Vernadsky The Biosphere
Vernadsky The Biosphere
Vernadsky The Biosphere
8
1k - KOnH'IeCTBO OpraHH3MOB Ha reKTap
HOHapHOrO '1HCna ( 31), a k - K034>4>HUHeHT n11
pv
2
10
8
pv
2
N
max
Al =-. -=
2 k 2 5, 1 0065 1 0 1 8 I
pe3Bbl'laHHO xapaKTepHO, 'ITO 3Ta BenH'IHHa All'
r'
nOCTOJlHHaJi. AnJi HHX Bcex Bblpa)l(eHHe A
pv
2
10
8
1=-
')
- = a 3,51 .10
12
C.G.S.,
k
-
Q - K034J4JHLJ:HeHT, 6nH3KHA K
3 3TOH cl0pMynbl JlCHO, 'ITO KHHeTH"IeCKaJl rt
tozoa onpeAenJleTCI CICOPOCTblO v, CBR3aHHOH C
aHH3Ma H C TeMnOM pa3MHO)l(eHHR .1. OTHeceHI
YlOmeA "pOCTOn cII0pMynoH [22]:
-
-
46383,93 lg2 tl
18,70762-1gk
,
OTOPOH AnJi Beex
I
CBI3aHbi C pa3MepaMH nnaHeTbl (e nno
H e AJIHHOH ee 3KB8Topa, npH"IeM Bee SlBneHHe
I H eeKYHAaM)2.
{3 mODMvnbI CKODOCTH O'leBH HO 'ITO 0 "H a3M
,1 He MO)l(eM HX nOHRTb, ecnH 11
t<e nnaHeTHblX JlBJ1eHHH, He 06paTHl
Tep"H. K ee aTOMaM, K HX H3MeHe
)H 06naCTH 6blCTPO Ha KanJlHBaIOT(
8alfeHHbie TeOpeTH'feCKOH MblcnbJ<>
'HaB3TbCJI. OHH He Bcer.na MoryT 61
fJaHbl, H BblBO.llbl H3 HHX 06bl'lHO He
Ho orpOMHoe 3HaqeHHe JTHX JlBJ1C
Bble 4>a KTbl ,llOn)l(Hbl Tenepb )l(e y'lH'
'"SIX. TPH 06naCTH Slsne""" Mor
oco6oe nono*eHHe 3neMeHTOB 3e
Me. 2) HX CnO)l(HOCTb " 3) HepaBHoN
fa B Macce leMHon KOPbI pe3
OTBelJalOmHe qeTHblM aTO
bHCHHTb lTO reOnOfH'IeCK
He MO)l(eM. K TOMY )l(e HeM
toe JlBJ1eHHe Bblpa>KeHO eme 60nee
tne KOcMHttec KUX Ten,
'qeHHIO - ,nnJl MeTeopHTOB (rapKU
06J1aCTb JlpyrHx 4>a KTOB JlBnJleT
., .... -. -. -.... . . ..
... ... .. .. .. ... ... . ........ .
.. .. '. '. '. .. . ........... . ........ .
.. .. '. '. ' ............................ .
.............. ' ....................... -
...... '.' ............................ -
... '. ' ....... '.: ............................ .
. .. '. '. " .. '. ............ . ............ ' . . . '. '. '. ...... . . . . ......... . . .
'. '. '. ' ..... '. ' ...................... .
I. '. '. ' .....
' I I. '
'. I. I. I
: I : I : :.: :.: :._
'. '. '. -. -.......................... -
" " " : ........ .,.,.
...
'. '. '. .:\I'w
it ..
:: :: : . : ::,,'1.....
."lrD
' ..............
Pita
, :. :.....................
. ...
I' : .", ..
_
, : I : :
-I.: ,
'. ' e --....
e l
"
It -I ...... :
.. ; .-1 .. ... :.::,.
,-. __ :;: ..... ' . e.
51
.....
' ..............
. ...... ' ..
' -
'. t
.. . ! .: : .. .811 11.!'fT. .' :
I
I '. I. ' '. I ............ I 4
'. ' ....... ' ...... ....... '. ' ..
e
: .4
" .' : I -.:. _ 1 ... " " .
I '. I '.
'.'.:.: ...... : .... :.:.:.:.:.:.: ....
' ................ _,_ e '. 4
' e I I '. I I
' ............................... '. '.
' '. ' I
' '. I I '.
' '. I
' ............ '. I. ' .. I
'. I '.
: : : : :_,.: : ' : ' : I
I ' ............................ '. '
'. ' ...................... -..... '. ' ... -.
' I -. - _
I. ' .......... 'JIj -
.' " : .:.: .: .: ..lb. ....
z.
....::....'7...: ..... ,.-,
'. '. ' ......... -.... .-, . . . .
I. '. .... "
THE BIUSPHERE
Foreword by
Lynn Margulis
Mauro Ceruti
Stjepko Golubic
Ricardo Guerrero
Nubuolkeda
Natsuki Ikezawa
Wolfgang E. Krumbein
Andrei Lapo
Antonio Lazcano
David Suzuki
Crispin Tickell
Malcolm Walter
Peter Westbroek
Introduction by
Jacques Grinevald
Translated by
David B. Langmuir
Revised and Annotated by
Mark A. S. McMenamin
A Peter N. Nevraumont Book
c
SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC
1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York
Origina1ly published by Copemicus in 1998
Softcover reprint of the hardcover lst edition 1998
Foreword 1998 Lynn Margulis
Introduction and chronology 1997 Jacques Grinevald
AU rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, record ing, or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the publisher.
Llbrary of Congress Cataloglng-In-Publlcatlon Data
VernadskiY, V. 1. (Vladimir Ivanovich), 1863-1945.
[Biosfera. English]
The biosphere/by Vladimir 1. Vernadsky; forward by Lynn
Margulis and coUeagues; introduction by Jacques Grinevald;
translated by David B. Langmuir; revised and annotated by Mark A.S.
McMenamin.
p. cm.
uA Peter N. Nevraumont book."
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-4612-7264-9 ISBN 978-1-4612-1750-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4612-1750-3
1. Biosphere. 1. McMenamin, Mark A. II. Title.
QH3434V4713 1997
33395-dC21 97-23855
A Peter N. Nevraumont Book
Manufactured in the United States of America
Printed on acid-free paper.
Designed by Iose Conde, Studio Pepin, Tokyo
Photograph of V.I. Vernadsky on jacket and
pages 4-6 courtesy of Mark McMenamin
098 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Produced by Nevraumont Publishing Company
New York, New York
President: Ann ). Perrini
Foreword to the English-Language Edition 14
Introduction: The Invisibility of the Vernadskian Revolution 20
Translator's Preface 33
Editor's Note on Translation and Transliteration 34
The Biosphere
Author's Preface to the French Edition 38
Author's Preface to the Russian Edition 39
PART ONE. The Biosphere in the Cosmos
The Biosphere in the Cosmic Medium 43
The Biosphere as a Region of Transformation of Cosmic Energy 47
The Empirical Generalization and the Hypothesis 51
Living Matter in the Biosphere 56
The Multiplication of Organisms and
Geochemical Energy in Living Matter 60
Photosynthetic Living Matter 72
Some Remarks on Living Matter in the Mechanism
of the Biosphere 85
PART TWO The Domain of Life
The Biosphere: An Envelope of the Earth 91
Living Matter of the First and Second Orders in the Biosphere 103
The Limits of Life 113
The Limits of Life in the Biosphere 117
Life in the Hydrosphere 126
Geochemical Cycles of the Living Concentrations and
Films of the Hydrosphere 134
Living Matter on Land 142
The Relationship Between the Living Films and
Concentrations of the Hydrosphere and Those of Land 148
Appendix I: A Biographical Chronology 151
Appendix II: Vernadsky's Publications in English 159
Bibliography 160
Acknowledgments 183
Index 185
Foreword to the English-Language Edition
Just as all educated westerners have heard of Albert Einstein,
Gregor Mendel, and Charles Darwin, so all educated Russians
know of Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945). He is widely
celebrated in Russia and the Ukraine. A Vernadsky Avenue in
Moscow is rivaled by a monument in his memory in Kiev. His
portrait appears on Russian national stamps, air letters, and
even memorial coins.
1
A mineralogist and biogeologist, Vernad-
sky maintained his scholarly activity and laboratory at Moscow
University through much revolutionary turmoil. He resigned,
with most other scientists, in 1911. His previous part-time
employment as adjunct member of the Academy of Sciences
and director of the Mineralogical Museum in St. Petersburg per-
mitted him to take on these activities full-time by the end of that
year.2
When World War I broke out Vernadsky was leading an expe-
dition to seek radioactive minerals in Siberia; by May 1917 he
was elected head of his old department of Mineralogy and Geol-
ogy at Moscow University. lit health forced him to travel south
and settle with his family in the Ukraine, until he left for Paris.
He returned to the Soviet Union from France in 1926 and
remained there until his death in 1945. Through the political
morass of the Stalinist Soviet Union, Vernadsky remained vigi-
lant towards honesty, indifferent to politics, and devoted to
open scientific inquiry. The last part of his long career was also
immensely productive: he continued to publish, lecture, attend
conferences, organize institutes, express his opinions-popular
or not. Indeed Vernadsky's entire life was dedicated to fostering
the international scientific enterprise. His lectures at the Sor-
bonne in 1922-23 were known to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and
Edouard Le Roy. They were published in 1924 under the title La
Geochimie.
3
In 1926 his greatest work, The Biosphere, the first
full English translation of which you now hold in your hands,
was published in Russian in 1926.4 Vernadsky with great help
from his wife and French colleagues then prepared a French lan-
guage edition in 1929.5 As only the most important and seminal
THE BIOSPHERE
1 In reviewing Bailes' book, Stephen
M. Rowland of the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, writes
" ... Vernadsky symbolizes personal
integrity and Slavic native ability.
In the years to come, as the Russian
and Ukrainian people look for
sources of cultural pride,
Vernadsky's stature is certain to
grow. Already named in his honor
are a mineral (vernadite), a geologic
museum, the Ukrainian central
science library, several mountain
peaks and ranges, a peninsula in
East Antarctica, a submarine
volcano, a crater on the back side
of the moon, a mine in Siberia, a
scientific research vessel, a
steamship, a village in Ukraine
(Vernadovka), a street in Moscow
(Vernadsky Prospekt), and a species
of diatoms. See Rowland, 1993.
2 Bailes, 1990.
3 Vernadsky, 1924.
4 Vernadsky, 1926a.
5 Vernadsky, 1929.
scientific works are able to do, The Biosphere has remained
fresh and current for over a half-century.
The descent of what Winston Churchill called the "iron cur-
tain" and the subsequent cold war substantially reduced the
flow of scientific information from Russia to Western Europe and
beyond. This prolonged trans-European barrier deprived Eng-
lish-speaking scientific audiences of Vernadsky's imaginative
and insightful books for most of this century. Vernadsky's
obscurity in the West is surely one of the great examples in his-
tory of a political impediment to the spread of scientific infor-
mation. But like the periodic table of elements, which, in the
United States, is still seldom credited to its Russian inventor,
Dimitri Mendeleev, Vernadsky's ideas became widely known
even though they were not attributed to their author.
Although the Viennese geologist Eduard Seuss (1831-1914)
had coined the term biosphere for the place on Earth's surface
where life dwells,' and the word has since been used in various
contexts by many scientists, it is Vernadsky's concept of the
biosphere, as set forth in this book, that is accepted today.
Three empirical generalizations exemplify his concept of the
biosphere:
1 Life occurs on a spherical planet. Vernadsky is the first person in
history to come grips with the real implications of the fact that
Earth is a self-contained sphere.
2 Life makes geology. Life is not merely a geological force, it is the
geological force. Virtually all geological features at Earth's sur-
face are bio-influenced, and are thus part of Vernadsky's bios-
phere.
3 The planetary influence of living matter becomes more exten-
sive with time. The number and rate of chemical elements trans-
formed and the spectrum of chemical reactions engendered by
living matter are increasing, so that more parts of Earth are
incorporated into the biosphere.
What Vernadsky set out to describe was a physics of living mat-
ter. Life, as he viewed it, was a cosmic phenomenon which was
to be understood by the same universal laws that applied to
such constants as gravity and the speed of light. Still, Vernadsky
himself and many of his fundamental concepts remained large-
ly unknown.
His ideas first began to enter postwar Western science in the
form of hybrid activities called "biogeochemistry," "geomicrobi-
FOREWORD 15
, Seuss, 1875.
ology," or studies of ecosystems, ecology, and "environmental
chemical cycles." Observation and measurement today of the
flow of carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen through the hydrosphere,
lithosphere, atmosphere, and biota are practices based on the
style of thought invented by Vernadsky.
A statement of the major themes of V.1. Vernadsky's life work
was coaxed from him by the great English-American ecologist G.
Evelyn Hutchinson (1903-1991), of Yale University. Translated
with the aid of Vernadsky's son, George Vernadsky, who taught
history and Slavic studies also at Yale, it was organized into two
articles, which are among the last published before Vernadsky's
death in 1945, and they remained for many years the only pieces
of his writing readily available to English-speaking readers.7
Hutchinson's own chapter in The Earth as a Planet, one volume
in the Dutch-American astronomer G. P. Kuiper's work on the
solar system, itself embodied a Vernadsky-style conceptual
shift. Our Earth in this scholarly encyclopedia is described as
but one of nine planets, with life as its sole source of geochem-
ical uniqueness.
8
Even James E. Lovelock, FRS, the British inven-
tor and the other major scientific contributor to the concept of
an integrated biosphere in this century, remained unaware of
Vernadsky's work until well after Lovelock framed his own Gaia
hypothesis.
9
Whereas Vernadsky's work emphasized life as a
geological force, Lovelock has shown that Earth has a physi-
ology: the temperature, alkalinity, acidity, and reactive gases
are modulated by life. With the completion in 1996 of more than
fifty SCOPE volumes on biogeochemistry and UNESCO'S "Man
and the Biosphere" program,tO the word "biosphere" has clear-
ly entered common parlance.
Demand for the voice of Vernadsky himself in English was
given a boost by the Biosphere 2 project. The goal of this ven-
ture, financed by the Texas oil millionaire Edward Bass and run
by a small, intensely private group of entrepreneurs, the
"Ecotechnicians," was a completely self-sustaining living sys-
tem within a 3.15-acre "greenhouse-with-an-ocean" in the Ari-
zona desert just north ofTucson. In 1990, "Biospherians" in red
space suits locked themselves into their gas-tight greenhouse
for a planned two-year stay; they encountered diminishing oxy-
gen supplies, dangerously high concentrations of carbon diox-
ide, disastrous "extinctions" of many species, and even more
disastrous population explosions of others. By 1992 the struc-
ture was opened, the "ecologically closed life support-system
experiment" ended, and the facility at Oracle, Arizona, was
THE BIOSPHERE 16
7 Vernadsky. 1944. 1945
8 Hutchinson. 1954.
9 Lovelock. 1988.
10 Munn. 1971-1996.
made available to others for scientific research. This facility,
presently the largest greenhouse in the world, is currently
administered by Columbia University of New York City. Wallace
S. Broecker, Director of the Lamont Geophysical Laboratory in
Palisades, New York, which houses the geology department of
Columbia, describes in a lively account the history and current
status of Biosphere 2 of which he was the first director.
ll
The
current president and executive director of Biosphere 2 is the
former assistant director of mathematics and physical science
at the US National Science Foundation; William Harris.
In search of both financial support and philosophical guid-
ance, Biosphere 2'S publishing arm, Synergetic Press, in 1986
published an 83-page bowdlerized translation of Vernadsky's
The Biosphere, based on the 232-page French text.
12
When one
of us (LM) asked editor-in-chiefTango Snyder Parrish (a.k.a Deb-
orah Snyder) why the book was so thin, she replied that she had
removed everything that might, in retrospect, be considered
"wrong" and so might blemish Vernadsky's posthumous repu-
tation. This unconscionable mangling further frustrated the tiny
readership that now clamored for the real Vernadsky.
Biospherians notwithstanding, the rediscovery of Vernadsky
was by this time underway. An excellent account of the scientif-
ic insights of Vernadsky, his colleagues and students, Traces of
Bygone Biospheresl
3
was published by Leningrad geochemist
Andrei Lapo. This small book became available in English in
198711J and later also was distributed by Synergetic Press. IS
Kendall Bailes' magnum OpUS,16 the definitive English-language
biography of Vernadsky and his times, appeared posthumously
in 1990. That Vernadsky had written widely, that his name had
been honored by several scientific institutions, awards, and
publications in the USSR, and that he was the first to recognize
the importance of life as a geological force,17 were more and
more widely discussed in a multitude of languages.
18
lt was pri-
marily Jacques Grinevald's presentation at the first Gaia meeting
in 1987, organized by Edward Goldsmith and Peter Bunyard and
published in a devilishly difficult to obtain book,19 that made us
all painfully aware of the main problem: the authentic Vernad-
sky remained unavailable to an English-language readership. A
newly published version of the Gaia meeting and its successors
is now available.
2o
For at least a decade prior to the appearance of the Synergetic
Press pamphlet, a 187-page typescript of the entire The Bios-
phere in English translation was circulating in Boston and New
FOREWORD 17
11 Broecker, 1996.
12 Vernadsky, 1986.
13 Lapo, 1979.
1IJ Lapo, 1982.
15 Lapo, 1987. A third edition
is planned to be published by
Copernicus/Springer Verlag in 1999.
16 Bailes, 1990.
17 Westbroek, 1991.
18 Tort, 1996.
19 Grinevald, 1988.
20 Bunyard, 1996.
York. Its mysterious, nearly blank title page offered no informa-
tion about its origins other than that it had been "translated by
David Langmuir." lynn Margulis received a copy from her col-
league, Thomas Glick, of the History and Geography Depart-
ments at Boston University, who had taught courses on the
impact of Charles Darwin.
21
She enthusiastically read and
passed on the by now well-worn typescript to her former stu-
dent Betsey Dexter Dyer, who currently teaches biology at
Wheaton College. Dyer had aided Andrei lapo in preparing the
English translation of the second edition of his Traces while she
enjoyed a U.S. National Academy of Sciences-sponsored
research excursion to the Soviet Union in 1984 and now she
requested his help in locating the translator. In the end both
lapo and Jacques Grinevald provided the same address. Our
enterprising publisher, Peter N. Nevraumont, found langmuir in
Santa Monica, California, alive and well in his mid-eighties, with
his faculties fully intact. langmuir, of course, was delighted to
learn that a full English translation of Vernadsky's The Bios-
phere would at long last see the light of day.
Even without an accessible version of his greatest book, we
have all felt Vernadsky's influence on our work. Indirectly
through lapo, Bailes, Grinevald, the red-suited biospherians,
the two articles sponsored by Hutchinson in the 1940s, the writ-
ings of M. M. Kamshilov,22 Westbroek, the legacy of G. E.
Hutchinson,23 and for those of us who could locate it, A. E. Fers-
man's wonderful book Geoquimica Recreativa, released in Eng-
lish as Geochemistry for Everyone,24 we have been informed in
many ways of Vernadsky's ideas. Our debt now to Peter N.
Nevraumont for his willingness to spread the word is immea-
surable. A world-class scientist and writer, Vernadsky needs no
protection from the guardians of the politically correct, whether
biospherians, anti-Communists, or others. Vernadsky is finally
allowed to speak in English for himself.
Vernadsky teaches us that life, including human life, using
visible light energy from our star the Sun, has transformed our
planet over the eons. He illuminates the difference between an
inanimate, mineralogical view of Earth's history, and an end-
lessly dynamic picture of Earth as the domain and product of
life, to a degree not yet well understood. No prospect of life's
cessation looms on any horizon. What Charles Darwin did for all
life through time,25 Vernadsky did for all life through space. Just
as we are all connected in time through evolution to common
ancestors, so we are all-through the atmosphere, lithosphere,
THE BIOSPHERE
18
21 Gllck,1974.
22 Kamshilov, 1976.
23 Hutchinson, 1957-1992.
24 Fersman, 1958.
25 Darwin, 1963 [first published
1859).
hydrosphere, and these days even the ionosphere-connected
in space. We are tied through Vernadskian space to Darwinian
time.
26
We embrace the opportunity afforded by Copernicus
Books of Springer-Verlag to, at long last, cast broadly the
authentic Vernadskian English-language explanations of these
connections.
Lynn Margulis University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ma., USA
26 Margulis, L. and D. Sagan. 1995.
Mauro Ceruti Department of Linguistics and Comparative Literature, University of Bergamo, Italy
Stjepko Golubie Boston University, Boston, Ma., USA, and Zagreb, Croatia
Ricardo Guerrero Department of Microbiology, University of Barcelona, Spain
Nubuo Ikeda Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, Japan
Natsukllkezawa Author (Winds From the Future; The Breast of Mother Nature- Yomiuri Bungaku Award)
Japan
Wolfgang E. Krumbein Department of Geomicrobiology, University of Oldenburg, Germany
Andrei Lapo VSEGEI (All-Russian Geological Research Institute), st. Petersburg, Russia
Antonio Lazcano Department of Biology, Universidad Autonoma Nacional de Mexico, Mexico
David Suzuki University of British Columbia and Canadian Broadcasting Company, Canada
Crispin Tiekell Green College, Oxford, United Kingdom
Malcolm Walter School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Peter Westbroek Department of Biochemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
FOREWORD 19
Introduction: The Invisibility of the Vernadskian Revolution
I suggest that there are excellent reasons why revolutions have
proved to be so nearly invisible. Both scientists and laymen take
much of their image of creative scientific activity from an author-
itative source that systematically disguises-partly for impor-
tant functional reasons-the existence and significance of sci-
entific revolutions.
Thomas S. Kuhn
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
27
In his epoch-making article introducing the September 1970
issue of Scientific American devoted to "the Biosphere, the
founder of the Yale scientific school in ecology, George Evelyn
Hutchinson, wrote:
The idea of the biosphere was introduced into science rather
casually almost a century ago by the Austrian geologist Eduard
Suess, who first used the term in a discussion of the various
envelopes of the earth in the last and most general chapter of a
short book on the genesis of the Alps published in 1875. The
concept played little part in scientific thought, however, until the
publication, first in Russian in 1926 and later in French in 1929
(under the title La Biosphere), of two lectures by the Russian
mineralogist Vladimir Vernadsky. It is essentially Vernadsky's
concept of the biosphere, developed about 50 years after Suess
wrote, that we accept today.
Hutchinson'S authoritative assessment
28
has not been fully
appreciated. For most people in the West, the name Vladimir
Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945) is still largely unknown. In
fact, apart from rare exceptions like the entry in the multi-vol-
ume Dictionary of Scientific Biography, most of our usual refer-
ence books, including those in the history of science, ignore Ver-
nadsky and his Biosphere concept. The world's first scientific
monograph on the Biosphere of Earth as a planet, which Ver-
THE BIOSPHERE 20
27 Kuhn, 1962, p. 136.
28 Hutchinson, 1965, pp. 1-26; and
1970.
nadsky published in 1926, is not yet listed among the major
books that have shaped our modern world view.
The special issue of Scientific American on "the Biosphere,"
a landmark in all respects, was published at the beginning of
"the environmental revolution," to borrow the title of Max
Nicholson'S 1970 book. In Western industrial societies, this
epoch was marked by the political emergence of a global envi-
ronmental movement, internationally recognized at the 1972
United Nations Stockholm Conference. Following the so-called
"Biosphere Conference"29 organized by UNESCO, Paris, in Sep-
tember 1968, the world problematique of "Man and the Bios-
phere" (UNESCO'S MAS program) became a pressing issue for
many of us, reviving, either explicitly or implicitly, views on the
biosphere that had originated with Vernadsky.3o
The Vernadskian renaissance began slowly, in the 1960s and
1970S in the Soviet Union, thanks to a little circle of scholars with-
in the Academy of Sciences. By the time of Gorbachev's pere-
stroika, Vernadsky was a cult figure for the liberals and a nation-
al icon for others. With the collapse of the USSR a major barrier to
the official recognition of Vern ad sky's life and work came down as
well.
31
The international revival of Vern ad sky came of age in the
mid-1980s; many circumstances, including the Biosphere 2 pro-
ject, are recalled in the forward to this volume.
Paradoxically, at the birth of the environmental era, the very
term biosphere was often betrayed or replaced, for example,
the vague notion of "global environment." In another instance,
the biosphere was correctly named in Science and SUNival
(1966) by Barry Commoner, but in his international best seller
The Closing Circle (1971), biosphere was unfortunately replaced
by ecosphere. This neologism, in vogue since 1970, was intro-
duced in flagrant ignorance of Vernadsky's teaching. With the
use of the ecosphere, the concept of biosphere was reduced to
the "global film of organisms."32 This is a far narrower, more
pedestrian idea than what Vernadsky proposed.
In the 1970S and 1980s, many Soviet publications on global
environmental issues, including nuclear war, praised Vernadsky
as the originator of the modern theory of the Biosphere. One of
the first works to do so, the textbook Global Ecology, written by
the Soviet climatologist Mikhail I. Budyko, was published in
English and French by 1980.33 Involved in the global warming
debate since the early 1970S, Budyko was an internationally
known meteorologist and the author of several books on cli-
matic aspects of "the evolution of the Biosphere."34 But as
THE INVISIBILITY OF THE VERNADSKIAN REVOLUTION 21
29 Use and Conservation of the
Biosphere, 1970.
30 Vernadsky, 1945.
31 Tort, 1996, pp. 4439-4453.
32 Lieth and Whittaker, 1975.
33 Budyko, 1980.
Kendall Bailes, the author of the only English-language biogra-
phy of Vernadsky, pointed out, Soviet appraisals often merged
with the official ideology, so that the life and thought of Vern ad-
sky were often horribly distorted:
35
French and English versions
of the beautiful, though not always reliable, monograph
Vladimir Vernadsky, by Rudolf Balandin, appeared in the series
"Outstanding Soviet Scientists."36 Semyon R. Mikulinsky, with
the Institute of the History of Science and Technology of the
Academy of Sciences, emphasized the neglected work of Ver-
nadsky as an historian of science, but still with an obvious com-
munist slant.
37
In the early 1980s, Nicholas Polunin, writing in the interna-
tional journal Environmental Conservation, emphasized "the
wide-prevailing public ignorance concerning the Biosphere,
which is such that the vast majority of people living in it (as of
course all people normally do) simply do not understand what it
is, much less realize how utterly dependent they are on it for
their life-support and very existence."38 Polunin was a British
plant geographer turned environmentalist and a former collab-
orator at Oxford with Arthur Tansley, the British botanist who in
1935 coined the term "ecosystem." It was Polunin who pro-
posed the convention of writing "Biosphere," in the sense of
Vernadsky, with a capital letter, to emphasize the unique stand-
ing of the only living planet we know in the cosmos. It is also
useful to distinguish it from the other meanings, including the
biosphere as a part of the climate system.
39
Polunin defined the
Biosphere as the "integrated living and life-supporting system
comprising the peripheral envelope of planet Earth together
with its surrounding atmosphere so far down, and up, as any
form of life exists naturally."
The invisibility of the Vernadskian revolution is part of the cul-
tural history of ideas. From the start, the term Biosphere has
been interpreted in many different and contradictory ways. A
scientific consensus on the term is stilllacking.
40
The scientific
concepts of Vern ad sky compete with and are frequently super-
seded by other popular terms and ideas, including Teilhardism,
the worldwide cultural movement accompanying the posthu-
mous edition of Teilhard de (hardin's writings on science and
religion. Teilhard developed his own notions of "Biosphere" in
many fascinating texts, but not in his strictly scientific works,"l
though it was not a clear-cut division for him. Even noted
authors erroneously credited Teilhard de (hardin for the word
THE BIOSPHERE 22
3" Budyko. 1986.
35 Bailes. 1990; and Yanshin and
Yanshina. 1988.
36 Balandin. 1982.
37 Mikulinsky. 1984; and 1983. with
a commentary by Tagliamgambe.
38 Polunin. 1972; 1980; 1984;
Polunin and Grinevald. 1988.
39 As stated in the definitions
(Article 1) of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change (1992). as well as in many
official scientific publications.
including the authoratative reports
of Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).
40 See the summary of state of art
by the British geographer Richard J.
Huggett. 1991; and 1995.
1+1 Teilhard, 19551976; and 1971.
"biosphere,"42 though both Teilhard and Vernadsky were care-
ful to attribute it to the great Austrian geologist Eduard Suess
(1831-1914).'13 It is equally misleading, of course, to state that
Vernadsky originated the term. This mistake, frequently made
since UNESCO'S 1968 conference, even appears in Peter J.
Bowler's History of Environmental Sciences.
44
It is a flagrant
illustration of the widespread ignorance of Vernadsky's own
writings, as well as of the history of the idea of the Biosphere.
45
Sometimes, Teilhard and Vernadsky are merged, as, for
instance, in Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1967 book The Biology of
Ultimate Concern.
46
As Thomas F. Malone wrote:
The proposal to unite geophysics and biology is the culmination
of conceptual thinking that began in 1875 with the identification
of the "biosphere"-described by the Suess-as the concentric,
life-supporting layer of the primordial Earth. It has been devel-
oped as a concept in modern scientific thought largely through
the work of Vern ad sky during the 1920S.47
The Suessian model of geological envelopes,48 or
"geospheres" (the term coined by Challenger oceanographer
John Murray in 1910), was adopted by geographers, meteorolo-
gists (troposphere and stratosphere were introduced by Leon
Teisserenc de Bort in 1902), geophysicists (asthenosphere was
introduced by Joseph Barrell in 1914), and soil scientists (pedos-
phere was coined by Svante E. Mattson in 1938). This scheme of
geospheres gained wide currency through the three great
founding fathers of modern geochemistry, the American Frank
W. Clarke (1847-1931), chief chemist to the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey (1883-1925);49 the Zurich-born Norwegian geologist Victor
Moritz Goldschmidt (1888-1947), whose the life was disturbed
by Hitler's accession to power;50 and Vernadsky. As the founder
of the Russian school of geochemistry and biogeochemistry,
Vernadsky was mentioned in the major books on geochemistry
when that field came of age after World War 11.51 Then, appar-
ently, the name of Vernadsky was forgotten, as philosophers
and historians of science neglected the growing role of Earth
and planetary sciences in contemporary scientific knowledge.
The case ofVernadsky is, of course, not unique in the history of
Soviet science.
52
Between Suess and Vernadsky, a pioneerin"g movement
helped to merge biology and geology but, as always, the begin- .
nings were obscure. Led by the German naturalist Johannes
THE INVISIBILITY OF THE VERNADSKIAN REVOLUTION
42 For instance, the great historian
Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975). See
Toynbee, 1976 (chapter 2: "The
Biosphere
N
)_
43 Vernadsky, 1929 (68). Reference
to E. Suess, 1875, p. 159: "One thing
seems strange on this celestial body
consisting body consisting of
spheres, namely organic life. But this
latter is limited to a determined zone,
at the surface of the lithosphere. The
plant, which deeply roots plunge in
the soil to feed, and at the same time
rises into the air to breathe, Is a good
illustration of the situation of organic
life in the region of interaction
between the upper sphere and the
lithosphere, and on the surface of
continents we can distinguished a
self-maintained biosphere [eine
selbstllndige N
44 Bowler, 1992.
45 Grinevald, 1988.
46 On Dobzhansky's connection
with both Vernadsky and Teilhard,
see Adams, 1994.
47 Malone and Roederer, 1985, p. xiii.
48 Vernadsky, 1924, pp. 64-74, "Les
enveloppes de l'ecorce terrestre. N
49 Since 1909, Vernadsky read the
successive editions of Clarke's Data
of Geochemistry. In the second
edition (1911), Vernadsky is quoted
ten times.
50 Mason, 1992, contains
Goldschmidt's complete bibliography.
Plate 23 of this authoratative book is
a photograph of Goldschmidt and
Vernadsky in front of Goldschmidt's
home in Gottingen in June 1932.
5S Rankama and Sahama, 1950;
and Mason, 1952. These two books
include some useful historical
information, but the complete
history of geochemistry (and its role
in the rise of Earth sciences), since
the coinage of its name in 1838 by
the German chemist Christian
Friedrich Schonbein (1799-1868), the
discoverer of ozone, professor at the
University of Basel (Switzerland),
has yet to be written.
52 Graham, 1993.
Walther (1860-1937); Stanlislas Meunier (1843-1925), the
author of La Geologie biologique (1918); and the Harvard phys-
iologist Lawrence J;. Henderson (1878-1942), the author of The
Fitness of the Environment (1913). The sources of Vern ad sky are
in fact an immense library, which is the intellectual prehistory of
Gaia. As Alexander P. Vinogradov wrote on the occasion of the
100th anniversary of Vern ad sky's birth: "Much time will have to
pass before the historian of science will be able to review the
vast scientific legacy of Vern ad sky and fully grasp the depth and
many-sided ness of his influence."53 The same is true for the his-
torical sources of Vernadsky's work.
In the English-speaking world, the idea and term biosphere
were not quickly diffused, or else were used in the restricted
sense given by the geochemists,5" In France, just after World
War I and the publication (delayed because the war) of the final
volume of La Face de la Terre, the little French Catholic circle of
geologists and naturalists with the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle
enthusiastically adopted Suess's notion of "biosphere," while
rejecting Wegener's revolutionary theory of continental drift.
The geologist Pierre Termier spoke of Wegener's idea as "a
dream, the dream of a great poet," a "seductive," "unneces-
sary," "extremely convenient" hypothesis (the same words used
by Lovelock's opponents!).55 Teilhard de Chardin, already a
noted scientist as well as a mystic prophet, adopted Suess'
biosphere when he finished reading La Face de la Terre in
1921.56 When he met Vernadsky, he was completely ignorant of
the biogeochemical approach developed by his Russian col-
league. Both Vernadsky and Teilhard praised Suess for the term
biosphere and saw the need of a new "science of the Bios-
phere."57 But the common terminology is misleading. In fact,
the French scientist and the Russian scientist were interpreting
biosphere in radically different ways. It is interesting to note
that Teilhard developed his own notion of "Biosphere" mainly in
his philosophical writings,58 not through his scientific publica-
tions.
59
For his part, Vernadsky based his evolving conception of
the Biosphere essentially in his biogeochemical works, but also
in his work in philosophy of science, including a concept he
termed "empirical generalizations." Like many great scientists
of his time, Vernadsky. developed his personal philosophical
thought on the great questions. Like Teilhard within his order of
the Society of Jesus, our Russian scientist was censored and his
intellectual activities restrained during the Stalinist era.
Both Vernadsky and Teilhard were cosmic prophets of global-
THE BIOSPHERE
53 Vinogradov, 1963, p727
54 Goldschmidt. 1929; and Mason.
1954
55 Termier, 1915; 1922; 1928; 1929;
and Termier and Termier, 1952.
56 Teilhard,1957a.
57 Teilhard, 1957b.
58 Teilhard,19551976.
59 Teilhard. 1971.
i.zation. IfTeilhard was a "cosmic mystic," Vernadsky defined him-
self as a "cosmic realist." They shared a belief in science and tech-
nology as a universal, peaceful and civilizing force. Energy (force,
power, work, production) was the key-word of the Zeitgeist. Ver-
nadsky and Teilhard both offered energetic interpretations (but
based on different energetics) of biological and technological sys-
tems shared then by the Ostwald ian, Machian and Bergsonian
thinkers, extending the ideas of energetics and biological evolu-
tion to human "exosomatic evolution" (a term later coined by A.
Lotka).60 But in The Biosphere as in all his work, Vernadsky's sci-
entific perspective is radically different from that of Teilhard. The
divergence is perhaps best expressed as an opposition between
the anthropocentric view of life (Teilhardian biosphere) and the
biocentric view of the nature's economy (Vernadskian Biosphere).
Vernadsky's Biosphere is completely different from what Gre-
gory Bateson called the "Lamarckian biosphere" of Teilhard,
which was still connected to the classical idea of the Great
Chain of Being and not at all synonymous with our modern
ecosystem concept. I suspect Teilhard (long in China) did not
read Vernadsky's La Biosphere. It was never cited in all Teil-
hard's published letters, philosophical writings and scientific
works. Teilhard is not alone. Even after Vernadsky's death, The
Biosphere was mentioned, if at all, in the necrological notices
with a curious sort of no comment.
As an analytical abstraction for studying the complexity of
nature, the functional concept of ecosystem, formally intro-
duced after Vernadsky's The Biosphere, has no geographical
boundary outside the observer's choice. Its extent is defined by
the scale of observation. To quote Vernadsky, "there is nothing
large or small in nature."61 If Earth seems small to us now, it is
because man's power, a manifestation of conscious life in the
evolving Biosphere, is becoming large. While the biota, includ-
ing microorganisms, constitutes a relatively small biomass com-
pared with the total mass of the lithosphere, the hydrosphere
and the atmosphere, the planetary role of living matter in
nature's economy-to recall the classical metaphor at the roots
of ecology-is enormous. According to Vernadsky, the Bios-
phere is not only "the face of Earth" but is the global dynamic
system transforming our planet since the beginning of biogeo-
logical time. Vernadsky's position on the origin of life on Earth
evolved, but I prefer to ignore Oparin's impact
62
on Vernadsky's
opinion on genesis.
63
A comparative study is still to be written.
Vernadsky's long neglected discovery that the Biosphere, as
THE INVISIBILITY OF THE VERNADSKIAN REVOLUTION
25
60 Lotka, 1945. A comparative
study of Lotka and Vernadsky is still
missing.
61 Vernadsky, 1930b, p. 701.
62 Oparin, 1957.
63 Vernadsky, 1932.
the domain of life on Earth, is a biogeochemical evolving system
with a cosmic significance, was a scientific novelty unwelcomed
by mainstream science. It was indebted to many new and old
ideas in science, as well as in philosophy, Bergson's anti-mech-
anist epistemology of life notably. Vernadsky's Biosphere con-
cept was part of the new geochemical point of view that consid-
ered Earth as a dynamic energy-matter organization, a system
comparable to a thermodynamic engine. Following the insights
of early bioenergetics, including the essay on metabolism (Stot-
fwechsef) published in 1845 by the German physician Robert
Mayer,64 the works of the German plant physiologist Wilhelm
Pfeffer,65 and the study on "the cosmic function of the green
plant" by the Russian Darwinist Kliment A. Timiryazev," Ver-
nadsky viewed the Biosphere as, "a region of transformation of
cosmic energy.,,67 Energetics of the Biosphere, as Vernadsky
emphasized, implies Earth systems as a planet functioning in
the cosmic environment, powered by the Sun. This new thermo-
dynamical cosmology was the result of what we have called the
Carnotian revolution. At the beginning of the twentieth century,
modern science was transformed by an explosion of discoveries
and inventions. The microphysics of quanta and Einstein'S theo-
ry of relativity were part of this profound metamorphosis. Bio-
logical sciences and earth sciences were also profoundly
altered by developments in applied mathematics (the so-called
probabilistic revolution), and the physical and chemical sci-
ences. The engineering-born science of thermodynamics, con-
nected with physiology, biochemistry, and (later) ecology, was
pivotal in the emergence of the concept of Earth as an evolving
system powered by internal and external energy sources. Earth
system science was still embryonic during the age of Vern ad sky,
but the author of The Biosphere was thinking ahead of his time.
One of Vernadsky's core ideas was "biogeochemical energy"
(The Biosphere, 25). This energy-centered approach was clear-
ly part of the second Scientific Revolution of the West, of which
Bergson and Le Roy were early philosophers.
To a certain degree, the intellectual confusion surrounding
the holistic idea of the Biosphere is the result of the mechanis-
tic reductionist nature of Western mainstream science, as clear-
ly expressed by the Cartesian philosophy of Jacques Monod's
Chance and Necessity.68 Other and opposite reasons exist,
including Teilhard de Chardin's pervasive influence, as we have
seen." Mainstream science viewed holism as vitalist and anti-
scientific. Paradoxically, like Teilhard, one of his holistic villains,
THE BIOSPHERE
6It Vernadsky. 1924, PP.329330,
334-338; and the English translation
of Mayer, 1845, In Natural Science_
65 Vernadsky, The Biosphere (91);
and BUnning, 1989.
66 Timiryazev, 1903.
67 Vernadsky, 1924, chap. III, 21,
The Biosphere (8); and Trincher,
1965 (containing a long extract of
Vernadsky's Geochemistry on the
Carnot principle and life, pp. 84-93).
Compare these with Odum, 1971;
Gates, 1962; and Morowitz, 1968.
68 Monod, 1971.
69 In the West, Teilhard de
Chardin's extraordinary fame
was practically inverse of that of
Vernadsky. The debated figure of
Teilhard de Chardin is still present,
as illustrated by the recent
acclaimed books (ignoring
Vernadsky) of Barrow and Tipler,
1986; or Duve, 1995.
Monod, used the term "biosphere" only in the restricted sense
of biota, ignoring Vernadsky's concept even though it had
already been adopted by ecosystems ecology. Like Monod,
many modern biologists and biochemists are ignorant of ecolo-
gy and the Biosphere. Modern geochemistry, a "big science" in
the nuclear age, is also guilty of neglecting the whole.
7o
The
four-box or reservoir scheme (atmosphere-hydrosphere-Iithos-
phere-biosphere) still represents the dominant geochemical
and geophysical paradigm.
The scientific awareness expressed by Vernadsky and some
forgotten naturalists was long absent from mainstream science,
and until recently was not a "global issue" of national politics or
international affairs.'l In it's new intellectual and international
context, Vernadsky's scientific revolution is beginning to
emerge from the haze of its early manifestations. The revolu-
tionary character of the Vernadskian science of the Biosphere
was long hidden by the reductionist, overspecialized and com-
partmentalized scientific knowledge of our time.
At the dawn of the twentieth century, after three centuries of
"modern science," biology appeared in contradiction with the
physical and chemical sciences. The paradox, pointed out by
several authors, notably the French philosopher Henri Bergson
in his great book L'Evolution creatrice (1907), was the famous
second law of thermodynamics, the Carnot principle named the
law of entropy. The anti-mechanistic philosophy of Bergson's
Creative Evolution celebrated Life as an improbable diversity-
creating whole, animated by a powerful elan vital, an accelerat-
ing biological coevolution transforming the inert matter of the
surface of this planet. This had a profound influence on Vernad-
sky, as on many naturalists among the Russian intelligentsia
before the Bolshevik Revolution. In the second part of his long
scientific career (he was over 60 when he wrote The Biosphere),
Vernadsky's intellectual ambition was to reconcile modern sci-
ence with biological processes and life as a whole of cosmic sig-
nificance.
The discovery of "the living organism of the biosphere" (The
Biosphere, 13) arose from many scientific traditions and inno-
vations integrated by the encyclopedic mind of Vernadsky, a
geologist and naturalist in the broadest sense of the terms. Ver-
nadsky made this intense intellectual effort, during a difficult
but especially creative period from 1917 to the mid-1920S. It was
an historical epoch marked by World War I, the Russian revolu-
tions, and an extraordinary emotional context admirably
THE INVISIBILITY OF THE VERNADSKIAN REVOLUTION 27
70 For the leading geochemist V. M.
Goldschmidt: "The totality of living
organisms represents the biosphere,
sensu strictu, and through its
metabolism the biosphere is most
intimitely connected with the
atmosphere, hydrosphere, and
pedosphere" (see Goldschmidt,
1954, p. 355) See also Mason and
Moore, 1982, p.41:
"The biosphere is the totality of
organic matter distributed through
the hydrosphere, the atmosphere,
and on the surface of the crust."
This definition goes back to the first
edition of Mason's Principles of
Geochemistry, 1952.
