Reprinted from:

The Future of the Universe and the Future of Our Civilization

V. Burdyzha and G. Khozin editors,

World Scientific 2000

The Future of Life on Earth. Ecosystems as Topological Spaces

Michel Bounias*, Andr Bonaly** Pages 206-224

Procedings of the First International Symposium on "The Future of the Universe and The Future of Our Civilization" (U.N., UNESCO, ICSU) Budapest, 2-7 July 1999.

Suivi des illustrations de la prsentation orale, de documents complmentaires et d'un manuscrit prliminaire indit en Franais.

The Future of Universe and The Future of our Civilization.

World Scientific, 2000, pp.206-224.

"The Future of Life on Earth. Ecosystems as Topological Spaces "

Michel Bounias*, Andr Bonaly**

* BioMathematics Unit, University of Avignon, INRA (DSPE) and The Alexandria Institute of Medicine (New York), Chemin du Petit Bosquet, 84390 Saint-Christol d' Albion, France. Fax (33).4 90 75 08 88. ** Mathematics, University Paris X, 74 rue Cl. Bernard, 75005 Paris

Abstract. "Life, as well as any kind of matter, is embedded in mathematical spaces. The filters of
Life spaces are filtered by finer filters in purely mathematical spaces. Therefore, the functioning of Life systems depends on the functionality of embedding mathematical spaces. The global planetary ecosystem and its subsystems own properties of a topological space (X, ), provided with a set (X) of biotic and abiotic members and a combination rule ( ) mapping interactions between any of the components of (X). Its optimum properties can be reached if and only if the space of the orbits of members of X by the set of functions in ( ) is provided with appropriate topological properties, e.g. this space is compact and complete. These properties are fulfilled in discrete setting only within a finite time interval, whereas they are not if members of (X) and/or ( ) are arbitrarily eliminated, through either space or time, both nonlinear. As a corollary of the Bolzano, Weierstrass, and HeineBorel-Lebesgue theorems, it infers that a future for Life on Planet Earth lies on two major conditions: (i) maximization of complementarity in habitat occupation and resource utilization, and (ii) reciprocal contribution of subsystems in filling each other with components needed for improving their respective structures and functions, i.e. mutualism. Objective foundations for assessing features of a further "universal right" are derived from the need for all livings to fulfill the biological conditions necessary for life to be sustainably possible. In conclusion, should natural conditions hit some difficulties on the way to these accomplishments, it would be the honor of humankind to contribute to improving, rather than to impairing, the trends of evolution towards the goals of reaching "optimum states" in which competition is minimized and mutualism is generalized. Keywords. Compact Ecosystem Spaces; Ecosystem Convergence; Mutualism; Space of

Orbits; Universal Right.

1 Introduction.
The fundamental question of what universe could really be remains largely unsolved, since currently accepted paradigms remain questioned, while some experimental data can be equally well interpreted through different theories. In cosmology, some current theories

remain contradictive with astronomical observation (Mitchell, 1997), the red shift is amenable to alternative explanations (Meno, 1998; Hannon, 1998), and even the question of whether space is independent from matter or matter is deformation of space is debatable (Krasnoholovets, 1997; Kubel, 1997; Meno, 1997; Rothwarf, 1998). In particle physics, the inconsistency of Lorentz covariance used by Einstein, Minkowski, Mach, Poincar, Maxwell etc. with Lorentz invariance used by Dirac, Wigner, Feynman, Yang, etc. has been pointed out (Arunasalam, 1997). In relativity, foundations have been revisited (Verozub, 1995), alternative views are supported (Lester, 1998), and it has been shown that classical measurement of the velocity of light is flawed (Driscoll, 1997). Concerning quantum mechanics, data have been shown interpretable through classical physics (Wesley, 1995), while flaws have been found in both experimental design and theory about the Bell inequalities (Wesley, 1994-1998, Watson, 1998). On another side, regarding the fundamental mechanisms of living systems, little is known about what life really is (cf. Bounias, 1990; Loewenstein, 1999). Thus, in the years 1994, a "Global Project" was started in order to address the following among other questions: (i) does a physical universe exist? (ii) if so, on which conditions could it exist? (iii) what life really represents, and, as a part of the whole universe, to which kind of optimum state should and could it self-evolve? At the present stage of the project, points (i) and (ii) have been clarified, and contribution to solving point (iii) is the object of the present communication.

