in the 1980s, academic institutions and laboratories, largely owing to the motivating activity of the Chairman of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences, conducted research on sources of emissions and pollution of rivers, cities, industrial and energy facilities, and developed a unified regional environmental monitoring system [3]. Special attention was given to research and protection measures for the unique ecosystem of Lake Baikal [4]. Academician Koptyug not only provided the overall guidance to conducting research and developing measures to address environmental problems, but was also directly involved in it (ref., e.g., [5]). In this way, in the 1990s - the time of particular significance for forming the sustainable development concept and approving it as a long-term Program of Action of the international community and national governments recognized by the UN - V.A.Koptyug was ready to contribute to the implementation of this historically significant project. By this time he was not only a public figure, a major science organizer, and an outstanding chemist, but also, which is very important, a very competent expert in the field of ecology.

The concept of sustainable development was formed in the late 1960s to early 1970s with the realization of the global nature of the environmental crisis. The fact that the environmental crisis was global in nature was first demonstrated in the interrelated theoretical studies carried out on behalf of the Club of Rome: in the book World Dynamics (1971) by Jay Forrester and in the study «The Limits to Growth» (1972) by Dennis Meadows et al. These authors came to the conclusion that the global environmental crisis was caused by pressure on the natural environment by the exponential growth of the population («population explosion») and production («capital»). In their view, this growth has natural limits in the form of depleted natural resources and the level of pollution and environmental destruction. Going beyond the growth limits in the foreseeable future (the time period until 2100 was named) would entail global natural disasters and, accordingly, the collapse of the world's population and production. The disaster prevention strategy outlined by the authors of the Club of Rome may seem to be an anticipation of the concept of sustainable development, since it contains, in different contexts, the theses on sustainability as a mandatory path for man's existence and his coexistence with the natural environment (ref.: [6, p.156, 157, 164, 167, 179]). However, the strategy proposed by the authors of the Club of Rome and the sustainable development concept differ substantially, even though the latter was obviously influenced by the former. Stability, according to the Club of Rome's strategy, can only be attained by stopping the growth and establishing an equilibrium between the size of the population and the fixed volume of production [6, p.156-184]. That is, in the strategy proposed by the Club of Rome, sustainability is a state, whereas the sustainable development concept deals with the sustainability of growth. Nevertheless, the authors of «The Limits to Growth» would not like their model of establishing a sustainable society by checking population growth and, most importantly, production growth, to be perceived as a perpetuation of social inequality and injustice. They argue that this model leaves room for moral and social progress and human development, and thus can provide the basis for a society of equality and justice [6, p.174, 178]. However, this is an ad hoc statement made in haste that cannot resolve the theory's faults. It is not demonstrated anywhere that checking production at a certain level is at all possible. Or, at least, that checking it would not override all other possibilities of social progress and human development, because industrial activity is, and here we cannot disagree with Marx, the implementation and development of a generic essence of mankind, i.e., the human way of life as such. Also, it is more than doubtful that checking production at a level once achieved can become a stimulus for equitable redistribution of the public wealth. Rather, it will perpetuate the status praesens, for the establishment of an equitable distribution of the social product is impossible without changing the relations of ownership of the means of production, but such relations cannot be affected by checking the growth of production.