71 See Grinevald, 1990; Smil, 1997.
described by Lewis Feuer's Einstein and the Generation of Sci-
ence.72 But, like all the scholarly literature on the scientific rev-
olutions, Feuer's great book ignored Vernadsky and his revolu-
tionary theory of the Biosphere.
Like the rest of science in the twentieth century, biology
developed many subdisciplines and was deeply influenced by
what E. J. Dijksterhuis called "the mechanization of the world
picture. "73 The modern philosophy of the laboratory, in biology
as well as in chemistry, produced a mechanistic and reduction-
istic science, more and more separated from evolving nature.
Classical organized biology was often considered an outmoded
science after the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950S.
The biological and geological sciences developed as separate
fields of knowledge, ignoring Vernadsky's integrative approach.
In this modern institutional and epistemological context, Ver-
nadsky's interdisciplinary and holistic concept of the Biosphere
was a very unwelcome scientific idea.
After the initial success of the Newtonian-Laplacian world of
mechanics and the atomistic reductionism of statistical
mechanics, a holistic integration of life with the rest of the phys-
ical world was not fashionable. Some eminent scientists saw in
holism the return to vitalism or even the older tradition of life of
Earth, a sort of revival of the ancient mythology of Gaia! Ther-
modynamics was not a model for Suess's biosphere, but it was
for Vernadsky and Lotka, much more than for Teilhard. Unfortu-
nately, at the time, evolution was seen as opposed to the sec-
ond law of thermodynamics.
Now we know that thermodynamics was itself an evolving sci-
ence?" As early as the end of the nineteenth century, several
experts thought that the entropy law was a law of evolution.
Thermodynamics connects organisms with their environment,
life with Earth, and Earth as a planet with its cosmic environ-
ment. The face of Earth, this strange "domain of life" in the cos-
mos, can be seen as an evolutionary phenomenon, the result of
metabolism connecting the living organisms, the energy flow,
and the cycling of chemical elements. Influenced by Bergson
75
this growing scientific awareness was first expressed by Ver-
nadsky in parallel with Lotka, a well-recognized pioneer of the
ecological worldview.
Like many forgotten energetist scientists, Vernadsky was seri-
ously interested in the apparent thermodynamic paradox
between life and entropy. The debate of Darwin versus Carnot
was an epistemological problem with immense social implica-
THE BIOSPHERE 28
72 Feuer. 1974
73 Dijksterhuis. 1961
7,. Wicken. 1987; Depew and Weber.
1995
75 Vernadsky. 1934; and 1935.
pp.208-213; 308-312.
tions. This debate was in fact a question of scale and boundary,
viewpoint and measurement, in both space and time. At the
time, it was not clearly recognized that the systems can be
divided into three categories: isolated (no energy-matter
exchange with the environment), closed (only energy exchange)
or open (energy-matter exchange). In fact, the boundary of a
phenomenon is an artifact defined by the observer. In empha-
sizing this point Yernadsky was criticizing not the productive
division of scientific labor but the compartmentalization of sci-
entific knowledge, and especially the loss of the unified view of
nature shared by the great naturalists of the past.
When Yernadsky was writing on energetics of the Biosphere,
energetics was a controversial epistemological matter with
striking ideological implications, notably in Russia. Yernadsky's
integrative and holistic framework, merging the anti-mechanis-
tic approach of thermodynamics and the new atomism,76 was a
source for systems thinking in the Soviet UnionP The science
of thermodynamics, linked with the engineering of the Industri-
al Revolution, physical chemistry as well as physiology and bio-
chemistry, and later also ecology and environmental sciences,
was considered at the end of the nineteenth century to present
a new, anti-Newtonian scientific worldview. In a French paper of
1927, Yernadsky wrote:
At the end of the last century, we witnessed the influence of the
energetic mentality upon the scientific understanding of nature.
This coincided with an effort to give a dynamical conception of
environment, a conception that seemed in perfect harmony with
the thermodynamic view of the Universe.
78
This conception-generally credited only to Lotka in the Unit-
ed States-was the real beginning of the study of energy flows
in ecosystems, "at various size levels ranging from simplified
microcosms to the biosphere as a whole."79In fact, the episte-
mological conflict between Darwin and Carnot was not resolved
until Schrodinger's What is Life?, which impelled a change in per-
spective and the emphasis on the point that what we call "struc-
ture" in biological organization is as much a self-organization of
processes as of structures.
so
In The Biosphere (89) , Yernadsky
emphasized that: "Our model of the cosmos always must have a
thermodynamic component." It is in this context, prior to
Schrodinger and Prigogine, that we can appreciate Yernadsky's
warning expressed in the 1929 French edition of The Biosphere:
THE INVISIBILITY OF THE VERNADSKIAN REVOLUTION
29
76 For a historical review of this
epistemological conflict see Clark,
1976, PP.41-105.
77 Susiluoto, 1982, PP.25-27. There
is an interesting parallel between
Vernadsky's biospheric framework
and the Russian thinker A.
Bogdanov (pseudonym A. A.
Malinovsky, 1873-1928), the author
of the 3 volume treatise Tektology
The Universal Organizational
Science (1925'1929, 3rd ed., 1922,
Moscow). See Bogdanov, 1980.
7B Vernadsky, 1927.
79 Odum, 1968. Vernadsky is also
omitted by Gallucci, 1973. However,
Vernadsky was quoted in Kuznetsov,
1965.
80 Bergson, 1975; Whitehead,
1926; and especially Georgescu
Roegen, 1971. See also Glansdorff
and Prigogine, 1971; Denbigh, 1975;
and Weber, 1988.
"The physical theories must inevitably be preoccupied with
the fundamental phenomena of life" (La Biosphere, 1929,
appendice, p.229).
To illustrate this new trend of scientific thought, Vernadsky
cited J. Lotka's Elements of Physical Biology (1925), A. White-
head's Science and Modem World (1926) and J.B.S. Haldane's
Daedalus (1924). These three references form a useful framework
for the critical study of The Biosphere. Parallel to Lotka, Vernad-
sky emphasized the human implications of energetics of our liv-
ing Earth, its ecological limits and economic possibilities. Unfor-
tunately, mainstream biologists and economists long ignored this
bio-economic message until the revolutionary work of the
unorthodox economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, who showed
the way for the critique of the mechanistic dogma of neoclassical
economics. Both Vernadsky and Georgescu-Roegen are still
unappreciated philosophers, in the old sense of the term.
81
Of
course, "thermodynamics smacks of anthropomorphism" (as
Max Planck lamented); but, as Georgescu-Roegen explained, "the
idea that man can think of nature in wholly nonanthropomorphic
terms is a patent contradiction in terms." Scale-dependent obser-
vation does not exist independent of the observer. It is particular-
ly relevant in ecology, the science of complex systems ranging
from the bacterial realm to the global Biosphere.
Like the Harvard physiologists formulating the homeostasis
concept in the 1920-30S, Vernadsky was indebted to the great
French physiologist Claude Bernard notably for his distinction
(and exchange) between the "milieu interieur" (internal envi-
ronment) and the "milieu cosmique" (cosmic environment).
Both Vernadsky and Lotka recognized Bernard's legacy. In his
Sorbonne lectures, Vernadsky declared:
In most of their works studying living organisms, the biologists
disregard the indissoluble connection between the surrounding
milieu and the living organism. In studying the organism as
something quite distinct from the environment, the cosmic
milieu, as Bernard said, they study not a natural body but a pure
product of their thinking.
He pointed out a flagrant case of "fallacy of misplaced con-
creteness" (Alfred North Whitehead). Vernadsky immediately
added: "For a long time the great biologists have seen the indis-
soluble connection between the organism and the surrounding
milieu."82
THE BIOSPHERE 30
81 GeorgescuRoegen, 1971, P.276;
complete bibliography in Georgescu
Roegen, 1995.
82 Vernadsky, 1924 (p. 43).
Quotation from Bernard, 1878, t. I,
p.67. Bernard's theory of the
constancy of the milieu n t ~ r i u r was
a decisive precedent in the
discovery of physiological
homeostasis, a term coined in 1926
(explained in 1929) by Harvard
physiologist Walter Cannon (1871'
1945), author ofthe Sorbo nne
lectures (Paris, 1930) published
under the title The Wisdom of the
Body (1932). The concept of
homeostasis gained wide currency
only after 1948 through the
influence of Norbert Wiener (1894'
1964>, the father of cybernetics.
Cannon was a close colleague of
Lawrence J. Henderson (1878'1942),
the author of The Fitness of the
Environment (1913), an inspiring
book quoted by Vernadsky, which
belongs to the prehistory of Gaia.
See Langley, 1973.
It is "living matter," Vernadsky explained, that, "prepared
itself a new 'cosmic' milieu, taking this notion in Bernard's
sense."83 This reference is capital: it constitutes an important
step in the story of the Gaian science of geophysiology. Ver-
nadsky's approach may be compared with contemporary dis-
cussions about biological organization, the order of nature, the
balance of nature's economy, self-regulating systems, process-
es of equilibrium, steady states, and geochemical cycles. The
principles of thermodynamics helped to form a new cosmologi-
cal viewpoint, a unifying framework for the study of natural
processes, connecting living systems with the energetic econo-
my of nature. Respiration and nutrition, as manifestations of
energy-matter exchange between the organism and the envi-
ronment, connect life with the cosmos. There is a natural affini-
ty between Vernadsky's thermodynamic worldview and Lotka's
concept of "world engine." Both Vernadsky and Lotka can be
considered sources for Georgescu-Roegen's new paradigm of
bioeconomics.
84
After Vernadsky, Lotka, Gaia theory, and
Georgescu-Roegen, the world problematique of sustainable
development can and must integrate bioeconomics and biogeo-
chemistry, our global "industrial metabolism" and the matter-
energy system of Earth's Biosphere.
There are interesting links between the Carnotian revolution,
the Wegenerian revolution, and the Vernadskian revolution,
between thermodynamics, dynamic Earth, biogeochemistry, and
bioeconomics, following the revolutionary epistemological work
of N. Georgescu-Roegen.
85
Our modern culture must integrate
the entropy law, the mobilist view of the dynamic Earth and the
Biosphere. A growing intellectual circle considers Vernadsky's
The Biosphere as a classic of scientific thought on a level equal to
Darwin's Origins of Species. In one of the fundamental environ-
mental books of the early 1970S, the American ecologist Howard
T. Odum, Hutchinson's former student in biogeochemistry, wrote:
We can begin a systems view of the earth through the macro-
scope of the astronaut high above the earth. From an orbiting
satellite, the earth's living zone appears to be very simple. The
thin water- and air-bathed shell covering the earth-the bios-
phere-is bounded on the inside by dense solids and on the out-
side by the near vacuum of outer space.
86
James Lovelock's concept of Gaia first appeared in this con-
text: "The start of the Gaia hypothesis was the view of the Earth
THE INVISIBILITY OF THE VERNADSKIAN REVOLUTION 3
1
83 Bernard, 1878b, p.67.
84 Grinevald, 1987; and Krishnan,
1995
85 Georgescu-Roegen, 1971. This is
his magnum opus.
86 Odum, 1971a, p. 11.
from space, revealing the planet as a whole but not in detail. "87
At the time, Vernadsky was forgotten in the West. Significantly,
in his review (New Scientist, 17 July 1986) of the booklet The
Biosphere, by V. Vernadsky, the very abridged English transla-
tion edited by Synergetic Press, Lovelock confessed:
When Lynn Margulis and I introduced the Gaia hypothesis in
1972 neither of us was aware of Vernadsky's work and none of
our much learned colleagues drew our attention to the lapse. We
retraced his steps and it was not until the 1980s that we discov-
ered him to be our most illustrious predecessor.
Now the time is ripe for the revival of the real historical figure
of Vern ad sky and his complete work on the Biosphere. We must
realize that the natural system of Earth, named Nature by Hum-
boldt, the Biosphere by Vernadsky, Gaia by Lovelock, and ecos-
phere by others is a fundamental concept for our religious,
philosophical and scientific quest to learn "What Is Life?," as
emphasized by Vernadsky himself and recently reformulated in
an admirable book, fifty years after Schrt>dinger, by Lynn Mar-
gulis and Dorion Sagan.-
Nothing is as hard or as necessary as understanding Life. Our
own individual life and our collective life is, essentially, the
activity of the Biosphere -it is creative evolution. We are, as far
as we know, the only naturally habitable planet in the solar sys-
tem, and perhaps even-although we are completely ignorant
on this scale-in the immense cosmos.
To paraphrase Michael Ruse's Taking Darwin Seriously, more
than a half century after the appearance of The Biosphere the
time has surely come to take Vernadsky seriously.
THE BIOSPHERE
Jacques Grinevatd
University of Geneva
Switzerland
32
87 Lovelock, 1979, p.126. There is
no reference to Vernadsky in the
first scientific papers on the Gaia
hypothesis published by Lovelock
and Margulis in the 1970S. The
references to Vernadsky appeared in
the mid-198os, notably in Lovelock,
1988. For a complete bibliography,
see Margulis and Sagan, 1997.
88 Margulis and Sagan, 1995.
Translator's Preface
Translation of The Biosphere has been materially aided by
access to an English version, prepared some years ago, in a
form that faithfully followed the French edition. The revision pre-
sented here is a rather drastic one, in which the sequence of
ideas in sentences and paragraphs has been rearranged in the
interests of compactness and logical flow. It may have been rash
to take such liberties, since Vernadsky's German translator and
the Russian editor of his posthumous book both were scrupu-
lous in following the author literally. Both, however, felt it nec-
essary to explain this and beg the reader's understanding. It is
believed that the present version conscientiously preserves
Vernadsky's meaning, and it is hoped that it will give the reader
an interest in, and some understanding of, this extraordinary
scientist and his work.
Both the French and Russian editions
89
were used in making
this revised translation. In cases of doubt, the Russian version
was deemed the more authoritative. The appendix to the French
edition, on Evolution of Species, is not included here, nor is it in
the 1967 Russian edition.
Dr. Richard Sandor's help with part of the translation is appre-
ciated.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
D. B. Langmuir
June 1977
33
89 Editions ofV. I. Vernadsky's
book published in the past include
the following. In Russian: Biosfera
[The Biosphere}. 1926. Leningrad,
Nauch. Kim-Tekhn. Izdatel'stvo;
Izbrannye Sochineniya [Selected
Works}, 1960, Moscow. Izdatel'stvo
Akademiya Nauk SSSR. v. 5. pp. 7-
102; Biosfera [The Biosphere}. 1967
[footnotes below ascribed to A. I.
Perelman are translated from this
edition by D. Langmuir), Mysl',
Moscow. pp. 222-348; Biosfera i
Noosfera [The Biosphere and the
Noosphere}. 1989. Moscow. Nauka.
115 p.; Zhivoe Veshchestvo i Biosfera
[Living Matter and the Biosphere}.
1994, Moscow. Nauka. pp. 315-401.
In French: La BiospMre. 1929, Paris,
F. Alcan. 232 p. In Serbo-Croatian:
Biosfera. 1960. Beograd. Kultura.
233 p. In Italian: La Biosfera. 1993.
Como, Italy. Red Edisioni. In English:
only the an abridged version based
on the French edition of 1929 has
been available: The Biosphere.
1986. Oracle. Arizona. Synergetic
Press.
Editor's Note on Translation and Transliteration
The revised translation you hold has been modified somewhat
from David Langmuir's translation, which dates back to the
1970'S. Langmuir's overall organization of the text was well done
and has largely been retained. Conflicts between the French and
Russian editions have been noted.
In this translation, the text has been rendered into more flu-
ent English. In many places, this has involved adding words and
phrases that will not be found in the original. This is not, how-
ever, a problem for the fidelity of the translation, for Vernadsky's
sense has been completely retained. Much that is implicit in
Russian writing must be made explicit in English for clarity.
Doing so has dramatically improved the readability of this book
for English-speaking audiences.
The most difficult word to translate in this book is the verb
(and its derivatives) ugadyvat'1ugadat;"to guess:' In an authori-
tative dictionary of Russian verbs, the verb ugadyvat'lugadat' is
rendered simply as "guess." It is a verb whose 1st and 2nd per-
son forms are not used in contemporary Russian (S. Rowland,
personal communication), and E. Daum and W. Schenk define
90
it to mean to be guessed, to seem "when no definite informa-
tion is available on the subject."
David Langmuir translated ugadyvat'lugadat' as "predic-
tion," Andrei V. Lapo as "guess," but I see neither of these as
entirely adequate in this context. The word for "conjecture" in
Russian is dogadka or gadanie, and both, as well as ugady-
vat'lugadat', share the root "gad." The phrase for "scientific
guess" is nauchnoe predp%zhenie, whereas the phrases for
"by guess" or "lucky guess" are naugad and schastlivaya
dogadka, respectively.91 "Extrapolation" translates as the cog-
nate ekstrapo/yatsiya, whereas "guesswork" is rendered as
dogadki. Thus words using the "gad" root seem to imply an ele-
ment of informality. But the present context is clearly one of for-
mal scientific research. Therefore, by using ugadyvat'lugadat'
in noun form Vernadsky apparently intends it to mean some-
thing along the lines of "conjectural constructs founded on
THE BIOSPHERE
34
90 Daum and Schenk,1974.
91 Gal'perin, 1972, p. 616.
guesswork," and there is no question that he uses it in a pejo-
rative sense.
The exact meaning is important here, for it underpins
Vernadsky's critique of certain mechanistic models of the world
which have a tendency to construct risky extrapolations. It
serves to highlight the contrast between the way science is con-
ducted in the East and in the West. Vernadsky may, in fact, have
been directing this criticism at the way he felt scientific research
was being conducted in the west.
92
A clarification of this point
may help us to understand both the differences between
Russian and western scientific epistemology and the contrasts
between Russian and western approaches to environmental
problems. Perhaps ironically, Vernadsky is being increasingly
identified in the west as a doyen of the environmental move-
ment.
93
Although he is surely not the most orthodox model of a west-
ern scientist, science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke in a recent
interview vividly expressed the extrapolationist approach to sci-
ence in the west. The interviewer, noting that some of Clarke's
ideas (such as geostationary satellites and ice on the moon)
had made the jump from science fiction to science fact, asked
Clarke if he had hopes that any other of the predictions in his
works of fiction would make the transition to confirmed fact.
Clarke replied: "Actually, I very seldom predict, but I extrapo-
late, and there are many things I extrapolate that I would hate
to be accurate predictions."94
Extrapolationistic representations are thus in direct conflict
with Vernadsky's preference for advancing science through
empirical generalizations-those observations that, once point-
ed out, are inescapable to any observer. Although empirical
generalizations can change over time with new evidence or new
interpretations, according to Vernadsky they should never
involve conjecture, extrapolation or guesswork. They thus con-
stitute Vernadsky's bedrock starting point for scientific investi-
gation. As you will see, however, there are places where
Vernadsky himself departs from this idealized course of
action.
95
As pointed out by Andrei Lapo, the translation of another
word is critical for understanding this book. This is the Russian
word kosnoe, an antonym of "living." Langmuir usually trans-
lated this word as "crude" (as an English equivalent to the
French "brut"), and sometimes translated it as "inert." George
Vernadsky (son of Vladimir Vernadsky) always, however, trans-
EDITOR'S NOTE 35
92 Although the criticism could
surely also be applied to some of his
Russian colleagues.
93 Margulis and Sagan, 1985;
Matias and Habberjam. 1984; and
Meyer, 1996.
94 Guterl, 1997. pp. 6869
95 Vernadsky did on occasion
employ the concept of a "working
scientific hypothesis." See p. 10 of
his "On the geological envelopes of
Earth as a planet." paper read
before the meeting
of the Sechnov Institute of Scientific
Research, January 18. 1942.
lated kosnoe as "inert." Both Lapo and I are in agreement with
G. Vernadsky that "inert" is the best translation for kosnoe.
Translation of this word is important because Vernadsky divid-
ed the biosphere into two classes of materials, the actual living
matter and natural, bio-inert matter with which it is associated.
Dr. Lapo also noted that there are places in this book where it
is not perfectly clear whether V. Vernadsky meant to refer to the
"surrounding medium" or to the "environment" in a more gen-
eral sense. In reviewing the translation ofV. Vernadsky's words,
I have tried to maintain a faithful usage of both. This distinction
is important because in his view of the biosphere Vernadsky
emphasizes, with a nod to the work of l. Pasteur,96 the "medi-
um forming" capabilities of organisms.
THE BIOSPHERE
Mark McMenamin
Department of Geology and Geography
Mount Holyoke College
South Hadley, Massachusetts
May 1997
96 Vernadsky apparently took
tremendous inspiration from
Louis Pasteur. There are parallels
between the careers of both
scientists. Pasteur's first scientific
breakthrough was in the field of
crystallography. In 1848 he founded
the discipline of stereochemistry
with his discovery that tartaric
acid Osolated from fruits) came in
three varieties, laevo-tartarate,
dextro-tartarate and a racemic
mixture (paratartaric acid) of
the other two. Following Eilhard
Mitscherlich's demonstration that
the three compounds are chemically
identical, Pasteur solved the
problem of the opposite rotation of
polarized light by laevo-tartarate
and dextro-tartarate by elegantly
showing (after hand-picking the tiny
crystals) that the two substances
formed mirror-image crystalline
forms (Vallery-Rodot, 1912; and
Compton, 1932.).
When young Vernadsky was in
Paris in 1889, studying with Henri
Louis Le Chatelier and Ferdinand
Andre Fouque, he carried out
experimental studies on silicate
minerals and succeeded for the first
time in producing synthetic
sillimanite (Shakhovskaya, 1988,
P.37; Eliseev and Shafranovskii,
1989; and Kolchinskii, 1987, pp. 11-
12). An unexpected result of this
artificial synthesis was Vernadsky's
recognition of two different
crystalline forms of sillimanite. This
sillimanite polymorphism led
Vernadsky to consider the problem
of polymorphism in general for his
magister dissertation. This work
was of great geological importance,
for "Vernadsky demonstrated the
presence of a fundamental radical
in most aluminosilicates, thereby
uniting nearly all silicates into a
unified system" (Rowland, 1993,
p. 246). For his doctoral dissertation,
Vernadsky addressed the
phenomenon of gliding in crystals,
and published his first major
scientific work (Vernadsky, 1903).
Author's Preface to the French Edition
After this book appeared in Russian in 1926, the French edition
was revised and recast to correspond with the Russian text. It
forms the continuation of the essay La Geochimie, published in
the same collection (1924), of which a Russian translation has
just appeared and a German translation is to appear shortly.l
Only a few bibliographical references will be found here; for
others please consult La Geochimie. The problems discussed
herein have been touched upon in several articles, most impor-
tantly in the "Revue Generale des Sciences" (1922-1925), and in
"Bulletins of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in Leningrad"
(St. Petersburg) (1826-1927), both in French.
The aim of this book is to draw the attention of naturalists,
geologists, and above all biologists to the importance of a quan-
titative study of the relationships between life and the chemical
phenomena of the planet.
Endeavoring to remain firmly on empirical grounds, without
resorting to hypotheses, I have been limited to the scant number
of precise observations and experiments at my disposal. A great
number of quantitatively expressed empirical facts need to be
collected as rapidly as possible. This should not take long once
the great importance of living phenomena in the biosphere
becomes clear.
The aim of this book is to draw attention to this matter; hope-
fully it will not pass unnoticed.
THE BIOSPHERE
V. I. Vernadsky
December 1928
38
1 Vernadsky, 1930, p. 370.
Author's Preface to the Russian Edition
Among numerous works on geology, none has adequately treat-
ed the biosphere as a whole, and none has viewed it, as it will be
viewed here, as a single orderly manifestation of the mechanism
of the uppermost region of the planet - the Earth's crust.
Few scientists have realized that the biosphere is subject to
fixed laws. Since life on Earth is viewed as an accidental phe-
nomenon, current scientific thought fails to appreciate the influ-
ence of life at every step in terrestrial processes. Earth scientists
have assumed that there is no relationship between the develop-
ment of life on Earth and the formation of the biosphere - the
envelope of life where the planet meets the cosmic milieu.
Historically, geology has been viewed as a collection of events
derived from insignificant causes, a string of accidents. This of
course ignores the scientific idea that geological events are plan-
etary phenomena, and that the laws governing these events are
not peculiar to the Earth alone. As traditionally practiced, geol-
ogy loses sight of the idea that the Earth's structure is a harmo-
nious integration of parts that must be studied as an indivisible
mechanism.
As a rule, geology studies only the details of phenomena
connected with life; the mechanism behind the details is not
regarded as a scientific phenomenon. Though surrounded by
manifestations of such mechanisms, insufficiently attentive
investigators frequently overlook them.
In these essays, I have attempted to give a different view of the
geological importance of living phenomena. I will construct no
hypotheses and will strive to remain on the solid ground of
empirical generalization, thus portraying the geological mani-
festations of life and planetary processes from a base of precise
and incontestable facts.
I will bypass, however, three preconceived ideas, long a part of
geological thought, that seem to contradict the method of
empirical generalization in science, generalizations which con-
stitute the fundamental discoveries of natural scientists.
One of these conceptions, mentioned above, is that geological
AUTHOR'S PREFACE 39
phenomena are accidental coincidences of causes, essentially
blind, and obscure because of their complexity and number.
This preconceived idea
2
is only partly related to certain philo-
sophical-religious interpretations of the world; mainly it is
based upon incomplete logical analysis of our empirical knowl-
edge.
1Wo other preconceived ideas have infiltrated geology from
roots foreign to the empirical principles of science. The first is
the assumption of the existence of a beginning of life -life gene-
sis or biopoesis at a certain stage in the geological past. Consid-
ered a logical necessity, this has penetrated science in the form
of religious and philosophical speculation.' Next is the precon-
ception of an essential role for pre-geological stages of planetary
evolution during which conditions were clearly different from
those which can now be studied. In particular, an igneous-liquid
or incandescent gaseous stage is assumed as certain. These ideas
diffused into geology during early developments of philosophy
and cosmogony.
The logical consequences of these ideas are illusory, harmful,
and even dangerous when applied to contemporary geology.
Let us consider all empirical facts from the point of view of a
holistic mechanism that combines all parts of the planet in an
indivisible whole. Only then will we be able to perceive the per-
fect correspondence between this idea and the geological effects
of life. I will not speculate here about the existence of the mech-
anism, but rather will observe
ll
that it corresponds to all the
empirical facts and follows from scientific analysis. Included in
the mechanism as its integrating member is the biosphere, the
domain of manifestation of life.
I have found no empirical evidence whatsoever for assuming
a beginning of life, nor for the influence of cosmic planetary
states on geological events, nor for the existence of an early
igneous state, and I regard these concepts as useless and restrict-
ing to valid scientific generalizations. Philosophical and cos-
mogonal hypotheses that cannot be founded on facts should be
discarded, and replacements sought.
The Biosphere in the Cosmos and The Domain of Life, the two
essays that make up this book, are independent works linked by
the point of view set forth above. The need for writing them
became apparent as a result of studies of the biosphere conduct-
ed by the author since 1917.
In connection with this work I have written three essays, as
follows: "Living Matter;' "The Structure of Living Matter;' and
THE BIOSPHERE 40
2 Compare this with the "ruling the-
ory" concept ofT. C. Chamberlain
(1965). A ruling theory is one which
skews the ability of the researcher
(holding the ruling theory) to objec-
tively evaluate new data. Often this
occurs because the researcher has
come up with the idea his-or her-
self, and out of pride of parenthood
would not wish to see the theory
threatened by nonconforming data.
Such data thus tend to be inappro-
priately discounted by victims of the
ruling theory syndrome.
, Here Vern ad sky has developed a
slavic version of systematic or sub-
stantive uniformitarianism, the theo-
ry that nothing on Earth really ever
changes (not to be confused with
actualism or methodological unifor
mitarianism, the research technique
used by all geologists in which they
use present phenomena as the key
to past processes; see A. Hallam,
1992). There is an interesting paral-
lel here with western geological
thought. The actualistic principles of
J. Hutton (1795) were overextended
to the point that Earth "has no
stratigraphy whatsoever, and hence
no real history; it is instead a model
of a system in dynamic equilibrium"
(Hallam, 1992, p. 25). This substan-
tive uniformitarianism was elaborat-
ed and (over)extended by C. Lyell
(1830-1833). Lyell's view was lam
pooned by his colleague Henry de la
Beche in a cartoon showing a future
"Prof. Ichthyosaurus" lecturing to
fellow aquatic reptiles about the
odd appearance of the extinct
human animal now known only by
its skull. Indeed, Lyell felt that when
appropriate conditions of climate
and temperature reappear, the
dinosaurs, other extinct animals
and extinct vegetation will return.
Vern ad sky received actualistic
principles from the tradition of
the great Russian scientist M. V.
Lomonosov (1711-1765), who was
one of the first scientists to apply
actualism to geological problems
(Tikhomirov, 1969; and Vernadsky,
1988, pp. 326-328). Andrei Lapo
calls Vernadsky the "Lomonosov of
the Twentieth Century" (La po, 1988,
pp.3-10).
Vernadsky's dismissal of "the
existence of 0 beginning of /ife"
(emphasis his) is testimony to his
allegiance to the principle of actual-
ism (Kurkin, 1989, pp. 516'528) and
"Living Matter in Geochemiscal History of the Element's Sys-
tem:' I have not had time to prepare these for publication, but
hope to do so at a later date.
5
is also the Russian counterpart to west-
ern substantitive uniformitarianism.
Vernadsky sees Earth as a planet on
which life has always been present
life is thus an essential criterion for
characterizing Earth as a planet For
Vernadsky. discussion of the origin of
life on Earth is not within the realm of
science Oet alone geology) and is mere-
ly an antiquated form of "religious and
philosophical speculation." Here then is
the parallel with Hutton: to paraphrase
the famous last line of Hutton's book,
for Vernadsky life has "no vestige of a
beginning, no prospect of an end."
Also implied here is a harsh critique of
the Oparin concept, first dating from
the early 1920'S, of biopoesis (abiotic
geneSis of life) in an early Earth's
reducing atmosphere. Vernadsky did
not categorically deny the possibility of
biopoesis, but insisted that it could not
occur during the course of geological
time known to us.
Vernadsky rejects the idea of the
origin of life in an early reducing atmos-
phere. This helps explain why Vernadsky
missed the greatest research insight
available to his research program, the
discovery of the Oxygen Revolution at
two billion years ago. This discovery fell
to the American geologist Preston Cloud
(1973). Vernadsky would have appreciat-
ed the significance of Cloud's discovery,
for Vernadsky was a student and an
advisee of the great soil scientist and
teacher V. V. Dokuchaev, and the perva-
sive oxidation so characteristic of both
modern and ancient soilS does not
appear in the geological record until
after the Oxygen Revolution. It was
Dokuchaev, Vernadsky wrote in 1935,
who "first turned my attention to the
dynamic side of mineralogy" (cited in
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
V1adimirVernadSky
Prague
February 1926
Bailes, 1990, p. 19) and "put forward his
thesis that the soil is a peculiar natural
body, different from rock" (Vernadsky,
1944, p. 490). Bailes (p. 19) noted how
Dokuchaev fired up "Vernadsky's inter-
est in a holistic and historical approach
to science; indeed, Vernadsky held the
history of science on a par with other
types of scientific investigation (Mikulin-
sky, 1984). Unlike western substantive
uniformitarians, Vernadsky does not
deny Earth a history. On the contrary, he
has an abiding sense of the history of
the planet, as in this quotation by Ver-
nadsky on p. 42 of Bailes' book: "miner-
als are remains of those chemical reac-
tions which took place at various points
on Earth; these reactions take place
according to laws which are known to
us, but which, we are allowed to think,
are closely tied to general changes
which Earth has undergone as a planet
The task is to connect the various phas-
es of changes undergone by the earth
with the general laws of celestial
mechanics." Vernadsky (Bailes, p. 83)
also wrote of "the beauty of historical
phenomena, their originality among the
other natural processes."
Vernadsky eventually came to a
reluctant acceptance of abiogenesis
(development of life from non-life;
discussed mainly in his posthumous
publications), and in fact championed
the idea of multiple "bioclades" (a term
coined by Raup and Valentine, 1983) or,
in other words, the polyphyletic origin
of life. See Rogal' (1989) and Borkin
(1983). In 1908 Vernadsky championed
the hypothesis of directed panspermia,
perhaps because of its possible bearing
on his concept of the eternity of life.
"By the way, it turns out that the
quantity of living matter in the earth's
41
crust is a constant. Then life is the same
kind of part of the cosmos as energy and
matter. In essence, don't all the specula-
tions about the arrival of 'germs' [of Iifel
from other heavenly bodies have basi-
cally the same assumptions as [the idea
ofl the eternity of life?" (p. 123, Bailes)
Bailes (p. 123) criticizes this passage
(taken from a letter to Vernadsky's for-
mer student I. V. Samoilov) as being
"rather cryptic," "not very clear," and as
evidence of a "mystical strain" in Ver-
nadsky's thought. Similar criticisms
were also levied by Oparin (1957).
These criticisms are misleading, howev-
er; Vernadsky saw life's development,
and its subsequent development ofthe
noosphere, as a materialistic process.
Vernadsky eschewed vitalism (see Ver-
nadsky, 1944, p. 509):
New vitalistic notions have their
foundation not in scientific data, which
are used rather as illustrations, but in
philosophical concepts such as
Driesch's "entelechy."[Driesch, 19141
The notion of a peculiar vital energy (yoI.
Ostwald) is likewise connected with
philosophical thought rather than with
scientific data. Facts did not confirm its
real existence.
Vernadsky probably would have
agreed with the statement of Humberto
R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varela that
living "systems, as physical autopoietic
machines, are purposeless systems
(1980). Vernadsky nevertheless permit-
ted the noosphere to form as a logical
outcome of these purposeless machines.
.. Here Vernadsky asserts that he is wor-
thy of making empirical generalizations.
5 Only one of these essays has been
published to date (Vernadsky, 1978).
The Biosphere in the Cosmic Medium
1 The face of the Earth
7
viewed from celestial space presents a
unique appearance, different from all other heavenly bodies.
The surface that separates the planet from the cosmic medium
is the biosphere, visible principallybecause of light from the sun,
although it also receives an infinite number of other radiations
from space, of which only a small fraction are 'visible to us. We
hardly realize the variety and importance of these rays, which
cover a huge range of wavelengths.
Our understanding is full of gaps, but improved detectors are
rapidly expanding our knowledge of their existence and variety.
Certainly they make the empty cosmic regions different from
the ideal space of geometry!8
Radiations reveal material bodies and changes in the cosmic
medium. One portion appears as energy through transitions of
states, and signals the movements of aggregates of quanta, elec-
trons and charges. The aggregates, which as a whole may remain
motionless, control the movements of their separate elements.
There are also rays of particles (the most-studied are elec-
trons) which often travel at nearly the same speed as waves, and
result from transitions in separate elements of the aggregates.
Both kinds of rays are powerful forms of energy, and cause
observable changes when they pass through material bodies.
2 For the moment, we can neglect the influence of particle radi-
ation on geochemical phenomena in the biosphere, but we must
always consider the radiations from transitions of energy states.
These will appear as light, heat, or electricity according to their
type ,and wavelength, and produce transformations in our planet.
These rays cover a known range of forty octaves in wavelength
(10-
8
cm to kilometers), of which the visible spectrum is one
octave? This immense range is constantly being extended by
scientific discovery, but only a few of the forty octaves have thus
far affected our view of the cosmos.
The radiations that reach our planet from the cosmos amount
to only four and one-half octaves. We explain the absence of the
other octaves on the Earth's surface by absorption in the upper
atmosphere.
The best-known radiations come from the sun-one octave
of light rays, three of infrared radiation, and a half-octave of
ultraviolet; the last half-octave being, doubtless, only a small
fraction of the total ultraviolet from the sun, most of which is
retained by the stratosphere. (115)
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
6 "Biospherology" is the term now
used by some for study of the bios-
phere (see Guegamian. 1980).
Others, such as NASA, use the term
"biospherics."
7 In this first phrase Vernadsky
echoes the title and opening sentence
of Eduard Suess's influential geologi-
cal compendium, Die Antlitz der Erde
[The Face of the EarthI (Suess, 1883-
1909, p. 1). Suess wrote:
"If we imagine an observer to
approach our planet from outer
space, and, pushing aside the belts
of red-brown clouds which obscure
our atmosphere, to gaze for a whole
day on the surface of the earth as it
rotates beneath him, the feature
beyond all others most likely to
arrest his attention would be the
wedge-like outline of the continents
as they narrow away to the South."
For more information on Suess's
influence, see Greene (1982).
Vernadsky admired the inductive
approach utilized by Suess in this
book.
8 Vernadsky reached the conclusion
early on that radiation from the cos-
mos played a large role in the devel-
opment of life.
9 "Octave" is a term used in both
music and physical science. It
means the same thing In both: a
span over which a wavelength is
halved or doubled.
3 A new character is imparted to the planet by this powerful
cosmic force. The radiations that pour upon the Earth cause the
biosphere to take on properties to lifeless planetary
surfaces, and thus transform the face of the Earth. Activated by
radiation, the matter of the biosphere collects and redistributes
solar energy, and converts it ultimately into free energy capable
of doing work on Earth.
The outer layer of the Earth must, therefore, not be considered
as a region of matter alone, but also as a region of energy and a
source of transformation of the planet. To a great extent, exoge-
nous cosmic forces shape the face of the Earth, and as a result,
the biosphere differs historically from other parts of the planet.
This biosphere plays an extraordinary planetary role.
The biosphere is at least as much a creation of the sun as a
result of terrestrial processes. Ancient religious intuitions that
considered terrestrial creatures, especially man, to be children of
the sun were far nearer the truth than is thought by those who
see earthly beings simply as ephemeral creations arising from
blind and accidental interplay of matter and forces. Creatures on
Earth are the fruit of extended, complex processes, and are an
essential part of a harmonious
1o
cosmic mechanism, in which it
is known that fixed laws apply and chance does not exist.
l1
4 We arrive at this conclusion via our understanding of the
matter of the biosphere - an understanding that had been pro-
foundly modified by contemporary evidence that this matter is
the direct manifestation of cosmic forces acting upon the Earth.
This is not a consequence of the extraterrestrial origin of mat-
ter in the biosphere, perhaps the majority of which has fallen
from space as cosmic dust and meteorites. This foreign matter
cannot be distinguished in atomic structure from ordinary ter-
restrial matter.
We must pause before entering the domain of terrestrial phe-
nomena, because our ideas about the unforeseen character of
matter on this planet are going through greattransformations,
upsetting our understanding of geology.
The identity of structure
12
between earthly matter and exo-
genic cosmic matter is not limited to the biosphere, but extends
through the whole terrestrial crust; i.e., through the lithosphere,
which extends to a depth of 60-100 kilometers, and interfaces
with the biosphere at its outermost part. (89)
Matter in the deeper parts ofthe planet shows the same iden-
tity, although it may have a different chemical composition.
10 Cf. the Tyutchev epigraph above.
11 Vernadsky is quite explicit here
in his challenge to the
"randomness" component of
materialistic darwinism. This
component has been expressed,
complete with reference to the
biosphere, by). Monod (197
1
, p. 9
8
):
"Randomness caught on the
wing, preserved, reproduced by the
machinery of invariance and thus
converted into order. rule, necessity.
A totally blind process can by
definition lead to anything; it can
even lead to vision itself. In the
ontogenesis of a functional protein
are reflected the origin and descent
of the whole biosphere."
12 Presumably Vernadsky here
means Identity of atomic structure.
Matter from these regions seems, however, not to penetrate to
the Earth's crust even in small amounts, and can therefore be
ignored in studies of the biosphere.
13
5 The chemical composition of the crust has long been regard-
ed as the result of purely geological causes. Explanations of it
have been sought by invoking the action of waters (chemical
a.nd solvent), of the atmosphere, of organisms, of volcanicerup-
tlons, and so on, assuming that geological processes and the
properties of chemical elements have remained unchanged.
14
Such explanations presented difficulties, as did other and
ideas that had been proposed. The composi-
tion was conSidered to be the remains of ancient periods when
the Earth differed greatly from its present state. The crust was
regarded as a sCoria formed on the terrestrial surface from the
once-molten mass of the planet, in accordance with the chemi-
that apply when molten masses cool and solidify.ls To
explam the predominance of lighter elements, reference was
made to cosmic periods before the formation of the crust. It was
thought that heavier elements were collected near the center of
the Earth, during its formation as a molten mass thrown off
from a nebula.
In all these theories, the composition of the crust was seen as
a result strictly geological phenomena. Chemical changes in
of the crust were attributed to geological processes
actmg at lower temperatures, whereas isotopic changes in
crustal composition were attributed to processes acting at high-
er temperatures.
6 are decisively contradicted by newly
establIshed laws which are in accord with recent results indicat-
ing that the chemical composition of stars is marked by previ-
ously unsuspected complexity, diversity, and regularity.16
. Th:e of the Earth, and particularly its crust, has
ImplIcatIOns that transcend purely geological phenomena. To
we must direct our attention to the composi-
tion of all cosmiC matter and to modifications of atoms in cos-
mic New concepts are accumulating rapidly in this
speculative field. Comparatively little theoretical analysis has
been done, however, and deductions that might be justifiable
have seldom been made explicit. The immense importance and
unexpected consequences of these phenomena cannot, howev-
er, be disregarded. Three aspects of these phenomena can be
13 Study of deep seated kimberlite
pipe eruptions (mantle rocks that
somehow penetrated to Earth's sur-
face) demonstrate that this can no
longer be strictly the case' see
Nixon, 1973: and Cox, 1978.
14 These are the fundamental
assumptions of geological actual-
ism.
15 Such an assumption led Lord
Kelvin (see Hallam, 1992, p. 124: and
Kelvin, 1894) to an erroneous calcu-
lation of the age of Earth.
16 Here Vernadsky is without doubt
referring to the work of Einar
Hertzsprung and Henry Norris
Russell. Hertzsprung's pioneering
research advanced the knowledge
concerning the color of stars. Star
color can be used as an index to star
temperature. Russell's work greatly
extended the list of stars with
known luminosities (as calculated
by parallax measurements). Plots of
stellar luminosity to surface temper-
ature, published by Russell begin-
ning around 1915, established the
"main sequence" of stars in the
universe. Using the theoretical
Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, one
may plot lines of constant stellar
radius against an ordinate axis of
luminosity and an abcissa axis of
effective temperature. Thus if one
knows the luminosity and effective
temperature of a star, it is possible
to calculate its radius.
It became possible to remotely
analyse the composition of stars
when the lines In the solar spectrum
(named Fraunhofer lines after the
glass maker and optician Joseph
Fraunhofer) were explained by
photographer W. H. Fox Talbot
(1800-1877) and Gustav Kirchoff
as absorption lines characteristic
(with absorption occuring as sun-
light passes through the cooler,
outer gaseous layers of the Sun)
for specific excitation states of par-
ticular elements.
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS 45
3 A new character is imparted to the planet by this powerful
cosmic force. The radiations that pour upon the Earth cause the
biosphere to take on properties to lifeless planetary
surfaces, and thus transform the face of the Earth. Activated by
radiation, the matter of the biosphere collects and redistributes
solar energy, and converts it ultimately into free energy capable
of doing work on Earth.
The outer layer of the Earth must, therefore, not be considered
as a region of matter alone, but also as a region of energy and a
source of transformation of the planet. To a great extent, exoge-
nous cosmic forces shape the face of the Earth, and as a result,
the biosphere differs historically from other parts of the planet.
This biosphere plays an extraordinary planetary role.