2 Preliminaries.
2.1. Conditions for statement of scientific truth. Proposition 2.1. The following principle for the fulfilment of criteria for "scientific truth" was taken as guideline: a proposition P is considered true if it is possible to identify the space {X, } i.e. the set (X) and the combination rules ( ) in which its validity can be formally demonstrated through a defined logics (Bounias, 1997). Demonstrations were based on the theory of sets and general topology (Bourbaki, 1990a,b; Choquet, 1984; Schwartz, 1991, 1993) as the logical background and source of combination rules. 2.2 Existence of a physical universe Physical conjectures 2.2.(1 and 2) . (Bonaly, 1993: personal communication): (i) An object can be considered physical if it can be in some way observed and can in some way interact with other objects. (ii) A structure can be observed on the condition that it is topologically closed. Lemma 2.2.1. A sufficient condition for a space S to be closed is that it is the intersection of two topological n-spaces provided with non-equal dimensions. Proof was achieved by Bounias and Bonaly (1994), and the proposition P="there exists a physical universe" holds for space {X=, =C}, where C is the complementarity property in set theory, which was denoted: P(, C) (Bounias, 1997).

Lemma 2.2.2. The existence of the empty set is a necessary and sufficient condition for existence of a topological n-space. Proofs have been given (Bounias and Bonaly, 1997a) that: (i) the empty set owns the properties of a nonwellfounded set, or hyperset (Aczel, 1987; Barwise, 1991), which in addition solves antinomies previously remaining about its properties, and (ii) that this gives raise to existence of spaces endowed with a number of topological dimensions as great as needed. 2.3 Topology of perception function and the generation of time. Biological conditions 2.3.. The concept of a "self" is amenable to the commonly reported fact that for any individual, all perceptions collected from the outside world are driven to one single inside entity. Accordingly, perceptions are converted into mental constructions (images and thoughts) if the flow of input signals is driven to stable states. This condition is mathematically fulfilled by the existence of fixed points or fixed parts in the sequences of neuronal chainings, as independently pointed by Bounias and Bonaly (1994) and Carmesin (1995). Lemma 2.3.1. Perception function readily infers from topology of closed sets. The proof, given by Bounias and Bonaly (1994), can be summarized as follows. Let A and B two closed spaces in space S as defined in Lemma 2.2.1. Then, since such space is arcwise connected (Bonaly and Bounias, 1995), a path connecting a point x in set A to the interior of set B owns intersections xB and ax ,resp. with the respective frontiers of sets A and B (Jordan-Veblen theorem). Since B is closed, it owns at least a fixed point of the Brouwer's type (bo), which provides its self-identification, and the image of ax by a sequence of mappings () leads to a fixed point of the Banach-Caccioppoli type: a(u) upon contraction conditions. Then the set of fixed points in B includes {a(u), bo}, which associates any perception to a self-referential identification. This provides set B with the properties of a conscious observer (Bounias and Bonaly, 1997b). Lemma 2.3.2. The topology of brain space can be provided with either metric or nonmetric setting. Although metric distances have been actually provided to the brain of Homo sapiens in recent times, a nonmetric distance exists in the original topology, since it has been proved that the symmetric difference () between sets, owns the properties of a distance (Bounias and Bonaly, 1996; Bounias, 1997). Corollary 2.3. Time infers from ordered sequences {Si}i of Poincar sections in the embedding n-space W, through conditions imposed by the set of mappings Sj a Sk (Bonaly and Bounias, 1995), with incremental elements sharing common mathematical features with momentums (Bounias, 1997).

