| Annotation |
The article defines the importance of environmental culture in the context of environmental policy of the state. It is established that the modern ecological culture is characterized by the predominance of individualistic utilitarian attitudes, psychology of consumption. This has a negative impact on the health, quality of life of the population, the state of flora and fauna. The mass public consciousness is dominated by anthropocentrism, which does not require an environmental assessment of their own actions, as the natural environment is considered a utilitarian application to humanity, a source of free resources for wealth accumulation and profit.
It is noted that the ecological environment is considered as a historically changing set of natural and social factors. The formation of ecological culture – a long and complex process, whose progress is only possible with a systematic approach, the unity of the priorities of society and the state, at the same time, the quality of ecological culture is largely characterized by a set of activity components: ecological literacy and environmental activity, is directly dependent on environmental public awareness and interest in such information.
It is concluded that an effective state policy should be aimed at ensuring the ecological safety of mankind and the harmonious balanced development of the economy, society and nature |
| References |
1. Alilova K. M. Yug Rossii: ekologiya, razvitie (South of Russia: ecology, development), 2017, no. 3, pp. 153–158.
2. Bashlakova O. I. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta mezhdunarodnyh otnosheniy (Bulletin of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations), 2015, no. 3, pp. 112–121.
3. Girusov E. V. Ekonomicheskie i sotsialno-gumanitarnye issledovaniya (Economic and socio-humanitarian studies), 2016, no. 4, pp. 103–107.
4. Dushkova D. O., Kirillov S. N. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 3. Ekonomika. Ekologiya (Bulletin of the Volgograd State University. Series 3. Economics. Ecology), 2017, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 148–158.
5. Ziyatdinov Sh. G. Simvol nauki (Symbol of science), 2018, no. 8, pp. 70–72.
6. Kazakov N. P., Yakubovskaya N. A. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A. S. Pushkina (Bulletin of the Leningrad State University named after A. S. Pushkin), 2015, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 58–64.
7. Kezin V. G. Vestnik Permskogo natsionalnogo issledovatelskogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie nauki (Bulletin of the Perm National Research Polytechnic University. Socio-economic sciences), 2014, no. 24, pp. 55–62.
8. Morozova E. V., Tereshina M. V., Ermolov N. G. Nauchny zhurnal Kubanskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta (Scientific journal of the Kuban State Agrarian University), 2014, no. 101, pp. 1528–1544.
9. Pugachev A. V. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (Bulletin of the Kemerovo State University), 2014, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 109–112.
10. Romanova I. V., Romanova N. P., Sharova T. V. Vestnik Chitinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (Bulletin of the Chita State University), 2011, no. 6, pp. 122–134.
11. Rushkov R. A. Kommunikologiya (Communicology), 2016, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 37–52.
12. Fortunatov A. A. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie (Knowledge. Understanding. Skill), 2015, no. 4, pp. 110–117.
13. Shklyaruk V. Ya. Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo universiteta (Bulletin of the Saratov State Social and Economic University), 2017, no. 1, pp. 71–75.
14. Colaris W. J. J. Geologie en mijnbouw (Geologie en mijnbouw), 1983, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 643–652.
15. Dasmann R. Conservation, science and society: International biosphere reserve congress (Conservation, science and society: International biosphere reserve congress), Paris, 1984, vol. 2, pp. 509–513.
|