The biosphere is at least as much a creation of the sun as a
result of terrestrial processes. Ancient religious intuitions that
considered terrestrial creatures, especially man, to be children of
the sun were far nearer the truth than is thought by those who
see earthly beings simply as ephemeral creations arising from
blind and accidental interplay of matter and forces. Creatures on
Earth are the fruit of extended, complex processes, and are an
essential part of a harmonious
1o
cosmic mechanism, in which it
is known that fixed laws apply and chance does not exist.
l1
4 We arrive at this conclusion via our understanding of the
matter of the biosphere - an understanding that had been pro-
foundly modified by contemporary evidence that this matter is
the direct manifestation of cosmic forces acting upon the Earth.
This is not a consequence of the extraterrestrial origin of mat-
ter in the biosphere, perhaps the majority of which has fallen
from space as cosmic dust and meteorites. This foreign matter
cannot be distinguished in atomic structure from ordinary ter-
restrial matter.
We must pause before entering the domain of terrestrial phe-
nomena, because our ideas about the unforeseen character of
matter on this planet are going through greattransformations,
upsetting our understanding of geology.
The identity of structure
12
between earthly matter and exo-
genic cosmic matter is not limited to the biosphere, but extends
through the whole terrestrial crust; i.e., through the lithosphere,
which extends to a depth of 60-100 kilometers, and interfaces
with the biosphere at its outermost part. (89)
Matter in the deeper parts ofthe planet shows the same iden-
tity, although it may have a different chemical composition.
10 Cf. the Tyutchev epigraph above.
11 Vernadsky is quite explicit here
in his challenge to the
"randomness" component of
materialistic darwinism. This
component has been expressed,
complete with reference to the
biosphere, by). Monod (197
1
, p. 9
8
):
"Randomness caught on the
wing, preserved, reproduced by the
machinery of invariance and thus
converted into order. rule, necessity.
A totally blind process can by
definition lead to anything; it can
even lead to vision itself. In the
ontogenesis of a functional protein
are reflected the origin and descent
of the whole biosphere."
12 Presumably Vernadsky here
means Identity of atomic structure.
Matter from these regions seems, however, not to penetrate to
the Earth's crust even in small amounts, and can therefore be
ignored in studies of the biosphere.
13
5 The chemical composition of the crust has long been regard-
ed as the result of purely geological causes. Explanations of it
have been sought by invoking the action of waters (chemical
a.nd solvent), of the atmosphere, of organisms, of volcanicerup-
tlons, and so on, assuming that geological processes and the
properties of chemical elements have remained unchanged.
14
Such explanations presented difficulties, as did other and
ideas that had been proposed. The composi-
tion was conSidered to be the remains of ancient periods when
the Earth differed greatly from its present state. The crust was
regarded as a sCoria formed on the terrestrial surface from the
once-molten mass of the planet, in accordance with the chemi-
that apply when molten masses cool and solidify.ls To
explam the predominance of lighter elements, reference was
made to cosmic periods before the formation of the crust. It was
thought that heavier elements were collected near the center of
the Earth, during its formation as a molten mass thrown off
from a nebula.
In all these theories, the composition of the crust was seen as
a result strictly geological phenomena. Chemical changes in
of the crust were attributed to geological processes
actmg at lower temperatures, whereas isotopic changes in
crustal composition were attributed to processes acting at high-
er temperatures.
6 are decisively contradicted by newly
establIshed laws which are in accord with recent results indicat-
ing that the chemical composition of stars is marked by previ-
ously unsuspected complexity, diversity, and regularity.16
. Th:e of the Earth, and particularly its crust, has
ImplIcatIOns that transcend purely geological phenomena. To
we must direct our attention to the composi-
tion of all cosmiC matter and to modifications of atoms in cos-
mic New concepts are accumulating rapidly in this
speculative field. Comparatively little theoretical analysis has
been done, however, and deductions that might be justifiable
have seldom been made explicit. The immense importance and
unexpected consequences of these phenomena cannot, howev-
er, be disregarded. Three aspects of these phenomena can be
13 Study of deep seated kimberlite
pipe eruptions (mantle rocks that
somehow penetrated to Earth's sur-
face) demonstrate that this can no
longer be strictly the case' see
Nixon, 1973: and Cox, 1978.
14 These are the fundamental
assumptions of geological actual-
ism.
15 Such an assumption led Lord
Kelvin (see Hallam, 1992, p. 124: and
Kelvin, 1894) to an erroneous calcu-
lation of the age of Earth.
16 Here Vernadsky is without doubt
referring to the work of Einar
Hertzsprung and Henry Norris
Russell. Hertzsprung's pioneering
research advanced the knowledge
concerning the color of stars. Star
color can be used as an index to star
temperature. Russell's work greatly
extended the list of stars with
known luminosities (as calculated
by parallax measurements). Plots of
stellar luminosity to surface temper-
ature, published by Russell begin-
ning around 1915, established the
"main sequence" of stars in the
universe. Using the theoretical
Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, one
may plot lines of constant stellar
radius against an ordinate axis of
luminosity and an abcissa axis of
effective temperature. Thus if one
knows the luminosity and effective
temperature of a star, it is possible
to calculate its radius.
It became possible to remotely
analyse the composition of stars
when the lines In the solar spectrum
(named Fraunhofer lines after the
glass maker and optician Joseph
Fraunhofer) were explained by
photographer W. H. Fox Talbot
(1800-1877) and Gustav Kirchoff
as absorption lines characteristic
(with absorption occuring as sun-
light passes through the cooler,
outer gaseous layers of the Sun)
for specific excitation states of par-
ticular elements.
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS 45
given preliminary discussion, namely: 1. the peculiar positions
of the elements of the crust in Mendeleev's periodic system;17
2. their complexity; 3. the non-uniformity of their distribution.
Elements with even atomic number clearly predominate in
the Earth's crust.
18
We cannot explain this by known geological
causes. Moreover, the same phenomenon is more marked in
meteorites, the only bodies foreign to the Earth that are imme-
diately accessible for study.19
The two other aspects seem even more obscure. The attempts
to explain them by geological laws or causes apparently contra-
dict well-known facts. We cannot understand the hard facts of
the complexity of terrestrial elements; and still less, their fixed
isotopic compositions. Isotopic ratios in various meteorites
have been shown to be the same,2 in spite of great differences in
the history and provenance of these meteorites.
Contrary to previous beliefs, it is becoming impossible to per-
ceive the laws that govern the Earth's composition in terms of
purely geological phenomena, or merely in terms of "stages" in
the Earth's history. The latter explanation fails on account of the
fact that there is neither a similarity of the deeper portions of
our planet with the composition of meteorites, nor, as in mete-
orites,21 an even mix of both lighter chemical elements and of
denser iron in rocks of either Earth's crust or rocks from depth.
The hypothesis that elements will be distributed according to
weight, with the heaviest accumulating near the center, during
the formation of the Earth from a nebula, does not agree with
the facts. The explanation can be found neither in geological
and chemical phenomena alone, nor in the history of the Earth
considered in isolation. The roots lie deeper, and must be sought
in the history of the cosmos, and perhaps in the structure of
chemical elements.
22
This view of the problem has recently been confirmed, in a
new and unexpected way, by the similarity in composition
between the Earth's crust and the sun and stars. The likeness in
composition of the crust and the outer portions of the sun was
noted by Russell as early as 1914, and the resemblances have
become more marked in the latest work on stellar spectra.
23
Cecilia H. Payne
24
lists heavier stellar elements in descending
order of abundance as follows: silicon, sodium, magnesium, alu-
minum' carbon, calcium, iron (more than one percent); zinc,
titanium, manganese, chromium, potassium (more than one per
mil).
This pattern clearly resembles the order of abundance in the
17 See Mendeleev, 1897.
18 See Oddo, 1914.
19 See Harkins, 1917.
20 This observation was later used
to date all of the meteorites (and
Earth itself) to at age of approxi-
mately 4.6 billion years based on
abundances of Strontium-87 and
Rubidium-87 (Reynolds, 1960).
21 See Farrington, 1901.
22 Vernadsky was overinterpreting
his data here. Iron and nickel went
to Earth's core at a time when the
planet was completely or partially
melted, early in its history. The flow'
of dense liquid toward the core
released additional heat (as thermal
[kinetic] energy converted from
potential energy) and caused
additional melting of rock.
23 See Norris, 1919.
24 See Payne, 1925.
Earth's crust: oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, sodium,
potassium, magnesium.
These results, from a newfield of study, showstriking similar-
ities between the chemical compositions of profoundly different
celestial bodies. This might be explained by a material exchange
taking place between the outer parts of the Earth, sun, and stars.
The deeper portions present another picture, since the compo-
sition of meteorites and of the Earth's interior is clearly different
from that of the outer terrestrial envelope.
7 We thus see great changes occurring in our understanding of
the composition of the Earth, and particularly of the biosphere.
We perceive not simply a planetary or terrestrial phenomenon,
but a manifestation of the structure, distribution, and evolution
of atoms throughout cosmic history.
We cannot explain these phenomena, but at least we have
found that the way to proceed is through a new domain of phe-
nomena, different from that to which terrestrial chemistryhas so
long been limited. Viewing the observed facts differently, we
knowwhere we must seekthe solution of the problem, andwhere
the search will be useless. The structure of the cosmos manifests
itself in the outer skin or upper structure of our planet. We can
gain insight into the biosphere only by considering the obvious
bond that unites it to the entire cosmic mechanism.25
We find evidence of this bond in numerous facts of history.
The Biosphere as a Region of Transformation of
Cosmic Energy
8 The biosphere may be regarded as a region of transformers
that convert cosmic radiations into active energy in electrical,
chemical, mechanical, thermal, and other forms. Radiations
from all stars enter the biosphere, but we catch and perceive only
an insignificant part of the total; this comes almost exclusively
from the sun.
26
The existence of radiation originating in the
most distant regions of the cosmos cannot be doubted. Stars
and nebulae are constantly emitting specific radiations, and
everything suggests that the penetrating radiation discovered in
the upper regions of the atmosphere by Hess
27
originates
beyond the limits of the solar system, perhaps in the MilkyWay,
in nebulae, or in stars of the Mira Ceti type.
28
The importance
of this will not be clear for some time,29 but this penetrating
cosmic radiation determines the character and mechanism of
the biosphere.
25 This view is also developed in the
works of Alexandr E. Fersman (1933,
1934, 1937 and 1939). Fersman,
Vernadsky's most influential stUdent
(Vernadsky, 1985: and Fersman,
1945), outlived his mentor by only
a few months (Backlund, 1945).
Fersman's work is not surprisingly
an extension of the Vernadskian
research program (Saukov, 1950).
26 And of that we receive only one
half billionth of the total solar out-
put (Lovins, Lovins, Krause, and
Bach, 1981).
27 See Hess, 1928.
28 Mira Ceti is a long period
variable star. Variable stars show
periodic variations in brightness and
surface temperature. Mira Ceti ,has
an average period of 331 days.
29 Here Vernadsky anticipates the
discovery of cosmic background
radiation (Weinberg, 1988).
THE BIOSPHERE 46 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
47
given preliminary discussion, namely: 1. the peculiar positions
of the elements of the crust in Mendeleev's periodic system;17
2. their complexity; 3. the non-uniformity of their distribution.
Elements with even atomic number clearly predominate in
the Earth's crust.
18
We cannot explain this by known geological
causes. Moreover, the same phenomenon is more marked in
meteorites, the only bodies foreign to the Earth that are imme-
diately accessible for study.19
The two other aspects seem even more obscure. The attempts
to explain them by geological laws or causes apparently contra-
dict well-known facts. We cannot understand the hard facts of
the complexity of terrestrial elements; and still less, their fixed
isotopic compositions. Isotopic ratios in various meteorites
have been shown to be the same,2 in spite of great differences in
the history and provenance of these meteorites.
Contrary to previous beliefs, it is becoming impossible to per-
ceive the laws that govern the Earth's composition in terms of
purely geological phenomena, or merely in terms of "stages" in
the Earth's history. The latter explanation fails on account of the
fact that there is neither a similarity of the deeper portions of
our planet with the composition of meteorites, nor, as in mete-
orites,21 an even mix of both lighter chemical elements and of
denser iron in rocks of either Earth's crust or rocks from depth.
The hypothesis that elements will be distributed according to
weight, with the heaviest accumulating near the center, during
the formation of the Earth from a nebula, does not agree with
the facts. The explanation can be found neither in geological
and chemical phenomena alone, nor in the history of the Earth
considered in isolation. The roots lie deeper, and must be sought
in the history of the cosmos, and perhaps in the structure of
chemical elements.
22
This view of the problem has recently been confirmed, in a
new and unexpected way, by the similarity in composition
between the Earth's crust and the sun and stars. The likeness in
composition of the crust and the outer portions of the sun was
noted by Russell as early as 1914, and the resemblances have
become more marked in the latest work on stellar spectra.
23
Cecilia H. Payne
24
lists heavier stellar elements in descending
order of abundance as follows: silicon, sodium, magnesium, alu-
minum' carbon, calcium, iron (more than one percent); zinc,
titanium, manganese, chromium, potassium (more than one per
mil).
This pattern clearly resembles the order of abundance in the
17 See Mendeleev, 1897.
18 See Oddo, 1914.
19 See Harkins, 1917.
20 This observation was later used
to date all of the meteorites (and
Earth itself) to at age of approxi-
mately 4.6 billion years based on
abundances of Strontium-87 and
Rubidium-87 (Reynolds, 1960).
21 See Farrington, 1901.
22 Vernadsky was overinterpreting
his data here. Iron and nickel went
to Earth's core at a time when the
planet was completely or partially
melted, early in its history. The flow'
of dense liquid toward the core
released additional heat (as thermal
[kinetic] energy converted from
potential energy) and caused
additional melting of rock.
23 See Norris, 1919.
24 See Payne, 1925.
Earth's crust: oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, sodium,
potassium, magnesium.
These results, from a newfield of study, showstriking similar-
ities between the chemical compositions of profoundly different
celestial bodies. This might be explained by a material exchange
taking place between the outer parts of the Earth, sun, and stars.
The deeper portions present another picture, since the compo-
sition of meteorites and of the Earth's interior is clearly different
from that of the outer terrestrial envelope.
7 We thus see great changes occurring in our understanding of
the composition of the Earth, and particularly of the biosphere.
We perceive not simply a planetary or terrestrial phenomenon,
but a manifestation of the structure, distribution, and evolution
of atoms throughout cosmic history.
We cannot explain these phenomena, but at least we have
found that the way to proceed is through a new domain of phe-
nomena, different from that to which terrestrial chemistryhas so
long been limited. Viewing the observed facts differently, we
knowwhere we must seekthe solution of the problem, andwhere
the search will be useless. The structure of the cosmos manifests
itself in the outer skin or upper structure of our planet. We can
gain insight into the biosphere only by considering the obvious
bond that unites it to the entire cosmic mechanism.25
We find evidence of this bond in numerous facts of history.
The Biosphere as a Region of Transformation of
Cosmic Energy
8 The biosphere may be regarded as a region of transformers
that convert cosmic radiations into active energy in electrical,
chemical, mechanical, thermal, and other forms. Radiations
from all stars enter the biosphere, but we catch and perceive only
an insignificant part of the total; this comes almost exclusively
from the sun.
26
The existence of radiation originating in the
most distant regions of the cosmos cannot be doubted. Stars
and nebulae are constantly emitting specific radiations, and
everything suggests that the penetrating radiation discovered in
the upper regions of the atmosphere by Hess
27
originates
beyond the limits of the solar system, perhaps in the MilkyWay,
in nebulae, or in stars of the Mira Ceti type.
28
The importance
of this will not be clear for some time,29 but this penetrating
cosmic radiation determines the character and mechanism of
the biosphere.
25 This view is also developed in the
works of Alexandr E. Fersman (1933,
1934, 1937 and 1939). Fersman,
Vernadsky's most influential stUdent
(Vernadsky, 1985: and Fersman,
1945), outlived his mentor by only
a few months (Backlund, 1945).
Fersman's work is not surprisingly
an extension of the Vernadskian
research program (Saukov, 1950).
26 And of that we receive only one
half billionth of the total solar out-
put (Lovins, Lovins, Krause, and
Bach, 1981).
27 See Hess, 1928.
28 Mira Ceti is a long period
variable star. Variable stars show
periodic variations in brightness and
surface temperature. Mira Ceti ,has
an average period of 331 days.
29 Here Vernadsky anticipates the
discovery of cosmic background
radiation (Weinberg, 1988).
THE BIOSPHERE 46 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
47
The action of solar radiation on earth-processes provides a
precise basis for viewing the biosphere as both a terrestrial and
a cosmic mechanism. The sun has completely transformed the
face of the Earth by penetrating the biosphere, which has
changed the historyand destiny of our planet by converting rays
from the sun into new and varied forms of energy. At the same
time, the biosphere is largely the product of this radiation.
The important roles played by ultraviolet, infrared, and visible
wavelengths are now well-recognized. We can also identify the
parts of the biosphere that transform these three systems of
solar vibration, but the mechanism of this transformation pre-
sents a challenge which our minds have only begun to compre-
hend. The mechanism is disguised in an infinite variety of nat-
ural colors, forms and movements, of which we, ourselves, form
an integral part. It has taken thousands of centuries for human
thought to discern the outlines of a single and complete mecha-
nism in the apparently chaotic appearance of nature.
9 In some parts of the biosphere, all three systems of solar radi-
ation are transformed simultaneously; in other parts, the
process may lie predominantly in a single spectral region. The
transforming apparatuses, which are always natural bodies, are
absolutely different in the cases of ultraviolet, visible and ther-
mal rays.
Some of the ultraviolet solar radiation is entirely absorbed,3o
and some partly absorbed, in the rarefied upper regions of the
atmosphere; i.e., in the stratosphere, and perhaps in the "free
atmosphere", which is still higher and poorer in atoms. The
stoppage or "absorption" of short waves by the atmosphere is
related to the transformation of their energy. Ultraviolet radia-
tion in these regions causes changes in electromagnetic fields,
the decomposition of molecules, various ionization phenome-
na, and the creation of new molecules and compounds. Radiant
energy is transformed, on the one hand, into various magnetic
and electrical effects; and on the other, into remarkable chemi-
cal, molecular, and atomic processes. We observe these in the
form of the aurora borealis, lightning, zodiacal light, the lumi-
nosity that provides the principal illumination of the sky on
dark nights, luminous clouds, and other upper-atmospheric
phenomena. This mysterious world of radioactive, electric,
magnetic, chemical, and spectroscopic phenomena is constant-
1y moving and is unimaginably diverse.
These phenomena are not the result of solar ultraviolet radia-
30 By alone. tion alone. More complicated processes are also involved. All
forms of radiant solar energy outside of the four and one-half
octaves that penetrate the biosphere (2) are "retained"; i.e.,
transformed into new terrestrial phenomena. In all probability
this is also true of new sources of energy, such as the powerful
torrents of particles (including electrons) emitted by the sun,
and of the material particles, cosmic dust, and gaseous bodies
attracted to the Earth by gravity.31 The role of these phenome-
na in the Earth's history is beginning to be recognized.
They are also important for another form of energy transfor-
mation -living matter. Wavelengths of 180-200 nanometers are
fataPZ to all forms of life, destroying every organism, though
shorter or longer waves do no damage. The stratosphere retains
all of these destructive waves, and in so doing protects the lower
layers of the Earth's surface, the region of life.
The characteristic absorption of this radiation is related to the
presence of ozone (the ozone screen (115), formed from free
oxygen- itself a product of life).
10 While recognition of the importance of ultraviolet radiation
is just beginning, the role of radiant solar heat or infrared radi-
ation has long been known, and calls for special attention in
studies of the influence of the sun on geologic and geochemical
processes. The importance of radiant solar heat for the existence
of life is incontestable; so, too, is the transformation of the sun's
thermal radiation into mechanical, molecular (evaporation,
plant transpiration, etc.), and chemical energy. The effects are
apparent everywhere - in the life of organisms, the movement
and activity of winds and ocean currents, the waves and surf of
the sea, the destruction of rock and the action of glaciers, the
formation and movements of rivers, and the colossal work of
snow and rainfall.
Less fully appreciated is the role that the liquid and gaseous
portions of the biosphere playas accumulators and distributors
of heat. The atmosphere, the sea, lakes, rivers, rain, and snow
actively participate in these processes. The world's ocean acts as
a heat regulator,33 making itself felt in the ceaseless change of
climate and seasons, living processes, and countless surface phe-
nomena. The special thermal properties of water,34 as deter-
mined by its molecular character, enable the ocean to play such
an important role in the heat budget of the planet.
The ocean takes up warmth quickly because of its great spe-
cific heat, but gives up its accumulated heat slowly because of
31 Earth's magnetic field actually
plays a more Important role in these
phenomena, as demonstrated by the
Van Allen Radiation Belts (see
Manahan, 1994, p. 287, fig. 9.9).
32 Certain bacteria can survive such
irradiation.
33 In other words, a maritime Influ-
ence greatly moderates climate on
land.
34 Particularly its high heat capacity.
THE BIOSPHERE 48 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
49
The action of solar radiation on earth-processes provides a
precise basis for viewing the biosphere as both a terrestrial and
a cosmic mechanism. The sun has completely transformed the
face of the Earth by penetrating the biosphere, which has
changed the historyand destiny of our planet by converting rays
from the sun into new and varied forms of energy. At the same
time, the biosphere is largely the product of this radiation.
The important roles played by ultraviolet, infrared, and visible
wavelengths are now well-recognized. We can also identify the
parts of the biosphere that transform these three systems of
solar vibration, but the mechanism of this transformation pre-
sents a challenge which our minds have only begun to compre-
hend. The mechanism is disguised in an infinite variety of nat-
ural colors, forms and movements, of which we, ourselves, form
an integral part. It has taken thousands of centuries for human
thought to discern the outlines of a single and complete mecha-
nism in the apparently chaotic appearance of nature.
9 In some parts of the biosphere, all three systems of solar radi-
ation are transformed simultaneously; in other parts, the
process may lie predominantly in a single spectral region. The
transforming apparatuses, which are always natural bodies, are
absolutely different in the cases of ultraviolet, visible and ther-
mal rays.
Some of the ultraviolet solar radiation is entirely absorbed,3o
and some partly absorbed, in the rarefied upper regions of the
atmosphere; i.e., in the stratosphere, and perhaps in the "free
atmosphere", which is still higher and poorer in atoms. The
stoppage or "absorption" of short waves by the atmosphere is
related to the transformation of their energy. Ultraviolet radia-
tion in these regions causes changes in electromagnetic fields,
the decomposition of molecules, various ionization phenome-
na, and the creation of new molecules and compounds. Radiant
energy is transformed, on the one hand, into various magnetic
and electrical effects; and on the other, into remarkable chemi-
cal, molecular, and atomic processes. We observe these in the
form of the aurora borealis, lightning, zodiacal light, the lumi-
nosity that provides the principal illumination of the sky on
dark nights, luminous clouds, and other upper-atmospheric
phenomena. This mysterious world of radioactive, electric,
magnetic, chemical, and spectroscopic phenomena is constant-
1y moving and is unimaginably diverse.
These phenomena are not the result of solar ultraviolet radia-
30 By alone. tion alone. More complicated processes are also involved. All
forms of radiant solar energy outside of the four and one-half
octaves that penetrate the biosphere (2) are "retained"; i.e.,
transformed into new terrestrial phenomena. In all probability
this is also true of new sources of energy, such as the powerful
torrents of particles (including electrons) emitted by the sun,
and of the material particles, cosmic dust, and gaseous bodies
attracted to the Earth by gravity.31 The role of these phenome-
na in the Earth's history is beginning to be recognized.
They are also important for another form of energy transfor-
mation -living matter. Wavelengths of 180-200 nanometers are
fataPZ to all forms of life, destroying every organism, though
shorter or longer waves do no damage. The stratosphere retains
all of these destructive waves, and in so doing protects the lower
layers of the Earth's surface, the region of life.
The characteristic absorption of this radiation is related to the
presence of ozone (the ozone screen (115), formed from free
oxygen- itself a product of life).
10 While recognition of the importance of ultraviolet radiation
is just beginning, the role of radiant solar heat or infrared radi-
ation has long been known, and calls for special attention in
studies of the influence of the sun on geologic and geochemical
processes. The importance of radiant solar heat for the existence
of life is incontestable; so, too, is the transformation of the sun's
thermal radiation into mechanical, molecular (evaporation,
plant transpiration, etc.), and chemical energy. The effects are
apparent everywhere - in the life of organisms, the movement
and activity of winds and ocean currents, the waves and surf of
the sea, the destruction of rock and the action of glaciers, the
formation and movements of rivers, and the colossal work of
snow and rainfall.
Less fully appreciated is the role that the liquid and gaseous
portions of the biosphere playas accumulators and distributors
of heat. The atmosphere, the sea, lakes, rivers, rain, and snow
actively participate in these processes. The world's ocean acts as
a heat regulator,33 making itself felt in the ceaseless change of
climate and seasons, living processes, and countless surface phe-
nomena. The special thermal properties of water,34 as deter-
mined by its molecular character, enable the ocean to play such
an important role in the heat budget of the planet.
The ocean takes up warmth quickly because of its great spe-
cific heat, but gives up its accumulated heat slowly because of
31 Earth's magnetic field actually
plays a more Important role in these
phenomena, as demonstrated by the
Van Allen Radiation Belts (see
Manahan, 1994, p. 287, fig. 9.9).
32 Certain bacteria can survive such
irradiation.
33 In other words, a maritime Influ-
ence greatly moderates climate on
land.
34 Particularly its high heat capacity.
THE BIOSPHERE 48 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
49
feeble thermal conductivity.35 It transforms ,the heat absorbed
from radiation into molecular energy by evaporation, into
chemical energy through the living matter which permeates it,
and into mechanical energy by waves and ocean currents. The
heating and cooling of rivers, air masses, and other meteorolog-
ical phenomena are of analogous force and scale.
11 The biosphere's essential sources of energy do not lie in the
ultraviolet and infrared spectral regions, which have only an
indirect action on its chemical processes. It is living matter- the
Earth's sum total of living organisms - that transforms the radi-
ant energy of the sun into the active chemical energy of the bios-
phere.
Living matter creates innumerable new chemical compounds
by photosynthesis, and extends the biosphere at incredible
speed as a thick layer of new molecular systems. These com-
pounds are rich in free energy in the thermodynamic field of the
biosphere. Many of the compounds, however, are unstable, and
are continuously converted to more stable forms.
These kinds of transformers contrast sharply with terrestrial
matter, which is within the field of transformation of short and
long solar rays through a fundamentally different mechanism.
The transformation of ultraviolet and infrared radiation takes
place by action on atomic and molecular substances that were
created entirely independently of the radiation itself. Photosyn-
thesis, on the other hand, proceeds by means of complicated,
specific mechanisms created by photosynthesis itself. Note, how-
ever, that photosynthesis can proceed only if ultraviolet
36
and
infrared
37
processes are occurring simultaneously, transform-
ing the energy in these wavelengths into active terrestrial ener-
gy.
Living organisms are distinct from all other atomic, ionic, or
molecular systems in the Earth's crust, both within and outside
the biosphere. The structures of living organisms are analogous
to those of inert matter, only more complex. Due to the changes
that living organisms effect on the chemical processes of the
biosphere, however, living structures must not be considered
simply as agglomerations of inert stuff. Their energetic charac-
ter, as manifested in multiplication, cannot be compared geo-
chemically with the static chemistry of the molecular structures
of which inert (and once-living) matter are composed.
While the chemical mechanisms of living matter are still
unknown, it is now clear that photosynthesis, regarded as an
35 Vernadsky's physics is mistaken
here. Thermal conductivity will gov-
ern both heat uptake and release.
36 Indeed, vitamin synthesis can
depend on ultraviolet irridation.
The sterol ergosterol (from ergot
fungus, yeast), similar to cholesterol,
is a precursor of vitamin D
2
Upon
ultraviolet irradiation of ergosterol
at a frequency of 282 nanometers,
ergosterol is converted to
cis-trachysterol. With further
irradation, cis-trachysterol is
converted into calciferol (vitamin DJ.
When a cholesterol derivative
7-dehydrocholesterol
(s,7-cholestadiene-3b-ol) is
irradiated, it forms vitamin D
3
, an
even more potent form of the D
vitamin. Dvitamins can be
considered to have a considerable
biogeochemical importance, as they
are required for the regulation of
deposition of skeletal and dental
calcium (Brown, 1975).
37 To maintain temperatures at
which photosynthesis can occur.
energetic phenomenon in living matter, takes place in a particu-
lar chemical environment, and also within a thermodynamic
field that differs from that of the biosphere's. Compounds that
are stable within the thermodynami<;: field of living matter
become unstable when, following death of the organism, they
enter the thermodynamic field of the biosphere
38
and become a
source of free energy:
The Empirical Generalization and the Hypothesis
12 An understanding of the energetic phenomena of life, as
observed in a geochemical context, provides proper explanation
for the observed facts, as outlined above. But considerable
uncertainties exist, on account of the state of our biological
knowledge relative to our knowledge of inert matter. In the
physical sciences, we have been forced to abandon ideas, long
thought to be correct, concerning the biosphere and the compo-
sition of the crust. We have also had to reject long established,
but purely geologic explanations (6). Concepts that appeared
to be logically and scientifically necessary have proved to be
illusory. Correcting these misconceptions has had entirely
unexpected effects upon our understanding of the phenomena
in question.
The study of life faces even greater difficulties, because, more
than in any other branch of the sciences, the fundamental prin-
ciples have been permeated with philosophical and religious
concepts alien to science.
39
The queries and conclusions of phi-
losophy and religion are constantly encountered in ideas about
the living organism. Conclusions of the most careful naturalists
in this area have been influenced, for centuries, by the inclusion
of cosmological concepts that, by their very nature, are foreign
to science. (It should be added that this in no way makes these
cosmological concepts less valuable or less profound.) As a con-
sequence, it has become extremely difficult to study the big
questions of biology and, at the same time, to hold to scientific
methods of investigation practiced in other fields.
13 The vitalistic and mechanistic representations of life are two
reflections of related philosophical and religious ideas that are
not deductions based upon scientific facts.
4o
These representa-
tions hinder the study of vital phenomena, and upset empirical
generalizations.
Vitalistic representations give explanations of living phenom-
ena that are foreign to the world of models - scientific general-
38 Here Vernadsky is making a very
clear distinction between liVing mat-
ter and the non-living matter of the
biosphere. This may be compared
to the Treviranian concept of "matter
capable of life" (Drlesch, 1914).
Contrast this view with that of
Hypersea theory (see McMenamin
and McMenamin, 1994), where liVing
matter and the biospheric living
environment are one and the same
cutting out the bio-inert componeni.
The domain of phenomena within an
organism ("the field of living mailer") is
different, thermodynamically and chemi-
cally, from "the field of the biosphere".
[Editor's note: The manuscript upon
which this translation is based car-
ried 28 footnotes by Vernadsky.
These are indicated, as here, by an *
(or t). All other numbered footnotes
are annotations by M. MCMenamin
(or I.A. Perelman, as noted)].
39 Here again, Vernadsky chal-
lenges (without citing) Oparin and
Haldane, among others.
40 As put forth by A. I. Oparin (Fox,
1965), "[At] the dawn of European
civilization, with the Greek
philosophers, there were two clear
tendencies In this problem. Those
are the Platonic and the Democritian
trends, either the view that dead
matter was made alive by some
spiritual principle or the assumption
of a spontaneous generation from
that matter, from dead or inert
matter.
"The Platonic view has predomi-
nated for centuries and, in fact, still
continues to exist in the views of
vitalists and neo-vitallsts."
"The Democritian line was
pushed in the background and came
into full force only in the seven-
teenth century in the work of
Descartes. Both points of view really
differed only in their interpretation
of origin, but both of them equally
assumed the possibility of sponta-
neous generation."
THE BIOSPHERE 50
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
1:1
feeble thermal conductivity.35 It transforms ,the heat absorbed
from radiation into molecular energy by evaporation, into
chemical energy through the living matter which permeates it,
and into mechanical energy by waves and ocean currents. The
heating and cooling of rivers, air masses, and other meteorolog-
ical phenomena are of analogous force and scale.
11 The biosphere's essential sources of energy do not lie in the
ultraviolet and infrared spectral regions, which have only an
indirect action on its chemical processes. It is living matter- the
Earth's sum total of living organisms - that transforms the radi-
ant energy of the sun into the active chemical energy of the bios-
phere.
Living matter creates innumerable new chemical compounds
by photosynthesis, and extends the biosphere at incredible
speed as a thick layer of new molecular systems. These com-
pounds are rich in free energy in the thermodynamic field of the
biosphere. Many of the compounds, however, are unstable, and
are continuously converted to more stable forms.
These kinds of transformers contrast sharply with terrestrial
matter, which is within the field of transformation of short and
long solar rays through a fundamentally different mechanism.
The transformation of ultraviolet and infrared radiation takes
place by action on atomic and molecular substances that were
created entirely independently of the radiation itself. Photosyn-
thesis, on the other hand, proceeds by means of complicated,
specific mechanisms created by photosynthesis itself. Note, how-
ever, that photosynthesis can proceed only if ultraviolet
36
and
infrared
37
processes are occurring simultaneously, transform-
ing the energy in these wavelengths into active terrestrial ener-
gy.
Living organisms are distinct from all other atomic, ionic, or
molecular systems in the Earth's crust, both within and outside
the biosphere. The structures of living organisms are analogous
to those of inert matter, only more complex. Due to the changes
that living organisms effect on the chemical processes of the
biosphere, however, living structures must not be considered
simply as agglomerations of inert stuff. Their energetic charac-
ter, as manifested in multiplication, cannot be compared geo-
chemically with the static chemistry of the molecular structures
of which inert (and once-living) matter are composed.
While the chemical mechanisms of living matter are still
unknown, it is now clear that photosynthesis, regarded as an
35 Vernadsky's physics is mistaken
here. Thermal conductivity will gov-
ern both heat uptake and release.
36 Indeed, vitamin synthesis can
depend on ultraviolet irridation.
The sterol ergosterol (from ergot
fungus, yeast), similar to cholesterol,
is a precursor of vitamin D
2
Upon
ultraviolet irradiation of ergosterol
at a frequency of 282 nanometers,
ergosterol is converted to
cis-trachysterol. With further
irradation, cis-trachysterol is
converted into calciferol (vitamin DJ.
When a cholesterol derivative
7-dehydrocholesterol
(s,7-cholestadiene-3b-ol) is
irradiated, it forms vitamin D
3
, an
even more potent form of the D
vitamin. Dvitamins can be
considered to have a considerable
biogeochemical importance, as they
are required for the regulation of
deposition of skeletal and dental
calcium (Brown, 1975).
37 To maintain temperatures at
which photosynthesis can occur.
energetic phenomenon in living matter, takes place in a particu-
lar chemical environment, and also within a thermodynamic
field that differs from that of the biosphere's. Compounds that
are stable within the thermodynami<;: field of living matter
become unstable when, following death of the organism, they
enter the thermodynamic field of the biosphere
38
and become a
source of free energy:
The Empirical Generalization and the Hypothesis
12 An understanding of the energetic phenomena of life, as
observed in a geochemical context, provides proper explanation
for the observed facts, as outlined above. But considerable
uncertainties exist, on account of the state of our biological
knowledge relative to our knowledge of inert matter. In the
physical sciences, we have been forced to abandon ideas, long
thought to be correct, concerning the biosphere and the compo-
sition of the crust. We have also had to reject long established,
but purely geologic explanations (6). Concepts that appeared
to be logically and scientifically necessary have proved to be
illusory. Correcting these misconceptions has had entirely
unexpected effects upon our understanding of the phenomena
in question.
The study of life faces even greater difficulties, because, more
than in any other branch of the sciences, the fundamental prin-
ciples have been permeated with philosophical and religious
concepts alien to science.
39
The queries and conclusions of phi-
losophy and religion are constantly encountered in ideas about
the living organism. Conclusions of the most careful naturalists
in this area have been influenced, for centuries, by the inclusion
of cosmological concepts that, by their very nature, are foreign
to science. (It should be added that this in no way makes these
cosmological concepts less valuable or less profound.) As a con-
sequence, it has become extremely difficult to study the big
questions of biology and, at the same time, to hold to scientific
methods of investigation practiced in other fields.
13 The vitalistic and mechanistic representations of life are two
reflections of related philosophical and religious ideas that are
not deductions based upon scientific facts.
4o
These representa-
tions hinder the study of vital phenomena, and upset empirical
generalizations.
Vitalistic representations give explanations of living phenom-
ena that are foreign to the world of models - scientific general-
38 Here Vernadsky is making a very
clear distinction between liVing mat-
ter and the non-living matter of the
biosphere. This may be compared
to the Treviranian concept of "matter
capable of life" (Drlesch, 1914).
Contrast this view with that of
Hypersea theory (see McMenamin
and McMenamin, 1994), where liVing
matter and the biospheric living
environment are one and the same
cutting out the bio-inert componeni.
The domain of phenomena within an
organism ("the field of living mailer") is
different, thermodynamically and chemi-
cally, from "the field of the biosphere".
[Editor's note: The manuscript upon
which this translation is based car-
ried 28 footnotes by Vernadsky.
These are indicated, as here, by an *
(or t). All other numbered footnotes
are annotations by M. MCMenamin
(or I.A. Perelman, as noted)].
39 Here again, Vernadsky chal-
lenges (without citing) Oparin and
Haldane, among others.
40 As put forth by A. I. Oparin (Fox,
1965), "[At] the dawn of European
civilization, with the Greek
philosophers, there were two clear
tendencies In this problem. Those
are the Platonic and the Democritian
trends, either the view that dead
matter was made alive by some
spiritual principle or the assumption
of a spontaneous generation from
that matter, from dead or inert
matter.
"The Platonic view has predomi-
nated for centuries and, in fact, still
continues to exist in the views of
vitalists and neo-vitallsts."
"The Democritian line was
pushed in the background and came
into full force only in the seven-
teenth century in the work of
Descartes. Both points of view really
differed only in their interpretation
of origin, but both of them equally
assumed the possibility of sponta-
neous generation."
THE BIOSPHERE 50
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
1:1
izations, by means of which we construct a unified theory of the
cosmos. The character of such representations makes them
unfruitful when their contents are introduced into the scientific
domain.
Mechanistic representations, that on the other hand see mere-
ly the simple play of physico-chemical forces in living organ-
isms, are equally fatal to progress in science. They hinder scien-
tific research by limiting its final results; by introducing
conjectural constructs based on guesswork,41 they obscure sci-
entific understanding. Successful conjectures of this sort would
rapidly remove all obstacles from the progress of science, but
conjectural constructs based on guesswork and their imple-
mentation has been linked too closely to abstract philosophical
constructs that are foreign to the reality studied by science.
These constructs have led to oversimplified analytical
approaches, and have thus destroyed the notion of complexity
of phenomena!'z Conjectural constructs based on guesswork
have not, thus far, advanced our comprehension of life.
We regard the growing tendency in scientific research to dis-
claim both these explanations of life, and to study living phe-
nomena by purely empirical processes, as well-founded. This
tendency or method acknowledges the impossibility of explain-
ing life, of assigning it a place in our abstract cosmos, the edifice
that science has constructed from models and hypotheses.
At the present time, we can approach the phenomena of life
successfully only in an empirical fashion, that is, without mak-
ing unfounded hypotheses. Only in this way can we discover
new aspects of living phenomena that will enlarge the known
field of physico-chemical forces, or introduce a new principle,
axiom, or idea about the structure of our scientific universe. It
will be impossible to prove these newprinciples or notions con-
clusively, or to deduce them from known axioms, but they will
enable us to develop new hypotheses that relate living phenom-
ena to our viewof the cosmos, just as understanding of radioac-
tivity connected the view of the cosmos to the world of atoms.
14 The living organism of the biosphere should nowbe studied
empirically, as a particular body that cannot be entirely reduced
to known physico-chemical systems. Whether it can be so
reduced in the future is not yet clear.
43
It does not seem impos-
sible, but we must not forget another possibility when taking an
empirical approach- perhaps this problem, which has been
posed by so many learned men of science, is purely illusory.
41 For notes on translation of this
passage, see "Editor's Note on
Translation and Transliteration."
42 Vernadsky is here challenging
simplistic, mechanistic extrapola-
tions in science and in so doing
rightly challenges the extensions
made of Cartesian- Newtonian
mechanics to more complex classes
of phenomena. As did Henri
Poincare some decades before,
Vernadsky anticipates the problems
that chaos theory presents to sim-
ple, extrapolation-based mechanis-
tic explanations of phenomena.
Vernadsky's intuition is reliable
here-recognition of the complexity
of the biosphere implies that he had.
at least an implicit sense of the
feedback (cybernetic) dimensions of
this field of study, although the lan-
guage to express these concepts
was not developed until shortly after
Vernadsky's death. The word cyber-
netics, from the Greek kybemetes,
"helmsman," was coined in 1948 by
Norbert Wiener.
43 This might seem to make
Vernadsky the arch holist (as
opposed to reductionist). However,
his main point here is that there are
probably classes of phenomena that
are neither easily nor well explained
by inappropriately reductive scientif-
ic approaches. Vernadsky's insight
on this subject has been decisively
vindicated (Mikhailovskii, 1988;
Progogine and Stengers, 1988). This
makes Vernadsky's scientific
approach quite unusual from a
Western scientific perspective, for
he is a confirmed empiricist who rec-
ognizes that holistic approaches will
be required to study certain complex
entities. His then is not a na'ive
empiricism, but a sophisticated
empiricism in which an empirical
approach is utilized to synthesize a
scientifically realistic, holistic view
of the subject under study. Similar
approaches can be identified in the
work of the Russian founders of
symbiogenesis (Khakhina, 1988;
Khakhina, 1992).
Analogous doubts, regarding the governance of all living forms
by the laws of physics and chemistry as currently understood,
often arise in the field of biology as well.
Even more so than in biology, in the geological sciences we
must stay on purely empirical ground, scrupulously avoiding
and vitalistic constructs. Geochemistry is an espe-
CIally Important case, since living matter and masses of organ-
isms are its principal agents, and it confronts us with living phe-
nomena at every step.
Living matter gives the biosphere an extraordinary character,
44' th .
umque In e umverse. Two distinct types of matter, inert45
andliving, though separatedby the impassable gulf of their geo-
logical history, exert a reciprocal action upon one another. It has
never been doubted that these different types of biospheric mat-
ter belong to separate categories of phenomena, and cannot be
reduced to one. This apparently-permanent difference between
living and inert matter can be considered an axiom which may,
at some time, be fully established. * Though presently unprov-
able, this principle must be taken as one of the greatest general-
izations of the natural sciences.
. The importance of such a generalization, and of most empir-
Ical generalizations in science, is often overlooked. The influ-
ence of habit and philosophical constructions causes us to mis-
take them for scientific hypotheses. When dealing with living
phenomena, it is particularly important to avoid this deeply-
rooted and pernicious habit.
15 There is a great difference between empirical generalizations
and scientific hypotheses. They offer quite different degrees of
precision. In both cases, we use deductions to reach conclusions,
which then are verified by study of real phenomena. In a histor-
ical science like geology, verificationtakes place through scien-
tific observation. .
The two cases are different because an empirical generaliza-
tion is founded on facts collected as part of an inductive
research program. Such a generalization does not go beyond the
factual limits, and disregards agreements between the conclusions
reached and our representations ofnature. There is no difference,
in this respect, between an empirical generalization and a scien-
tifically established fact. Their mutual agreement with our view
of nature is not what interests us here, but rather the contradic-
tions between them. Anysuch contradictions would constitute a
scientific discovery.