3. Main results.
3.1. General topological properties of ecosystems. Conjecture 3.1. As far as ecosystems fulfill the conditions which found mathematical sets, an identification of the topological spaces that they constitute would make available to

biological researchers all the properties already demonstrated by mathematical research for such spaces. Corollary 3.1. Such direct mathematical knowledge would allow the acquisition of information which would otherwise be nearly impossible to be reached through field or laboratory experiment within an accessible range of time or space. Such information would be qualitative and would essentially escape bias or numerically originating errors. Lemma 3.1. An ecosystem owns the properties of a mathematical space. Proof. Ecosystems have been defined by the association of two categories of parameters: (i) the inventory of members X (gathering both living and nonliving components) contained in / or composing the various compartments. (ii) the flows f (as exchanges of matter and energy, population dynamics, etc.) occurring both inside and between these compartments. Remark. The level of organization of the whole can be characterized in terms of hierarchic information (Hirata, 1993). This kind of structure is sufficient to constitute a space, noted E(X,f) composed of set E (under condition of proposition 1) endowed with combinations rules f. Among the latter should be included the existence of parts P(X), belonging to the set of parts P(X) which in turn contains X itself (see below 3.3.2). Reciprocally would a sub-system be deprived of either members or flows, it would no longer constitute an ecosystem, while a system composed through oversetting would no more constitute an ecosystem if the flows did not apply to its members. Thus, the condition is necessary. Theorem 3.1. A set E of ecosystems can be allowed to constitute a topological space T . Proof. The four conditions which confer to a set of parts of a set the structure of a topology (Bourbaki, 1990) are fulfilled for a complex ecosystem E: (i) - The union of any number of subsystems of E includes a set of members that remain connected by a set of functions. Such a union therefore again constitutes an ecosystem. Let E(X, ) and F(Y,T), two members of T : there exists the ecosystem E F = (X Y,
oT),

in which the combination ( oT) of functions ( ) and (T) can widely differ from either ( ) or (T). In contrast the set of the union E F will be the union of sets X and Y. This result can be extended to a countable number of subsystems, although such a number is finite on the Planet. (ii) - The parts in common to a finite number of subsystems belonging to E still constitute an ecosystem. The resulting system: EF= (XY, T) will be constituted with members in common to X and Y (if this set is empty, condition (iv) below holds), endowed with combination rules (T) applying to X and T. Eventually, loss of components can make (T) constitute ( T) eventually differing from either ( ) or (T). Clauses (i) et (ii) imply that members can exist in common to several ecosystems without need that the latter are localized in the sale area. (iii) - The set E of ecosystems belongs to topology T .

This is warranted by condition (i). (iv) - The empty set also belongs to topology T. This allows vicinity to occur without overlapping on some subparts of a complex system. This constitutes a partition of the topological space, not to be confused with a cover: rather as the greatest lower boundary (or infimum) of a cover (see below). Finiteness conditions are necessarily fulfilled in the space of molecular forms, whatever the finiteness or infiniteness of the set of elementary corpuscle in Universe. However, finiteness of the set of members of an ecosystem is fulfilled only within a finite lapse of time, that is a finite subsequence of sections Si. In contrast, it is not in W4, where sequences {Si}k are open. Set E is a discrete set of closed subsets in spacetime sections. These conditions define a topology by open sets. An alternative topology by closed sets is defined through complementarity property, with the complementary of a open being a closed. Thus, clauses (i) and (ii) hold for the union of a finite number of ecosystems and for the intersection of any number of them (an example is that of common points through timeevolution). Proposition 3.1.1. Ecosystems include both metric and nonmetric subspaces. a). All members that can be quantified provide metric subspaces: for instance, population levels or diversity, and all kinds of flows can be measured by using appropriately available units. Even the aesthetic quality of a site as a source of artistic inspiration could be evaluated by a measure of the frequency of artworks that it elicited, regardless of any qualitative judgement about the value of these works. b). In contrast, there exists members that cannot be measured. This is the case for those which belong to the space of qualitative perceptions, like the array of emotional factors, regardless of their respective intensities. However, even in this case, an alternative "set-distance" can be used, as defined by the symmetric difference between sets (i.e. the set of all members which are not common to these sets), which owns all of the mathematical properties of a true mathematical "distance" (Bounias and Bonaly, 1995; Bounias, 1997), although it is not properly a "metric" one. Work in this area is currently in progress within the frame of the Global Project. Remark 3.1.1. The above considerations hold for sets of the "countable" kind, although according to condition (iv) they could be not necessarily "effectively enumerable" in the sense of Borel (1909). Remark 3.1.2. The topological properties of finite sets should allow the ecosystems to be classified into the equivalent of corresponding mathematical spaces, whose known properties should then be readily extended to knowledge about any of the planetary ecosystems. Proposition 3.1.2. Ecosystems hierarchization lies on the identification of their topological filters. A topological filter is a family F of nonempty subspaces (here: existing ecosystems) whose properties are conserved in both of the following cases (Schwartz, 1991):

