Created - Renewed:
2012/03/27 - 2014/08/26


There are such pages on the site:



More significant materials of the site:

Opening a path to sustainable development
Shortage of panoramic thinking: signs seen everywhere
Panoramic thinking as a concept
Creating a system of civilization security
Civilization Security division at the UN has to be
Bankruptcy of intelligent people in civilization process
Civilization omissions to be found and filled in
Nature's recommendations for international institutions
New dimension of human rights
Universal Declaration of Human Planetary Responsibility
Humankind must have been fooled
Coauthoring with Voltaire
Secret of humor from depth of the evolution
Evolution classification of J.Warfield's mental bugs


Ecology of the intra-human space as a scholar discipline

By Dr. Uladzimir Tratsiakou,
CM, International Academy of Ecology

Posted in English on the International Day of Peace 21 st September, 2010. In Russian the text was prepared in October, 1997.

This discipline may naturally unite upbringing and education. Inculcating in pupils ability “to think about others” opens the path for them to gain later social responsibility and ability to think in ecologically way. It is important as well that ecology of intra-human space might teach how subject knowledge and knowledge of the life enriches one another. Because of conciliation predicted between people after the discipline “ecology of intra-human space” would be distributed in many countries, another name of the discipline proposed might be «Culture of the Peace».

There are already separated among human ecology such its sections as ecologies environmental, industrial, rural, urban. Those are mastered in scientific and practical way, and the questions of topical significance are stood once and again about ecology of culture and ecology of the soul . But ecology of intra-human space (EIHS) as a special part of human ecology being so necessary for people because of unknown causes appeared out of attention of ecologists, pedagogues and psychologists, though a «bad» EIHS is always noticed by each of us through any sense of discomfort, sorrow, grief, affliction, distress, irritation, aggressive affectation (with possible result in forms of reveals of indignation and aggressive behavior up to acts of violation). Just those last keen forms of aggressive human behavior appear to be not motivated make first of all think that without this cause – imperfect EIHS – people might not break out.

Let us guess for a moment that in a society, there is widely distributed the known “ gold rule of morality ”, i.e. « don't do to others that what you would not want you were done by them ”, or, conformably to human intercourse, « don't behave so to do unpleasant for those who are around you, just so how similar behavior would be unpleasant for you yourself ». However we may admit because of that EIHS may not get better essentially. That's just the point that one who in a populous city uses two fingers in place of handkerchief to clear own nose and the pavement sees as a big spittoon, may not lay claim to others when those do in similar way. Well, the one have no sufficient natural sense of aversion to remark others' negative appearance of bad EIHS.

So, it'd be good in addition to “gold rule of morality” to be explained and used at lessons to let the education be aimed to teach how for pupils to behave within intra-human space so that EIHS be getting if not better, but even if not worse. If EIHS gets in the universal education status of a school discipline, one may account the culture of peace will be higher.

For pupils, first representation of EIHS should be of course behavioral ecology as people of school age by their behavior have big “possibilities” to worsen intra-human space (IHS) around them. Having given a thesis “ it's depends from each of us what IHS will be: secure, benevolent, responsive – or dangerous, indifferent, suspicious, guarded, rejecting ”, a teacher then may propose pupils to play some stages showing their behavior “at the diner table”, “at the library”, “at the stadium”, “while speaking by phone”, “while visiting web sites”, “contacting by e-mail”, “in wagon of metro/train/taxi”, “visiting a doctor”, “while having caught a cold”, etc., at that each may choose variants to show: how to behave badly, even awfully, or how good, normally, even if many better than normally. We may imagine such lessons would not be boring for children.

There are more advantages of the discipline. EIHS being entered into school education would provide its unity as admitting to set up numerous links to other disciplines taught. So, with consultation with other disciplines' teachers may be prepared many lessons on EIHS, for example with the biologist, when devoted to discussion on human responsibility for living nature; with the chemist, when question considered about green movement and other ecologic initiatives; with the psychologist when learned the subject on human abilities to think more widely (as “thinking on others” means “thinking for others”, and it needs for this looking on the side of others).

The very main cause of inter-teachers interactions in connection with EIHS is the language creating all IHS and keeping it united, giving numerous and diverse possibilities for intercourse between people. So, the teacher on the native language may be contacting EIHS teacher more often than others as there are some presupposed “language” subjects for EIHS lessons, for example on ecology or language surroundings , ecology of space both of advertisings and public announcements , ecology of media's language . Lessons on those subjects as arising children's culture of thinking (analyzing and revealing language mistakes that are around and are not remarked usually by majority of people) would be then a pledge of their successful future professional activity.

Needless to say that ground of more traditional ecologic disciplines concerning (Earthen) environment, near-Earth space, space of the culture, space of the soul may as well be in any way presented at EIHS owing usual broad interpretation of the “space” notion.

Thus, ecology of intra-human space might get a school discipline 1) quite rich in content, 2) giving school children any integral picture of the world, 3) widening panoramas of pupils' thinking and 4) just because of the last appeasing manners and customs, so giving less causes for them to behave aggressively and accomplish violation acts.

Practical (“along the living”) value of EIHS as the school discipline is as well in possibility owing it for children to be joint in psychological culture of intercourse (for example, knowing frontiers of others' personal psychological spaces and how to be respectful not intruding into them in while of conversation, at being in populous locations, etc.).
Didactical value of EIHS as a discipline is possibility for school children to set up their behavior in correlation with how that or this may better/worsen EIHS as human surroundings and owing it to gain skills of operation with notions not fully determined (what are characterized for humane discipline).
Given idea of the general ecology being quite ramified science pupils are getting a base to abilities of thinking, for example to correlate particular and general, to say out value judgments in ethic categories, etc. It is very important for pupils' coming-to-be as deserved members of the society. I am agreed with Friedrich Schiller who wrote once: “Enlightened reason ennobles moral senses; the head is to foster the heart .”

I account the above may be considered as a creative challenge to ecologists, pedagogues and psychologists to elaborate pilot programs for to learn Ecology of the intra-human space in secondary school. My consultative participation in future project is possible.





Copyright © IntelTech—V.N.Tretyakov (U.M.Tratsiakou). The present information is intellectual property of the author's site, who would be interested in knowing any usage of his materials. [email protected]

-->ASR for You!<--