44 So far as we know.
45 Inert matter as used here
represents the raw matter, the raw
materials of life. Although Vernadsky
emphasizes his view that living
organisms have never been
produced by Inert maller, he
paradOXically implies that non-liVing
stuff is in some sense alive, or at
least has latent life. This should
not be confused with any type of
mysterious vital force, however;
Vernadsky eschewed metaphysical
interpretations. He was examining
the idea that life has special
properties, as old as maller itself,
that somehow separated it from
ordinary maller (into which it can,
by dying, be transformed). Life can
expand its realm into inert matter
but it was not formed from
"nothing."
* The change presently taking place
in our ideas regarding mathematical
axioms should influence the interpre-
tation of axioms in the natural sci-
ences; the latter have been less thor-
oughly examined by critical philo-
sophical thought and would consti-
tute a scientific discovery.
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE
"."
izations, by means of which we construct a unified theory of the
cosmos. The character of such representations makes them
unfruitful when their contents are introduced into the scientific
domain.
Mechanistic representations, that on the other hand see mere-
ly the simple play of physico-chemical forces in living organ-
isms, are equally fatal to progress in science. They hinder scien-
tific research by limiting its final results; by introducing
conjectural constructs based on guesswork,41 they obscure sci-
entific understanding. Successful conjectures of this sort would
rapidly remove all obstacles from the progress of science, but
conjectural constructs based on guesswork and their imple-
mentation has been linked too closely to abstract philosophical
constructs that are foreign to the reality studied by science.
These constructs have led to oversimplified analytical
approaches, and have thus destroyed the notion of complexity
of phenomena!'z Conjectural constructs based on guesswork
have not, thus far, advanced our comprehension of life.
We regard the growing tendency in scientific research to dis-
claim both these explanations of life, and to study living phe-
nomena by purely empirical processes, as well-founded. This
tendency or method acknowledges the impossibility of explain-
ing life, of assigning it a place in our abstract cosmos, the edifice
that science has constructed from models and hypotheses.
At the present time, we can approach the phenomena of life
successfully only in an empirical fashion, that is, without mak-
ing unfounded hypotheses. Only in this way can we discover
new aspects of living phenomena that will enlarge the known
field of physico-chemical forces, or introduce a new principle,
axiom, or idea about the structure of our scientific universe. It
will be impossible to prove these newprinciples or notions con-
clusively, or to deduce them from known axioms, but they will
enable us to develop new hypotheses that relate living phenom-
ena to our viewof the cosmos, just as understanding of radioac-
tivity connected the view of the cosmos to the world of atoms.
14 The living organism of the biosphere should nowbe studied
empirically, as a particular body that cannot be entirely reduced
to known physico-chemical systems. Whether it can be so
reduced in the future is not yet clear.
43
It does not seem impos-
sible, but we must not forget another possibility when taking an
empirical approach- perhaps this problem, which has been
posed by so many learned men of science, is purely illusory.
41 For notes on translation of this
passage, see "Editor's Note on
Translation and Transliteration."
42 Vernadsky is here challenging
simplistic, mechanistic extrapola-
tions in science and in so doing
rightly challenges the extensions
made of Cartesian- Newtonian
mechanics to more complex classes
of phenomena. As did Henri
Poincare some decades before,
Vernadsky anticipates the problems
that chaos theory presents to sim-
ple, extrapolation-based mechanis-
tic explanations of phenomena.
Vernadsky's intuition is reliable
here-recognition of the complexity
of the biosphere implies that he had.
at least an implicit sense of the
feedback (cybernetic) dimensions of
this field of study, although the lan-
guage to express these concepts
was not developed until shortly after
Vernadsky's death. The word cyber-
netics, from the Greek kybemetes,
"helmsman," was coined in 1948 by
Norbert Wiener.
43 This might seem to make
Vernadsky the arch holist (as
opposed to reductionist). However,
his main point here is that there are
probably classes of phenomena that
are neither easily nor well explained
by inappropriately reductive scientif-
ic approaches. Vernadsky's insight
on this subject has been decisively
vindicated (Mikhailovskii, 1988;
Progogine and Stengers, 1988). This
makes Vernadsky's scientific
approach quite unusual from a
Western scientific perspective, for
he is a confirmed empiricist who rec-
ognizes that holistic approaches will
be required to study certain complex
entities. His then is not a na'ive
empiricism, but a sophisticated
empiricism in which an empirical
approach is utilized to synthesize a
scientifically realistic, holistic view
of the subject under study. Similar
approaches can be identified in the
work of the Russian founders of
symbiogenesis (Khakhina, 1988;
Khakhina, 1992).
Analogous doubts, regarding the governance of all living forms
by the laws of physics and chemistry as currently understood,
often arise in the field of biology as well.
Even more so than in biology, in the geological sciences we
must stay on purely empirical ground, scrupulously avoiding
and vitalistic constructs. Geochemistry is an espe-
CIally Important case, since living matter and masses of organ-
isms are its principal agents, and it confronts us with living phe-
nomena at every step.
Living matter gives the biosphere an extraordinary character,
44' th .
umque In e umverse. Two distinct types of matter, inert45
andliving, though separatedby the impassable gulf of their geo-
logical history, exert a reciprocal action upon one another. It has
never been doubted that these different types of biospheric mat-
ter belong to separate categories of phenomena, and cannot be
reduced to one. This apparently-permanent difference between
living and inert matter can be considered an axiom which may,
at some time, be fully established. * Though presently unprov-
able, this principle must be taken as one of the greatest general-
izations of the natural sciences.
. The importance of such a generalization, and of most empir-
Ical generalizations in science, is often overlooked. The influ-
ence of habit and philosophical constructions causes us to mis-
take them for scientific hypotheses. When dealing with living
phenomena, it is particularly important to avoid this deeply-
rooted and pernicious habit.
15 There is a great difference between empirical generalizations
and scientific hypotheses. They offer quite different degrees of
precision. In both cases, we use deductions to reach conclusions,
which then are verified by study of real phenomena. In a histor-
ical science like geology, verificationtakes place through scien-
tific observation. .
The two cases are different because an empirical generaliza-
tion is founded on facts collected as part of an inductive
research program. Such a generalization does not go beyond the
factual limits, and disregards agreements between the conclusions
reached and our representations ofnature. There is no difference,
in this respect, between an empirical generalization and a scien-
tifically established fact. Their mutual agreement with our view
of nature is not what interests us here, but rather the contradic-
tions between them. Anysuch contradictions would constitute a
scientific discovery.
44 So far as we know.
45 Inert matter as used here
represents the raw matter, the raw
materials of life. Although Vernadsky
emphasizes his view that living
organisms have never been
produced by Inert maller, he
paradOXically implies that non-liVing
stuff is in some sense alive, or at
least has latent life. This should
not be confused with any type of
mysterious vital force, however;
Vernadsky eschewed metaphysical
interpretations. He was examining
the idea that life has special
properties, as old as maller itself,
that somehow separated it from
ordinary maller (into which it can,
by dying, be transformed). Life can
expand its realm into inert matter
but it was not formed from
"nothing."
* The change presently taking place
in our ideas regarding mathematical
axioms should influence the interpre-
tation of axioms in the natural sci-
ences; the latter have been less thor-
oughly examined by critical philo-
sophical thought and would consti-
tute a scientific discovery.
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE
"."
b) the conditions .of the terrestrial environment during all
this time have favored the existence of living matter, and
conditions have always been approximately what they are
today.
4 In all geological periods, the chemiCal influence of living matter
on the surrounding environment has not changed significantly;
the same processes of superficial weathering have functioned
on the Earth's surface during this whole time, and the average
chemical compositions of both living matter and the Earth's
crust have been approximately the same as they are today.
5 From the unchanging processes of superficial weathering, it
follows that the number of atoms bound together by life is
unchanged; the global mass of living matter has been almost
constant throughout geological time.
5o
Indications exist only of
slight oscillations about the fixed average.
6 Whichever phenomenon one considers, the energy liberated by
organisms is principally (and perhaps entirely) solar radiation.
Organisms are the intermediaries in the regulation of the
chemistry of the crust by solar energy.
18 These empirical generalizations force us to conclude that
many problems facing science, chiefly philosophical ones, do
not belong in our investigative domain, since they are not
derived from empirical generalizations and require hypotheses
for their formulation. For example, consider problems relating
to the beginning of life on Earth (if there was a beginning
51
).
Among these are cosmogonic models, both of a lifeless era in the
Earth's past, and also of abiogenesis during some hypothetical
cosmic period.
Such problems are so closely connected with dominant scien-
tific and philosophical viewpoints and cosmogonic hypotheses
that their logical necessity usually goes unquestioned. But the
history of science indicates that these problems originate out-
side science, in the realms of religion and philosophy. This
becomes obvious when these problems are compared with rig-
orously established facts and empirical generalizations - the
true domain of science. These scientific facts would remain
unchanged, even if the problems of biogenesis were resolved by
negation, and we were to decide that life had always existed, that
no living organism had ever originated from inert matter, and
that azoic periods had never existed on Earth. One would be
required merely to replace the present cosmogonic hypotheses
by new ones, and to apply new scientific and mathematical
Certain characteristics of the phenomena studied are of pri-
mary importance to empirical generalizations; nevertheless, the
influence of all the other characteristics is always felt. An empir-
ical generalization may be a part of science for a long time with-
out being buttressed by any hypothesis. As such, the empirical
generalization remains incomprehensible, while still exerting an
immense and beneficial effect on our understanding of nature.
But when the moment arrives, and a newlight illuminates this
generalization, it becomes a domain for the creation of scientif-
ic hypotheses, begins to transform our outlines of the universe,
and undergoes changes in its turn. Then, one often finds that the
empirical generalization did not really contain what was sup-
posed, or perhaps, that its contents were much richer. A striking
example is the history of D. J. Mendeleev's great generalization
(1869) of the periodic system of chemical elements, which
became an extended field for scientific hypothesis after Mose-
ley's discovery46 in 1915.
16 Ahypothesis, or theoretical construction, is fashioned in an
entirely different way. A single or small number of the essential
properties of a phenomenon are considered, the rest being
ignored, and on this basis, a representation of the phenomenon
is made. A scientific hypothesis always goes beyond (frequently,
far beyond) the facts upon which it is based.
1I7
To obtain the nec-
essary solidity, it must then form all possible connections with
other dominant theoretical constructions of nature, and it must
not contradict them.
48
An Empirical Generalization Requires No Verification After
It Has been Deduced Precisely from the Facts.
17 The exposition we shall present is based only upon empiri-
cal generalizations that are supported by all of the known facts,
and not by hypotheses or theories. The following are our begin-
ning principles:
1 During all geological periods (including the present one) there
has never been any trace of abiogenesis (direct creation of a
living organism from inert matter).
2 Throughout geological time, no azoic (Le., devoid of life)
geological periods have ever been observed.
49
3 From this follows:
a) contemporary living matter is connected by a genetic link to
the living matter of all former geological epochs; and
1:1.
46 Actually it was 1!m. British physi-
cist H. Moseley studied x-rays emitted
by different elements and found that
the frequencies in the x-ray spectrum
at which the highest intensities
occurred varied with the element
being studied. In other words, each
element has adistinctive x-ray emis-
sion 'fingerprint'. This relationship
established that the order number of
an element in Mendeleev's periodic
table (Fersman, 1946) could be estab-
lished experimentally, and further-
more provided a foolproof method for
demonstrating whether or not all the
elements of a given region of the table
had yet been discovered (Masterton
and Slowinski, 1966). These discover-
ies formed the basis of x-ray energy
dispersive (EDs) and wavelength dis-
persive analytical technology. EDS is
frequently used in conjuction with the
scanning electron microscope, since
the imaging electron beam shot from
the tungsten filament in ascanning
electron microscope causes the ele-
ments in the sample being magnified
to radiate their characteristic x-rays.
These x-rays are collected by adetec-
tor and analysed, thus allowing ele-
mental characterization of specimens
being imaged by the scanning elec-
tron microscope.
47 It is this extrapolationistic aspect
of scientific hypotheses that
Vernadsky finds so objectionable.
48 And is far too deductive, in
Vernadsky's view, to be the founda-
tion of a reliable scientific methodol-
ogy. We thus see the profound dif-
ference between Western (extrapola-
tions, predictions) and Russian sci-
ence (assertive scientific generaliza-
tions).
49 Again Vernadsky returns to this
Huttonesque theme. He really can-
not conceive of an azoic Earth.
Elsewhere, however, he does admit
(Vernadsky, 1939) the possibility that
the abiogeneticists could be right
(but without ever citing Oparin):
"We cannot shut our eyes, howev-
er, to the fact that Pasteur was possi-
bly right, when contemplating in the
investigation of these phenomena a
way towards the solution of the most
important biological problem, and
seeking in them the possibility of
creation of life on our planet."
Alexei M. Ghilarov (1995) attributes
(P.197) Vernadsky's views on abiogen-
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
55
esis to his overwhelming empiricism:
"Vernadsky claims that the prob-
lem of the origin of life cannot be
considered in the framework of
empirical science because we know
nothing about geological layers that
undoubtedly date back to a time
when life on the Earth was absent."
In this vein, Vernadsky was fond
of citing Redi's Principle of 1669-
omne vivum e vivo- "all the living
are born from the living" (Vernadsky,
19
2
3, p. 39)
A. Lapo adds here that in 1931
(Lapo, 1980, p. 279) Vernadsky
wrote that Redi's principle does not
absolutely deny abiogenesis-it
only indicates the limits within
which abiogenesis does not occur. It
is possible that at some time early
in Earth's history chemical condi-
tions or states existed on Earth's
crust, which are now absent, but
which at the time were sufficient for
the spontaneous generation of life.
50 This idea of Vernadsky's was con-
troversial even before the 1920'S, as
pointed out (p. 22) by Yanshln and
Yanshina (1988). They note that
Vernadsky felt that throughout bio-
logical evolution, the forms of living
matter had changed but the overall
volume and weight of living matter
had not changed through time.
Convincing proof to the contrary was
already available in 1912, when
Belgian paleontologist Louis 00110
demonstrated the spread of life from
shallow marine waters into oceanic
depths and, later, on to land.
Vernadsky's error here seems to be a
result of the fact that he is complete-
ly in the thrall of his slavic variant of
substantive uniformitarianism, "the
more things change, the more they
stay the same." Charles Lyell's west-
ern version of extreme substantive
uniformitarianism holds that all crea-
tures, including mammals, were pre-
sent on Earth at avery early time.
The Russian version holds biomass
as an oscillating constant value
through the vastness of geologic
time. Dianna McMenamin and I show
how the now-recognized increase in
biomass over time is a consequence
of what Vernadsky elsewhere calls
the "pressure of life" (McMenamin
and McMenamin 1994). Thus, aban-
donment of this untenable uniformi-
tarian viewpoint regarding the con-
stancy through geologic time of
global biomass does not fundamen-
b) the conditions .of the terrestrial environment during all
this time have favored the existence of living matter, and
conditions have always been approximately what they are
today.
4 In all geological periods, the chemiCal influence of living matter
on the surrounding environment has not changed significantly;
the same processes of superficial weathering have functioned
on the Earth's surface during this whole time, and the average
chemical compositions of both living matter and the Earth's
crust have been approximately the same as they are today.
5 From the unchanging processes of superficial weathering, it
follows that the number of atoms bound together by life is
unchanged; the global mass of living matter has been almost
constant throughout geological time.
5o
Indications exist only of
slight oscillations about the fixed average.
6 Whichever phenomenon one considers, the energy liberated by
organisms is principally (and perhaps entirely) solar radiation.
Organisms are the intermediaries in the regulation of the
chemistry of the crust by solar energy.
18 These empirical generalizations force us to conclude that
many problems facing science, chiefly philosophical ones, do
not belong in our investigative domain, since they are not
derived from empirical generalizations and require hypotheses
for their formulation. For example, consider problems relating
to the beginning of life on Earth (if there was a beginning
51
).
Among these are cosmogonic models, both of a lifeless era in the
Earth's past, and also of abiogenesis during some hypothetical
cosmic period.
Such problems are so closely connected with dominant scien-
tific and philosophical viewpoints and cosmogonic hypotheses
that their logical necessity usually goes unquestioned. But the
history of science indicates that these problems originate out-
side science, in the realms of religion and philosophy. This
becomes obvious when these problems are compared with rig-
orously established facts and empirical generalizations - the
true domain of science. These scientific facts would remain
unchanged, even if the problems of biogenesis were resolved by
negation, and we were to decide that life had always existed, that
no living organism had ever originated from inert matter, and
that azoic periods had never existed on Earth. One would be
required merely to replace the present cosmogonic hypotheses
by new ones, and to apply new scientific and mathematical
Certain characteristics of the phenomena studied are of pri-
mary importance to empirical generalizations; nevertheless, the
influence of all the other characteristics is always felt. An empir-
ical generalization may be a part of science for a long time with-
out being buttressed by any hypothesis. As such, the empirical
generalization remains incomprehensible, while still exerting an
immense and beneficial effect on our understanding of nature.
But when the moment arrives, and a newlight illuminates this
generalization, it becomes a domain for the creation of scientif-
ic hypotheses, begins to transform our outlines of the universe,
and undergoes changes in its turn. Then, one often finds that the
empirical generalization did not really contain what was sup-
posed, or perhaps, that its contents were much richer. A striking
example is the history of D. J. Mendeleev's great generalization
(1869) of the periodic system of chemical elements, which
became an extended field for scientific hypothesis after Mose-
ley's discovery46 in 1915.
16 Ahypothesis, or theoretical construction, is fashioned in an
entirely different way. A single or small number of the essential
properties of a phenomenon are considered, the rest being
ignored, and on this basis, a representation of the phenomenon
is made. A scientific hypothesis always goes beyond (frequently,
far beyond) the facts upon which it is based.
1I7
To obtain the nec-
essary solidity, it must then form all possible connections with
other dominant theoretical constructions of nature, and it must
not contradict them.
48
An Empirical Generalization Requires No Verification After
It Has been Deduced Precisely from the Facts.
17 The exposition we shall present is based only upon empiri-
cal generalizations that are supported by all of the known facts,
and not by hypotheses or theories. The following are our begin-
ning principles:
1 During all geological periods (including the present one) there
has never been any trace of abiogenesis (direct creation of a
living organism from inert matter).
2 Throughout geological time, no azoic (Le., devoid of life)
geological periods have ever been observed.
49
3 From this follows:
a) contemporary living matter is connected by a genetic link to
the living matter of all former geological epochs; and
1:1.
46 Actually it was 1!m. British physi-
cist H. Moseley studied x-rays emitted
by different elements and found that
the frequencies in the x-ray spectrum
at which the highest intensities
occurred varied with the element
being studied. In other words, each
element has adistinctive x-ray emis-
sion 'fingerprint'. This relationship
established that the order number of
an element in Mendeleev's periodic
table (Fersman, 1946) could be estab-
lished experimentally, and further-
more provided a foolproof method for
demonstrating whether or not all the
elements of a given region of the table
had yet been discovered (Masterton
and Slowinski, 1966). These discover-
ies formed the basis of x-ray energy
dispersive (EDs) and wavelength dis-
persive analytical technology. EDS is
frequently used in conjuction with the
scanning electron microscope, since
the imaging electron beam shot from
the tungsten filament in ascanning
electron microscope causes the ele-
ments in the sample being magnified
to radiate their characteristic x-rays.
These x-rays are collected by adetec-
tor and analysed, thus allowing ele-
mental characterization of specimens
being imaged by the scanning elec-
tron microscope.
47 It is this extrapolationistic aspect
of scientific hypotheses that
Vernadsky finds so objectionable.
48 And is far too deductive, in
Vernadsky's view, to be the founda-
tion of a reliable scientific methodol-
ogy. We thus see the profound dif-
ference between Western (extrapola-
tions, predictions) and Russian sci-
ence (assertive scientific generaliza-
tions).
49 Again Vernadsky returns to this
Huttonesque theme. He really can-
not conceive of an azoic Earth.
Elsewhere, however, he does admit
(Vernadsky, 1939) the possibility that
the abiogeneticists could be right
(but without ever citing Oparin):
"We cannot shut our eyes, howev-
er, to the fact that Pasteur was possi-
bly right, when contemplating in the
investigation of these phenomena a
way towards the solution of the most
important biological problem, and
seeking in them the possibility of
creation of life on our planet."
Alexei M. Ghilarov (1995) attributes
(P.197) Vernadsky's views on abiogen-
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
55
esis to his overwhelming empiricism:
"Vernadsky claims that the prob-
lem of the origin of life cannot be
considered in the framework of
empirical science because we know
nothing about geological layers that
undoubtedly date back to a time
when life on the Earth was absent."
In this vein, Vernadsky was fond
of citing Redi's Principle of 1669-
omne vivum e vivo- "all the living
are born from the living" (Vernadsky,
19
2
3, p. 39)
A. Lapo adds here that in 1931
(Lapo, 1980, p. 279) Vernadsky
wrote that Redi's principle does not
absolutely deny abiogenesis-it
only indicates the limits within
which abiogenesis does not occur. It
is possible that at some time early
in Earth's history chemical condi-
tions or states existed on Earth's
crust, which are now absent, but
which at the time were sufficient for
the spontaneous generation of life.
50 This idea of Vernadsky's was con-
troversial even before the 1920'S, as
pointed out (p. 22) by Yanshln and
Yanshina (1988). They note that
Vernadsky felt that throughout bio-
logical evolution, the forms of living
matter had changed but the overall
volume and weight of living matter
had not changed through time.
Convincing proof to the contrary was
already available in 1912, when
Belgian paleontologist Louis 00110
demonstrated the spread of life from
shallow marine waters into oceanic
depths and, later, on to land.
Vernadsky's error here seems to be a
result of the fact that he is complete-
ly in the thrall of his slavic variant of
substantive uniformitarianism, "the
more things change, the more they
stay the same." Charles Lyell's west-
ern version of extreme substantive
uniformitarianism holds that all crea-
tures, including mammals, were pre-
sent on Earth at avery early time.
The Russian version holds biomass
as an oscillating constant value
through the vastness of geologic
time. Dianna McMenamin and I show
how the now-recognized increase in
biomass over time is a consequence
of what Vernadsky elsewhere calls
the "pressure of life" (McMenamin
and McMenamin 1994). Thus, aban-
donment of this untenable uniformi-
tarian viewpoint regarding the con-
stancy through geologic time of
global biomass does not fundamen-
scrutiny to certain philosophical and religious, viewpoints called
into question by advances inscientific thought. This has hap-
pened before in modern cosmogony.
20 It is evident that if life were to cease the great chemical
processes connected with it would disappear, both from the
biosphere and probably also from the crust. All minerals in the
upper crust-the free alumino-silicious acids (clays), the car-
bonates (limestones and dolomites), the hydrated oxides of iron
and aluminum (limonites and bauxites), as well as hundreds of
others, are continuously created by the influence of life. In the
absence of life, the elements in these minerals would immedi-
Living Matter in the Biosphere
19 Life exists only in the biosphere; organisms are found only in
the thin outer layer of the Earth's crust, and are always separat-
ed from the surrounding inert matter by a clear and firm
boundary. Living organisms have never been produced by inert
matter. In its life, its death, and its decomposition an organism
circulates its atoms through the biosphere over and over again,
but living matter is always generated from life itself.
A considerable portion of the atoms in the Earth's surface are
united in life, and these are in perpetual motion. Millions of
diverse compounds are constantly being created, in a process
that has been continuing, essentially unchanged, since the early
Archean, four billion years ago.
52
Because no chemical force on Earth is more constant than liv-
ing organisms taken in aggregate, none is more powerful in the
long run. The more we learn, the more convinced we become
that biospheric chemical phenomena never occur independent
of life.
All geological history supports this view. The oldest Archean
beds furnish indirect indications of the existence of life; ancient
Proterozoic rocks, and perhaps even Archean rocks,53 have pre-
served actual fossil remains of organisms. Scholars such as C.
Schuchert
54
were correct in relating Archean rocks to Paleozoic,
Mesozoic, and Cenozoic rocks rich in life. Archean rocks corre-
spond to the oldest-known accessible parts of the crust, and
contain evidence that life existed in remotest antiquity at least
1.5 billion years ago.
55
Therefore the sun's energy cannot have
changed noticeably since that time; this deduction
56
is con-
firmed by the convincing astronomical conjectures of Harlow
Shapley.57
59 See Germanov and
Melkanovitskaya, 1975.
58 Here Vernadsky strongly antici-
pates some of the arguments made
later by
J. Lovelock, especially the thought
that in an abiotic Earth the diatomic
nitrogen and oxygen gases will com-
bine to form nitrogen-oxygen com-
pounds (NO,.); Williams, 1997.
60 According to A. I. Perelman, the
most recent data show that signifi-
cant amounts of CO
2
are emitted
during volcanic eruptions. Evidently,
it is no accident that the significance
of carbonate deposits abruptly
increased after epochs of growing
volcanic activity (for example, the
Carbonaceous, Jurassic, Paleogene).
Note, however, that in the event of
the disappearance of life, the atmos-
pheric concentration of CO
2
would
rise, while there would be a sharp
drop in the percent of carbonate
deposits. indeed, the concentrations
of carbon dioxide in the atmos-
pheres of Venus and Mars are very
similar C965,OOO and 953,000 parts
per million volume, respectively),
whereas that of Earth is dramatically
less 850 parts per million volume;
see Williams, 1997, p.110).
61 Vadose water is suspended
water in soli or suspended in frag-
mented rock (regolith), above the
level of groundwater saturation.
Vernadsky here again demonstrates
his marvelous insight, as well as his
debt to Dokuchaev (his eacher), as
he elucidates the biogeochemical
importance of this microbe-rich,
high surface-area environment.
57
ately form new chemical groups corresponding to the new con-
ditions. Their previous mineral forms would disappear perma-
nently, and there would be no energy in the Earth's crust capa-
ble of continuous generation of new chemical compounds.
58
A stable equilibrium, a chemical calm, would be permanently
troubled from time to time only by the appearance
of matter from the depths of the Earth at certain points (e.g.,
emanations of gas, thermal springs, and volcanic eruptions).
But this freshly-appearing matter would, relatively quickly,
adopt
59
and maintain the stable molecular forms consistent
with the lifeless conditions of the Earth's crust.
Although there are thousands of outlets for matter that arise
from the depths of the Earth, they are lost in the immensity of
the Earth's surface; and even recurrent processes such as vol-
canic eruptions are imperceptible, in the infinity of terrestrial
time.
After the disappearance of life, changes in terrestrial tectonics
would slowly occur on the Earth's surface. The time scale would
be quite different from the years and centuries we experience.
Change would be perceptible only in the scale of cosmic time,
like radioactive alterations of atomic systems.
The incessant forces in the biosphere - the sun's heat and the
chemical action of water - would scarcely alter the picture,
because the extinction of life would result in the disappearance
of free oxygen, and a marked reduction of carbonic acid.
60
The
chief agents in the alteration of the surface, which under present
conditions are constantly absorbed by the inert matter of the
biosphere and replaced in equal quantitybyliving matter, would
therefore disappear.
Water is a powerful chemical agent under the thermodynam-
ic conditions of the biosphere, because life processes cause this
"natural" vadose water
61
(89) to be rich in chemically active
foci, especially microscopic organisms. Such water is altered by
the oxygen and carbonic acid dissolved within it. Without these
constituents, it is chemically inert at the prevailing temperatures
and pressures of the biosphere. In an inert, gaseous environ-
ment, the face of the Earth would become as immobile and
chemically passive as that of the moon, or the metallic mete-
orites and cosmic dust particles that fall upon us.
21 Life is, thus, potently and continuously disturbing the chem-
ical inertia on the surface of our planet. It creates the colors and
forms of nature, the associations of animals and plants, and the
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
57 See Shapley, 1927.
54 See Schuchert, 1924.
55 Evidence for life is now thought
to extend back to 3,800 million
years ago; see Moizsis, Arrhenius,
McKeegan, Harrison, Nutman and
Friend, 1996; and Hayes, 1996.
56 Now known to be false; the early
sun Is now thought to have been
fainter than today, and yet the plan-
etary surface was paradoxically
warmer because of a larger propor-
tion of greenhouse gases (principal-
ly carbon dioxide) in the atmos-
phere.
53 See Pompeckj, 1928. Indeed as
Vernadsky suggests, fossils of
microorganisms are now known
from Archean rocks.
51 This is perhaps the most extreme
articulation yet of Vernadsky's sub-
stantive uniformitarianism.
tally weaken Vernadsky's other main
arguments.
52 A. Lapo notes (written communi-
cation) that Russian geochemist A. I.
Perelman suggested that the follow-
ing generalization should be called
"Vernadsky's Law": "The migration
of chemical elements in the bios-
phere is accomplished either with
the direct participation of living mat-
ter (biogenic migration) or it pro-
ceeds in a medium where the specif-
ic geochemical features (oxygen,
carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide,
etc.) are conditioned by living mat-
ter, by both that part inhabiting the
given system at present and that
part that has been acting on the
Earth throughout geological history"
(Perelman, 1979, p. 215).
56 THE BIOSPHERE
scrutiny to certain philosophical and religious, viewpoints called
into question by advances inscientific thought. This has hap-
pened before in modern cosmogony.
20 It is evident that if life were to cease the great chemical
processes connected with it would disappear, both from the
biosphere and probably also from the crust. All minerals in the
upper crust-the free alumino-silicious acids (clays), the car-
bonates (limestones and dolomites), the hydrated oxides of iron
and aluminum (limonites and bauxites), as well as hundreds of
others, are continuously created by the influence of life. In the
absence of life, the elements in these minerals would immedi-
Living Matter in the Biosphere
19 Life exists only in the biosphere; organisms are found only in
the thin outer layer of the Earth's crust, and are always separat-
ed from the surrounding inert matter by a clear and firm
boundary. Living organisms have never been produced by inert
matter. In its life, its death, and its decomposition an organism
circulates its atoms through the biosphere over and over again,
but living matter is always generated from life itself.
A considerable portion of the atoms in the Earth's surface are
united in life, and these are in perpetual motion. Millions of
diverse compounds are constantly being created, in a process
that has been continuing, essentially unchanged, since the early
Archean, four billion years ago.
52
Because no chemical force on Earth is more constant than liv-
ing organisms taken in aggregate, none is more powerful in the
long run. The more we learn, the more convinced we become
that biospheric chemical phenomena never occur independent
of life.
All geological history supports this view. The oldest Archean
beds furnish indirect indications of the existence of life; ancient
Proterozoic rocks, and perhaps even Archean rocks,53 have pre-
served actual fossil remains of organisms. Scholars such as C.
Schuchert
54
were correct in relating Archean rocks to Paleozoic,
Mesozoic, and Cenozoic rocks rich in life. Archean rocks corre-
spond to the oldest-known accessible parts of the crust, and
contain evidence that life existed in remotest antiquity at least
1.5 billion years ago.
55
Therefore the sun's energy cannot have
changed noticeably since that time; this deduction
56
is con-
firmed by the convincing astronomical conjectures of Harlow
Shapley.57
59 See Germanov and
Melkanovitskaya, 1975.
58 Here Vernadsky strongly antici-
pates some of the arguments made
later by
J. Lovelock, especially the thought
that in an abiotic Earth the diatomic
nitrogen and oxygen gases will com-
bine to form nitrogen-oxygen com-
pounds (NO,.); Williams, 1997.
60 According to A. I. Perelman, the
most recent data show that signifi-
cant amounts of CO
2
are emitted
during volcanic eruptions. Evidently,
it is no accident that the significance
of carbonate deposits abruptly
increased after epochs of growing
volcanic activity (for example, the
Carbonaceous, Jurassic, Paleogene).
Note, however, that in the event of
the disappearance of life, the atmos-
pheric concentration of CO
2
would
rise, while there would be a sharp
drop in the percent of carbonate
deposits. indeed, the concentrations
of carbon dioxide in the atmos-
pheres of Venus and Mars are very
similar C965,OOO and 953,000 parts
per million volume, respectively),
whereas that of Earth is dramatically
less 850 parts per million volume;
see Williams, 1997, p.110).
61 Vadose water is suspended
water in soli or suspended in frag-
mented rock (regolith), above the
level of groundwater saturation.
Vernadsky here again demonstrates
his marvelous insight, as well as his
debt to Dokuchaev (his eacher), as
he elucidates the biogeochemical
importance of this microbe-rich,
high surface-area environment.
57
ately form new chemical groups corresponding to the new con-
ditions. Their previous mineral forms would disappear perma-
nently, and there would be no energy in the Earth's crust capa-
ble of continuous generation of new chemical compounds.
58
A stable equilibrium, a chemical calm, would be permanently
troubled from time to time only by the appearance
of matter from the depths of the Earth at certain points (e.g.,
emanations of gas, thermal springs, and volcanic eruptions).
But this freshly-appearing matter would, relatively quickly,
adopt
59
and maintain the stable molecular forms consistent
with the lifeless conditions of the Earth's crust.
Although there are thousands of outlets for matter that arise
from the depths of the Earth, they are lost in the immensity of
the Earth's surface; and even recurrent processes such as vol-
canic eruptions are imperceptible, in the infinity of terrestrial
time.
After the disappearance of life, changes in terrestrial tectonics
would slowly occur on the Earth's surface. The time scale would
be quite different from the years and centuries we experience.
Change would be perceptible only in the scale of cosmic time,
like radioactive alterations of atomic systems.
The incessant forces in the biosphere - the sun's heat and the
chemical action of water - would scarcely alter the picture,
because the extinction of life would result in the disappearance
of free oxygen, and a marked reduction of carbonic acid.
60
The
chief agents in the alteration of the surface, which under present
conditions are constantly absorbed by the inert matter of the
biosphere and replaced in equal quantitybyliving matter, would
therefore disappear.
Water is a powerful chemical agent under the thermodynam-
ic conditions of the biosphere, because life processes cause this
"natural" vadose water
61
(89) to be rich in chemically active
foci, especially microscopic organisms. Such water is altered by
the oxygen and carbonic acid dissolved within it. Without these
constituents, it is chemically inert at the prevailing temperatures
and pressures of the biosphere. In an inert, gaseous environ-
ment, the face of the Earth would become as immobile and
chemically passive as that of the moon, or the metallic mete-
orites and cosmic dust particles that fall upon us.
21 Life is, thus, potently and continuously disturbing the chem-
ical inertia on the surface of our planet. It creates the colors and
forms of nature, the associations of animals and plants, and the
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
57 See Shapley, 1927.
54 See Schuchert, 1924.
55 Evidence for life is now thought
to extend back to 3,800 million
years ago; see Moizsis, Arrhenius,
McKeegan, Harrison, Nutman and
Friend, 1996; and Hayes, 1996.
56 Now known to be false; the early
sun Is now thought to have been
fainter than today, and yet the plan-
etary surface was paradoxically
warmer because of a larger propor-
tion of greenhouse gases (principal-
ly carbon dioxide) in the atmos-
phere.
53 See Pompeckj, 1928. Indeed as
Vernadsky suggests, fossils of
microorganisms are now known
from Archean rocks.
51 This is perhaps the most extreme
articulation yet of Vernadsky's sub-
stantive uniformitarianism.
tally weaken Vernadsky's other main
arguments.
52 A. Lapo notes (written communi-
cation) that Russian geochemist A. I.
Perelman suggested that the follow-
ing generalization should be called
"Vernadsky's Law": "The migration
of chemical elements in the bios-
phere is accomplished either with
the direct participation of living mat-
ter (biogenic migration) or it pro-
ceeds in a medium where the specif-
ic geochemical features (oxygen,
carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide,
etc.) are conditioned by living mat-
ter, by both that part inhabiting the
given system at present and that
part that has been acting on the
Earth throughout geological history"
(Perelman, 1979, p. 215).
56 THE BIOSPHERE
creative labor of civilized humanity, and also becomes a part of
the diverse chemical processes of the Earth's 'crust. There is no
substantial chemical equilibrium on the crust in which the
influence of life is not evident, and in which chemistry does not
display life's work.
Life is, therefore, not an external or accidental phenomenon of
the Earth's crust. It is closely bound to the structure of the crust,
forms part of its mechanism, and fulfills functions of prime
importance to the existence of this mechanism. Without life, the
crustal mechanism of the Earth would not exist.
22 All living matter can be regarded as a single entity in the
mechanism of the biosphere, but only one part of life, green veg-
etation, the carrier of chlorophyll, makes direct use of solar radi-
ation. Through photosynthesis, chlorophyll produces chemical
compounds that, following the death of the organism of which
they are part, are unstable in the biosphere's thermodynamic
field.
The whole living world is connected to this green part of life
by a direct and unbreakable link.
62
The matter of animals and
plants that do not contain chlorophyll has developed from the
chemical compounds produced by green life. One possible
exception might be autotrophic bacteria, but even these bacteria
are in some way connected to green plants by a genetic link in
their past. We can therefore consider this part of living nature as
a development that came after the transformation of solar ener-
gy into active planetary forces. Animals and fungi accumulate
nitrogen-rich substances which, as centers of chemical free
energy, become even more powerful agents of change. Their
energy is also released through decomposition when, after
death, they leave the thermodynamic field in which they were
stable, and enter the thermodynamic field of the biosphere.
Living matter as a whole - the totality of living organisms
(160) - is therefore a unique system, which accumulates chem-
ical free energy in the biosphere by the transformation of solar
radiation.
23 Studies of the morphology and ecology of green organisms
long ago made it clear that these organisms were adapted, from
their very beginning, to this cosmic function. The distinguished
Austrian botanist I. Wiesner delved into this problem, and
remarked, some time ago,63 that light, even more than heat,
exerted a powerful action on the form of green plants ... "one
62 A partial exception to this gener-
al rule was discovered in 1977.
the hydrothermal vent biotas of
the active volcanic centers of
mid-oceanic sea floor spreading
ridges (Dover, 1996; Zimmer, 1996).
The biotas here are dependent on
hydrogen sulfide (normally poiso-
nous to animals) emanating from
the volcanic fissures, black smokers
and white smokers. Chemosymbiotic
bacteria within the tissues of vent
biota animals, such as the giant
clams and giant tube worms (vesti-
mentiferan pogonophorans), not
only detoxify the hydrogen sulfide
but utilize it as an energy source In
lieu of sunlight. Consider, however,
the following from p. 290 ofYanshin
and Yanshina (1988): .
"Vernadsky considered that the
stratified part of the earth's crust (or
the lithosphere, as geologists call it)
represents avestige of bygone
biospheres, and in that event the
granite gneiss stratum was formed
as a result of metamorphism and
remelting of rocks originating at
some point in time under the
influence of living matter. Only
basalts and other basic magmatic
rocks did he regard as deep-seated
and not connected genetically with
the biosphere." [Although here the
connection with the biosphere may
simply be a longer period one .-M.
McMenamin)
The melting (associated in this
case with lithospheric and mantle
pressure changes) and eruption of
molten rock is probably responsible
for exhalation most of the hydrogen
sulfide released at mid-ocean
ridges. Thus, even with regard to the
energy source of the hydrothermal
vent biotas (and the incredibly rapid
growth of animals living there; see
Lutz, 1994,), we may still be consid-
ering what is a part of the biosphere
sensu strictu Vernadsky (E. I.
Kolchinsky, 1987; Grinevald, 1996).
63 See Wiesner, 1877.
could say that light molded their shapes as though they were a
plastic material:'
An empirical generalization of the first magnitude arises at
this juncture, and calls attention to opposing viewpoints
between which it is, at present, impossible to choose. On the one
hand, we try to explain the above phenomenon by invoking
internal causes belonging to the livingorganism, assuming for
example that the organism adapts so as to collect all the lumi-
nous energy of solar radiation.
64
On the other hand, the expla-
nation is sought outside the organism in solar radiation, in
which case the illuminated green organism is treated as an inert
mass. In future work the solution should probably be sought in
a combination of both approaches. For the time being the
empirical generalization
65
itself is far more inlportant.
The firm connection between solar radiation and the world of
verdant creatures is demonstrated by the empirical observation
that conditions ensure that this radiation will always encounter
a green plant to transform the energy it carries. Normally, the
energy of all the sun's rays will be transformed. This transfor-
mation of energy can be considered as aproperty of living mat-
ter, its function in the biosphere. If a green plant is unable to ful-
fill its proper function, one must find an explanation for this
abnormal case.
66
An essential deduction, drawn from observation, is that this
process is absolutely automatic. It recovers from disturbance
without the assistance of any agents, other than luminous solar
radiation and green plants adapted for this purpose by specific
living structures and forms. Such a re-establishment of equilib-
rium can only be produced in cases of opposing forces of great
magnitude. The re-establishment of equilibrium is also linked
to the passage of time.
24 Observation of nature gives indications of this mechanism
in the biosphere. Let us reflect upon its grandeur and meaning.
Land surfaces of the Earth are entirely covered by green vegeta-
tion. Desert areas are an exception, but they are lost in the
whole.
67
Seen from space, the land of the Earth should appear
green, because the green apparatus which traps and transforms
radiation is spread over the globe, as continuously as the current
of solar light that falls upon it.
Living matter - organisms taken as a whole - is spread over
the entire surface of the Earth in a manner analogous to a gas; it
produces a specific pressure
68
in the surrounding environment,
64 In this passage, in which he
describes the need to capture light
as influencing the morphology of
photosynthetic organisms.
Vernadsky (following Wiesner)
anticipates the research results of
both Adolf Seilacher (1985) and
Mark McMenamin (1986). The
empirical generalization Vernadsky
describes here is simply that light
influences the shapes of
photosynthetic organisms. Either
they adapt to maximize light
capture, or the light somehow molds
the shape of the organisms. The
latter suggestion may sound odd
but avery similar sentiment was
expressed by D'Arcy Wentworth
Thompson (1952). In his view, the
physical and geometrical contraints
of the environment evoke particular
shapes from organisms as they
evolve, and the array of possible
shapes is finite.
65 That is, Wiesner's Inference that
light molds plant form.
66 As for instance in the
achlorophyllous Indian Pipe
Monotropa. which is nourished by
linkages to a subterranean network
of mycorrhizal mycelia.
67 In fact, desert areas are clearly
identifiable from space.
68 Here Vernadsky Introduces his
concept of the "pressure of life." He
phrased it succinctly in 1939 (see p.
13) as follows:
"The spreading of life In the
biosphere goes on by way of
reproduction which exercises a
pressure on the surrounding medium
and controls the biogenic migration
of atoms. It is absent in ... Inert
substance. The reproduction creates
in the biosphere an accumulation of
free energy which may be called
blageochemlcal energy. It can be
precisely measured."
THE BIOSPHERE
58
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
59
creative labor of civilized humanity, and also becomes a part of
the diverse chemical processes of the Earth's 'crust. There is no
substantial chemical equilibrium on the crust in which the
influence of life is not evident, and in which chemistry does not
display life's work.
Life is, therefore, not an external or accidental phenomenon of
the Earth's crust. It is closely bound to the structure of the crust,
forms part of its mechanism, and fulfills functions of prime
importance to the existence of this mechanism. Without life, the
crustal mechanism of the Earth would not exist.
22 All living matter can be regarded as a single entity in the
mechanism of the biosphere, but only one part of life, green veg-
etation, the carrier of chlorophyll, makes direct use of solar radi-
ation. Through photosynthesis, chlorophyll produces chemical
compounds that, following the death of the organism of which
they are part, are unstable in the biosphere's thermodynamic
field.
The whole living world is connected to this green part of life
by a direct and unbreakable link.
62
The matter of animals and
plants that do not contain chlorophyll has developed from the
chemical compounds produced by green life. One possible
exception might be autotrophic bacteria, but even these bacteria
are in some way connected to green plants by a genetic link in
their past. We can therefore consider this part of living nature as
a development that came after the transformation of solar ener-
gy into active planetary forces. Animals and fungi accumulate
nitrogen-rich substances which, as centers of chemical free
energy, become even more powerful agents of change. Their
energy is also released through decomposition when, after
death, they leave the thermodynamic field in which they were
stable, and enter the thermodynamic field of the biosphere.