(i). Members common to a finite number of parts of F (i.e. their intersection) keep the same properties as have those from which they come. (ii). Given a subsystem A of F, then any ecosystem B containing A must also belong to F, that is keep properties holding on A. Remark 3.1.3. The concept of topological filter defines an order relation through inclusion property, which allows reasoning on common properties shared by diverse categories of ecosystems, from the hierarchy of their respective generation. Among other objectives, our aim is to search for the ultrafilter of the total planetary ecosystem, whose properties are also necessarily those of the whole of ecosystems, including local ecological "landscapes". 3.2. Specific topological properties. Definitions 3.2.1. An ecosystem or a manifold of ecosystems (Y) (as in Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 3.1.1) is specified by a set provided with a combination rule: Y = {(X), ( )} (1) where: (X) = {E,H} denotes the set E of living species, together with the set H of non-living members, organic and inorganic, including habitat and resources. ( ) = {, } denotes the set of functions () associated to the combination () of the manifold of parts of (E) and ( ). Set () involves the following functions and their combinations:

t= transformations (e.g.: E a H) m = inclusions (e.g.: EH a E or EH a H)

L = translations (e.g.: Hi a Hj), E(Hi)a E(Hj), ...) C = communication (e.g.: EjEk a EkEj) R = reproduction (e.g.: H a H, EE a E) More generally, is the manifold of self-mappings of the union of E and H : = (E H)E H (2) Habitat (e.g. biotopes B) and resources (R) will further be denoted in a more specific way by appropriate terms. Functionals are defined as mappings of a set of functions (belonging to a domain set of functions) into a set ranging in another set of functions (Schwartz, 1991 ): a . The space of orbits is denoted by = {O(X), } where denotes combination rules ranging on , namely: = {P(), (Oi, Oj)ij} where P() is the set of parts of , and the set distance between orbits. Lemma 3.2.1 . Set is discrete, thus localy compact in (Wk)k
N

Lemma 3.2.2 . Set () is metrisable within a finite time interval, and provided with a set distance. Proof. () is separate, since it is finite in (Wk)k K and it is regular since it is discrete. The metric-like set distance provides it with a distance which in turn provides its topology. In effect: (i) any union of distances is a distance (e.g. (A,B,C) (D,E). Inside this union, there exists (CD) which has been called an "instans": m<(C,D)> (Bounias, 1997) but does not belong to the collections of sets involved in the considered distances. (ii) any intersection of distances still belongs to a distance. In effect, (A,B,C) (D,E) contains a part shared with each of the paired distances, that is the m<(C,D)> which does not belong to (A,B,C) nor to (D,E) . Lemma 3.2.3. The space of orbits is provided with a specific distance. Proof. (i) (Oi, Oj)ij (d0); (ii) (Oi, Oj)=(Oi = Oj); (iii) (Oi, Oj) = (Oj, Oi); (iv) (Oi, Ok) (Oi, Oj)} (Oj, Ok). Thus the following result: Theorem 3.2.1. The space of observable orbits O(X) [or: (X)] is a complete space. Proof. It is compact within a finite sequence of events, and provided with a metrics.