In the same year that the «The Limits to Growth» was published, Stockholm (Sweden) hosted the United Nations Conference on the Environment, which became the first step towards forming the actual concept of sustainable development. The term «sustainable development» was not yet used, but it was noted that environmental problems were associated with both the processes of industrial and technological development (in industrialized countries), and the lack of such development (in developing countries). To find a solution to environmental problems, it is necessary to regulate social and economic development in order to preserve the environment on a global scale by way of cooperation between all countries in the common interest [7, p.10-12]. After the Stockholm Conference, documents of the UN and international organizations mention eco-development and development without destruction. In 1980, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) jointly developed a «World Conservation Strategy,» which introduced for the first time the term «sustainable development» (ref. the document title: [8]). Seven years later, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), also named after the head of the Commission, the Brundtland Commission (Gro Harlem Brundtland is a Norwegian politician, diplomat, doctor and a public figure), provided a definition of the term «sustainable development» in the UN report on «Our Common Future,» putting it at the forefront of the strategies to address global environmental problems and thus giving it the status of a concept [9]. Finally, in 1992, in the «Rio Declaration on Environment and Development» [10] and the «AGENDA 21»[11] adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the sustainable development concept received multi-faceted development and wide international recognition. The Brundtland Commission's report gave the following brief but concise definition of sustainable development: «Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs» [9, Chapter 2,I,1], The authors of the Brundtland Commission's report - without mentioning the Club of Rome - agreed with the Club's view, of which they were of course aware, that it was necessary to impose restrictions on production associated with the exploitation of natural resources [9,I,27; Chapter 2, 1]. However, the necessary restrictions should not be absolute (i.e., do not require the suspension of production), but there are relative «limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities» [9,I,27]. In contrast to the standpoint of the Club of Rome, the Brundtland Commission report states: «Growth has no set limits in terms of population or resource use beyond which lies ecological disaster. Different limits hold for the use of energy, materials, water, and land.» And further: «The accumulation of knowledge and the development of technology can enhance the carrying capacity of the resource base» [9, Chapter 2, I, 10]. Sustainable development is by no means a constant state of harmony, «but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs.» At the same time, this process is neither simple nor easy [9,I,30]. The main difficulty is not of a technical or technological nature, but has a social character. The purpose of the sustainable development concept implies that justice for future generations cannot be attained without achieving social justice within the modern-day generations [9, Chapter 2,3]. «A world in which poverty and inequity are endemic will always be prone to ecological and other crises. Sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life" [9, Chapter 2,I,4]. Accordingly, the Brundtland Commission's report suggests two interrelated objectives as the main means and methods of transition to sustainable development: a) formation of values corresponding to environmental imperatives (environmental ethics), and b) socio-political transformation of society to achieve social justice [9,I,28-32,45, Chapter 2,1-26, etc.].

In the documents of the Rio de Janeiro UN Conference on Environment and Development, the main points of the Brundtland Commission's report describing the concept of sustainable development were accepted and complemented with some new aspects. As a result, the concept acquired its final form as an officially recognized international project in the documents of the Rio Conference. Shortly after the conference, V.A.Koptyug summarized its results, referring to the «Rio Declaration» and highlighting its key points and essential aspects of the sustainable development concept. According to this summary, the concept of sustainable development included: recognition of the fact that it is focused on people, who should have the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature (Article 1); that environmental protection should be an integral component of the development process and could not be considered in isolation from it (Article 4); that the right to development should be realized so as to provide equal for needs to develop and for the preservation of the environment both for present and future generations (Article 3); and that it is necessary to reduce the gap in living standards of nations of the world and to eradicate poverty and destitution (Article 5), taking into account the fact that today the share of three-quarters of the world's population accounts for only one-seventh of the world's income [12].The thesis formulated by V.A.Koptyug that in talking about the essence of the sustainable development concept «we must keep in mind three aspects: social development, economic development, and environmental conservation, exactly this triad» [13]¹ can serve as a summary.

Environmental ethics as a relevant trend of theoretical thought arises, along with the concept of sustainable development, together with the realization of the global nature that the environmental crisis has acquired in the second half of the XX century.

The German physician Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) and the American ecologist Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) are considered to be the founders of environmental ethics and the persons who stressed the importance of the implementation of those ethics. It should be borne in mind that environmental ethics has two main aspects: the biocentric and the anthropocentric ones. The biocentric approach builds on the theoretical heritage of Leopold and Schweitzer. Disappointingly, the literature dealing with the environmental ethics disregards the contribution of Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945), an outstanding thinker and scientist as well as the founder of the doctrine of the biogeosphere and its evolution into the state of the noosphere. Many people feel that V.I.Vernadsky should be considered as one of the founders of environmental ethics, namely, anthropocentric environmental ethics (ref. [14]). The importance of V.I.Vernadsky's teachings on environmental ethics is not sufficiently recognized owing to poor knowledge in the West of the study of these issues, of Russian theoretical thinking, and of the works written in Russian. A step in the right direction was the publication by James Lovelock (born in 1919) who, while creating his famous Gaia Hypothesis, rediscovered, so to say, Vernadsky's biogeochemical theory and brought to the attention of the scientific community the English translation of Vernadsky's main work, The Biosphere, which was made available on Lovelock's initiative to readers by a number of prominent Western experts (ref. [15]).