Living matter as a whole - the totality of living organisms
(160) - is therefore a unique system, which accumulates chem-
ical free energy in the biosphere by the transformation of solar
radiation.
23 Studies of the morphology and ecology of green organisms
long ago made it clear that these organisms were adapted, from
their very beginning, to this cosmic function. The distinguished
Austrian botanist I. Wiesner delved into this problem, and
remarked, some time ago,63 that light, even more than heat,
exerted a powerful action on the form of green plants ... "one
62 A partial exception to this gener-
al rule was discovered in 1977.
the hydrothermal vent biotas of
the active volcanic centers of
mid-oceanic sea floor spreading
ridges (Dover, 1996; Zimmer, 1996).
The biotas here are dependent on
hydrogen sulfide (normally poiso-
nous to animals) emanating from
the volcanic fissures, black smokers
and white smokers. Chemosymbiotic
bacteria within the tissues of vent
biota animals, such as the giant
clams and giant tube worms (vesti-
mentiferan pogonophorans), not
only detoxify the hydrogen sulfide
but utilize it as an energy source In
lieu of sunlight. Consider, however,
the following from p. 290 ofYanshin
and Yanshina (1988): .
"Vernadsky considered that the
stratified part of the earth's crust (or
the lithosphere, as geologists call it)
represents avestige of bygone
biospheres, and in that event the
granite gneiss stratum was formed
as a result of metamorphism and
remelting of rocks originating at
some point in time under the
influence of living matter. Only
basalts and other basic magmatic
rocks did he regard as deep-seated
and not connected genetically with
the biosphere." [Although here the
connection with the biosphere may
simply be a longer period one .-M.
McMenamin)
The melting (associated in this
case with lithospheric and mantle
pressure changes) and eruption of
molten rock is probably responsible
for exhalation most of the hydrogen
sulfide released at mid-ocean
ridges. Thus, even with regard to the
energy source of the hydrothermal
vent biotas (and the incredibly rapid
growth of animals living there; see
Lutz, 1994,), we may still be consid-
ering what is a part of the biosphere
sensu strictu Vernadsky (E. I.
Kolchinsky, 1987; Grinevald, 1996).
63 See Wiesner, 1877.
could say that light molded their shapes as though they were a
plastic material:'
An empirical generalization of the first magnitude arises at
this juncture, and calls attention to opposing viewpoints
between which it is, at present, impossible to choose. On the one
hand, we try to explain the above phenomenon by invoking
internal causes belonging to the livingorganism, assuming for
example that the organism adapts so as to collect all the lumi-
nous energy of solar radiation.
64
On the other hand, the expla-
nation is sought outside the organism in solar radiation, in
which case the illuminated green organism is treated as an inert
mass. In future work the solution should probably be sought in
a combination of both approaches. For the time being the
empirical generalization
65
itself is far more inlportant.
The firm connection between solar radiation and the world of
verdant creatures is demonstrated by the empirical observation
that conditions ensure that this radiation will always encounter
a green plant to transform the energy it carries. Normally, the
energy of all the sun's rays will be transformed. This transfor-
mation of energy can be considered as aproperty of living mat-
ter, its function in the biosphere. If a green plant is unable to ful-
fill its proper function, one must find an explanation for this
abnormal case.
66
An essential deduction, drawn from observation, is that this
process is absolutely automatic. It recovers from disturbance
without the assistance of any agents, other than luminous solar
radiation and green plants adapted for this purpose by specific
living structures and forms. Such a re-establishment of equilib-
rium can only be produced in cases of opposing forces of great
magnitude. The re-establishment of equilibrium is also linked
to the passage of time.
24 Observation of nature gives indications of this mechanism
in the biosphere. Let us reflect upon its grandeur and meaning.
Land surfaces of the Earth are entirely covered by green vegeta-
tion. Desert areas are an exception, but they are lost in the
whole.
67
Seen from space, the land of the Earth should appear
green, because the green apparatus which traps and transforms
radiation is spread over the globe, as continuously as the current
of solar light that falls upon it.
Living matter - organisms taken as a whole - is spread over
the entire surface of the Earth in a manner analogous to a gas; it
produces a specific pressure
68
in the surrounding environment,
64 In this passage, in which he
describes the need to capture light
as influencing the morphology of
photosynthetic organisms.
Vernadsky (following Wiesner)
anticipates the research results of
both Adolf Seilacher (1985) and
Mark McMenamin (1986). The
empirical generalization Vernadsky
describes here is simply that light
influences the shapes of
photosynthetic organisms. Either
they adapt to maximize light
capture, or the light somehow molds
the shape of the organisms. The
latter suggestion may sound odd
but avery similar sentiment was
expressed by D'Arcy Wentworth
Thompson (1952). In his view, the
physical and geometrical contraints
of the environment evoke particular
shapes from organisms as they
evolve, and the array of possible
shapes is finite.
65 That is, Wiesner's Inference that
light molds plant form.
66 As for instance in the
achlorophyllous Indian Pipe
Monotropa. which is nourished by
linkages to a subterranean network
of mycorrhizal mycelia.
67 In fact, desert areas are clearly
identifiable from space.
68 Here Vernadsky Introduces his
concept of the "pressure of life." He
phrased it succinctly in 1939 (see p.
13) as follows:
"The spreading of life In the
biosphere goes on by way of
reproduction which exercises a
pressure on the surrounding medium
and controls the biogenic migration
of atoms. It is absent in ... Inert
substance. The reproduction creates
in the biosphere an accumulation of
free energy which may be called
blageochemlcal energy. It can be
precisely measured."
THE BIOSPHERE
58
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
59
either avoiding the obstacles on its upward path, or overcoming
them. In the course of time, living matter clothes the whole ter-
restrial globe with a continuous envelope,69 which is absent only
when some external force interferes with its encompassing
movement. ...
This movement is caused by the multiplication of organisms,
which takes place without interruption,7o and with a specific
intensity related to that of the solar radiation.
In spite of the extreme variability of life, the phenomena of
reproduction, growth, and transformation of solar energy into
terrestrial chemical energy are subject to fixed mathematical
laws. The precision, rhythm, and harmony that are familiar in
the movements of celestial bodies can be perceived in these sys-
tems of atoms and energy.
The Multiplication of Organisms and Geochemical
Energy in Living Matter
25 The diffusion of living matter by multiplication, a character-
istic of all living matter, is the most important manifestation of
life in the biosphere and is the essential feature by which we dis-
tinguish life from death. It is a means by which the energy of life
unifies the biosphere. It becomes apparent through the ubiquity
oflife, which occupies all free space if no insurmountable obsta-
cles are met. The whole surface of the planet is the domain of
life, and if any part should become barren, it would soon be
reoccupied by living things. In each geological period (repre-
senting only a brief interval in the planet's history), organisms
have developed and adapted to conditions which were initially
fatal to them. Thus, the limits of life seem to expand with geo-
logical time (119, 122). In any event, during the entirety of geo-
logical history life has tended to take possession of, and utilize,
all possible space.
This tendency of life is clearly inherent; it is not an indication
of an external force, such as is seen, for example, in the dispersal
of a heap of sand or a glacier by the force of gravity.
The diffusion of life is a sign of internal energy- of the chem-
ical work life performs - and is analogous to the diffusion of a
gas. It is caused, not by gravity, but by the separate energetic
movements of its component particles. The diffusion of living
matter on the planet's surface is an inevitable movement caused
by new organisms, which derive from multiplication and occu-
py newplaces in the biosphere; this diffusion is the autonomous
energy of life in the biosphere, and becomes known through the
transformation of chemical elements and the creation of new
matter from them. We shall call this energy the geochemical
energy oflife in the biosphere.
71 Abundant parasites colonizing
the tissues of other organisms on
land are one of the key characteris.
tics of the land biota.
61
26 The uninterrupted movement resulting from the multiplica-
tion of living organisms is executed with an inexorable and
astonishing mathematical regularity, and is the most character-
istic and essential trait of the biosphere. It occurs on the land
surfaces, penetrates all of the hydrosphere, and can be observed
in each level of the troposphere. It even penetrates the interior of
living matter, itself, in the form of parasites.71 Throughout myr-
iads of years, it accomplishes a colossal geochemical labor, and
provides. a means for both the penetration and distribution of
solar energy on our planet.
It thus not only transports matter, but also transmits energy.
The transport of matter by multiplication thus becomes a
process sui generis. It is not an ordinary, mechanical displace-
ment of the Earth's surface matter, independent of the environ-
ment in which the movement occurs. The environment resists
this movement, causing a friction analogous to that which aris-
es in the motion of matter caused by forces of electrostatic
attraction. But movement of life is connected with the environ-
ment in a deeper sense, since it can occur only through a
gaseous exchange between the moving matter and the medium
in which it moves. The more intense the exchange of gases, the
more rapid the movement, and when the exchange of gases
stops, the movement also stops. This exchange is the breathingof
organisms; and, as we shall see, it exerts a strong, controlling
influence on multiplication. Movement due to multiplication is
therefore of great geochemical importance in the mechanisms
of the biosphere and, like respiration, is a manifestation of solar
radiation.
27 Although this movement is continually taking place around
us, we hardly notice it, grasping only the general result that
nature offers us - the beauty and diversity of form, color, and
movement. We view the fields and forests with their flora and
fauna, and the lakes, seas, and soil with their abundance of life,
as though the movement did not exist. We see the static result of
the dynamic equilibrium of these movements, but only rarely
can we observe them directly.
Let us dwell then for a moment on some examples of this
movement, the creator of living nature, which plays such an
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
70 Compare this with the slogan
(first pointed out to me by Andrei
Lapo) of A. Huxley (1921):
"Everything ought to increase and
multiply as hard as It can."
69 See McMenamin and
McMenamin, 1994. for examples of
this tendency for life to expand its
realm.
60 THE BIOSPHERE
either avoiding the obstacles on its upward path, or overcoming
them. In the course of time, living matter clothes the whole ter-
restrial globe with a continuous envelope,69 which is absent only
when some external force interferes with its encompassing
movement. ...
This movement is caused by the multiplication of organisms,
which takes place without interruption,7o and with a specific
intensity related to that of the solar radiation.
In spite of the extreme variability of life, the phenomena of
reproduction, growth, and transformation of solar energy into
terrestrial chemical energy are subject to fixed mathematical
laws. The precision, rhythm, and harmony that are familiar in
the movements of celestial bodies can be perceived in these sys-
tems of atoms and energy.
The Multiplication of Organisms and Geochemical
Energy in Living Matter
25 The diffusion of living matter by multiplication, a character-
istic of all living matter, is the most important manifestation of
life in the biosphere and is the essential feature by which we dis-
tinguish life from death. It is a means by which the energy of life
unifies the biosphere. It becomes apparent through the ubiquity
oflife, which occupies all free space if no insurmountable obsta-
cles are met. The whole surface of the planet is the domain of
life, and if any part should become barren, it would soon be
reoccupied by living things. In each geological period (repre-
senting only a brief interval in the planet's history), organisms
have developed and adapted to conditions which were initially
fatal to them. Thus, the limits of life seem to expand with geo-
logical time (119, 122). In any event, during the entirety of geo-
logical history life has tended to take possession of, and utilize,
all possible space.
This tendency of life is clearly inherent; it is not an indication
of an external force, such as is seen, for example, in the dispersal
of a heap of sand or a glacier by the force of gravity.
The diffusion of life is a sign of internal energy- of the chem-
ical work life performs - and is analogous to the diffusion of a
gas. It is caused, not by gravity, but by the separate energetic
movements of its component particles. The diffusion of living
matter on the planet's surface is an inevitable movement caused
by new organisms, which derive from multiplication and occu-
py newplaces in the biosphere; this diffusion is the autonomous
energy of life in the biosphere, and becomes known through the
transformation of chemical elements and the creation of new
matter from them. We shall call this energy the geochemical
energy oflife in the biosphere.
71 Abundant parasites colonizing
the tissues of other organisms on
land are one of the key characteris.
tics of the land biota.
61
26 The uninterrupted movement resulting from the multiplica-
tion of living organisms is executed with an inexorable and
astonishing mathematical regularity, and is the most character-
istic and essential trait of the biosphere. It occurs on the land
surfaces, penetrates all of the hydrosphere, and can be observed
in each level of the troposphere. It even penetrates the interior of
living matter, itself, in the form of parasites.71 Throughout myr-
iads of years, it accomplishes a colossal geochemical labor, and
provides. a means for both the penetration and distribution of
solar energy on our planet.
It thus not only transports matter, but also transmits energy.
The transport of matter by multiplication thus becomes a
process sui generis. It is not an ordinary, mechanical displace-
ment of the Earth's surface matter, independent of the environ-
ment in which the movement occurs. The environment resists
this movement, causing a friction analogous to that which aris-
es in the motion of matter caused by forces of electrostatic
attraction. But movement of life is connected with the environ-
ment in a deeper sense, since it can occur only through a
gaseous exchange between the moving matter and the medium
in which it moves. The more intense the exchange of gases, the
more rapid the movement, and when the exchange of gases
stops, the movement also stops. This exchange is the breathingof
organisms; and, as we shall see, it exerts a strong, controlling
influence on multiplication. Movement due to multiplication is
therefore of great geochemical importance in the mechanisms
of the biosphere and, like respiration, is a manifestation of solar
radiation.
27 Although this movement is continually taking place around
us, we hardly notice it, grasping only the general result that
nature offers us - the beauty and diversity of form, color, and
movement. We view the fields and forests with their flora and
fauna, and the lakes, seas, and soil with their abundance of life,
as though the movement did not exist. We see the static result of
the dynamic equilibrium of these movements, but only rarely
can we observe them directly.
Let us dwell then for a moment on some examples of this
movement, the creator of living nature, which plays such an
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
70 Compare this with the slogan
(first pointed out to me by Andrei
Lapo) of A. Huxley (1921):
"Everything ought to increase and
multiply as hard as It can."
69 See McMenamin and
McMenamin, 1994. for examples of
this tendency for life to expand its
realm.
60 THE BIOSPHERE
28 Arthropods (insects, ticks, mites, and spiders) form the
principal part of animal living matter on land. In tropical and
subtropical regions, the social insects - ants and termites - play
the dominant role. The geochemical energy of their multiplica-
tion (37), which occurs in a particular way,74 is only slightlyless
than that of the higher green plants themselves.
In termitaries, out of tens and sometimes hundreds of thou-
sands of individuals, only one is endowed with the power of
reproduction. This is the queen mother, who lays eggs through-
out her life without stopping, and can keep it up for ten years or
more. The number of eggs she can lay amounts to millions-
some queens have been said to laysixty eggs per minute with the
regularity of a clock ticking seconds.
Multiplication also occurs in swarms, when one part of a gen-
eration flies away, with a new queen mother, to a location out-
side the air space of the founder colony. Instinct serves, with
mathematical exactness, for the preservation of eggs instantly
carried off by workers, in the flight of swarms, and in the substi-
essential yet invisible role. From time to time, we observe the
disappearance of higher plant life from locallyrestricted areas.
Forest fires, burning steppes, plowed or abandoned fields,
newly-formed islands, solidified lava flows, land covered by vol-
canic dust or created by glaciers and fluvial basins, and newsoil
formed by lichens and mosses on rocks are all examples of phe-
nomena that, for a time, create an absence of grass and trees in
particular places. But this vacancy does not last; life quickly
regains its rights, as green grasses, and then arboreal vegetation,
reinhabit the area. The new vegetation enters partially from the
outside, through seeds carried by the wind or by mobile organ-
isms; but it also comes from the store of seeds lying latent in the
soil, sometimes for centuries.
The development of vegetation in a disturbed environment
clearly requires seeds, but even more critical is the geochemical
energy of multiplication. The speed at which equilibrium is
reestablished is a function of the transmission of geochemical
energy of higher green plants.
The careful observer can witness this movement of life, and
even sense its pressure,72 when defending his fields and open
spaces against it. In the impact of a forest on the steppe, or in a
mass of lichens moving up from the tundra to stifle a forest,73
we see the actual movement of solar energy being transformed
into the chemical energy of our planet.
THE BIOSPHERE 62
72 Here Vernadsky Injects a qualita-
tive version of his concept of the
"pressure of life."
73 Vernadsky makes aveiled refer-
ence to Kropotkln (1987) at the
beginning of this sentence. and in
the next phrase rejects the Idyllic
connotations of Kropotkln's "mutual
aid" theory. Vernadsky's materialist
leanings are quite apparent here.
Although he never to my knowledge
cites it directly, Vernadsky must
have been exposed to symblogene-
sis theory, for one of his professors
was A. S. Famlntsyn, founder of
Russian plant physiology and one of
the chief architects of symblogene
sis theory (Khakhina, 1992).
Famintsyn is best known for
demostration that photosynthesis
can take place under artificial light
(Yanshln and Yanshlna, 1988;
Yanshln and Yanshlna, 1989).
74 That is to say, by cooperative
breeding (eusociality).
tution of a new queen mother for the old one in case of untime-
ly demise. Marvelously precise laws govern the average values of
such quantities as the number of eggs, the frequency of swarms,
the numbers of individuals in a swarm, the size and weight of
individual insects, and the rate of multiplication of termites on
the Earth's surface. These values in turn condition the rate of
transmission of geochemical energy by termite motion and
expansion. Knowing the numerical constants that define these
quantities, we can assign an exact number to the pressure pro-
duced on the environment by termites.
This pressure is very high, as is well known by men required
to protect their own food supply from termitaries. Had termites
met no obstacles in their environment - especially, no opposing
forms of life - they would have been able to invade and cover
the entire surface of the biosphere in only a few years, an area of
over 5 x 10
8
square kilometers.
29 Bacteria are unique among living things. Although they are
the smallest organisms (10,4 to 10,5 cm in length), they have the
greatest rate of reproduction and the greatest power of multipli-
cation. Each divides many times in 24 hours, and the most pro-
lific can divide 63-64 times in a day, with an average interval of
only 22-23 minutes between divisions. The regularity of this
division resembles that of a female termite laying eggs or a plan-
et revolving around the sun.
Bacteria inhabit a liquid or semi-liquid environment, and are
most frequently encountered in the hydrosphere; great quanti-
ties also live in soil, and within other organisms. With no envi-
ronmental obstacles, they would be able to create huge quanti-
ties of the complex chemical compounds containing an
immense amount of chemical energy, and would be able to do it
with inconceivable speed. The energy of this reproduction is so
prodigious that bacteria could cover the globe with a thin layer
of their bodies in less than 36 hours. Green grass or insects
would require several years, or in some cases, hundreds of days.
The oceans contain nearlyspherical bacteria, with a volume of
one cubic micron. A cubic centimeter could thus contain 10
12
bacteria. At the rate of multiplication just mentioned, this num-
ber could be produced in about 12 hours,75 starting from a sin-
gle bacterium. Actually, bacteria always exist as populations
rather than as isolated individuals, and would fill a cubic cen-
timeter much more quickly.
The division process takes place at the speed mentioned when
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
75 Actually, 12-15 hours.
28 Arthropods (insects, ticks, mites, and spiders) form the
principal part of animal living matter on land. In tropical and
subtropical regions, the social insects - ants and termites - play
the dominant role. The geochemical energy of their multiplica-
tion (37), which occurs in a particular way,74 is only slightlyless
than that of the higher green plants themselves.
In termitaries, out of tens and sometimes hundreds of thou-
sands of individuals, only one is endowed with the power of
reproduction. This is the queen mother, who lays eggs through-
out her life without stopping, and can keep it up for ten years or
more. The number of eggs she can lay amounts to millions-
some queens have been said to laysixty eggs per minute with the
regularity of a clock ticking seconds.
Multiplication also occurs in swarms, when one part of a gen-
eration flies away, with a new queen mother, to a location out-
side the air space of the founder colony. Instinct serves, with
mathematical exactness, for the preservation of eggs instantly
carried off by workers, in the flight of swarms, and in the substi-
essential yet invisible role. From time to time, we observe the
disappearance of higher plant life from locallyrestricted areas.
Forest fires, burning steppes, plowed or abandoned fields,
newly-formed islands, solidified lava flows, land covered by vol-
canic dust or created by glaciers and fluvial basins, and newsoil
formed by lichens and mosses on rocks are all examples of phe-
nomena that, for a time, create an absence of grass and trees in
particular places. But this vacancy does not last; life quickly
regains its rights, as green grasses, and then arboreal vegetation,
reinhabit the area. The new vegetation enters partially from the
outside, through seeds carried by the wind or by mobile organ-
isms; but it also comes from the store of seeds lying latent in the
soil, sometimes for centuries.
The development of vegetation in a disturbed environment
clearly requires seeds, but even more critical is the geochemical
energy of multiplication. The speed at which equilibrium is
reestablished is a function of the transmission of geochemical
energy of higher green plants.
The careful observer can witness this movement of life, and
even sense its pressure,72 when defending his fields and open
spaces against it. In the impact of a forest on the steppe, or in a
mass of lichens moving up from the tundra to stifle a forest,73
we see the actual movement of solar energy being transformed
into the chemical energy of our planet.
THE BIOSPHERE 62
72 Here Vernadsky Injects a qualita-
tive version of his concept of the
"pressure of life."
73 Vernadsky makes aveiled refer-
ence to Kropotkln (1987) at the
beginning of this sentence. and in
the next phrase rejects the Idyllic
connotations of Kropotkln's "mutual
aid" theory. Vernadsky's materialist
leanings are quite apparent here.
Although he never to my knowledge
cites it directly, Vernadsky must
have been exposed to symblogene-
sis theory, for one of his professors
was A. S. Famlntsyn, founder of
Russian plant physiology and one of
the chief architects of symblogene
sis theory (Khakhina, 1992).
Famintsyn is best known for
demostration that photosynthesis
can take place under artificial light
(Yanshln and Yanshlna, 1988;
Yanshln and Yanshlna, 1989).
74 That is to say, by cooperative
breeding (eusociality).
tution of a new queen mother for the old one in case of untime-
ly demise. Marvelously precise laws govern the average values of
such quantities as the number of eggs, the frequency of swarms,
the numbers of individuals in a swarm, the size and weight of
individual insects, and the rate of multiplication of termites on
the Earth's surface. These values in turn condition the rate of
transmission of geochemical energy by termite motion and
expansion. Knowing the numerical constants that define these
quantities, we can assign an exact number to the pressure pro-
duced on the environment by termites.
This pressure is very high, as is well known by men required
to protect their own food supply from termitaries. Had termites
met no obstacles in their environment - especially, no opposing
forms of life - they would have been able to invade and cover
the entire surface of the biosphere in only a few years, an area of
over 5 x 10
8
square kilometers.
29 Bacteria are unique among living things. Although they are
the smallest organisms (10,4 to 10,5 cm in length), they have the
greatest rate of reproduction and the greatest power of multipli-
cation. Each divides many times in 24 hours, and the most pro-
lific can divide 63-64 times in a day, with an average interval of
only 22-23 minutes between divisions. The regularity of this
division resembles that of a female termite laying eggs or a plan-
et revolving around the sun.
Bacteria inhabit a liquid or semi-liquid environment, and are
most frequently encountered in the hydrosphere; great quanti-
ties also live in soil, and within other organisms. With no envi-
ronmental obstacles, they would be able to create huge quanti-
ties of the complex chemical compounds containing an
immense amount of chemical energy, and would be able to do it
with inconceivable speed. The energy of this reproduction is so
prodigious that bacteria could cover the globe with a thin layer
of their bodies in less than 36 hours. Green grass or insects
would require several years, or in some cases, hundreds of days.
The oceans contain nearlyspherical bacteria, with a volume of
one cubic micron. A cubic centimeter could thus contain 10
12
bacteria. At the rate of multiplication just mentioned, this num-
ber could be produced in about 12 hours,75 starting from a sin-
gle bacterium. Actually, bacteria always exist as populations
rather than as isolated individuals, and would fill a cubic cen-
timeter much more quickly.
The division process takes place at the speed mentioned when
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
75 Actually, 12-15 hours.
conditions are propitious. The bacterial r ~ of increase drops
with temperature, and this drop in rate is precisely predictable.
Bacteria breathe by interaction with gases dissolved in water.
A cubic centimeter of water will contain a number of gas mole-
cules much smaller than Loschmidt's number (2.7 x 10
19
), and
the number of bacteria cannot exceed that of the gas molecules
with which they are generatively connected. The multiplication
of organized beings is, therefore, limited by respiration and the
properties of the gaseous state of matter.
30 This example of bacteria points to another way of express-
ing the movement in the biosphere caused by multiplication.
Imagine the period of the Earth's history when the oceans cov-
ered the whole planet. (This is simply a conjecture which was
erroneously accepted by geologists). E. Suess
76
dates this "uni-
versal sea" or Panthalassa in the Archean Era. It was undoubted-
ly inhabited by bacteria, of which visible traces have been estab-
lished in the earliest Paleozoic strata. The character of minerals
belonging to Archean beds, and particularly their associations,
establish with certainty the presence of bacteria in all the sedi-
ments which were lithified to form Archean strata, the oldest
strata accessible to geological investigation. If the temperature
of the universal sea had been favorable, and there had been no
obstacles to multiplication, spherical bacteria (each 10-
12
cc in
volume) would have formed a continuous skin over the Earth's
approximately 5.1 x 10
8
square kilometers in less than thirty six
hours.
Extensive films, formed by bacteria, are constantly observed
in the biosphere. In the 1890'S, Professor M. A. Egounov attempt-
ed to demonstrate
77
the existence of a film of sulfurous bacteria,
on the boundary of the free oxygen surface
78
(at a depth of
about 200 meters), covering an enormous surface area,79 The
research of Professor B. 1. Isachenko,8o performed on N. M.
Knipkovitch's 1926 expedition,81 did not confirm these results;
but the phenomenon can nevertheless be observed, at a smaller
scale, in other biogeochemically dynamic areas. An example is
the junction between fresh and salt water in Lake Miortvoi
(Dead Lake)82 on Kildin Island, where the sediment-water
interface is always covered by a continuous layer of purple bac-
teria.
83
Other, somewhat larger microscopic organisms, such as
plankton, provide a more obvious example of the same kind of
phenomenon. Ocean plankton can rapidly create a film cover-
r
TIlF RIOSPIlERE
64
76 See Suess, 1883-1909. This glob-
al sea is now called Mirovia.
77 See Egounov, 1897.
78 Also called the "oxygen mini-
mum zone."
79 Based on the depth at which
Thioplaca mats on the sea floor
break up during the Austral winter
off the modern coasts of Peru and
Chile, storm wave base apparently
occurs at 60 meters water depth
(see Fossing, et.a!., 1995). These
mats can indeed be, as per M. A.
Egounov's demonstration, of great
lateral extent.
80 Boris L. Isachenko was a microbi
ologist who became heavily involved
in the Vernadskian research program.
His main interest was the propaga-
tion of microoorganisms in nature
and their role in geological process-
es, but he also did research in marine
microbiology. In 1914 he made the
first study of the microflora of the
Arctic Ocean as part of a project that
was subsequently extended to the
Sea of Japan, the Baltic Sea, the Kara
Sea, the Sea of Marmora. the Black
Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Sea of
Azov. In 1927 he did research on salt-
water lakes and medicinal muds.
Isachenko also established the role
of actinomyces in imparting an
earthy odor to water O. Scamardella,
personal communication).
81 Nikolay M. Knipkovitch was a
zoologist and ichthyologist. The
world's first oceanographic vessel,
the Andrey Pervozvannw. was built
for his oceanographic expeditions.
The voyages of 1922-27 took place
in the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea
O. Scamardella, personal
communication).
82 Vernadsky was mistaken about
the name of this lake: it is Lake
Mogilnoe (Grave Lake) (A. Lapo,
written communication).
83 See Deriugin, 1925. Vernadsky
expressed dismay that the results of
K. M. Deriugin's (1878-1936) famous
expedition remained only partly
published, and urged the Zoological
Museum of the Academy of Science
to fulfill its scientific and civic duty
to fully publish these works (see
Vernadsky, 1945, footnote 15).
ing thousands of square kilometers.
The geochemical energy of these processes can be expressed
as the speed of transmission of vital energy to the Earth's sur-
face. This speed is proportional to the intensity of multiplication
of the species under consideration. If the species were able to
populate the entire surface of the Earth, its geochemical energy
would have traversed the greatest possible distance; namely, a
great circle of Earth (equal to the length of the equator).
If the bacteria of Fischer
84
were to form a film in Suess's Pan-
thalassic. ocean, the speed of transmission of their energy along
a great CIrcle would be approximately 33,000 cm/sec., the aver-
age speed of movement around the Earth resulting from multi-
plication starting with one bacterium, for which a complete
"tour" of the globe would take slightly less than 36 hours.
The speed of transmission of life, over the maximum distance
accessible to it, will be a characteristic constant for each type of
homogenous livingmatter, specific for each species or breed. We
shall use this constant to express the geochemical activity oflife.
It expresses a characteristic both of multiplication, and of the
limits imposed by the dimensions and properties of the planet.
31 The speed of transmission of life is an expression not only of
the properties of individual organisms, or the living matter of
which they are composed, but also of their multiplication as a
planetary phenomenon within the biosphere. The size of the
planet is an integral part of any such considerations. The con-
cept of weight provides an analogy: the weight of an organism
on Earth would not be the same as it would be on Jupiter; simi-
larly, the speeds of transmission of life on Earth would be dif-
ferent from the speed observed for the same organism on
Jupiter, which has a different diameter.
32 While phenomena of multiplication have been too much
neglected bybiologists, certain almost unnoticed empirical gen-
eralizations about these phenomena have, by their repetition,
come to seem obvious. Among these are the following:
1 The multiplication ofall organisms can be expressed in
geometrical progressions. Thus,
2
nD
=N
n
where n is the number of days since the start of multiplication;
D is the ratio of progression (the number of generations
formed in 24 hours, in the case of unicellular organisms
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
84 See Fischer, 1900.
conditions are propitious. The bacterial r ~ of increase drops
with temperature, and this drop in rate is precisely predictable.
Bacteria breathe by interaction with gases dissolved in water.
A cubic centimeter of water will contain a number of gas mole-
cules much smaller than Loschmidt's number (2.7 x 10
19
), and
the number of bacteria cannot exceed that of the gas molecules
with which they are generatively connected. The multiplication
of organized beings is, therefore, limited by respiration and the
properties of the gaseous state of matter.
30 This example of bacteria points to another way of express-
ing the movement in the biosphere caused by multiplication.
Imagine the period of the Earth's history when the oceans cov-
ered the whole planet. (This is simply a conjecture which was
erroneously accepted by geologists). E. Suess
76
dates this "uni-
versal sea" or Panthalassa in the Archean Era. It was undoubted-
ly inhabited by bacteria, of which visible traces have been estab-
lished in the earliest Paleozoic strata. The character of minerals
belonging to Archean beds, and particularly their associations,
establish with certainty the presence of bacteria in all the sedi-
ments which were lithified to form Archean strata, the oldest
strata accessible to geological investigation. If the temperature
of the universal sea had been favorable, and there had been no
obstacles to multiplication, spherical bacteria (each 10-
12
cc in
volume) would have formed a continuous skin over the Earth's
approximately 5.1 x 10
8
square kilometers in less than thirty six
hours.
Extensive films, formed by bacteria, are constantly observed
in the biosphere. In the 1890'S, Professor M. A. Egounov attempt-
ed to demonstrate
77
the existence of a film of sulfurous bacteria,
on the boundary of the free oxygen surface
78
(at a depth of
about 200 meters), covering an enormous surface area,79 The
research of Professor B. 1. Isachenko,8o performed on N. M.
Knipkovitch's 1926 expedition,81 did not confirm these results;
but the phenomenon can nevertheless be observed, at a smaller
scale, in other biogeochemically dynamic areas. An example is
the junction between fresh and salt water in Lake Miortvoi
(Dead Lake)82 on Kildin Island, where the sediment-water
interface is always covered by a continuous layer of purple bac-
teria.
83
Other, somewhat larger microscopic organisms, such as
plankton, provide a more obvious example of the same kind of
phenomenon. Ocean plankton can rapidly create a film cover-
r
TIlF RIOSPIlERE
64
76 See Suess, 1883-1909. This glob-
al sea is now called Mirovia.
77 See Egounov, 1897.
78 Also called the "oxygen mini-
mum zone."
79 Based on the depth at which
Thioplaca mats on the sea floor
break up during the Austral winter
off the modern coasts of Peru and
Chile, storm wave base apparently
occurs at 60 meters water depth
(see Fossing, et.a!., 1995). These
mats can indeed be, as per M. A.
Egounov's demonstration, of great
lateral extent.
80 Boris L. Isachenko was a microbi
ologist who became heavily involved
in the Vernadskian research program.
His main interest was the propaga-
tion of microoorganisms in nature
and their role in geological process-
es, but he also did research in marine
microbiology. In 1914 he made the
first study of the microflora of the
Arctic Ocean as part of a project that
was subsequently extended to the
Sea of Japan, the Baltic Sea, the Kara
Sea, the Sea of Marmora. the Black
Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Sea of
Azov. In 1927 he did research on salt-
water lakes and medicinal muds.
Isachenko also established the role
of actinomyces in imparting an
earthy odor to water O. Scamardella,
personal communication).
81 Nikolay M. Knipkovitch was a
zoologist and ichthyologist. The
world's first oceanographic vessel,
the Andrey Pervozvannw. was built
for his oceanographic expeditions.
The voyages of 1922-27 took place
in the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea
O. Scamardella, personal
communication).
82 Vernadsky was mistaken about
the name of this lake: it is Lake
Mogilnoe (Grave Lake) (A. Lapo,
written communication).
83 See Deriugin, 1925. Vernadsky
expressed dismay that the results of
K. M. Deriugin's (1878-1936) famous
expedition remained only partly
published, and urged the Zoological
Museum of the Academy of Science
to fulfill its scientific and civic duty
to fully publish these works (see
Vernadsky, 1945, footnote 15).
ing thousands of square kilometers.
The geochemical energy of these processes can be expressed
as the speed of transmission of vital energy to the Earth's sur-
face. This speed is proportional to the intensity of multiplication
of the species under consideration. If the species were able to
populate the entire surface of the Earth, its geochemical energy
would have traversed the greatest possible distance; namely, a
great circle of Earth (equal to the length of the equator).
If the bacteria of Fischer
84
were to form a film in Suess's Pan-
thalassic. ocean, the speed of transmission of their energy along
a great CIrcle would be approximately 33,000 cm/sec., the aver-
age speed of movement around the Earth resulting from multi-
plication starting with one bacterium, for which a complete
"tour" of the globe would take slightly less than 36 hours.
The speed of transmission of life, over the maximum distance
accessible to it, will be a characteristic constant for each type of
homogenous livingmatter, specific for each species or breed. We
shall use this constant to express the geochemical activity oflife.
It expresses a characteristic both of multiplication, and of the
limits imposed by the dimensions and properties of the planet.
31 The speed of transmission of life is an expression not only of
the properties of individual organisms, or the living matter of
which they are composed, but also of their multiplication as a
planetary phenomenon within the biosphere. The size of the
planet is an integral part of any such considerations. The con-
cept of weight provides an analogy: the weight of an organism
on Earth would not be the same as it would be on Jupiter; simi-
larly, the speeds of transmission of life on Earth would be dif-
ferent from the speed observed for the same organism on
Jupiter, which has a different diameter.
32 While phenomena of multiplication have been too much
neglected bybiologists, certain almost unnoticed empirical gen-
eralizations about these phenomena have, by their repetition,
come to seem obvious. Among these are the following:
1 The multiplication ofall organisms can be expressed in
geometrical progressions. Thus,
2
nD
=N
n
where n is the number of days since the start of multiplication;
D is the ratio of progression (the number of generations
formed in 24 hours, in the case of unicellular organisms
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
84 See Fischer, 1900.
p
multiplying by division); and N
n
is the number of individuals
formed in n days. D will be characteristic for each homogenous
type of living matter (or species). The process is considered
infinite: no limits are placed upon n nor Nn in this formula.
8s
2 This potential for infinite growth is nevertheless constrained in
the biosphere because the diffusion of living matter is subject to
the law of inertia.
86
It can be accepted as empirically
demonstrated that the process of multiplication is hindered
only by external forces. It slows down at low temperatures, and
weakens or ceases in the absence of food, of gas to breathe, or
of space for the newly born.
In 185
8
, Darwin
87
and Wallace put this idea in a form
familiar to older naturalists, such as C. Linnaeus,88 G. 1. L.
Buffon,89 A. Humboldt,90 C. Goo Ehrenberg,91 and K. E. Baer,92
who had studied the same problem. If not prevented by some
external obstacle, each organism could cover the whole globe and
create aposterity equal to the mass of the ocean or the Earth's
crust or the planet itself, in a time that is different, but fixed, for
each organism.
93
3 The specific time required for this is related to the organism's
size; small and light organisms multiply more rapidly than large
and heavy ones.
33 These three empirical principles portray the phenomenon of
multiplication as it never actually occurs in nature, since life is
in fact inseparable from the biosphere and its singular condi-
tions. Corrections must be applied to the abstractions for time
and space utilized in the above formula.
34 Limitations are imposed upon all quantities that govern the
multiplication of organisms, including the maximum number
that can be created (N
max
), the geometrical progression ratio,
and the speed of transmission of life. The limits will be deter-
mined by the physical properties of the medium in which life
exists, and particularly, by the gaseous interchange between
organisms and the medium, since organisms must live in a
gaseous environment, or in a liquid containing dissolved gases.
35 The dimensions of the planet also impose limitations. The
surfaces of small ponds are often covered by floating, green veg-
etation, commonly duckweed (various species of Lemna) in our
latitudes. Duckweed may cover the surface in such a closely
packed fashion that the leaves of the small plants touch each
66
85 In other words. the number of
individuals of a population after a
given number of days is equal to
two raised to the power of the
growth ratio (the number of genera-
tions in a day) times the number of
days. The population thus increases
rather quickly if the product of the
growth ratio and the number of days
is large.
86 This is directly analogous to the
law of Inertia in physics, e. g., a
body in motion will remain In motion
until acted upon by an external
force.
87 Some orthodox practitioners
of western-style science have .
expressed "unease with Darwinism"
because it seemed tautological, in
other words, difficult to falsify
(Ruse, 1988. p. 10). From
Vernadsky's point of view, Darwin
and Wallace's discovery of natural
selection was clearly an extenstion
of earlier ideas. But Vernadsky
would have been firmly set against
the lofty position neo-darwinists
have given the role of chance in
their evolutionary schema.
According (p. 197) to Alexei M.
Ghilarov (1995):
"It is understandable, therefore,
that despite all his respect for
Darwin and Wallace, he considered
their concept to be only a general
theory of evolution (opposing cre-
ationism) rather than a fruitful
hypothesis of the origin of species
by natural selection. The ideas of
stochastic variation, undirectedness,
and unpredictability were alien views
to Vernadsky" Recall Vernadsky's
statement "chance does not exist".
88 See Linnaeus, 1759
89 See Buffon. 179
2
.
90 See Humboldt, 1859
91 See Ehrenberg, 1854
9
2
See Baer, 1828, 187
6
.
93 Here, according to A. l.
Perelman, no account Is taken of the
inner factors, the exhaustion of the
capabilities of organisms of a partic-
ular species to undergo a final pro-
gressive development (compare this
with Schindewolf's [translated 19931
concept of senescence), that might
j
other. Multiplication is hindered by lack of space, and can
resume only when empty places are made on the water surface
by external disturbances. The maximum number of duckweed
plants on the water surface is obviously determined by their
size, and once this maximum is reached, multiplication stops. A
dynamic equilibrium, not unlike the evaporation of water from
its surface, is established. The tension of water vapor and the
pressure of life
94
are analogous.
Green algae provide a universally known example of the same
process. Algae have a geochemical energy far higher than that of
duckweed and, in favorable conditions, can cover the trunks of
trees until no gaps are left (50). Multiplication is arrested, but
will resume at the first hint of available space in which to quar-
ter new, individual protococci. The maximum number of indi-
vidual algae that the surface of a tree can hold is, within a certain
margin of error, rigorously fixed.
36 These considerations can be extended to the whole of living
nature, although the carrying capacity varies over a wide range.
For duckweed or unicellular protococci, it is determined solely
by their size; other organisms require much larger surfaces or
volumes. In India, the elephant demands up to 30 square kilo-
meters; sheep in Scotland's mountain pastures require about
10,000 square meters; the average beehive needs a minimum of
10 to 15 square kilometers of leafy forest in the Ukraine (about
200 square meters for each bee); 3000 to 15,000 individual
plankton typically inhabit a liter of water; 25 to 30 square cen-
timeters is sufficient for ordinary grasses; a few square meters
(sometimes up to tens of meters) is needed for individual forest
trees.
It is evident that the speed of transmission of life depends on
the normal density ofliving matter, an important constant oflife
in the biosphere.* Although this has been little-studied, it clear-
ly applies to continuous layers of organisms, such as duckweed
or Protococcus, and also applies to a volume completely filled by
small bacteria. The concept can be extended to all organisms.
37 With respect to the limitation of multiplication imposed by
the dimensions of the planet, there is evidently a maximumfixed
distance over which the transmission oflife can take place; name-
ly, the length of the equator: 40,075,721 meters. If a species were
to inhabit the whole of the Earth's surface at its maximum den-
sity, it would attain its maximum number of individuals. We
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
lead to organic multiplication of
such species or families, in competi-
tion with other, more-progressive
species or families. Inner factors of
development have no less signifi-
cance than external vigor. The posi-
tion described by Vernadsky is, how-
ever, in agreement not only with the
biological viewpoint of his times,
but also with that which has pre-
vailed until quite recently.
94 Vernadsky's "pressure of life"
differs from Lamarck's 1802 concept
of the "power of life" (pouvoir de 10
vie; see page 92 in Lamarck, 1964).
Lamarck referred to the ability of life
to keep living matter in the living
state as a "force acting against the
tendency of compounds to separate
into their constituents" (A. V. Carozzi's
footnote 13 In Lamarck, 1964).
Vernadsky regards the pressure of
life as if he were considering a gas
obeying the laws of physics,
particularly in its tendency to expand
(Wentworth and Ladner, 1972).
Thus Vernadsky's pressurized,
expansive properties of life contrast
sharply with Lamarck's balancing
power of life. Lamarck's view has
geological antecedant in the work of
Leonardo Da Vinci, who in Folio 36r
of Codex Leicester described his
hypothesis for the relatively constant
level of sea water. Da Vinci, following
lines of thought begun by Ristoro
d' Arezzo, argued that the seas
remain at a constant level, and Earth
in balance, thanks to subterranean
waters that erode Earth's Interior,
causing caverns to collapse. But for
the collapse of caverns, sea water
would sink Into Earth (Farago, 1996).
The collapses prevent the sea from
draining completely.
By the seventeenth century the
flow of water from cloud to ocean was
better understood, leading Sachse
de Lowenheimb In his 1664 Oceanus
Macro-microcosmos to liken
hydrospheric circulation to the
circulation of blood in the human body.
Vernadsky, 1926b.
95 For example, generations per day.
96 Ven;adsky's derivation of bio-
geochemical constants, from V. I.
Vernadsky, 1926c, is as follows:
A = optimal number of generations
per day
p
multiplying by division); and N
n
is the number of individuals
formed in n days. D will be characteristic for each homogenous
type of living matter (or species). The process is considered
infinite: no limits are placed upon n nor Nn in this formula.
8s
2 This potential for infinite growth is nevertheless constrained in
the biosphere because the diffusion of living matter is subject to
the law of inertia.
86
It can be accepted as empirically
demonstrated that the process of multiplication is hindered
only by external forces. It slows down at low temperatures, and
weakens or ceases in the absence of food, of gas to breathe, or
of space for the newly born.
In 185
8
, Darwin
87
and Wallace put this idea in a form
familiar to older naturalists, such as C. Linnaeus,88 G. 1. L.
Buffon,89 A. Humboldt,90 C. Goo Ehrenberg,91 and K. E. Baer,92
who had studied the same problem. If not prevented by some
external obstacle, each organism could cover the whole globe and
create aposterity equal to the mass of the ocean or the Earth's
crust or the planet itself, in a time that is different, but fixed, for
each organism.
93
3 The specific time required for this is related to the organism's
size; small and light organisms multiply more rapidly than large
and heavy ones.
33 These three empirical principles portray the phenomenon of
multiplication as it never actually occurs in nature, since life is
in fact inseparable from the biosphere and its singular condi-
tions. Corrections must be applied to the abstractions for time
and space utilized in the above formula.
34 Limitations are imposed upon all quantities that govern the
multiplication of organisms, including the maximum number
that can be created (N
max
), the geometrical progression ratio,
and the speed of transmission of life. The limits will be deter-
mined by the physical properties of the medium in which life
exists, and particularly, by the gaseous interchange between
organisms and the medium, since organisms must live in a
gaseous environment, or in a liquid containing dissolved gases.
35 The dimensions of the planet also impose limitations. The
surfaces of small ponds are often covered by floating, green veg-
etation, commonly duckweed (various species of Lemna) in our
latitudes. Duckweed may cover the surface in such a closely
packed fashion that the leaves of the small plants touch each
66
85 In other words. the number of
individuals of a population after a
given number of days is equal to
two raised to the power of the
growth ratio (the number of genera-
tions in a day) times the number of
days. The population thus increases
rather quickly if the product of the
growth ratio and the number of days
is large.
86 This is directly analogous to the
law of Inertia in physics, e. g., a
body in motion will remain In motion
until acted upon by an external
force.
87 Some orthodox practitioners
of western-style science have .
expressed "unease with Darwinism"
because it seemed tautological, in
other words, difficult to falsify
(Ruse, 1988. p. 10). From
Vernadsky's point of view, Darwin
and Wallace's discovery of natural
selection was clearly an extenstion
of earlier ideas. But Vernadsky
would have been firmly set against
the lofty position neo-darwinists
have given the role of chance in
their evolutionary schema.
According (p. 197) to Alexei M.
Ghilarov (1995):
"It is understandable, therefore,
that despite all his respect for
Darwin and Wallace, he considered
their concept to be only a general
theory of evolution (opposing cre-
ationism) rather than a fruitful
hypothesis of the origin of species
by natural selection. The ideas of
stochastic variation, undirectedness,
and unpredictability were alien views
to Vernadsky" Recall Vernadsky's
statement "chance does not exist".
88 See Linnaeus, 1759
89 See Buffon. 179
2
.
90 See Humboldt, 1859
91 See Ehrenberg, 1854
9
2
See Baer, 1828, 187
6
.
93 Here, according to A. l.
Perelman, no account Is taken of the
inner factors, the exhaustion of the
capabilities of organisms of a partic-
ular species to undergo a final pro-
gressive development (compare this
with Schindewolf's [translated 19931
concept of senescence), that might
j
other. Multiplication is hindered by lack of space, and can
resume only when empty places are made on the water surface
by external disturbances. The maximum number of duckweed
plants on the water surface is obviously determined by their
size, and once this maximum is reached, multiplication stops. A
dynamic equilibrium, not unlike the evaporation of water from
its surface, is established. The tension of water vapor and the
pressure of life
94
are analogous.
Green algae provide a universally known example of the same
process. Algae have a geochemical energy far higher than that of
duckweed and, in favorable conditions, can cover the trunks of
trees until no gaps are left (50). Multiplication is arrested, but
will resume at the first hint of available space in which to quar-
ter new, individual protococci. The maximum number of indi-
vidual algae that the surface of a tree can hold is, within a certain
margin of error, rigorously fixed.
36 These considerations can be extended to the whole of living
nature, although the carrying capacity varies over a wide range.
For duckweed or unicellular protococci, it is determined solely
by their size; other organisms require much larger surfaces or
volumes. In India, the elephant demands up to 30 square kilo-
meters; sheep in Scotland's mountain pastures require about
10,000 square meters; the average beehive needs a minimum of
10 to 15 square kilometers of leafy forest in the Ukraine (about
200 square meters for each bee); 3000 to 15,000 individual
plankton typically inhabit a liter of water; 25 to 30 square cen-
timeters is sufficient for ordinary grasses; a few square meters
(sometimes up to tens of meters) is needed for individual forest
trees.
It is evident that the speed of transmission of life depends on
the normal density ofliving matter, an important constant oflife
in the biosphere.* Although this has been little-studied, it clear-
ly applies to continuous layers of organisms, such as duckweed
or Protococcus, and also applies to a volume completely filled by
small bacteria. The concept can be extended to all organisms.
37 With respect to the limitation of multiplication imposed by
the dimensions of the planet, there is evidently a maximumfixed
distance over which the transmission oflife can take place; name-
ly, the length of the equator: 40,075,721 meters. If a species were
to inhabit the whole of the Earth's surface at its maximum den-
sity, it would attain its maximum number of individuals. We
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
lead to organic multiplication of
such species or families, in competi-
tion with other, more-progressive
species or families. Inner factors of
development have no less signifi-
cance than external vigor. The posi-
tion described by Vernadsky is, how-
ever, in agreement not only with the
biological viewpoint of his times,
but also with that which has pre-
vailed until quite recently.
94 Vernadsky's "pressure of life"
differs from Lamarck's 1802 concept
of the "power of life" (pouvoir de 10
vie; see page 92 in Lamarck, 1964).
Lamarck referred to the ability of life
to keep living matter in the living
state as a "force acting against the
tendency of compounds to separate
into their constituents" (A. V. Carozzi's
footnote 13 In Lamarck, 1964).
Vernadsky regards the pressure of
life as if he were considering a gas
obeying the laws of physics,
particularly in its tendency to expand
(Wentworth and Ladner, 1972).
Thus Vernadsky's pressurized,
expansive properties of life contrast
sharply with Lamarck's balancing
power of life. Lamarck's view has
geological antecedant in the work of
Leonardo Da Vinci, who in Folio 36r
of Codex Leicester described his
hypothesis for the relatively constant
level of sea water. Da Vinci, following
lines of thought begun by Ristoro
d' Arezzo, argued that the seas
remain at a constant level, and Earth
in balance, thanks to subterranean
waters that erode Earth's Interior,
causing caverns to collapse. But for
the collapse of caverns, sea water
would sink Into Earth (Farago, 1996).
The collapses prevent the sea from
draining completely.
By the seventeenth century the
flow of water from cloud to ocean was
better understood, leading Sachse
de Lowenheimb In his 1664 Oceanus
Macro-microcosmos to liken
hydrospheric circulation to the
circulation of blood in the human body.
Vernadsky, 1926b.
95 For example, generations per day.
96 Ven;adsky's derivation of bio-
geochemical constants, from V. I.
Vernadsky, 1926c, is as follows:
A = optimal number of generations
per day
..
shall call this number (N
max
) the stationary numberfor homoge-
nous living matter. It. corresponds to the maximum possible
energy output of homogenous living matter - the maximum
geochemical work- and is of great importance for evaluating
the geochemical influence of life.
Each organism will reach this limiting number at a speed
which is its speed of transmission oflife, defined by the formula,
V= 139633 11
10gN
max
If the speed of transmission V remains constant, then obviously
the quantity D, which defines the intensity of multiplication
95
(32), must diminish, as the number of individuals approaches
the stationary number and the rate of multiplication slows
down.
96
38 This phenomenon was clearly enunciated 40 years ago by
Karl Semper,97 an accurate observer of living nature, who noted
that the multiplication of organisms in small ponds diminished
as the number of individuals increased. The stationary number
is not actually attained, because the process slows down as the
population increases, due to causes that may not be external.
The experiments of R. Pearl and his collaborators on Drosophi-
la and on fowls (1911-1912) confirm Semper's generalization in
other environments.
98
39 The speed of transmission of life conveys a vivid idea of the
geochemical energy of different organisms. As we have seen, it
varies widely with the size of the organism, from some 331
meters per second for bacteria (approximately the speed of
sound in air), to less than a millimeter (0.9 mm) per second for
the Indian elephant. The speeds of transmission of other organ-
isms lie between these two extreme values.
40 In order to determine the energy of life, and the work it pro-
duces in the biosphere, both the mass and velocity (or speed of
transmission) of the organism must be considered. The kinetic
geochemical energy of living matter is expressed by the formula
PV
2
h, where P is the average weight of the organism: and V is
the speed of transmission.
This formula makes it possible to determine the geochemical
work that can be performed by a given species, whenever the
surface or volume of the biosphere is known.
Attempts to find the geochemical energy of living matter per
k, = the greatest dimension (average
value) of the organism in cm
V, = the velocity of bacteria
For bacteria. take
Ii. = 64, k, = 1micron = .0001 cm.
Then:
V= 139
6
3' Ii.
, 18.71 (log,o k,)
V - 13963' (64)
,- 18.71-(-4)
V, = 39.349 cm/sec = .393 km/sec
(.393 km/secHs secH.6214 mileS/I
km) = 1.22 miles
Or, in other words, the velocity of bac;
teria on the surface of the planet
works out to be about 1.22 miles in
five seconds, assuming of course per-
fect survivorship of progeny and geo-
metric rates of population increase
(conditions which never actually occur
in nature). The 13963 multiplier in the
numerator of this formula is derived in
footnote 19 of Vernadsky, 1989.
The velocity formula used in the
above example can be explained as
follows. This velocity formula has
two forms:
The mean radius of Earth is 6.37
x 10
6
meters, and the surface area is
equal to 5.099 x 10
14
m
2
or 5.099 x
10
18
cm
2
. The base ten logarithm of
this last number equals 18.707. So,
comparing the denominators of the
two velocity formulas above,
18.707 = log,o(k,) = 10g,oN
milX
18.707 = 10g,oN
milX
+ log,o(k,)
18.707 = 10g,o(NmaJ(k,)
10
18
.707 = (k,) (log,oNmaJ
1018.707
Nmax=-k-
,
Or, to put it differently, the maximum
number of creatures equals their
average maximum dimension divid-
ed into the surface area of Earth.
97 See for example Semper, 1881.
98 See Pearl, 1912; and Semper, 1881.
* The average weight of a species,
p (the average weight of an element of
homogenous living matter),logically
should be replaced by the average
number of atoms in an individual. In
the absence of elementary chemical
analysis of organisms, this can be
calculated only in exceptional cases.
hectare
99
have been made for a long time; for example, in the
estimates of crops. Facts and theory in this regard are incom-
plete, but important empirical generalizations have been made.
One is that the quantity of organic matter per hectare is both:
1. limited, and; 2. intimately connected with the solar energy
assimilated by green plants.
It seems that, in the case of maximum yield, the quantity of
organic matter drawn from a hectare of soil is about the same as
that produced in a hectare of ocean. The numbers are nearly the
same in size, and tend to the same limit, even though soil con-
sists of a layer only a few meters thick, while the life-bearing
ocean region is measured in kilometers.
10o
The fact that this
nearly equal amount of vital energy is Created by such different
layers can be attributed to the illumination of both surfaces by
solar radiation, and probably also to characteristic properties of
soil. As we shall see, organisms that accumulate in the soil
(microbes) possess such an immense geochemical energy (155)
that this thin soil layer has a geochemical effect comparable to
that of the ocean, where the concentrations oflife are diluted in
a deep volume of water.
41 The kinetic geochemical energy PV
2
h, concentrated per
hectare, may be expressed by the following formula:
101
(
PV2) (108) (PV2) (N )
Al = -2- X K = 2(5.100
6
5 x ~ ~ 8
where 10
8
/K is the maximum number of organisms per hectare
(37); Kis the coefficient of density of life (36); N
max
is the sta-
tionary number for homogenous living matter (37); and
5.100
6
5 x 10
18
is the area of the Earth in square centimeters.
Characteristically, this quantity seems to be a constant for pro-
tozoa, for which the formula gives Al = (PV
2
h) x (10
8
/K) = a x
(3.51 x 10
12
) in CGS units. The coefficient a is approximately
*
one.
This formula shows that the kinetic geochemical energy is
determined by the velocity V, and is thus related to the organ-
ism's weight, size, and intensity of multiplication. In relation to
11, V can be expressed as
V =(4
6
,3
8
3.93) (log 2) (11) [in CGS units]t,
1870762 -log K
in which the constants are related to the size of the Earth. The
largest known value for V is 331 meters per second; and for 11,
about 63 divisions per day.102
This formula shows that the size of the planet, alone, cannot
99 A large quantity of corroborative
data for natural vegetation is found
in the book by Rodin and Basilevich,
1965.
100 Although the notion was impor-
tant to Vernadsky (possibly because
it demonstrated that the transforma-
tive power of life was as potent on
land as in the sea), this assertion
that land and sea biomass are
roughly equal is not valid. Upward
transport by vascular plants of fluid
and nutrients allows the land biota
to far outstrip the marine biota (by
approximately two orders of magni-
tude) in terms of overall biomass.
(McMenamin and McMenamin, 1993;
McMenamin and McMenamin, 1994).
Annual productivity on a per square
meter basis is about four times
greater on the land than in the sea.
101 This formula calculates the
value AI> the geochemical energy of
a particular species of organism
concentrated on a given patch of
Earth's surface area. It is calculated
by dividing the product of the geo-
chemical energy of that species
(PV2/ 2) and its maximum abun-
dance on Earth (NmaJ by the surface
area of Earth. The "2" in the denom-
inator of the final quotient is from
the denominator of PV2/ 2. The cal-
culation is an interesting and unusu-
al way to describe the bioenergetics
of organisms.
* Corresponding to the density of
protozoan protoplasm, which, by
recent measurements (see Leontiev,
1927), is about 1.05. The quicker the
multiplication, the more intense the
respiration.
t This expression V applies for all
organisms, and not just for proto-
zoans. For all other groups, such as
higher animals and plants, the expres-
sion AI has another. lesser value, as a
result of profound differences
between the metabolism and organi-
zation of complex creatures (such as
animals and plants) and unicellular
protists. I cannot here delve into
examination of these complex and
import,ant distinctions.
[Editor's note: This footnote appears
in the 1989 edition but is cryptic
because Vernadsky makes just such
a comparison in sections to follow.
Perhaps he meant that he did not
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE rOSMos
;:;'0
..
shall call this number (N
max
) the stationary numberfor homoge-
nous living matter. It. corresponds to the maximum possible
energy output of homogenous living matter - the maximum
geochemical work- and is of great importance for evaluating
the geochemical influence of life.
Each organism will reach this limiting number at a speed
which is its speed of transmission oflife, defined by the formula,
V= 139633 11
10gN
max
If the speed of transmission V remains constant, then obviously
the quantity D, which defines the intensity of multiplication
95
(32), must diminish, as the number of individuals approaches
the stationary number and the rate of multiplication slows
down.
96
38 This phenomenon was clearly enunciated 40 years ago by
Karl Semper,97 an accurate observer of living nature, who noted
that the multiplication of organisms in small ponds diminished
as the number of individuals increased. The stationary number
is not actually attained, because the process slows down as the
population increases, due to causes that may not be external.
The experiments of R. Pearl and his collaborators on Drosophi-
la and on fowls (1911-1912) confirm Semper's generalization in
other environments.
98
39 The speed of transmission of life conveys a vivid idea of the
geochemical energy of different organisms. As we have seen, it
varies widely with the size of the organism, from some 331
meters per second for bacteria (approximately the speed of
sound in air), to less than a millimeter (0.9 mm) per second for
the Indian elephant. The speeds of transmission of other organ-
isms lie between these two extreme values.
40 In order to determine the energy of life, and the work it pro-
duces in the biosphere, both the mass and velocity (or speed of
transmission) of the organism must be considered. The kinetic
geochemical energy of living matter is expressed by the formula
PV
2
h, where P is the average weight of the organism: and V is
the speed of transmission.
This formula makes it possible to determine the geochemical
work that can be performed by a given species, whenever the
surface or volume of the biosphere is known.
Attempts to find the geochemical energy of living matter per
k, = the greatest dimension (average
value) of the organism in cm
V, = the velocity of bacteria
For bacteria. take
Ii. = 64, k, = 1micron = .0001 cm.
Then:
V= 139
6
3' Ii.
, 18.71 (log,o k,)
V - 13963' (64)
,- 18.71-(-4)
V, = 39.349 cm/sec = .393 km/sec
(.393 km/secHs secH.6214 mileS/I
km) = 1.22 miles
Or, in other words, the velocity of bac;
teria on the surface of the planet
works out to be about 1.22 miles in
five seconds, assuming of course per-
fect survivorship of progeny and geo-
metric rates of population increase
(conditions which never actually occur
in nature). The 13963 multiplier in the
numerator of this formula is derived in
footnote 19 of Vernadsky, 1989.
The velocity formula used in the
above example can be explained as
follows. This velocity formula has
two forms:
The mean radius of Earth is 6.37
x 10
6
meters, and the surface area is
equal to 5.099 x 10
14
m
2
or 5.099 x
10
18
cm
2
. The base ten logarithm of
this last number equals 18.707. So,
comparing the denominators of the
two velocity formulas above,
18.707 = log,o(k,) = 10g,oN
milX
18.707 = 10g,oN
milX
+ log,o(k,)
18.707 = 10g,o(NmaJ(k,)
10
18
.707 = (k,) (log,oNmaJ
1018.707
Nmax=-k-
,
Or, to put it differently, the maximum
number of creatures equals their
average maximum dimension divid-
ed into the surface area of Earth.
97 See for example Semper, 1881.
98 See Pearl, 1912; and Semper, 1881.
* The average weight of a species,
p (the average weight of an element of
homogenous living matter),logically
should be replaced by the average
number of atoms in an individual. In
the absence of elementary chemical
analysis of organisms, this can be
calculated only in exceptional cases.
hectare
99
have been made for a long time; for example, in the
estimates of crops. Facts and theory in this regard are incom-
plete, but important empirical generalizations have been made.
One is that the quantity of organic matter per hectare is both:
1. limited, and; 2. intimately connected with the solar energy
assimilated by green plants.
It seems that, in the case of maximum yield, the quantity of
organic matter drawn from a hectare of soil is about the same as
that produced in a hectare of ocean. The numbers are nearly the
same in size, and tend to the same limit, even though soil con-
sists of a layer only a few meters thick, while the life-bearing
ocean region is measured in kilometers.
10o
The fact that this
nearly equal amount of vital energy is Created by such different
layers can be attributed to the illumination of both surfaces by
solar radiation, and probably also to characteristic properties of
soil. As we shall see, organisms that accumulate in the soil
(microbes) possess such an immense geochemical energy (155)
that this thin soil layer has a geochemical effect comparable to
that of the ocean, where the concentrations oflife are diluted in
a deep volume of water.
41 The kinetic geochemical energy PV
2
h, concentrated per
hectare, may be expressed by the following formula:
101
(
PV2) (108) (PV2) (N )
Al = -2- X K = 2(5.100
6
5 x ~ ~ 8
where 10
8
/K is the maximum number of organisms per hectare
(37); Kis the coefficient of density of life (36); N
max
is the sta-
tionary number for homogenous living matter (37); and
5.100
6
5 x 10
18
is the area of the Earth in square centimeters.
Characteristically, this quantity seems to be a constant for pro-
tozoa, for which the formula gives Al = (PV
2
h) x (10
8
/K) = a x
(3.51 x 10
12
) in CGS units. The coefficient a is approximately
*
one.
This formula shows that the kinetic geochemical energy is
determined by the velocity V, and is thus related to the organ-
ism's weight, size, and intensity of multiplication. In relation to
11, V can be expressed as
V =(4
6
,3
8
3.93) (log 2) (11) [in CGS units]t,
1870762 -log K
in which the constants are related to the size of the Earth. The
largest known value for V is 331 meters per second; and for 11,
about 63 divisions per day.102
This formula shows that the size of the planet, alone, cannot
99 A large quantity of corroborative
data for natural vegetation is found
in the book by Rodin and Basilevich,
1965.
100 Although the notion was impor-
tant to Vernadsky (possibly because
it demonstrated that the transforma-
tive power of life was as potent on
land as in the sea), this assertion
that land and sea biomass are
roughly equal is not valid. Upward
transport by vascular plants of fluid
and nutrients allows the land biota
to far outstrip the marine biota (by
approximately two orders of magni-
tude) in terms of overall biomass.
(McMenamin and McMenamin, 1993;
McMenamin and McMenamin, 1994).
Annual productivity on a per square
meter basis is about four times
greater on the land than in the sea.
101 This formula calculates the
value AI> the geochemical energy of
a particular species of organism
concentrated on a given patch of
Earth's surface area. It is calculated
by dividing the product of the geo-
chemical energy of that species
(PV2/ 2) and its maximum abun-
dance on Earth (NmaJ by the surface
area of Earth. The "2" in the denom-
inator of the final quotient is from
the denominator of PV2/ 2. The cal-
culation is an interesting and unusu-
al way to describe the bioenergetics
of organisms.
* Corresponding to the density of
protozoan protoplasm, which, by
recent measurements (see Leontiev,
1927), is about 1.05. The quicker the
multiplication, the more intense the
respiration.
t This expression V applies for all
organisms, and not just for proto-
zoans. For all other groups, such as
higher animals and plants, the expres-
sion AI has another. lesser value, as a
result of profound differences
between the metabolism and organi-
zation of complex creatures (such as
animals and plants) and unicellular
protists. I cannot here delve into
examination of these complex and
import,ant distinctions.
[Editor's note: This footnote appears
in the 1989 edition but is cryptic
because Vernadsky makes just such
a comparison in sections to follow.
Perhaps he meant that he did not
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE rOSMos
;:;'0
account for the actual limits imposed upon,V and A.. Can these
quantities attain higher values, or does the biosphere impose
limits upon them?103 An obstacle that imposes maximumvalues
upon these constants does, in fact, exist; namely, the gaseous
exchange that is essential for the life and multiplication of
organisms.
42 Organisms cannot exist without exchange of gases - respi-
ration - and the intensity of life can be judged by the rate of
gaseous exchange.
On a global scale, we must look at the general result of respi-
ration, rather than at the breathing of a single organism. The
respiration of all living organisms must be recognized as part of
the mechanism of the biosphere. There are some long-standing
empirical generalizations in this area, which have not yet been
sufficiently considered by scientists.
The first of these is that the gases of the biosphere are identical
to those created by the gaseous exchange oflivingorganisms. Only
the following gases are found in noticeable quantities in the
biosphere, namely oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water,
hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. This cannot be an accident.
The free oxygen in the biosphere is created solely by gaseous
exchange in green plants,104 and is the principal source of the
free chemical energy of the biosphere. Finally, the quantity of
free oxygen in the biosphere, equal to 1.5 x 10
21
grams (about 143
million tons
105
) is of the same order as the existing quantity of
living matter,106 independently estimated at 10
20
to 10
21
grams.
107
Such a close correspondence between terrestrial gases
and life strongly suggests
108
that the breathing of organisms has
primary importance in the gaseous system of the biosphere; in
other words, it must be aplanetary phenomenon.
43 The intensity of multiplication, and likewise the values of V
and A., cannot exceed limits imposed by properties of gases,
because they are determined by gaseous exchange. We have
already shown (29) that the number of organisms that can live
in a cubic centimeter of any medium must be less than the num-
ber of molecules of gas it contains (Loschmidt's number; 2.716 x
10
19
at standard temperature and pressure*). If the velocity V
were greater than 331 meters per second, the number of organ-
isms smaller than bacteria (i.e., with dimensions 10-
5
centime-
ters or smaller) would exceed 10
19
per cubic centimeter. Due to
respiration, the number of organisms that exchange gas mole-
Intend to thoroughly elucidate the
subject; Vernadsky, 1989].
102 This formula is derived in foot-
note 22 of Vernadsky, 1989. It is in a
sense redundant; Vernadsky
includes it as a demonstration, to
confirm for readers that the speed of
transmission of life (V) may be
expressed as a function of the gen-
erations per day (.1.), the size of the
organisms in question (K), and the
dimensions of Earth.
103 Alexei M. Ghilarov (1995)
had this (p. 200) to say about
Vernadsky's calculation:
"Vernadsky claimed that the rate
of natural increase and dispersal of
any organism must be related to the
area of the Earth's surface, to the
length of the equator, to the dura-
tion of one rotation of the Earth on
its axis, and other planetary charac-
teristics. ... Emphasizing that "all
organisms live on the Earth in
restricted space which is of the
same size for all of them" Vernadsky
.... simply implies that all organ-
isms inhabit a common planet of a
finite size [italics his]."
But Ghilarov misses the main
point of Vernadsky's mathematical
demonstration. For Vernadsky, the
size of Earth is invariant. The main
variables, which are constant for any
species, are .1. (often expressed in
generations per day) and K(the
organism's size). So the only thing
that truly varies, and thus deter-
mines the geochemical energy and
the velocity or speed of transmis-
sion of life, is an organism's respira-
tory rate (the rate of exchange of
gases in air or as dissolved gases in
water). For Vernadsky, respiration is
the key to understanding any
species of organisms, for respiration
is the fundamental process linking
the organism to the rest of the bios-
phere. An organism's respiring sur-
faces represent the interface across
which liVing matter and bio-inert
matter interact.
104 In 1856 C. Koene [citation
unknown) hypothesized that atmos-
pheric oxygen was the result of pho-
tosynthesis. Vernadsky gave this idea
special attention, and from the per-
spective of geochemistry (Voitkevich,
Miroshnlkov, Povarennykh,
Prokhorov, 1970). The Keene hypothe-
sis was accepted without much com-
cules would have to increase as their individual dimensions
decreased. As their dimensions approached that of molecules,
the speed would rise to improbable values and become physi-
cally absurd.
Breathing clearly controls the whole process of multiplication
on the Earth's surface. It establishes mutual connections
between the numbers of organisms of differing fecundity, and
determines, in a manner analogous to temperature, the value of
A. that an organism of given dimensions can attain. Limitations
to the ability to respire are the primary impediment to the
attainment of maximum population density.
Within the biosphere, there is a desperate struggle among bios-
pheric organisms, not onlyfor food, but also for air; and the strug-
glefor the latter is the more essential, for it controls multiplication.
Thus respiration (or breathing) controls maximal possible geo-
chemical energy transfer per hectare surface area.
44 On the scale of the biosphere, the effect of gaseous exchange
and the multiplication it controls is immense. Inert matter
exhibits nothing even remotely analogous, since any living mat-
ter can produce an unlimited quantity of newliving matter.
The weight of the biosphere is not known, but it is certainly
only a tiny fraction of the total weight of the Earth's crust (or
even of the 16-20 kilometers that participate in geochemical
cycles accessible to direct study) (78). The weight of the top 16
kilometers is 2 X 10
25
grams, but if there were no environmental
obstacles, a much larger amount ofliving matter could be creat-
ed by multiplication in a negligible span of geological time. The
cholera vibrio and the bacterium E. coli could yield the above
mass in 1.6 to 1.75 days. The green diatom Nitzchia putrida, a
mixotrophic organism of marine slimes which consumes
decomposed organic matter and also uses solar radiation in its
chloroplasts, could produce 2 x 10
25
grams in 24.5 days. (This is
one of the fastest growing organisms, possiblybecause it utilizes
already existing organic matter. )
The Indian elephant, having one of the slowest multiplication
rates, could produce the same quantity of matter in 1300 years, a
short moment in the scale of geological time. Further along the
growth curve, of course, the elephant could produce the same
mass in days.109
45 Obviously, no organism produces such quantities of matter
in the real world. There is nothing fantastic, however, about dis-
plaint since it was known that plants
release (see Van Hise, 19
0
4,
p. 949; It IS suspected that aconsid-
erable percentage of the oxygen now
in the atmosphere could be thus be
accounted for" [i.e., by photosynthe_
sis)), but Vernadsky was the first to
demonstrate the biogenic origin of
atmospheric oxygen in its global
entirety (Vernadsky, 1935; see also
Oparin, 1957, p. 157). For adiscussion
of the current status of the problem
see Molchanov and Pazaev, 1996.
[The citation for Koene, 1856, and
few others noted in the text else-
where, have not been located. If
anyone reading this text is familiar
with this or other unknown or
incomplete citations noted, please
provide the information to the pub-
lisher, Peter N. Nevraumont,
Nevraumont Publishing Company,
16 East 23rd Street, New York, New
York 10010, and it will be included in
future editions.)
105 The current estimate for the
mass of the atmosphere is 5 x 10
24
grams. Multiplying this value by the
weight percent of oxygen in the
atmosphere (22.87% of atmospheric
mass assuming 2% by volume water
vapor in air; see Gross, 1982; and
Levine, 1985) gives an atmospheric
oxygen content of 1.143 x 10
24
grams. Vernadsky's value is too low
by at least three orders of magni-
tude. He must have badly underesti-
mated the mass of the atmosphere.
106 It is difficult to verify or reject
Vernadsky's assertion here. The
total biomass of Earth is still poorly
known, as a result of uncertainties
as to the total biomass of
subterranean bacteria.
107 According to recent data, the
total biomass of Earth averages 7.5
x 10
17
grams of organic carbon
(Romankevich, 1988). Vernadsky
apparently meant total biomass,
whereas Romankevich's data
include only organic carbon.
108 Because of the vast amount of
free oxygen in the atmosphere.
live in a gaseous environ-
ment having this number of mole-
cules at 0 and 760 mm pressure. In
the presence of bacteria, the number
of gaseous molecules must be less. A
cubic centimeter of liquid containing
TIiF RlnPIlFRF
70 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
'71
account for the actual limits imposed upon,V and A.. Can these
quantities attain higher values, or does the biosphere impose
limits upon them?103 An obstacle that imposes maximumvalues
upon these constants does, in fact, exist; namely, the gaseous
exchange that is essential for the life and multiplication of
organisms.
42 Organisms cannot exist without exchange of gases - respi-
ration - and the intensity of life can be judged by the rate of
gaseous exchange.
On a global scale, we must look at the general result of respi-
ration, rather than at the breathing of a single organism. The
respiration of all living organisms must be recognized as part of
the mechanism of the biosphere. There are some long-standing
empirical generalizations in this area, which have not yet been
sufficiently considered by scientists.
The first of these is that the gases of the biosphere are identical
to those created by the gaseous exchange oflivingorganisms. Only
the following gases are found in noticeable quantities in the
biosphere, namely oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water,
hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. This cannot be an accident.
The free oxygen in the biosphere is created solely by gaseous
exchange in green plants,104 and is the principal source of the
free chemical energy of the biosphere. Finally, the quantity of
free oxygen in the biosphere, equal to 1.5 x 10
21
grams (about 143
million tons
105
) is of the same order as the existing quantity of
living matter,106 independently estimated at 10
20
to 10
21
grams.
107
Such a close correspondence between terrestrial gases
and life strongly suggests
108
that the breathing of organisms has
primary importance in the gaseous system of the biosphere; in
other words, it must be aplanetary phenomenon.
43 The intensity of multiplication, and likewise the values of V
and A., cannot exceed limits imposed by properties of gases,
because they are determined by gaseous exchange. We have
already shown (29) that the number of organisms that can live
in a cubic centimeter of any medium must be less than the num-
ber of molecules of gas it contains (Loschmidt's number; 2.716 x
10
19
at standard temperature and pressure*). If the velocity V
were greater than 331 meters per second, the number of organ-
isms smaller than bacteria (i.e., with dimensions 10-
5
centime-
ters or smaller) would exceed 10
19
per cubic centimeter. Due to
respiration, the number of organisms that exchange gas mole-
Intend to thoroughly elucidate the
subject; Vernadsky, 1989].
102 This formula is derived in foot-
note 22 of Vernadsky, 1989. It is in a
sense redundant; Vernadsky
includes it as a demonstration, to
confirm for readers that the speed of
transmission of life (V) may be
expressed as a function of the gen-
erations per day (.1.), the size of the
organisms in question (K), and the
dimensions of Earth.
103 Alexei M. Ghilarov (1995)
had this (p. 200) to say about
Vernadsky's calculation:
"Vernadsky claimed that the rate
of natural increase and dispersal of
any organism must be related to the
area of the Earth's surface, to the
length of the equator, to the dura-
tion of one rotation of the Earth on
its axis, and other planetary charac-
teristics. ... Emphasizing that "all
organisms live on the Earth in
restricted space which is of the
same size for all of them" Vernadsky
.... simply implies that all organ-
isms inhabit a common planet of a
finite size [italics his]."
But Ghilarov misses the main
point of Vernadsky's mathematical
demonstration. For Vernadsky, the
size of Earth is invariant. The main
variables, which are constant for any
species, are .1. (often expressed in
generations per day) and K(the
organism's size). So the only thing
that truly varies, and thus deter-
mines the geochemical energy and
the velocity or speed of transmis-
sion of life, is an organism's respira-
tory rate (the rate of exchange of
gases in air or as dissolved gases in
water). For Vernadsky, respiration is
the key to understanding any
species of organisms, for respiration
is the fundamental process linking
the organism to the rest of the bios-
phere. An organism's respiring sur-
faces represent the interface across
which liVing matter and bio-inert
matter interact.
104 In 1856 C. Koene [citation
unknown) hypothesized that atmos-
pheric oxygen was the result of pho-
tosynthesis. Vernadsky gave this idea
special attention, and from the per-
spective of geochemistry (Voitkevich,
Miroshnlkov, Povarennykh,
Prokhorov, 1970). The Keene hypothe-
sis was accepted without much com-
cules would have to increase as their individual dimensions
decreased. As their dimensions approached that of molecules,
the speed would rise to improbable values and become physi-
cally absurd.
Breathing clearly controls the whole process of multiplication
on the Earth's surface. It establishes mutual connections
between the numbers of organisms of differing fecundity, and
determines, in a manner analogous to temperature, the value of
A. that an organism of given dimensions can attain. Limitations
to the ability to respire are the primary impediment to the
attainment of maximum population density.
Within the biosphere, there is a desperate struggle among bios-
pheric organisms, not onlyfor food, but also for air; and the strug-
glefor the latter is the more essential, for it controls multiplication.
Thus respiration (or breathing) controls maximal possible geo-
chemical energy transfer per hectare surface area.
44 On the scale of the biosphere, the effect of gaseous exchange
and the multiplication it controls is immense. Inert matter
exhibits nothing even remotely analogous, since any living mat-
ter can produce an unlimited quantity of newliving matter.
The weight of the biosphere is not known, but it is certainly
only a tiny fraction of the total weight of the Earth's crust (or
even of the 16-20 kilometers that participate in geochemical
cycles accessible to direct study) (78). The weight of the top 16
kilometers is 2 X 10
25
grams, but if there were no environmental
obstacles, a much larger amount ofliving matter could be creat-
ed by multiplication in a negligible span of geological time. The
cholera vibrio and the bacterium E. coli could yield the above
mass in 1.6 to 1.75 days. The green diatom Nitzchia putrida, a
mixotrophic organism of marine slimes which consumes
decomposed organic matter and also uses solar radiation in its
chloroplasts, could produce 2 x 10
25
grams in 24.5 days. (This is
one of the fastest growing organisms, possiblybecause it utilizes
already existing organic matter. )
The Indian elephant, having one of the slowest multiplication
rates, could produce the same quantity of matter in 1300 years, a
short moment in the scale of geological time. Further along the
growth curve, of course, the elephant could produce the same
mass in days.109
45 Obviously, no organism produces such quantities of matter
in the real world. There is nothing fantastic, however, about dis-
plaint since it was known that plants
release (see Van Hise, 19
0
4,
p. 949; It IS suspected that aconsid-
erable percentage of the oxygen now
in the atmosphere could be thus be
accounted for" [i.e., by photosynthe_
sis)), but Vernadsky was the first to
demonstrate the biogenic origin of
atmospheric oxygen in its global
entirety (Vernadsky, 1935; see also
Oparin, 1957, p. 157). For adiscussion
of the current status of the problem
see Molchanov and Pazaev, 1996.
[The citation for Koene, 1856, and
few others noted in the text else-
where, have not been located. If
anyone reading this text is familiar
with this or other unknown or
incomplete citations noted, please
provide the information to the pub-
lisher, Peter N. Nevraumont,
Nevraumont Publishing Company,
16 East 23rd Street, New York, New
York 10010, and it will be included in
future editions.)
105 The current estimate for the
mass of the atmosphere is 5 x 10
24
grams. Multiplying this value by the
weight percent of oxygen in the
atmosphere (22.87% of atmospheric
mass assuming 2% by volume water
vapor in air; see Gross, 1982; and
Levine, 1985) gives an atmospheric
oxygen content of 1.143 x 10
24
grams. Vernadsky's value is too low
by at least three orders of magni-
tude. He must have badly underesti-
mated the mass of the atmosphere.
106 It is difficult to verify or reject
Vernadsky's assertion here. The
total biomass of Earth is still poorly
known, as a result of uncertainties
as to the total biomass of
subterranean bacteria.
107 According to recent data, the
total biomass of Earth averages 7.5
x 10
17
grams of organic carbon
(Romankevich, 1988). Vernadsky
apparently meant total biomass,
whereas Romankevich's data
include only organic carbon.
108 Because of the vast amount of
free oxygen in the atmosphere.
live in a gaseous environ-
ment having this number of mole-
cules at 0 and 760 mm pressure. In
the presence of bacteria, the number
of gaseous molecules must be less. A
cubic centimeter of liquid containing
TIiF RlnPIlFRF
70 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
'71
,..,
placements of mass of this order resulting from multiplication
in the biosphere. Exceptionally large masses of organisms are
actually observed in nature. There is no doubt that life creates
matter at a rate several times greater than 10
25
grams per year.
110
The biosphere's 10
20
to 10
21
grams of living matter is incessantly
moving, decomposing, and reforming. The chief factor in this
process is not growth, but multiplication. Newgenerations, born
at intervals ranging from tens of minutes to hundreds of years,
renew the substances that have been incorporated into life.
Because enormous amounts of living matter are created and
decomposed every 24 hours, the quantity which exists at any
moment is but an insignificant fraction of the total created in a
year.
It is hard for the mind to grasp the colossal amounts of living
matter that are created, and that decompose, each day, in a vast
dynamic equilibrium of death, birth, metabolism, and growth.
Who can calculate the number of individuals continually being
born and dying? It is more difficult than Archimedes' problem
of counting grains of sand- how can they be counted when
their number varies and grows with time? The number that
exists, in a time brief by human standards, certainly exceeds the
grains of sand in the sea by a factor of more than 10
25
.
Photosynthetic Living Matter
46 The amount of living matter in the biosphere (10
20
to 10
21
grams) does not seem excessively large, when its power of mul-
tiplication and geochemical energy are considered.
All this matter is generatively connected with the living green
organisms that capture the sun's energy. The current state of
knowledge does not allow us to calculate the fraction of aliliv-
ing matter that consists of green plants, but estimates can be
made. While it is not certain that green living matter predomi-
nates on the Earth as a whole, it does seem to do so on land.
111
It is generally accepted that animal life predominates (in vol-
ume) in the ocean. But even if heterotrophic animal life should
be found to be the greater part of all living matter, its predomi-
nance cannot be large.
Are the two parts of living matter - photoautotrophic and
heterotrophic - nearly equal in weight? This question cannot
now be answered,112 but it can be said that estimates of the
weight of green matter, alone, give values of 10
20
to 10
21
grams,
which are the same in order of magnitude as estimates for living
matter in toto.
72
microbes must contain fewer than
10
19
molecules; it cannot at the same
time contain a like number of
microbes.
109 An interesting comparison (sug-
gested by Peter N. Nevraumont) may
be made between Vernadsky's and
Darwin's interpretation of the rate
of increase of elephants, the
slowest breeding animals. Whereas
Vernadsky emphasized the biogeo-
logical accumulation of a quantity of
elephant "matter," Darwin empha
sized the geometrical rate of increase
in the number of individual elephants
in the struggle for existence, calculat-
ing that within 740-750 years a single
breeding female could theoretically.
produce nineteen million offspring
(Darwin, 1963, P.51).
110 Recent calculations show the
total biomass production of Earth
averages 1.2 x 10
17
grams of organic
carbon per year (Romankevich,
1988; Schlesinger 1991). In energetic
terms, solar energy is fixed in plants
by photsynthesis at a net rate of
about 133 TW (10
12
W; see Lovins,
Lovins, Krause, and Bach, 1981).
111 On land, the total biomass of
autotrophs is nearly a hundred
times as large as the biomass of het-
erotrophs (738 x 10
15
versus 8.10 x
10
15
, respectively). See
Romankevich, 1988.
112 The present answer to this
question would be "no." Total pho-
toautotrophic biomass on Earth is
740 x 10
15
grams of organic carbon,
whereas total heterotrophic biomass
is only about 10 x 10
15
grams of
organic carbon. See Romankevich,
1988; and Schlesinger 1991.
47 Solar energy transformers on land are structured quite dif-
ferently from those in the sea. On dry land, phanerogamous,113
herbaceous plants predominate. Trees probably represent the
greatest fraction, by weight, of this vegetation; green algae and
other cryptogamous plants (principally protista) represent the
smallest fraction. In the ocean, microscopic, unicellular green
organisms predominate; grasses like Zostera and large algae
constitute a smaller portion of green vegetation, and are con-
centrated along shores in shallow areas accessible to sunlight.
Floating masses of them, like those in the Sargasso Sea, are lost
in the immensity of the oceans.
Green metaphytes
114
predominate on land; in this group, the
grasses multiply at the greatest speed and possess the greatest
geochemical energy, whereas trees appear to have a lower veloc-
ity. In the ocean, green protista have the highest velocity.
The speed of transmission v, for metaphytes, probably does
not exceed a few centimeters per second. Green protista have a
speed of thousands of centimeters per second, besting the meta-
~ h y t s byhundreds of times with regard to power ofmultiplica-
hon, and clearly demonstrating the difference between marine
and terrestrial life. Although green life is perhaps less dominant
in the sea than on the soil, the total mass of green life in the
ocean exceeds that on land because of the larger size of the
?cean itself. The green protista of the ocean are the major agents
In the transformation of luminous solar energy into chemical
energy on our planet,11s
48 The energetic character of green vegetation can be
expressed quantitatively in a way that shows the distinction
between green life on land and in the sea. The formula Nn = n ~
gives the growth (u) of an organism in 24 hours due to multi-
plication. If we start with a single organism (n =1 on the first
day), we shall have:
~ -1 = U
~ =U +1 and n ~ =(u +1)n
The quantity a is a constant for each species; it is the number of
individuals that will grow in 24 hours starting from a single
organism. The magnitude (u +1)n is the number of individuals
created by multiplication on the nth day: (u +1)n =Nn.
The following example shows the significance of these num-
bers. The average multiplication of plankton, according to
Lohmann, can be expressed by the constant (u + 1) =1.
2
996,
taking into account the destruction and assimilation of the
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
113 That is, those with visible repro-
ductive organs such as flowers and
cones.
114 Land plants, members of king-
dom Plantae.
115 Vernadsky's assertions here
have not been borne out. The mass
of photoautotrophs on land (738 x
10
15
grams of organic carbon) vastly
outweighs the mass of photoau-
totrophs in the sea (1.7 x 10
15
grams
of organic carbon) (Romankevich,
19
88
). This discrepancy has recently
been attributed to upward nutrient
transport by vascular plants on land
(McMenamin and McMenamin,
1994).
,..,
placements of mass of this order resulting from multiplication
in the biosphere. Exceptionally large masses of organisms are
actually observed in nature. There is no doubt that life creates
matter at a rate several times greater than 10
25
grams per year.