In the Russian-language literature on environmental ethics, several authors sharing the anthropocentric point of view (V.V.Mantatov, N.N.Moiseev, A.I.Subetto and A.P.Fedotov) trace their standpoint back to the teachings of V.I.Vernadsky. (For further information on the contribution of N.N.Moiseev to the development of environmental ethics, ref. [16]). Russian authors who criticize the anthropocentric approach in environmental ethics from the point of view of biocentrism (V.E.Boreiko, D.R.Weiner, V.A.Kutyrev and F.R.Stillmark) choose Vernadsky as their main target. At the same time, it is established that V.I.Vernadsky, regardless of the positive or negative evaluation of the values of his ethical teachings on biogeosphere, is in fact recognized as the founder of the theoretical bases of the anthropocentric approach to environmental ethics.

The fundamental flaw of biocentrism in environmental ethics is, in my opinion, the attribution of moral subjectivity to all living beings, and even more so, to all natural objects.This flaw reflects the practical inconsistency of the biocentric approach to ethics. The initial step towards the practical implementation of biocentrism is an attempt to use it as the basis for environmental legislation by proclaiming equal rights of humans and animals (or even wider, of human and natural objects), which is a mistake. More precisely, the mistake of biocentrists, that of not wanting to see the obvious, which is repeated time and time again. Is it not obvious that only human beings can be the subject of moral relations and of any relationship in general? The subject, the actor responsible for legal behavior, can only be human beings and not any other creature or entity, because they have no consciousness and, therefore, are legally incapable.

The teaching of V.I.Vernadsky demonstrated in the twentieth century that humanity, through scientific development and technical progress, is becoming a global force determining the course of processes in the Earth's biogeosphere and capable of giving scientific and philosophical justification to the anthropocentric approach of environmental ethics. This doctrine implies that the global environmental crisis that has been gaining momentum since the second half of the 20th century cannot be overcome by eliminating anthropogenic impact. It is possible and necessary to overcome it by changing the nature of human impact, i.e., by changing the activity of the human society itself. According to Vernadsky, the decisive factors in changing the nature of human activity are (1) establishing a just social order on the planet (scientific socialism) and (2) cultivating humanistic ethics and not misanthropy, as in biocentrism. This includes relations between people in dealing with nature.

V.A.Koptyug was one of the successors to the tradition of V.I.Vernadsky in environmental ethics. Koptyug emphasized: «The need to take civilization to a conceptually new path of development was heralded back in the [19]20s by Academician Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky. His concept of the 'noosphere' is in many respects a forerunner of the concept of sustainable development» [17].

V.A.Koptyug's contribution in the development of humanistic environmental ethics is associated with the fact that he puts it in the context of the internationally recognized concept of sustainable development, thus giving it a universally significant practical and political meaning. I believe that for Koptyug the continuity of the concept of sustainable development with the doctrine of noosphere formation was all the more obvious since, as he convincingly shows, this concept, being anthropocentrically oriented, is, in fact, socialist in nature.

Forming a humanistic attitude towards nature, whose maxim is in the effort to preserve the natural diversity for future generations, is seen by Koptyug as a prerequisite for an equitable society. Moreover, he believes it necessary to base the environmental ethics on humanization of the society as a whole. «In discussions related to the world's transition to the sustainable development path, emphasized the scientist, the understanding is more and more clear that morality, ethics, and humanization of the society in general are not less important indicators of development (than growth - V.M.)» [18]. He believed that individualism, selfishness, and neglect of public interest, encouraged by the modern bourgeois informational civilization, should be opposed by the restoration of traditional moral values, including morality as cultivated by traditional religions (ref.: [12, p.17], [13], [17], [18], [19, p.357], [20, p.478], [21], [22], [23, p.331]).

The scientific and political activities and beliefs of V.A.Koptyug are a clear example of the real social and practical significance of anthropologically oriented environmental ethics, humanistic morality, and socialist convictions.