110
The biosphere's 10
20
to 10
21
grams of living matter is incessantly
moving, decomposing, and reforming. The chief factor in this
process is not growth, but multiplication. Newgenerations, born
at intervals ranging from tens of minutes to hundreds of years,
renew the substances that have been incorporated into life.
Because enormous amounts of living matter are created and
decomposed every 24 hours, the quantity which exists at any
moment is but an insignificant fraction of the total created in a
year.
It is hard for the mind to grasp the colossal amounts of living
matter that are created, and that decompose, each day, in a vast
dynamic equilibrium of death, birth, metabolism, and growth.
Who can calculate the number of individuals continually being
born and dying? It is more difficult than Archimedes' problem
of counting grains of sand- how can they be counted when
their number varies and grows with time? The number that
exists, in a time brief by human standards, certainly exceeds the
grains of sand in the sea by a factor of more than 10
25
.
Photosynthetic Living Matter
46 The amount of living matter in the biosphere (10
20
to 10
21
grams) does not seem excessively large, when its power of mul-
tiplication and geochemical energy are considered.
All this matter is generatively connected with the living green
organisms that capture the sun's energy. The current state of
knowledge does not allow us to calculate the fraction of aliliv-
ing matter that consists of green plants, but estimates can be
made. While it is not certain that green living matter predomi-
nates on the Earth as a whole, it does seem to do so on land.
111
It is generally accepted that animal life predominates (in vol-
ume) in the ocean. But even if heterotrophic animal life should
be found to be the greater part of all living matter, its predomi-
nance cannot be large.
Are the two parts of living matter - photoautotrophic and
heterotrophic - nearly equal in weight? This question cannot
now be answered,112 but it can be said that estimates of the
weight of green matter, alone, give values of 10
20
to 10
21
grams,
which are the same in order of magnitude as estimates for living
matter in toto.
72
microbes must contain fewer than
10
19
molecules; it cannot at the same
time contain a like number of
microbes.
109 An interesting comparison (sug-
gested by Peter N. Nevraumont) may
be made between Vernadsky's and
Darwin's interpretation of the rate
of increase of elephants, the
slowest breeding animals. Whereas
Vernadsky emphasized the biogeo-
logical accumulation of a quantity of
elephant "matter," Darwin empha
sized the geometrical rate of increase
in the number of individual elephants
in the struggle for existence, calculat-
ing that within 740-750 years a single
breeding female could theoretically.
produce nineteen million offspring
(Darwin, 1963, P.51).
110 Recent calculations show the
total biomass production of Earth
averages 1.2 x 10
17
grams of organic
carbon per year (Romankevich,
1988; Schlesinger 1991). In energetic
terms, solar energy is fixed in plants
by photsynthesis at a net rate of
about 133 TW (10
12
W; see Lovins,
Lovins, Krause, and Bach, 1981).
111 On land, the total biomass of
autotrophs is nearly a hundred
times as large as the biomass of het-
erotrophs (738 x 10
15
versus 8.10 x
10
15
, respectively). See
Romankevich, 1988.
112 The present answer to this
question would be "no." Total pho-
toautotrophic biomass on Earth is
740 x 10
15
grams of organic carbon,
whereas total heterotrophic biomass
is only about 10 x 10
15
grams of
organic carbon. See Romankevich,
1988; and Schlesinger 1991.
47 Solar energy transformers on land are structured quite dif-
ferently from those in the sea. On dry land, phanerogamous,113
herbaceous plants predominate. Trees probably represent the
greatest fraction, by weight, of this vegetation; green algae and
other cryptogamous plants (principally protista) represent the
smallest fraction. In the ocean, microscopic, unicellular green
organisms predominate; grasses like Zostera and large algae
constitute a smaller portion of green vegetation, and are con-
centrated along shores in shallow areas accessible to sunlight.
Floating masses of them, like those in the Sargasso Sea, are lost
in the immensity of the oceans.
Green metaphytes
114
predominate on land; in this group, the
grasses multiply at the greatest speed and possess the greatest
geochemical energy, whereas trees appear to have a lower veloc-
ity. In the ocean, green protista have the highest velocity.
The speed of transmission v, for metaphytes, probably does
not exceed a few centimeters per second. Green protista have a
speed of thousands of centimeters per second, besting the meta-
~ h y t s byhundreds of times with regard to power ofmultiplica-
hon, and clearly demonstrating the difference between marine
and terrestrial life. Although green life is perhaps less dominant
in the sea than on the soil, the total mass of green life in the
ocean exceeds that on land because of the larger size of the
?cean itself. The green protista of the ocean are the major agents
In the transformation of luminous solar energy into chemical
energy on our planet,11s
48 The energetic character of green vegetation can be
expressed quantitatively in a way that shows the distinction
between green life on land and in the sea. The formula Nn = n ~
gives the growth (u) of an organism in 24 hours due to multi-
plication. If we start with a single organism (n =1 on the first
day), we shall have:
~ -1 = U
~ =U +1 and n ~ =(u +1)n
The quantity a is a constant for each species; it is the number of
individuals that will grow in 24 hours starting from a single
organism. The magnitude (u +1)n is the number of individuals
created by multiplication on the nth day: (u +1)n =Nn.
The following example shows the significance of these num-
bers. The average multiplication of plankton, according to
Lohmann, can be expressed by the constant (u + 1) =1.
2
996,
taking into account the destruction and assimilation of the
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
113 That is, those with visible repro-
ductive organs such as flowers and
cones.
114 Land plants, members of king-
dom Plantae.
115 Vernadsky's assertions here
have not been borne out. The mass
of photoautotrophs on land (738 x
10
15
grams of organic carbon) vastly
outweighs the mass of photoau-
totrophs in the sea (1.7 x 10
15
grams
of organic carbon) (Romankevich,
19
88
). This discrepancy has recently
been attributed to upward nutrient
transport by vascular plants on land
(McMenamin and McMenamin,
1994).
plankton by other organisms. The same constant for an average
crop of wheat in France is 1.0130. These numbers correspond to
the ideal average values for wheat or plankton after 24 hours of
multiplication. So the ratio of the number of plankton individ-
uals to those of wheat is
1.299
6
=1.2829 =0
1.0130
This ratio is multiplied every 24 hours by 0, being on after n days.
On the 20th day, the value would be 145.8; on the hundredth,
the number of plankton would exceed that of wheat plants by a
factor of 6.28 x 10. After a year, neglecting the fact that the mul-
tiplication of wheat is arrested for several months, the ratio of
the populations (0
365
) attains the astronomical figure of 3-l x
10
39
. The initial difference between the full-grown herbaceous
plant (weighing tens of grams) and the microscopic plankton
(weighing 10-
10
to 10-
6
grams) is dwarfed by the difference in
intensity of multiplication.
The green world of the ocean gives a similar result, due to the
speed of circulation of its matter.
116
The force of solar radiation
allows it to create a mass equivalent inweight to the Earth's crust
(44) in 70 days or less. Herbaceous vegetation on land would
require years to produce this quantity of matter - in the case of
Solanum nigrum, for example, five years.
These figures, of course, do not give a correct perspective of
the relative roles of herbaceous vegetation and green plankton
in the biosphere, because in this method of comparison the dif-
ference grows enormouslywith time. In the five-year span men-
tioned above for Solanum nigrum, for example, the amount of
green plankton that could be produced would be hard to
express in conceivable figures.
49 It is not accidental that living green matter on land differs
from that in the sea, because the action of solar radiation in a
transparent, liquid medium is not the same as on solid, opaque
Earth. The world of plankton controls geochemical effects in the
oceans, and also on land wherever aqueous life exists.
The difference in energy possessed by these two kinds of liv-
ing matter is represented by the quantity on, and also by the
mass (m) of the individuals created. This mass is determined by
the product of the number of individuals created, and their
average weight (P): m =P(l + u)n. Small organisms would have
the advantage over large ones, energetically-speaking, only if
they really could produce a larger mass in the biosphere.
116 The point, then, of the
immediately preceding mathematical
calculations is that differences in the
Intensity of multiplication between
complex, larger organisms and
smaller ones (differences which grow
astronomically large with passage
of time) are a direct result of the
differing relative respiratory surfaces
of large and small organisms,
respectively. Smaller organisms have
a much greater surface to volume
ratio (and hence greater respiratory
surface area to volume ratio) in
comparison to larger, more complex
organisms. This accounts for, all
other things being equal, the
disparity between large and small
organisms in their velocity or speed .
oftransmission (V), and then of
course the much greater disparity
(because it is calculated using the
square of V) between their
respective geochemical energies
(PV2{z).ln comparisons of this sort,
the microbes outperform more
complex organisms by an
overwhelming margin, assuming
they are able to create sufficient
biomass. Vernadsky thus provides
the quantification required for
comparisons of geochemical energy
between species.
Any system reaches a stable equilibrium when its free energy
is reduced to a minimum under the given conditions; that is,
when all work possible in these conditions is being produced.
All processes, of both the biosphere and the crust, are deter-
mined by conditions of equilibrium in the mechanical systemof
which they are a part.
117
Solar radiation and the living green matter of the biosphere,
taken together, constitute a systemof this kind. When solar radi-
ation has produced the maximum work, and created the great-
est possible mass of green organisms, this system has reached a
stable equilibrium.
Since solar radiation cannot penetrate deeply into solid earth,
the layer of green matter it creates there is limited in thickness.
The environment gives all the advantages to large plants,
grasses and trees as compared to green protista. The former cre-
ate a larger quantity of living matter, although they take a longer
time to do it. Unicellular organisms can produce only a very thin
layer of living matter on the land surface, and soon reach a sta-
tionary state (37) at the limits of their development. In the sys-
tem of solar radiation and solid earth taken as a whole, unicel-
lular organisms are an unstable form,118 because herbaceous
and wooded vegetation, in spite of their smaller reserve of geo-
chemical energy, can produce much more work, and a greater
quantity of living matter.
50 The effects of this are seen everywhere. In early spring, when
life awakens, the steppe becomes covered in a few days by a thin
layer of unicellular algae (chieflylarger cyanobacteria and algae
such as Nostoc). This green coating develops rapidly, but soon
disappears, making room for the slower-growing herbaceous
plants. Due to the properties of the opaque earth, the grass takes
the upper hand, although the Nostoc has more geochemical
energy. Everywhere, tree bark, stones, and soil are rapidly cov-
ered by fast-developing Protococcus. In damp weather, these
change in only a few hours from cells weighing millionths of a
milligram into living masses weighing decigrams or grams. But
even in the most favorable conditions, their development soon
stops. As in Holland's sycamore groves, tree trunks are covered
by a continuous layer of Protococcus in stable equilibrium, fur-
ther development of which is arrested by the opacity of the mat-
ter on which they live. The fate of their aqueous cousins, freely
developing in a transparent medium hundreds of meters deep,
is quite different.
117 Vernadsky offers here a
plausible explanation for the
stability of Earth's climate; it
represents a minimum energy
configuration. See McMenamin,
1997
b
.
118 Vernadsky is saying here that
unicellular organisms reach a stable
state only in the absence of
competing large plants, as might
have been the case during the
Precambrian. Large plants today
prevent the microbes from reaching
this stable or stationary state.
7A
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS 75
plankton by other organisms. The same constant for an average
crop of wheat in France is 1.0130. These numbers correspond to
the ideal average values for wheat or plankton after 24 hours of
multiplication. So the ratio of the number of plankton individ-
uals to those of wheat is
1.299
6
=1.2829 =0
1.0130
This ratio is multiplied every 24 hours by 0, being on after n days.
On the 20th day, the value would be 145.8; on the hundredth,
the number of plankton would exceed that of wheat plants by a
factor of 6.28 x 10. After a year, neglecting the fact that the mul-
tiplication of wheat is arrested for several months, the ratio of
the populations (0
365
) attains the astronomical figure of 3-l x
10
39
. The initial difference between the full-grown herbaceous
plant (weighing tens of grams) and the microscopic plankton
(weighing 10-
10
to 10-
6
grams) is dwarfed by the difference in
intensity of multiplication.
The green world of the ocean gives a similar result, due to the
speed of circulation of its matter.
116
The force of solar radiation
allows it to create a mass equivalent inweight to the Earth's crust
(44) in 70 days or less. Herbaceous vegetation on land would
require years to produce this quantity of matter - in the case of
Solanum nigrum, for example, five years.
These figures, of course, do not give a correct perspective of
the relative roles of herbaceous vegetation and green plankton
in the biosphere, because in this method of comparison the dif-
ference grows enormouslywith time. In the five-year span men-
tioned above for Solanum nigrum, for example, the amount of
green plankton that could be produced would be hard to
express in conceivable figures.
49 It is not accidental that living green matter on land differs
from that in the sea, because the action of solar radiation in a
transparent, liquid medium is not the same as on solid, opaque
Earth. The world of plankton controls geochemical effects in the
oceans, and also on land wherever aqueous life exists.
The difference in energy possessed by these two kinds of liv-
ing matter is represented by the quantity on, and also by the
mass (m) of the individuals created. This mass is determined by
the product of the number of individuals created, and their
average weight (P): m =P(l + u)n. Small organisms would have
the advantage over large ones, energetically-speaking, only if
they really could produce a larger mass in the biosphere.
116 The point, then, of the
immediately preceding mathematical
calculations is that differences in the
Intensity of multiplication between
complex, larger organisms and
smaller ones (differences which grow
astronomically large with passage
of time) are a direct result of the
differing relative respiratory surfaces
of large and small organisms,
respectively. Smaller organisms have
a much greater surface to volume
ratio (and hence greater respiratory
surface area to volume ratio) in
comparison to larger, more complex
organisms. This accounts for, all
other things being equal, the
disparity between large and small
organisms in their velocity or speed .
oftransmission (V), and then of
course the much greater disparity
(because it is calculated using the
square of V) between their
respective geochemical energies
(PV2{z).ln comparisons of this sort,
the microbes outperform more
complex organisms by an
overwhelming margin, assuming
they are able to create sufficient
biomass. Vernadsky thus provides
the quantification required for
comparisons of geochemical energy
between species.
Any system reaches a stable equilibrium when its free energy
is reduced to a minimum under the given conditions; that is,
when all work possible in these conditions is being produced.
All processes, of both the biosphere and the crust, are deter-
mined by conditions of equilibrium in the mechanical systemof
which they are a part.
117
Solar radiation and the living green matter of the biosphere,
taken together, constitute a systemof this kind. When solar radi-
ation has produced the maximum work, and created the great-
est possible mass of green organisms, this system has reached a
stable equilibrium.
Since solar radiation cannot penetrate deeply into solid earth,
the layer of green matter it creates there is limited in thickness.
The environment gives all the advantages to large plants,
grasses and trees as compared to green protista. The former cre-
ate a larger quantity of living matter, although they take a longer
time to do it. Unicellular organisms can produce only a very thin
layer of living matter on the land surface, and soon reach a sta-
tionary state (37) at the limits of their development. In the sys-
tem of solar radiation and solid earth taken as a whole, unicel-
lular organisms are an unstable form,118 because herbaceous
and wooded vegetation, in spite of their smaller reserve of geo-
chemical energy, can produce much more work, and a greater
quantity of living matter.
50 The effects of this are seen everywhere. In early spring, when
life awakens, the steppe becomes covered in a few days by a thin
layer of unicellular algae (chieflylarger cyanobacteria and algae
such as Nostoc). This green coating develops rapidly, but soon
disappears, making room for the slower-growing herbaceous
plants. Due to the properties of the opaque earth, the grass takes
the upper hand, although the Nostoc has more geochemical
energy. Everywhere, tree bark, stones, and soil are rapidly cov-
ered by fast-developing Protococcus. In damp weather, these
change in only a few hours from cells weighing millionths of a
milligram into living masses weighing decigrams or grams. But
even in the most favorable conditions, their development soon
stops. As in Holland's sycamore groves, tree trunks are covered
by a continuous layer of Protococcus in stable equilibrium, fur-
ther development of which is arrested by the opacity of the mat-
ter on which they live. The fate of their aqueous cousins, freely
developing in a transparent medium hundreds of meters deep,
is quite different.
117 Vernadsky offers here a
plausible explanation for the
stability of Earth's climate; it
represents a minimum energy
configuration. See McMenamin,
1997
b
.
118 Vernadsky is saying here that
unicellular organisms reach a stable
state only in the absence of
competing large plants, as might
have been the case during the
Precambrian. Large plants today
prevent the microbes from reaching
this stable or stationary state.
7A
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS 75
Trees and grasses, growing in a new transpllrent medium (the
troposphere), have developed forms according to the principles
of energetics and mechanics. Unicellular organisms may not fol-
low them on this path. Even the appearance of trees and grass-
es, the infinite variety of their forms, displays the tendency to
produce maximum work and to attain maximum bulk of living
matter.
To reach this aim, they created a new medium for life - the
atmosphere.
119
51 In the ocean, where solar radiation penetrates to a depth of
hundreds of meters, unicellular algae, with higher geochemical
energy, can create living matter at an incomparably faster rate
than can the plants and trees of land. In the ocean, solar radia-
tion is utilized to its utmost. The lowest grade of photosynthet-
ic organism has a stable vital form: this leads to an exceptional
abundance of animal life, which rapidly assimilates the phyto-
plankton, enabling the latter to transform an even greater quan-
tity of solar energy into living mass.
52 Thus, solar radiation as the carrier of cosmic energynot only
initiates its own transformation into terrestrial chemical energy,
but also actually creates the transformers themselves. Taken
together, these make up living nature, which assumes different
aspects on land and in the water.
The establishment of the life forms is thus in accordance with
the way solar (cosmic) energy changes the structure of living
nature, by controlling the ratio of autotrophic to heterotrophic
organisms. A precise understanding of the laws of equilibrium
that govern this is only nowbeginning to appear.
Cosmic energy determines the pressure of life (27), which
can be regarded as the transmission of solar energy to the
Earth's surface,12o This pressure arises from multiplication, and
continually makes itself felt in civilized life. When man removes
green vegetation from a region of the Earth, he changes the
appearance of virgin nature, and must resist the pressure of life,
expending energy and performing work equivalent to this pres-
sure. If he stops this defense against green vegetation, his works
are swallowed up at once by a mass of organisms that will repos-
sess, whenever and wherever possible, any surface man has
taken from them.
This pressure is apparent in the ubiquity of life. There are no
regions which have always been devoid of life. We encounter
119 As Vernadsky later notes,
Dumas and Boussingault in 1844
considered life to be an "appendage
of the atmosphere." More recently it
has been argued that the atmos-
phere is a nonliving product of life,
like a spider's web, a view
Vernadsky seems to have anticipat-
ed here.
120 This is a remarkable passage.
Thus life not only plays the role of
horizontal transmission of matter,
but also horizontal transmission of
vertically-incoming solar energy.
vestiges of life on121 the most arid rocks, in fields of snow and
ice, in stony and sandy areas. Photosynthetic organisms are car-
ried to such places mechanically; microscopic life is constantly
born, only to disappear again; animals pass by, and some remain
to live there. Some ricWy-animated concentrations of life are
observed, but not as a green world of transformers. Birds,
beasts, insects, spiders, bacteria, and sometimes green protista
make up the populations of these apparently inanimateregions,
which are really azoic only in comparison with the "immobile"
green world of plants. These regions can be likened to those of
our latitudes where green life disappears, temporarily, beneath a
clothing of snow, during the winter suspension of photosynthe-
sis.
Phenomena ofthis sort have existed on our planet throughout
geological history, but always to a relatively limited extent. Life
has always tended to become master of apparently lifeless
regions, adapting itself to ambient conditions. Every empty
space in living nature, no matter how constituted, must be filled
in the course of time. Thus, new species and subspecies of flora
and fauna will populate azoic areas, newly formed land areas,
and aquatic basins. It is curious and important to note that the
structures of these new organisms, as well as the structures of
their ancestors, contain certain preformed properties that are
required for the specific conditions of the new environment.122
This morphological preformation and the ubiquity of life are
both manifestations of the energetic principles of the pressure
of life.
Azoic surfaces, or surfaces poor in life, are limited in extent at
any given moment of the planet's existence. But they always
exist, and are more evident on land than in the hydrosphere. We
do not knowthe reason for the restrictions they impose on vital
geochemical energy; nor do we knowwhether there exists a def-
inite and inviolable relationship between the forces on the Earth
that are opposed to life, on one hand, and the life-enhancing and
not yet fully understood force of solar radiation on the other.
53 The ways in which green vegetation has adapted so as to
attract cosmic energy can be seen in many ways. Photosynthesis
takes place principally in tiny plastids, which are smaller than
the cells they occupy. Myriads of these are dispersed in plants, to
which they impart the green color.
Examination of any green organism will show how it is both
generally and specifically adapted to attract all the luminous
121 Or In the rocks, as in the case of
cryptoendolithic Antarctic lichens.
122 Here Vernadsky alludes to what
is today called preadaptation or
exaptation. Evolutionists now feel
that organisms have no ability to
anticipate environmental change.
But once such change has occurred
(or sometimes without any such
change), organs useful for one
function can switch their function
and provide the organism bearing
them with a new adaptation-hence
the appearance that they were
"preadapted." See Cuenot, 1894a,
1894b and 1925.
TUJ: DlnCDLlI:DII:
76 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
77
Trees and grasses, growing in a new transpllrent medium (the
troposphere), have developed forms according to the principles
of energetics and mechanics. Unicellular organisms may not fol-
low them on this path. Even the appearance of trees and grass-
es, the infinite variety of their forms, displays the tendency to
produce maximum work and to attain maximum bulk of living
matter.
To reach this aim, they created a new medium for life - the
atmosphere.
119
51 In the ocean, where solar radiation penetrates to a depth of
hundreds of meters, unicellular algae, with higher geochemical
energy, can create living matter at an incomparably faster rate
than can the plants and trees of land. In the ocean, solar radia-
tion is utilized to its utmost. The lowest grade of photosynthet-
ic organism has a stable vital form: this leads to an exceptional
abundance of animal life, which rapidly assimilates the phyto-
plankton, enabling the latter to transform an even greater quan-
tity of solar energy into living mass.
52 Thus, solar radiation as the carrier of cosmic energynot only
initiates its own transformation into terrestrial chemical energy,
but also actually creates the transformers themselves. Taken
together, these make up living nature, which assumes different
aspects on land and in the water.
The establishment of the life forms is thus in accordance with
the way solar (cosmic) energy changes the structure of living
nature, by controlling the ratio of autotrophic to heterotrophic
organisms. A precise understanding of the laws of equilibrium
that govern this is only nowbeginning to appear.
Cosmic energy determines the pressure of life (27), which
can be regarded as the transmission of solar energy to the
Earth's surface,12o This pressure arises from multiplication, and
continually makes itself felt in civilized life. When man removes
green vegetation from a region of the Earth, he changes the
appearance of virgin nature, and must resist the pressure of life,
expending energy and performing work equivalent to this pres-
sure. If he stops this defense against green vegetation, his works
are swallowed up at once by a mass of organisms that will repos-
sess, whenever and wherever possible, any surface man has
taken from them.
This pressure is apparent in the ubiquity of life. There are no
regions which have always been devoid of life. We encounter
119 As Vernadsky later notes,
Dumas and Boussingault in 1844
considered life to be an "appendage
of the atmosphere." More recently it
has been argued that the atmos-
phere is a nonliving product of life,
like a spider's web, a view
Vernadsky seems to have anticipat-
ed here.
120 This is a remarkable passage.
Thus life not only plays the role of
horizontal transmission of matter,
but also horizontal transmission of
vertically-incoming solar energy.
vestiges of life on121 the most arid rocks, in fields of snow and
ice, in stony and sandy areas. Photosynthetic organisms are car-
ried to such places mechanically; microscopic life is constantly
born, only to disappear again; animals pass by, and some remain
to live there. Some ricWy-animated concentrations of life are
observed, but not as a green world of transformers. Birds,
beasts, insects, spiders, bacteria, and sometimes green protista
make up the populations of these apparently inanimateregions,
which are really azoic only in comparison with the "immobile"
green world of plants. These regions can be likened to those of
our latitudes where green life disappears, temporarily, beneath a
clothing of snow, during the winter suspension of photosynthe-
sis.
Phenomena ofthis sort have existed on our planet throughout
geological history, but always to a relatively limited extent. Life
has always tended to become master of apparently lifeless
regions, adapting itself to ambient conditions. Every empty
space in living nature, no matter how constituted, must be filled
in the course of time. Thus, new species and subspecies of flora
and fauna will populate azoic areas, newly formed land areas,
and aquatic basins. It is curious and important to note that the
structures of these new organisms, as well as the structures of
their ancestors, contain certain preformed properties that are
required for the specific conditions of the new environment.122
This morphological preformation and the ubiquity of life are
both manifestations of the energetic principles of the pressure
of life.
Azoic surfaces, or surfaces poor in life, are limited in extent at
any given moment of the planet's existence. But they always
exist, and are more evident on land than in the hydrosphere. We
do not knowthe reason for the restrictions they impose on vital
geochemical energy; nor do we knowwhether there exists a def-
inite and inviolable relationship between the forces on the Earth
that are opposed to life, on one hand, and the life-enhancing and
not yet fully understood force of solar radiation on the other.
53 The ways in which green vegetation has adapted so as to
attract cosmic energy can be seen in many ways. Photosynthesis
takes place principally in tiny plastids, which are smaller than
the cells they occupy. Myriads of these are dispersed in plants, to
which they impart the green color.
Examination of any green organism will show how it is both
generally and specifically adapted to attract all the luminous
121 Or In the rocks, as in the case of
cryptoendolithic Antarctic lichens.
122 Here Vernadsky alludes to what
is today called preadaptation or
exaptation. Evolutionists now feel
that organisms have no ability to
anticipate environmental change.
But once such change has occurred
(or sometimes without any such
change), organs useful for one
function can switch their function
and provide the organism bearing
them with a new adaptation-hence
the appearance that they were
"preadapted." See Cuenot, 1894a,
1894b and 1925.
TUJ: DlnCDLlI:DII:
76 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
77
radiation accessible to it. Leaf size and in plants is
so organized that not a single ray of light escapes the micro-
scopic apparatus which transforms the captured energy. Radia-
tion reaching Earth is gathered by organisms lying in wait. Each
photosynthetic organism is part of a mobile mechanism more
perfect than any created by our will and intelligence.
The structure of vegetation attests to this. The surface of
leaves in forests and prairies is tens of times larger than the area
of the ground they cover. The leaves in meadows in our latitudes
are 22 to 38 times larger in area; those of a field of white lucerne
are 85.5 times larger; of a beech forest, 7.5 times; and so on, even
without considering the organic world that fills empty spaces
rapidly with large-sized plants. In Russian forests, the trees are
reinforced by herbaceous vegetation in the soil, by mosses and
lichens which climb their trunks, and by green algae which
cover them even under unfavorable conditions.
123
Onlyby great
effort and energy can man achieve any degree of homogeneity
in the cultivated areas of the Earth, where green weeds are con-
stantly shooting up.
This structure was strikingly demonstrated in virgin nature
before the appearance of man, and we can still study its traces.
In the uncultivated regions of "virgin steppe" which survive in
central Russia, one can observe a natural equilibrium that has
existed for centuries, and could be reestablished everywhere if
man did not oppose it. J. Paczoski
124
has described the steppe of
"Kovyl" or needle grass (Stipa capillata) of Kherson: "It gave the
impression of a sea; one could see no vegetation except the nee-
dle grass
125
which rose as high as a man's waist and higher. The
mass of this vegetation covered the land almost continuously,
protecting it by shade and helping it to conserve the humidity of
the soil, so that lichens and mosses were able to grow between
the tufts of the leaves and remain green at the height of sum-
mer:'126
Earlier naturalists have similarly described the virgin savan-
nas of Central America. F. d'Azara (1781-1801) writes
127
that the
plants were "so thick that the earth could only be seen on the
roads, in streams, or in gulleys:'
These virgin steppes and savannas are exceptional areas that
have escaped the hand of civilized man, whose green fields have
largely replaced them.
In our latitudes, vegetation lives with a periodicity controlled
by an astronomical phenomenon- the rotation of the Earth
around the sun.
123 The wording at the end of this
sentence suggests, as inferred
earlier, exposure to the ideas of the
symbiogenetlcists and to the ideas
that organisms of different species
can aid one another.
124 See Paczoski, 1908.
125 Needle grass, or Stipa capit/ata,
is referred to in Russian as tyrsa. It
is a tough grass with sharp leaves.
Most species of the genus Stipa are
perennials, and they are a
characteristic plant of the steppes
throughout the world.
126 This same observation strongly
influenced Kropotkin.
127 See d'Azara, 1905.
54 The same picture of saturation of the Earth's surface by
green matter can be observed in all other phenomena of plant
life: forest stands of tropical and subtropical regions, the taiga of
septentrional and temperate latitudes, savannas and tundras.
These are the coating with which green matter permanently or
periodically covers our planet, if the hand of man has not been
present. Man, alone, violates the established order; and it is a
question whether he diminishes geochemical energy, or simply
distributes the green transformers in a different way.128
Grouped vegetation and isolated plants of many forms are so
arranged as to capture solar radiation, and to prevent its escap-
ing the green-chlorophyll plastids.
Generally radiation cannot reach any locality of the Earth's
surface
129
without passing through a layer of living matter that
has multiplied by over one hundred times the surface area that
would otherwise be present if life were absent from the site.
55 Land comprises 29.2 percent of the surface of the globe; all
the rest is occupied by the sea, where the principal mass of green
living matter exists and most of the luminous solar energy is
transformed into active chemical energy.
The green color of living matter in the sea is not usually
noticed, since it is dispersed in myriad microscopic, unicellular
algae. They swim freely, sometimes in crowds, and at other times
spread out over millions of square miles of ocean. They can be
found wherever solar radiation penetrates, up to 400 meters
water depth, but mostly between 20 and 50 meters from the sur-
face, rising and sinking in perpetual movement. Their multipli-
cation varies according to temperature and other conditions,
including the rotation of the planet around the sun.
Incident sunlight is undoubtedly utilized in full by these
organisms. Green algae, cyanobacteria, brown algae, and red
algae succeed each other in depth in a regular order.
13o
The red
phycochromaceae use the blue rays, the final traces of solar light
not absorbed by water. As W. Engelmann has shown!31 all these
algae, each type with its own particular color, are adapted to
produce maximum photosynthesis in the luminous conditions
peculiar to their aqueous medium.
132
This succession of organisms with increasing depth is a ubiq-
uitous feature of the hydrosphere. In shallows, or in special
structures linked with geological history such as the Sargasso
Sea, the plankton, though invisible to the naked eye, are intensi-
fied by immense, floating fields or forests of algae and plants,
128 Vernadsky never makes up his
mind about the true role of humans
in the biosphere (Vernadsky, 1945).
12
9 Here Vernadsky means any
forested locality of Earth's surface.
13
0
The farbstreifensandwatt, or
"color-striped sand," is a within-sed.
iment bacterial and algal community
showing this same type of stratified
succession. The microbial photosyn-
thesizers of the farstreifensandwatt
partition the light by wavelength
and intensity as it passes through
the sand layer. See Schulz, 1937;
Hoffmann, 1949; and Krumbien,
Paterson and Stal, 1994.
131 See Engelmann 1984; and 1861.
13
2
They also have distinctive char-
acteristics of metal accumulation
(Tropin and Zolotukhina, 1994).
THE BIOSPHERE 78 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
79
radiation accessible to it. Leaf size and in plants is
so organized that not a single ray of light escapes the micro-
scopic apparatus which transforms the captured energy. Radia-
tion reaching Earth is gathered by organisms lying in wait. Each
photosynthetic organism is part of a mobile mechanism more
perfect than any created by our will and intelligence.
The structure of vegetation attests to this. The surface of
leaves in forests and prairies is tens of times larger than the area
of the ground they cover. The leaves in meadows in our latitudes
are 22 to 38 times larger in area; those of a field of white lucerne
are 85.5 times larger; of a beech forest, 7.5 times; and so on, even
without considering the organic world that fills empty spaces
rapidly with large-sized plants. In Russian forests, the trees are
reinforced by herbaceous vegetation in the soil, by mosses and
lichens which climb their trunks, and by green algae which
cover them even under unfavorable conditions.
123
Onlyby great
effort and energy can man achieve any degree of homogeneity
in the cultivated areas of the Earth, where green weeds are con-
stantly shooting up.
This structure was strikingly demonstrated in virgin nature
before the appearance of man, and we can still study its traces.
In the uncultivated regions of "virgin steppe" which survive in
central Russia, one can observe a natural equilibrium that has
existed for centuries, and could be reestablished everywhere if
man did not oppose it. J. Paczoski
124
has described the steppe of
"Kovyl" or needle grass (Stipa capillata) of Kherson: "It gave the
impression of a sea; one could see no vegetation except the nee-
dle grass
125
which rose as high as a man's waist and higher. The
mass of this vegetation covered the land almost continuously,
protecting it by shade and helping it to conserve the humidity of
the soil, so that lichens and mosses were able to grow between
the tufts of the leaves and remain green at the height of sum-
mer:'126
Earlier naturalists have similarly described the virgin savan-
nas of Central America. F. d'Azara (1781-1801) writes
127
that the
plants were "so thick that the earth could only be seen on the
roads, in streams, or in gulleys:'
These virgin steppes and savannas are exceptional areas that
have escaped the hand of civilized man, whose green fields have
largely replaced them.
In our latitudes, vegetation lives with a periodicity controlled
by an astronomical phenomenon- the rotation of the Earth
around the sun.
123 The wording at the end of this
sentence suggests, as inferred
earlier, exposure to the ideas of the
symbiogenetlcists and to the ideas
that organisms of different species
can aid one another.
124 See Paczoski, 1908.
125 Needle grass, or Stipa capit/ata,
is referred to in Russian as tyrsa. It
is a tough grass with sharp leaves.
Most species of the genus Stipa are
perennials, and they are a
characteristic plant of the steppes
throughout the world.
126 This same observation strongly
influenced Kropotkin.
127 See d'Azara, 1905.
54 The same picture of saturation of the Earth's surface by
green matter can be observed in all other phenomena of plant
life: forest stands of tropical and subtropical regions, the taiga of
septentrional and temperate latitudes, savannas and tundras.
These are the coating with which green matter permanently or
periodically covers our planet, if the hand of man has not been
present. Man, alone, violates the established order; and it is a
question whether he diminishes geochemical energy, or simply
distributes the green transformers in a different way.128
Grouped vegetation and isolated plants of many forms are so
arranged as to capture solar radiation, and to prevent its escap-
ing the green-chlorophyll plastids.
Generally radiation cannot reach any locality of the Earth's
surface
129
without passing through a layer of living matter that
has multiplied by over one hundred times the surface area that
would otherwise be present if life were absent from the site.
55 Land comprises 29.2 percent of the surface of the globe; all
the rest is occupied by the sea, where the principal mass of green
living matter exists and most of the luminous solar energy is
transformed into active chemical energy.
The green color of living matter in the sea is not usually
noticed, since it is dispersed in myriad microscopic, unicellular
algae. They swim freely, sometimes in crowds, and at other times
spread out over millions of square miles of ocean. They can be
found wherever solar radiation penetrates, up to 400 meters
water depth, but mostly between 20 and 50 meters from the sur-
face, rising and sinking in perpetual movement. Their multipli-
cation varies according to temperature and other conditions,
including the rotation of the planet around the sun.
Incident sunlight is undoubtedly utilized in full by these
organisms. Green algae, cyanobacteria, brown algae, and red
algae succeed each other in depth in a regular order.
13o
The red
phycochromaceae use the blue rays, the final traces of solar light
not absorbed by water. As W. Engelmann has shown!31 all these
algae, each type with its own particular color, are adapted to
produce maximum photosynthesis in the luminous conditions
peculiar to their aqueous medium.
132
This succession of organisms with increasing depth is a ubiq-
uitous feature of the hydrosphere. In shallows, or in special
structures linked with geological history such as the Sargasso
Sea, the plankton, though invisible to the naked eye, are intensi-
fied by immense, floating fields or forests of algae and plants,
128 Vernadsky never makes up his
mind about the true role of humans
in the biosphere (Vernadsky, 1945).
12
9 Here Vernadsky means any
forested locality of Earth's surface.
13
0
The farbstreifensandwatt, or
"color-striped sand," is a within-sed.
iment bacterial and algal community
showing this same type of stratified
succession. The microbial photosyn-
thesizers of the farstreifensandwatt
partition the light by wavelength
and intensity as it passes through
the sand layer. See Schulz, 1937;
Hoffmann, 1949; and Krumbien,
Paterson and Stal, 1994.
131 See Engelmann 1984; and 1861.
13
2
They also have distinctive char-
acteristics of metal accumulation
(Tropin and Zolotukhina, 1994).
THE BIOSPHERE 78 THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
79
radiation accessible to it. Leaf size and distribution in plants is
so organized that not a single ray of light' escapes the micro-
scopic apparatus which transforms the captured energy. Radia-
tion reaching Earth is gathered by organisms lying in wait. Each
photosynthetic organism is part of a mobile mechanism more
perfect than any created by our will and intelligence.
The structure of vegetation attests to this. The surface of
leaves in forests and prairies is tens of times larger than the area
of the ground they cover. The leaves in meadows in our latitudes
are 22 to 38 times larger in area; those of a field of white lucerne
are 85.5 times larger; of a beech forest, 7.5 times; and so on, even
without considering the organic world that fills empty spaces
rapidly with large-sized plants. In Russian forests, the trees are
reinforced by herbaceous vegetation in the soil, by mosses and
lichens which climb their trunks, and by green algae which
cover themeven under unfavorable conditions.
123
Onlyby great
effort and energy can man achieve any degree of homogeneity
in the cultivated areas of the Earth, where green weeds are con-
stantly shooting up.
This structure was strikingly demonstrated in virgin nature
before the appearance of man, and we can still study its traces.
In the uncultivated regions of "virgin steppe" which survive in
central Russia, one can observe a natural equilibrium that has
existed for centuries, and could be reestablished everywhere if
man did not oppose it. J. Paczoski
124
has described the steppe of
"Kovyl" or needle grass (Stipa capillata) of Kherson: "It gave the
impression of a sea; one could see no vegetation except the nee-
dle grass
125
which rose as high as a man's waist and higher. The
mass of this vegetation covered the land almost continuously,
protecting it by shade and helping it to conserve the humidity of
the soil, so that lichens and mosses were able to grow between
the tufts of the leaves and remain green at the height of sum-
mer:'126
Earlier naturalists have similarly described the virgin savan-
nas of Central America. F. d' Azara (1781-1801) writes
127
that the
plants were "so thick that the earth could only be seen on the
roads, in streams, or in gulleys:'
These virgin steppes and savannas are exceptional areas that
have escaped the hand of civilized man, whose green fields have
largely replaced them.
In our latitudes, vegetation lives with a periodicity controlled
by an astronomical phenomenon - the rotation of the Earth
around the sun.
54 The same picture of saturation. of the Earth's surface by
green matter can be observed in all other phenomena of plant
life: forest stands of tropical and subtropical regions, the taiga of
septentrional and temperate latitudes, savannas and tundras.
These are the coating with which green matter permanently or
periodically covers our planet, if the hand of man has not been
present. Man, alone, violates the established order; and it is a
question whether he diminishes geochemical energy, or simply
distributes the green transformers in a different way.128
Grouped vegetation and isolated plants of many forms are so
arranged as to capture solar radiation, and to prevent its escap-
ing the green-chlorophyll plastids.
Generally radiation cannot reach any locality of the Earth's
surface
129
without passing through a layer of living matter that
has multiplied by over one hundred times the surface area that
would otherwise be present if life were absent from the site.
55 Land comprises 29.2 percent of the surface of the globe; all
the rest is occupied bythe sea, where the principal mass of green
living matter exists and most of the luminous solar energy is
transformed into active chemical energy.
The green color of living matter in the sea is not usually
noticed, since it is dispersed in myriad microscopic, unicellular
algae. They swim freely, sometimes in crowds, and at other times
spread out over millions of square miles of ocean. They can be
found wherever solar radiation penetrates, up to 400 meters
water depth, but mostly between 20 and 50 meters from the sur-
face, rising and sinking in perpetual movement. Their multipli-
cation varies according to temperature and other conditions,
including the rotation of the planet around the sun.
Incident sunlight is undoubtedly utilized in full by these
organisms. Green algae, cyanobacteria, brown algae, and red
algae succeed each other in depth in a regular order.
13o
The red
phycochromaceae use the blue rays, the final traces of solar light
not absorbed by water. As W. Engelmann has shown,131 all these
algae, each type with its own particular color, are adapted to
produce maximum photosynthesis in the luminous conditions
peculiar to their aqueous medium.
132
This succession of organisms with increasing depth is a ubiq-
uitous feature of the hydrosphere. In shallows, or in special
structures linked with geological history such as the Sargasso
Sea, the plankton, though invisible to the naked eye, are intensi-
fied by immense, floating fields or forests of algae and plants,
128 Vernadsky never makes up his
mind about the true role of humans
in the biosphere (Vernadsky, 1945).
12
9 Here Vernadsky means any
forested locality of Earth's surface.
130 The farbstreifensandwatt, or
"color-striped sand," is a within-sed.
iment bacterial and algal community
showing this same type of stratified
succession. The microbial photosyn-
thesizers of the farstrelfensandwatt
partition the light by wavelength
and intensity as It passes through
the sand layer. See Schulz, 1937;
Hoffmann, 1949; and Krumbien,
Paterson and Stal, 1994.
131 See Engelmann 1984; and 1861.
132 They also have distinctive char-
acteristics of metal accumulation
(iropin and Zolotukhina, 1994).
79
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
1
127 See d'Azara, 1905.
125 Needle grass. or Stipa capil/ata,
is referred to in Russian as tyrsa. It
is a tough grass with sharp leaves.
Most species of the genus Stipa are
perennials. and they are a
characteristic plant of the steppes
throughout the world.
124 See Paczoski, 1908.
123 The wording at the end of this
sentence suggests. as inferred
earlier. exposure to the ideas of the
symbiogeneticists and to the ideas
that organisms of different species
can aid one another.
126 This same observation strongly
influenced Kropotkin.
78
THE BIOSPHERE
r
radiation accessible to it. Leaf size and distribution in plants is
so organized that not a single ray of light' escapes the micro-
scopic apparatus which transforms the captured energy. Radia-
tion reaching Earth is gathered by organisms lying in wait. Each
photosynthetic organism is part of a mobile mechanism more
perfect than any created by our will and intelligence.
The structure of vegetation attests to this. The surface of
leaves in forests and prairies is tens of times larger than the area
of the ground they cover. The leaves in meadows in our latitudes
are 22 to 38 times larger in area; those of a field of white lucerne
are 85.5 times larger; of a beech forest, 7.5 times; and so on, even
without considering the organic world that fills empty spaces
rapidly with large-sized plants. In Russian forests, the trees are
reinforced by herbaceous vegetation in the soil, by mosses and
lichens which climb their trunks, and by green algae which
cover themeven under unfavorable conditions.
123
Onlyby great
effort and energy can man achieve any degree of homogeneity
in the cultivated areas of the Earth, where green weeds are con-
stantly shooting up.
This structure was strikingly demonstrated in virgin nature
before the appearance of man, and we can still study its traces.
In the uncultivated regions of "virgin steppe" which survive in
central Russia, one can observe a natural equilibrium that has
existed for centuries, and could be reestablished everywhere if
man did not oppose it. J. Paczoski
124
has described the steppe of
"Kovyl" or needle grass (Stipa capillata) of Kherson: "It gave the
impression of a sea; one could see no vegetation except the nee-
dle grass
125
which rose as high as a man's waist and higher. The
mass of this vegetation covered the land almost continuously,
protecting it by shade and helping it to conserve the humidity of
the soil, so that lichens and mosses were able to grow between
the tufts of the leaves and remain green at the height of sum-
mer:'126
Earlier naturalists have similarly described the virgin savan-
nas of Central America. F. d' Azara (1781-1801) writes
127
that the
plants were "so thick that the earth could only be seen on the
roads, in streams, or in gulleys:'
These virgin steppes and savannas are exceptional areas that
have escaped the hand of civilized man, whose green fields have
largely replaced them.
In our latitudes, vegetation lives with a periodicity controlled
by an astronomical phenomenon - the rotation of the Earth
around the sun.
54 The same picture of saturation. of the Earth's surface by
green matter can be observed in all other phenomena of plant
life: forest stands of tropical and subtropical regions, the taiga of
septentrional and temperate latitudes, savannas and tundras.
These are the coating with which green matter permanently or
periodically covers our planet, if the hand of man has not been
present. Man, alone, violates the established order; and it is a
question whether he diminishes geochemical energy, or simply
distributes the green transformers in a different way.128
Grouped vegetation and isolated plants of many forms are so
arranged as to capture solar radiation, and to prevent its escap-
ing the green-chlorophyll plastids.
Generally radiation cannot reach any locality of the Earth's
surface
129
without passing through a layer of living matter that
has multiplied by over one hundred times the surface area that
would otherwise be present if life were absent from the site.
55 Land comprises 29.2 percent of the surface of the globe; all
the rest is occupied bythe sea, where the principal mass of green
living matter exists and most of the luminous solar energy is
transformed into active chemical energy.
The green color of living matter in the sea is not usually
noticed, since it is dispersed in myriad microscopic, unicellular
algae. They swim freely, sometimes in crowds, and at other times
spread out over millions of square miles of ocean. They can be
found wherever solar radiation penetrates, up to 400 meters
water depth, but mostly between 20 and 50 meters from the sur-
face, rising and sinking in perpetual movement. Their multipli-
cation varies according to temperature and other conditions,
including the rotation of the planet around the sun.
Incident sunlight is undoubtedly utilized in full by these
organisms. Green algae, cyanobacteria, brown algae, and red
algae succeed each other in depth in a regular order.
13o
The red
phycochromaceae use the blue rays, the final traces of solar light
not absorbed by water. As W. Engelmann has shown,131 all these
algae, each type with its own particular color, are adapted to
produce maximum photosynthesis in the luminous conditions
peculiar to their aqueous medium.
132
This succession of organisms with increasing depth is a ubiq-
uitous feature of the hydrosphere. In shallows, or in special
structures linked with geological history such as the Sargasso
Sea, the plankton, though invisible to the naked eye, are intensi-
fied by immense, floating fields or forests of algae and plants,
128 Vernadsky never makes up his
mind about the true role of humans
in the biosphere (Vernadsky, 1945).
12
9 Here Vernadsky means any
forested locality of Earth's surface.
130 The farbstreifensandwatt, or
"color-striped sand," is a within-sed.
iment bacterial and algal community
showing this same type of stratified
succession. The microbial photosyn-
thesizers of the farstrelfensandwatt
partition the light by wavelength
and intensity as It passes through
the sand layer. See Schulz, 1937;
Hoffmann, 1949; and Krumbien,
Paterson and Stal, 1994.
131 See Engelmann 1984; and 1861.
132 They also have distinctive char-
acteristics of metal accumulation
(iropin and Zolotukhina, 1994).
79
THE BIOSPHERE IN THE COSMOS
1
127 See d'Azara, 1905.
125 Needle grass. or Stipa capil/ata,
is referred to in Russian as tyrsa. It
is a tough grass with sharp leaves.
Most species of the genus Stipa are
perennials. and they are a
characteristic plant of the steppes
throughout the world.
124 See Paczoski, 1908.
123 The wording at the end of this
sentence suggests. as inferred
earlier. exposure to the ideas of the
symbiogeneticists and to the ideas
that organisms of different species
can aid one another.
126 This same observation strongly
influenced Kropotkin.
78
THE BIOSPHERE
r
some of them very large. These are chemical.1aboratories, with
energy more powerful than the most massive forests of solid
earth. The total surface they occupy, however, is relatively
small- only a few percent of the surface area occupied by the
plankton.
57 These figures, obviously, correspond approximately to the
fraction of solar energy collected by living green matter in the
biosphere. This coincidence might serve as a departure point
from which we can begin to explain the verdure of the Earth.
The solar energy absorbed by organisms is only a small part
of what falls on the Earth's surface, and the latter is an insignifi-
cant fraction of the sun's total radiation. According to S. Arrhe-
nius,134 the Earth receives from the sun 1.66 x 10
21
kilocalories
per year, while the sun emits 4 x 10
30
l;j
"0"; en
l;j
"
0
en
'"
<::!
S
.,
'" en'fii
.9
en
g...;::i8 cQ
'"
en
'"
"<::!
'" ..,
]<
<::!
I=l
g..u
..9 ....
.g
(U e
l:: cQ 0 S
"<::!
Z
en l.t:l .... u ., l:: ., .,
cQ
0..
0
III
Ji
..... QJbOV l.t:l..d.,
l:: :a.
Ji
E:: '"
"0 .fj
<::! cQ
0
l::
6' '" :;;.'8 6"'8
>-l
E
g..::l I
is
III
>
,gt:tio
........ 0
+-a """"'" 0 0
Ol=l:a "5h:a
<::!
z
5..d"cQ
....c
<>: III CIl 0.. .... >4.....:1 ....
> N
"" "'"
IJ"I
THE BIOSPHERE 100
THE DOMAIN OF LIFE
101
for each mode; 2. a particular atomic configura;tion; 3. a specific
geochemical history of the element's migration; and 4. relation-
ships, often unique to the given mode, between atoms of differ-
ent chemical elements (paragenesis
196
).
86 We can distinguish four modes of occurrence through
which the elements of the crust pass, in the course of their his-
tory: 1. Massive rocks and minerals, consisting primarily of sta-
ble molecules and crystals in immobile combinations of ele-
ments; 2. Magmas, viscous mixtures of gases and liquids
containing neither the molecules nor crystals of our familiar
chemistry,* but a mobile mixture of dissociated atomic systems;
3. Dispersed elements in a free state, separate from one another
and sometimes ionized,t suggesting the radiant matter of M,
Faraday and W. Crookes; 4, Livingmatter, in which the atoms are
generally believed to occur as molecules, dissociated ionic sys-
tems, and dispersed modes, although these seem insufficient to
explain the empirical facts. It is very likely that isotopes (83)
and the symmetry of atoms also play roles in the living organ-
ism which have not yet been elucidated
197
l;j
"0"; en
l;j
"
0
en
'"
<::!
S
.,
'" en'fii
.9
en
g...;::i8 cQ
'"
en
'"
"<::!
'" ..,
]<
<::!
I=l
g..u
..9 ....
.g
(U e
l:: cQ 0 S
"<::!
Z
en l.t:l .... u ., l:: ., .,
cQ
0..
0
III
Ji
..... QJbOV l.t:l..d.,
l:: :a.
Ji
E:: '"
"0 .fj
<::! cQ
0
l::
6' '" :;;.'8 6"'8
>-l
E
g..::l I
is
III
>
,gt:tio
........ 0
+-a """"'" 0 0
Ol=l:a "5h:a
<::!
z
5..d"cQ
....c
<>: III CIl 0.. .... >4.....:1 ....
> N
"" "'"
IJ"I
THE BIOSPHERE 100
THE DOMAIN OF LIFE
101
for example) is neither accidental nor connected solely with
geological causes.
This empirical generalization is set out in tabular form in
Table 1
199
and will serve as a basis for our further discussion.
Like all empirical generalizations, this table must be regarded
as a first approximation to reality, susceptible to modification
and subsequent completion. Its significance depends upon the
factual, empirical material underlying it, and as a result of gaps
in our knowledge is very uneven in terms of its significance.
Our knowledge of the first thermodynamic envelope, and
other upper envelopes corresponding to it, is founded on a rela-
tively small number of facts, conjectures, and interpolations,
which by their nature are foreign to empirical generalization.
The same can be said of the fifth thermodynamic envelope and
the regions below it. Our knowledge of these domains is, there-
fore, unreliable, and will be drastically modified as science pro-
gresses. Hopefully, new discoveries will lead to radical changes
in current opinion in the near future.
In most cases, it is impossible to indicate the precise line of
demarcation between envelopes. The surfaces separating them
change with time, sometimes rapidly, according to all indica-
tions. Their form is complex and unstable.*2oo Our lack of
knowledge regarding the boundary zones portrayed on the
table has little importance for the problems considered here,
however, because the entire biosphere lies between these layers,
within a region of the table filled with statements based upon an
enormous collection of facts and free from hypotheses and
interpolations.
89 Temperature and pressure are particularlyimportant factors
in chemical equilibria, because they apply to all states, chemical
combinations, and modes of occurrence of matter. The thermo-
dynamic envelopes corresponding to them are likewise of spe-
cial importance. Our model of the cosmos always must have a
thermodynamic component.
The origin of elements and their geochemical history must,
therefore, be classified according to different thermodynamic
envelopes. From now on, the term vadose will be given to the
phenomena and the bodies in the second thermodynamic enve-
lope; phreatic, to those of the third and fourth (metamorphic)
envelopes; andjuvenile, to those of the fifth envelope.
Matter confined to the first and sixth envelopes either does
not enter into the biosphere or has not been observed in it.
199 Vernadsky later revised this
table (Vernadsky. 1954, pp. 66-68.)
*The basalt envelope is below the
oceans, probably at a depth close to 10
km for the Pacific Ocean, and deeper
for the Atlantic. It is sometimes
thought that the granite envelope
under the continents is very thick
(more than 50 km under Europe and
Asia, according to Gutenberg, 1924;
and Gutenberg, 1925).
200 Current values place the thick-
ness of oceanic crust at about 5-10
kilometers and continental crust at
about 35 kilometers (see Press and
Siever, 1982)
I
I
Living Matter of the First and Second Orders
in the Biosphere
90 While the boundaries of the biosphere are primarily deter-
mined by the field ofvital existence, there is no doubt that afield
of vital stability extends beyond its boundaries.
201
We do not
know how far beyond the confines of the biosphere it can go
because of uncertainties about adaptation, which is obviously a
function of time, and manifests itself in the biosphere in strict
relation to howmany millions of years an organism has existed.
Since we do not have such lengths of time at our disposal and
are currently unable to compensate for them in our experi-
ments, we cannot accurately assess the adaptive power of organ-
isms.
202
All experiments on living organisms have been made on bod-
ies which have adapted to surrounding conditions during the
course of immeasurable time* and have developed the matter
and structure necessary for life. Their matter is modified as it
passes through geologic time, but we do not know the extent of
the changes and cannot deduce them from their chemical char-
acteristics.
t
In spite of the fact that the study of nature shows unambigu-
ous evidence of the adaptation of life and the development of
different forms of organisms, modified to ensure their contin-
ued existence throughout centuries, it can be deduced from pre-
ceding remarks that life in the crust occupies a smaller part of
the envelopes than is potentially for it to expand into.
The synthesis ofthe age old study of nature - the unconscious
empirical generalization upon which our knowledge and scien-
tific labor rests - could not be formulated better than by saying
that life has encompassed the biosphere by slow and gradual
adaptation, and that this process has not yet attained its zenith
(112, 122). The pressure of life is felt as an expansion of the field
of vital existence beyond the field of vital stability.
The field of vital stability therefore is the product of adaptation
throughout time. It is neither permanent nor unchangeable, and
its present limits cannot clearly predict its potential limits.
The study of paleontology and ecology shows that this field
has gradually increased during the existence of the planet.
9
1
The field of existence of living organisms is not determined
solely by the properties of their matter, the properties of the
environment, or the adaptation of organisms. A characteristic
role is also played by the respiration and feeding of organisms,
201 Weyl (1966) developed this
same concept in terms of what he
called the "life boundary,"
202 See the discussion of the adap-
tive power of organisms in Cuenot,
19
2
5. Recent experiments may in
fact give us tools with which to
accurately assess the adaptive
power of organisms (Losos et at.
1997; Case, 1997).
* "Immeasurable time" is an anthro-
pocentric notion. In reality, there are
laws which have yet to be established,
regarding a definite duration of the
evolution [probably measured in bil-
lions of years1of living matter in the
biosphere.
t The limits of life are often sought in
the chemical and physical properties
of the chemistry of living organisms,
such as in proteins that coagulate at
60-70C. But the complex capacities
for adaptation by organisms must be
taken into account. Certain proteins
in a dry state do not change at the
temperature 100C (M. E. Chevreul,
1824).
THE BIOSPHERE 102 THE DOMAIN OF LIFE
103
for example) is neither accidental nor connected solely with
geological causes.
This empirical generalization is set out in tabular form in
Table 1
199
and will serve as a basis for our further discussion.
Like all empirical generalizations, this table must be regarded
as a first approximation to reality, susceptible to modification
and subsequent completion. Its significance depends upon the
factual, empirical material underlying it, and as a result of gaps
in our knowledge is very uneven in terms of its significance.
Our knowledge of the first thermodynamic envelope, and
other upper envelopes corresponding to it, is founded on a rela-
tively small number of facts, conjectures, and interpolations,
which by their nature are foreign to empirical generalization.
The same can be said of the fifth thermodynamic envelope and
the regions below it. Our knowledge of these domains is, there-
fore, unreliable, and will be drastically modified as science pro-
gresses. Hopefully, new discoveries will lead to radical changes
in current opinion in the near future.
In most cases, it is impossible to indicate the precise line of
demarcation between envelopes. The surfaces separating them
change with time, sometimes rapidly, according to all indica-
tions. Their form is complex and unstable.*2oo Our lack of
knowledge regarding the boundary zones portrayed on the
table has little importance for the problems considered here,
however, because the entire biosphere lies between these layers,
within a region of the table filled with statements based upon an
enormous collection of facts and free from hypotheses and
interpolations.
89 Temperature and pressure are particularlyimportant factors
in chemical equilibria, because they apply to all states, chemical
combinations, and modes of occurrence of matter. The thermo-
dynamic envelopes corresponding to them are likewise of spe-
cial importance. Our model of the cosmos always must have a
thermodynamic component.
The origin of elements and their geochemical history must,
therefore, be classified according to different thermodynamic
envelopes. From now on, the term vadose will be given to the
phenomena and the bodies in the second thermodynamic enve-
lope; phreatic, to those of the third and fourth (metamorphic)
envelopes; andjuvenile, to those of the fifth envelope.
Matter confined to the first and sixth envelopes either does
not enter into the biosphere or has not been observed in it.
199 Vernadsky later revised this
table (Vernadsky. 1954, pp. 66-68.)
*The basalt envelope is below the
oceans, probably at a depth close to 10
km for the Pacific Ocean, and deeper
for the Atlantic. It is sometimes
thought that the granite envelope
under the continents is very thick
(more than 50 km under Europe and
Asia, according to Gutenberg, 1924;
and Gutenberg, 1925).
200 Current values place the thick-
ness of oceanic crust at about 5-10
kilometers and continental crust at
about 35 kilometers (see Press and
Siever, 1982)
I
I
Living Matter of the First and Second Orders
in the Biosphere
90 While the boundaries of the biosphere are primarily deter-
mined by the field ofvital existence, there is no doubt that afield
of vital stability extends beyond its boundaries.
201
We do not
know how far beyond the confines of the biosphere it can go
because of uncertainties about adaptation, which is obviously a
function of time, and manifests itself in the biosphere in strict
relation to howmany millions of years an organism has existed.
Since we do not have such lengths of time at our disposal and
are currently unable to compensate for them in our experi-
ments, we cannot accurately assess the adaptive power of organ-
isms.
202
All experiments on living organisms have been made on bod-
ies which have adapted to surrounding conditions during the
course of immeasurable time* and have developed the matter
and structure necessary for life. Their matter is modified as it
passes through geologic time, but we do not know the extent of
the changes and cannot deduce them from their chemical char-
acteristics.
t
In spite of the fact that the study of nature shows unambigu-
ous evidence of the adaptation of life and the development of
different forms of organisms, modified to ensure their contin-
ued existence throughout centuries, it can be deduced from pre-
ceding remarks that life in the crust occupies a smaller part of
the envelopes than is potentially for it to expand into.
The synthesis ofthe age old study of nature - the unconscious
empirical generalization upon which our knowledge and scien-
tific labor rests - could not be formulated better than by saying
that life has encompassed the biosphere by slow and gradual
adaptation, and that this process has not yet attained its zenith
(112, 122). The pressure of life is felt as an expansion of the field
of vital existence beyond the field of vital stability.
The field of vital stability therefore is the product of adaptation
throughout time. It is neither permanent nor unchangeable, and
its present limits cannot clearly predict its potential limits.
The study of paleontology and ecology shows that this field
has gradually increased during the existence of the planet.
9
1
The field of existence of living organisms is not determined
solely by the properties of their matter, the properties of the
environment, or the adaptation of organisms. A characteristic
role is also played by the respiration and feeding of organisms,
201 Weyl (1966) developed this
same concept in terms of what he
called the "life boundary,"
202 See the discussion of the adap-
tive power of organisms in Cuenot,
19
2
5. Recent experiments may in
fact give us tools with which to
accurately assess the adaptive
power of organisms (Losos et at.
1997; Case, 1997).
* "Immeasurable time" is an anthro-
pocentric notion. In reality, there are
laws which have yet to be established,
regarding a definite duration of the
evolution [probably measured in bil-
lions of years1of living matter in the
biosphere.
t The limits of life are often sought in
the chemical and physical properties
of the chemistry of living organisms,
such as in proteins that coagulate at
60-70C. But the complex capacities
for adaptation by organisms must be
taken into account. Certain proteins
in a dry state do not change at the
temperature 100C (M. E. Chevreul,
1824).
THE BIOSPHERE 102 THE DOMAIN OF LIFE
103
through which the organisms actively select th-e materials neces-
sary for life.
We have already see the importance of respiration (the
exchange of gases) in the establishment of energy systems of
organisms, and also of the gaseous systems of the whole planet,
especially its biosphere.
This exchange, as well as the transfer of solid and liquid mat-
ter from the surrounding environment into the autonomous
field of organisms (82) -feeding-determines their habitat.
We have already discussed this, in noting the absorption and
transformation of solar energy by green organisms (42). We
now return to this discussion in more detail.
Of primary importance is identifying the source from which
organisms derive the matter necessary for life. From this point
of view, organisms are clearly divided into two distinct groups:
living matter of the first order
203
- autotrophic organisms, inde-
pendent of other organisms for their food; and living matter of
the second order- the heterotrophs and mixotrophs. This distrib-
ution of organisms into three groups according to their food
intake was proposed by the German physiologist W. Pfeffer
204
in
1880-1890, and is an empirical generalization with rich implica-
tions. It is more important to the study of nature than is gener-
ally thought.
Autotrophic organisms build their bodies exclusively from
inert, non-living matter. Their essential mass is composed of
organic compounds containing nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, and
hydrogen - all derived from the mineral world. Autotrophs
transform this raw material into the complex organic com-
pounds which are necessary for life. The preliminary labors of
autotrophs are ultimately necessary for the existence of het-
erotrophs, which obtain their carbon and nitrogen largely from
living matter.
In mixotrophic organisms, the sources of carbon and nitro-
gen are mixed- these nutrients are derived partly from living
matter, and partly from inert matter.
9
2
The source from which organisms obtain the matter needed
for life is more complicated than appears at first sight; neverthe-
less, the classification proposed by W. Pfeffer seems to state one
of the fundamental principles of living nature.
All organisms are connected to inert matter through respira-
tion and feeding, even if only partially or indirectly so. The dis-
tinction between autotrophs and heterotrophs is based on
203 Vernadsky uses "order" here in
the sense of "trophic leveL"
204 See Pfeffer, 1881.
autotrophs' independence from other living matter insofar as
chemical elements are concerned; they can obtain all such ele-
ments from their inanimate surroundings.
But in the biosphere a large number of the molecules neces-
saryfor life are themselves the products oflife, and would not be
found in a lifeless, inert medium.
205
Examples are free oxygen,
0z, and biogenic gases such as CO
z
, NH
3
, HzS, etc. The role that
life plays in the production of natural aqueous solutions is just
as important. Natural water (in contrast to distilled water) is as
necessary to life as is the exchange of gases.
The limits to the independence of autotrophic organisms
should be emphasized as further evidence of the profound effect
of life on the chemical character of the inert water in which it
exists. We do not have a right to make the facile conclusion that
the autotrophic organisms of today could exist in isolation on
our planet.
206
Not only have they been bred from other, similar
autotrophs, but they have obtained the elements they need from
forms of inert matter produced by other organisms.
93 Thus, free oxygen is necessary for the existence of
autotrophic green organisms.
207
They themselves create it from
water and carbon dioxide. It is a biochemical product which is
foreign to the inert matter of the biosphere.
Furthermore, it cannot be proved that free oxygen is the only
material necessary for life that originates from life itself. For
example, J. Bottomley has raised the problem of the importance
of complex organic compounds for the existence of the green
aquatic plants called auximones.
208
The actual existence of aux-
onomes has not been established, and the hypothesis has been
questioned, but Bottomley's research has touched upon a more
general question. In the scientific picture of nature, the impor-
tance of barely detectable traces of organic compounds present
in natural fresh or salt water is becoming more and more appar-
ent. The reservoir of organic matter in the biosphere has a total
mass of at least several quadrillion tons. It cannot be said that
this mass originates exclusivelywith autotrophic organisms. On
the contrary, we see at everystep the immense importance ofthe
nitrogen-rich compounds created by the heterotrophic and
mixotrophic organisms. These are especially important in the
life of organisms as food, and in the origin of carbon-rich min-
eral deposits.
Nature continually makes these materials visible to the naked
eye without recourse to chemical analysis. They form fresh
205 For Vernadsky, biogenic macro-
molecules are undOUbtedly "prod-
ucts of life." This partly explains his
difficulties with concepts of abio-
genesis, difficulties which still afflict
the study of the origin of life. The
fundamental problem Is of the chick-
en and egg varlety- how can life
be created from macromolecules
which themselves are products of
life? (See Cairns-Smith, 1991).
206 Vernadsky does not like to take
organisms out of their biospheric
and historical context. Vernadsky
might
have objected to the thought-based
experiment, discussed by J. W.
Schopf (personal communication).
that one cyanobacterium,
Innoculated into a sterile Earth,
could (with unrestricted growth)
oxygenate the atmosphere In forty
days.
207 Vernadsky seems to be
unaware of the acute toxicity of
oxygen to unprotected organisms.
This may also explain his apparent
rejection of Oparin's suggestion of
an early reducing atmosphere on
Earth. Current research suggests
that the early atmosphere was
indeed anoxic, but was not as
reducing as proposed by Oparln and
Haldane. Rather, it was a carbon
dioxide rich atmosphere (see
Schwartzman and Volk. 1989).
208 See Bottomley, 1917
THE BIOSPHERE
104
THE DOMAIN OF LIFE 105
through which the organisms actively select th-e materials neces-
sary for life.
We have already see the importance of respiration (the
exchange of gases) in the establishment of energy systems of
organisms, and also of the gaseous systems of the whole planet,
especially its biosphere.
This exchange, as well as the transfer of solid and liquid mat-
ter from the surrounding environment into the autonomous
field of organisms (82) -feeding-determines their habitat.
We have already discussed this, in noting the absorption and
transformation of solar energy by green organisms (42). We
now return to this discussion in more detail.
Of primary importance is identifying the source from which
organisms derive the matter necessary for life. From this point
of view, organisms are clearly divided into two distinct groups:
living matter of the first order
203
- autotrophic organisms, inde-
pendent of other organisms for their food; and living matter of
the second order- the heterotrophs and mixotrophs. This distrib-
ution of organisms into three groups according to their food
intake was proposed by the German physiologist W. Pfeffer
204
in
1880-1890, and is an empirical generalization with rich implica-
tions. It is more important to the study of nature than is gener-
ally thought.
Autotrophic organisms build their bodies exclusively from
inert, non-living matter. Their essential mass is composed of
organic compounds containing nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, and
hydrogen - all derived from the mineral world. Autotrophs
transform this raw material into the complex organic com-
pounds which are necessary for life. The preliminary labors of
autotrophs are ultimately necessary for the existence of het-
erotrophs, which obtain their carbon and nitrogen largely from
living matter.
In mixotrophic organisms, the sources of carbon and nitro-
gen are mixed- these nutrients are derived partly from living
matter, and partly from inert matter.
9
2
The source from which organisms obtain the matter needed
for life is more complicated than appears at first sight; neverthe-
less, the classification proposed by W. Pfeffer seems to state one
of the fundamental principles of living nature.
All organisms are connected to inert matter through respira-
tion and feeding, even if only partially or indirectly so. The dis-
tinction between autotrophs and heterotrophs is based on
203 Vernadsky uses "order" here in
the sense of "trophic leveL"
204 See Pfeffer, 1881.
autotrophs' independence from other living matter insofar as
chemical elements are concerned; they can obtain all such ele-
ments from their inanimate surroundings.
But in the biosphere a large number of the molecules neces-
saryfor life are themselves the products oflife, and would not be
found in a lifeless, inert medium.
205
Examples are free oxygen,
0z, and biogenic gases such as CO
z
, NH
3
, HzS, etc. The role that
life plays in the production of natural aqueous solutions is just
as important. Natural water (in contrast to distilled water) is as
necessary to life as is the exchange of gases.
The limits to the independence of autotrophic organisms
should be emphasized as further evidence of the profound effect
of life on the chemical character of the inert water in which it
exists. We do not have a right to make the facile conclusion that
the autotrophic organisms of today could exist in isolation on
our planet.
206
Not only have they been bred from other, similar
autotrophs, but they have obtained the elements they need from
forms of inert matter produced by other organisms.
93 Thus, free oxygen is necessary for the existence of
autotrophic green organisms.
207
They themselves create it from
water and carbon dioxide. It is a biochemical product which is
foreign to the inert matter of the biosphere.
Furthermore, it cannot be proved that free oxygen is the only
material necessary for life that originates from life itself. For
example, J. Bottomley has raised the problem of the importance
of complex organic compounds for the existence of the green
aquatic plants called auximones.
208
The actual existence of aux-
onomes has not been established, and the hypothesis has been
questioned, but Bottomley's research has touched upon a more
general question. In the scientific picture of nature, the impor-
tance of barely detectable traces of organic compounds present
in natural fresh or salt water is becoming more and more appar-
ent. The reservoir of organic matter in the biosphere has a total
mass of at least several quadrillion tons. It cannot be said that
this mass originates exclusivelywith autotrophic organisms. On
the contrary, we see at everystep the immense importance ofthe
nitrogen-rich compounds created by the heterotrophic and
mixotrophic organisms. These are especially important in the
life of organisms as food, and in the origin of carbon-rich min-
eral deposits.
Nature continually makes these materials visible to the naked
eye without recourse to chemical analysis. They form fresh
205 For Vernadsky, biogenic macro-
molecules are undOUbtedly "prod-
ucts of life." This partly explains his
difficulties with concepts of abio-
genesis, difficulties which still afflict
the study of the origin of life. The
fundamental problem Is of the chick-
en and egg varlety- how can life
be created from macromolecules
which themselves are products of
life? (See Cairns-Smith, 1991).
206 Vernadsky does not like to take
organisms out of their biospheric
and historical context. Vernadsky
might
have objected to the thought-based
experiment, discussed by J. W.
Schopf (personal communication).
that one cyanobacterium,
Innoculated into a sterile Earth,
could (with unrestricted growth)
oxygenate the atmosphere In forty
days.
207 Vernadsky seems to be
unaware of the acute toxicity of
oxygen to unprotected organisms.
This may also explain his apparent
rejection of Oparin's suggestion of
an early reducing atmosphere on
Earth. Current research suggests
that the early atmosphere was
indeed anoxic, but was not as
reducing as proposed by Oparln and
Haldane. Rather, it was a carbon
dioxide rich atmosphere (see
Schwartzman and Volk. 1989).
208 See Bottomley, 1917
THE BIOSPHERE
104
THE DOMAIN OF LIFE 105
water and salt water foams, and the i r i e s e ~ t films which com-
pletely cover aquatic surfaces for thousands and millions of
square kilometers. They color rivers, marshy lakes, tundras, and
the black and brown rivers of tropical and subtropical regions.
No organism is isolated from these organic compounds, even if
they are buried within the earth, because these compounds are
continually penetrating it by means of rain, dew, and solutions
of the soil.
The quantity of dissolved and colloidal organic matter in nat-
ural water varies between 10-
6
and 10-
2
percent, and has a gross
mass amounting to 1018 to 10
20
tons, mostly in the ocean. This
quantity is apparently greater than that of living matter itself.
209
The idea of its importance is slowly entering contemporary sci-
entific thinking. Even with the old naturalists, we occasionally
come across an interpretation of this impressive phenomenon,
sometimes from an unexpected point of view.
During the years 1870-1880, the gifted naturalist J. Mayer
briefly pointed out the important role of such matter in the
composition of medicinal waters and in the general economy of
nature.
210
This role is even deeper and more striking than he
supposed with regard to the origin of vadose and phreatic min-
erals.
94 The fact that some of the compounds of inert matter
required by autotrophic organisms has a biochemical origin
does not diminish the distinction between them and het-
erotrophic or mixotrophic organisms. This can be made clear by
giving a somewhat more restricted definition of autotrophy, and
adhering to it in our future discussions.
We will call "autotrophs" those organisms ofthe biosphere which
draw the elements necessary for their sustenance from the sur-
rounding inert matter of the biosphere in which they exist, and
which have no bodily need for organic compounds prepared by
other living organisms.
Such a laconic definition cannot adequately cover this entire
phenomenon, since there must necessarily be transitional states
and borderline cases, such as the saprophytes which feed on
dead and decomposing organisms. The essential food of sapro-
phytes, however, is nearly always composed of microscopic liv-
ing beings which have entered the remains of dead organisms.
In considering the idea that autotrophic organisms are limit-
ed to the current biosphere, we exclude the possibility of draw-
ing conclusions about the Earth's past, and particularly about
209 According to E. A. Romankevich
(1984). the average content of dis-
solved organic carbon in oceanic
water is 1.36 x 10.
4
%, for a total
mass of approximately 1.9 x 10
12
tons. The actual value is not well
constrained but probably lies
between Vernadsky's and
Romankevich's values (Sugimura
and Suzuki, 1988).
210 Vernadsky's reference could not
be located, but see Mayer, 1855.
the possibility that life began on Earth in the form of some kind
of autotrophic organisms; for it is certain that the presence of
vital products in the biosphere is indispensable for all existing
autotrophic organisms.
211
(92)
95 The distinction between primary producers and consumers
is shown by their distribution in the biosphere. The regions
accessible to primary producers with autotrophic lifestyles are
always more extensive than the habitat of organisms which must
consume living matter.
Autotrophs belong to one of two distinct groups: photosyn-
thetic plants and autotrophic bacteria. The latter are character-
ized by their minute dimensions and their great powers of
reproduction.
We have already seen that photosynthesizing organisms are
the essential mechanism of the biosphere, and the source of the
active chemical energy, both of the biosphere and, to a great
extent, the entire crust.
The field of existence of these green autotrophic organisms is
primarily determined by the domain of solar radiation. Their
mass is very large, compared to the mass of live animals; it is
perhaps half
212
of all living matter. Some of these organisms are
adapted to the capture and full utilization of feeble luminous
radiations.
It has been argued, that at various times in the Earth's past, the
extent of photosynthetic life was greater or lesser than it is now,
and indeed this may very well have be the case, although it is not
yet possible to be certain about it.
The immense quantity of matter contained in green organ-
isms, together with their ubiquity and their presence wherever
solar radiation reaches, sometimes gives rise to the idea that
these photosynthesizers constitute the essential basis of life.
One sees also that in geologic times they have been trans-
formed by evolution into a multiplicity of organisms which con-
stitute second-order living matter.
213
At the present time, they
control the fate of both the entire animal world, and also the
immense number of other organisms that lack chlorophyll
(such as fungi and bacteria).
Green organisms carry out the most important chemical
transformation that takes place on the Earth's crust - the cre-
ation of free oxygen, by photosynthetic destruction of oxides as
stable and as universal as water and carbon dioxide. Photosyn-
thesizers undoubtedly performed this same work in the past
211 Vernadsky's insight here was
rediscovered by). W. Schopf (1978),
who notes that the very earliest
organisms must have been
heterotrophs. Although it might
appear that Vernadsky is ensnared
here by his insistence on
substantive uniformitarianism, in
fact he is presenting a sophisticated
argument, the idea that our
understanding of biopoesis is
flawed because it lacks a
satisfactory materialistic
explanation.
212 Or more.
213 This idea that green plants give
rise to "second-order living matter,"
that is, primary and secondary (and
higher order) consumers, was also
expressed
in 1953 by A. C. Hardy. Few zoolo
gists would endorse this idea today,
although "Garden of Ediacara" theo-
ry suggests that many of the earliest
animals may have been photosymbl-
otic (McMenamin, 1986). Achloro-
phyllous plants such as Monotropa,
of course, did evolve from green
plants.
THE BIOSPHERE
106
THE DOMAIN OF LIFE 107
water and salt water foams, and the i r i e s e ~ t films which com-
pletely cover aquatic surfaces for thousands and millions of
square kilometers. They color rivers, marshy lakes, tundras, and
the black and brown rivers of tropical and subtropical regions.
No organism is isolated from these organic compounds, even if
they are buried within the earth, because these compounds are
continually penetrating it by means of rain, dew, and solutions
of the soil.
The quantity of dissolved and colloidal organic matter in nat-
ural water varies between 10-
6
and 10-
2
percent, and has a gross
mass amounting to 1018 to 10
20
tons, mostly in the ocean. This
quantity is apparently greater than that of living matter itself.
209
The idea of its importance is slowly entering contemporary sci-
entific thinking. Even with the old naturalists, we occasionally
come across an interpretation of this impressive phenomenon,
sometimes from an unexpected point of view.
During the years 1870-1880, the gifted naturalist J. Mayer
briefly pointed out the important role of such matter in the
composition of medicinal waters and in the general economy of
nature.
210
This role is even deeper and more striking than he
supposed with regard to the origin of vadose and phreatic min-
erals.
94 The fact that some of the compounds of inert matter
required by autotrophic organisms has a biochemical origin
does not diminish the distinction between them and het-
erotrophic or mixotrophic organisms. This can be made clear by
giving a somewhat more restricted definition of autotrophy, and
adhering to it in our future discussions.
We will call "autotrophs" those organisms ofthe biosphere which
draw the elements necessary for their sustenance from the sur-
rounding inert matter of the biosphere in which they exist, and
which have no bodily need for organic compounds prepared by
other living organisms.
Such a laconic definition cannot adequately cover this entire
phenomenon, since there must necessarily be transitional states
and borderline cases, such as the saprophytes which feed on
dead and decomposing organisms. The essential food of sapro-
phytes, however, is nearly always composed of microscopic liv-
ing beings which have entered the remains of dead organisms.
In considering the idea that autotrophic organisms are limit-
ed to the current biosphere, we exclude the possibility of draw-
ing conclusions about the Earth's past, and particularly about
209 According to E. A. Romankevich
(1984). the average content of dis-
solved organic carbon in oceanic
water is 1.36 x 10.
4
%, for a total
mass of approximately 1.9 x 10
12
tons. The actual value is not well
constrained but probably lies
between Vernadsky's and
Romankevich's values (Sugimura
and Suzuki, 1988).
210 Vernadsky's reference could not
be located, but see Mayer, 1855.
the possibility that life began on Earth in the form of some kind
of autotrophic organisms; for it is certain that the presence of
vital products in the biosphere is indispensable for all existing
autotrophic organisms.
211
(92)
95 The distinction between primary producers and consumers
is shown by their distribution in the biosphere. The regions
accessible to primary producers with autotrophic lifestyles are
always more extensive than the habitat of organisms which must
consume living matter.
Autotrophs belong to one of two distinct groups: photosyn-
thetic plants and autotrophic bacteria. The latter are character-
ized by their minute dimensions and their great powers of
reproduction.
We have already seen that photosynthesizing organisms are
the essential mechanism of the biosphere, and the source of the
active chemical energy, both of the biosphere and, to a great
extent, the entire crust.
The field of existence of these green autotrophic organisms is
primarily determined by the domain of solar radiation. Their
mass is very large, compared to the mass of live animals; it is
perhaps half
212
of all living matter. Some of these organisms are
adapted to the capture and full utilization of feeble luminous
radiations.
It has been argued, that at various times in the Earth's past, the
extent of photosynthetic life was greater or lesser than it is now,
and indeed this may very well have be the case, although it is not
yet possible to be certain about it.
The immense quantity of matter contained in green organ-
isms, together with their ubiquity and their presence wherever
solar radiation reaches, sometimes gives rise to the idea that
these photosynthesizers constitute the essential basis of life.
One sees also that in geologic times they have been trans-
formed by evolution into a multiplicity of organisms which con-
stitute second-order living matter.
213
At the present time, they
control the fate of both the entire animal world, and also the
immense number of other organisms that lack chlorophyll
(such as fungi and bacteria).
Green organisms carry out the most important chemical
transformation that takes place on the Earth's crust - the cre-
ation of free oxygen, by photosynthetic destruction of oxides as
stable and as universal as water and carbon dioxide. Photosyn-
thesizers undoubtedly performed this same work in the past
211 Vernadsky's insight here was
rediscovered by). W. Schopf (1978),
who notes that the very earliest
organisms must have been
heterotrophs. Although it might
appear that Vernadsky is ensnared
here by his insistence on
substantive uniformitarianism, in
fact he is presenting a sophisticated
argument, the idea that our
understanding of biopoesis is
flawed because it lacks a
satisfactory materialistic
explanation.
212 Or more.
213 This idea that green plants give
rise to "second-order living matter,"
that is, primary and secondary (and
higher order) consumers, was also
expressed
in 1953 by A. C. Hardy. Few zoolo
gists would endorse this idea today,
although "Garden of Ediacara" theo-
ry suggests that many of the earliest
animals may have been photosymbl-
otic (McMenamin, 1986). Achloro-
phyllous plants such as Monotropa,
of course, did evolve from green
plants.
THE BIOSPHERE
106
THE DOMAIN OF LIFE 107
periods of geologic history. The phenomena of superficial
weathering clearly showthat free oxygen played the same role in
the Archean Era that it plays nowin the biosphere. The compo-
sition of the products of superficial weathering, and the quanti-
tative relationships that can be established between them, Were
the same in the Archean Era as they are today. The realm of pho-
tosynthesizers in those distant times was the source of free oxy-
gen, the mass of which was of the same order as it is now.
214
The
quantity ofliving green matter, and the energy of solar radiation
that gave it birth, could not have been perceptibly different in
that strange and distant time from what they are today.215 (57)
We do not, however, possess the remains of any photosynthe-
sizers of the Archean Era.
216
These remains only begin to appear
continuously from the Paleozoic, but then clearly show intense
and uninterrupted evolution of innumerable forms, culminating
in some 200,000 species described by biologists. The total num-
ber of species which have existed, and which exist today, on our
planet is not an accidental one; but it cannot yet be calculated,
since the relatively small number of fossil species (several thou-
sands) merely indicates the imperfection of our knowledge. The
number of describedfossil species continues to groweachyear.
217
96 Autotrophic bacteria represent a smaller quantity of living
matter. S. N. Vinogradsky first discovered them at the end of the
19th century,218 but the concept of organisms lacking chloro-
phyll and independent of solar radiation has not yet affected sci-
entific thought as it should have. In contrast, the existence of
autotrophic green organisms was discovered in the late 18th and
early 19th centuries, and their geochemical significance was
brought to light by J. Boussingault, J. B. Dumas,219 and F. V. J.
Leibig
220
in the years 1840 to 1850. The role of autotrophic bac-
teria in the geochemical history of sulfur, iron, nitrogen and car-
bon is very important; but these bacteria showlittle variation, in
the sense that only about a hundred species are known, and
their mass is incomparably less than that of green plants.
These organisms are widely dispersed- in soil, the slime of
aqueous basins, and sea water - although nowhere in quantities
comparable to autotrophic green plants on land, or oceanic'
green plankton. The geochemical energy of these bacteria is,
however, the highest for any living matter, and higher than that
of green plants bya factor of ten or a hundred. The overall kinet-
ic geochemical energy per hectare will be of the same order for
both unicellular green algae and bacteria; but while the algae
214 This incorrect line of argument
helps explain why Vernadsky missed
the connection between oxygena-
tion of the atmosphere and the
Precambrian banded iron forma-
tions.
215 The composition of Archean
erosion products was probably very
different from present ones. This
was shown, for example, by the
Finnish geochemist Rankam, for the
products of the lower Bothnian ero-
sion of diorites in Finland. Most
investigators now accept that the
initial atmosphere of Earth did not
contain oxygen. -A. I. Perelman.
216 Now we do: see Awramik,
Schopf and Walter, 1983.
217 P. R. Erlich and E. O. Wilson
(1991) conjecture (p. 759) that "it is
easily possible that the true number
[global total] of species is closer to
10
8
than 10
7
."
218 S. N. Vinogradsky's discovery of
chemoautotrophic microorganisms,
a
discovery of overwhelming impor-
tance for biospheric studies, was
made in 1887: see Vinogradsky,
1887. (See also Lapo, 1990, p. 205).
219 See Boussingault and Dumas,
18
44.
220 See Leibig, 1847.
T
I
can reach the maximum stationary state in about ten days, bac-
teria in favorable conditions need only a tenth of this time.
97 There are only a few recorded observations on the multipli-
cation of autotrophic bacteria. According to J. Reinke,221 they
appear to multiply more slowly than other bacteria; N. G.
Cholodny's observations
222
of iron bacteria do not contradict
this. These bacteria divide only once or twice in 24 hours (D = 1
to 2 per day); ordinary bacteria divide as slowly as this only
under unfavorable conditions. For example, Bacillus ramosus
(which inhabits rivers) yields at least 48 generations in 24 hours
under favorable conditions, but only 4 generations when the
temperatures are low.
Even this rate of multiplication, which might apply for all
autotrophic bacteria, is much higher than that of unicellular
green protists. The speed of transmission of geochemical ener-
gy should be correspondingly greater, and we should therefore
expect that the bacterial mass in the biosphere would far exceed
the mass of green eukaryotes. In addition, the phenomenon
observed in the seas (51) should occur, with bacteria predomi-
nating over green protista, in the same way that unicellular algae
predominate over green metaphytes.
98 In fact, however, this is not what actually happens. Restraints
are imposed on the accumulation of this form of living matter
for reasons similar to those that allow green metaphytes to pre-
dominate over green protista on land.
Monera are ubiquitous, existing throughout the ocean to
depths far beyond the penetration of solar radiation, and they
are diverse enough to include nitrogen, sulfur, and iron bacteria,
which are not as common as other types of bacteria. One is led
to conclude that bacterial abundance is a ubiquitous and con-
stant feature of the Earth's surface.
We find confirmation of this in the very special conditions of
nutrition onwhich bacterial existence depends. Chemoautotroph-
ic bacteria receive all the energy needed for life by completing the
oxidation of unoxidized and partially-oxidized natural com-
pounds of nitrogen, sulfur, iron, manganese, and carbon. Oxy-
gen-depleted matter (vadose minerals of these elements) needed
by these bacteria can never be amassed in sufficient quantities in
the biosphere, because the domain of the biosphere is a region of
oxidation, saturated by free oxygen created by green organisms. In
this medium, the most thoroughly oxidized compounds are the
221 See). Reinke, 1901.
222 See Cholodny, 1926.