3.3. Functionality of the space of orbits.

Let the respective spaces of orbits of members () and functions (): : (ei, hi) a (ej, hj) ; : (e,h) a (e,h). Theorem 3.3.1. In the space of orbits of members of an ecosystem, functions reach their boundaries. In other words, maximum ecological richness should be reached. Proof. Since is at least quasi-compact and nonempty, it suffices that is shown to be numerical and continuous to allow the Weierstrass theorem to hold, and state that reaches its boundaries. (i) It is numerical: in effect, that the concept of set-distance holds is enough to make available the definitions and properties of metric and topological spaces: balls, neighborhood, adherence, convergence, Cauchy conditions, Lipschitz conditions, etc. Thus, the set distance provides the quality of numerical functions to any function ranging on collections of non allempty sets. (ii) Continuity is proved since any mapping of a discrete space into a topological space is continued (Bourbaki, 1990). Theorem 3.3.2. A necessary and sufficient condition for allowing ecosystems to evolve towards their optimum states (or boundaries) is that they should be provided with the whole of their components and of the orbits of their functions. Proof. (i). The theorem of Bolzano states that if the space of orbits is connected, a numerical function cannot go from one to another extremum without intermediately reaching all of its points. An ecosystem can thus evolve from one stage to another stage only if the space of orbits is connected.

(ii). However, a discrete space with at least two points is not connected. This objection will be addressed in the following proposition: Proposition 3.3.1. Given the set of orbits = {O(X), }, if the set of parts of includes both the graph of images of set (E) by the set of functions , and the orbit of each function by the set of functionals, then members of will never be separated two by two. In this case, cannot be the union of two separate parts and it is connected (work in progress). Since the involved functions are provided with the set distance and thus are numerical-like functions ranging in a connected space, the orbits of space = {O(X), (X,)} can reach their upper boundaries from their lower boundaries, through all intermediate steps. This completes the proof. Theorem 3.3-3. Ecosystems get their stability by reaching optimum state. Proof. Space (Y) provided with properties 3.3-1 to 3.3-2 is a complete space. Therefore, all of its Cauchy sequences are convergent. Intermediate steps can thus reach fixed points, that is steady states, on the condition that they are Cauchy-like sequences, which is consistent with expansion sequences and in some way to contraction ones (Bounias, 1999). Then, their union and intersection provide the whole space with the members needed for allowing the system to reach further states. Alternatively, the sequence of ecosystems states, as discrete sets, might get Cauchy-like properties only when they have reached their respective eigen supremum (work in progress).

3.4. Some biologically relevant corollaries.

Corollary 3.4-1. The elimination of a specie or function in a damaged ecosystem is sufficient for breaking the evolution of the ecosystem towards the optimum state. Proof: directly infering from theorems 3.3-1 and 3.3-2. Biological applications. This corollary first provides support to the classical ecological view that all species are needed for the general ecosystem health, even for species apparently not directly dependent of one another. Thus, reduction of biodiversity resulting from hostile coevolution of human populations with others, generates breaks in ecosystems continuity, with severe adverse consequences (Cairns and Bidwell, 1996a). Then, it also supports the statement that discontinuities originating in exportation of exotic species can as well impair the sustainability of planetary ecosystems (Cairns and Bidwell, 1996b). Remark 3.4-1. Independently from the fact that discontinuities are provoked by a change resulting from the action of a living specie (Myers, 1992; McCormick et al., 1994) or an abiotic cause or site, then the future of the ecosystem depends on the capability of parts which remain functional to restore the continuity of the damaged part. Thus, Cairns and Pratt (1992) have rightly stressed that fragmentation can be fatal to integrated environmental management, and proposed a scale of evaluation of the recovery potential of ecosystems. Corollary 3.4-2. Within an ecosystem endowed with functionality, the optimum state is accessible if and only if the following two conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The maximum number of species should occupy all possible habitats and use the available resources in a complementary way. This point supports the 143rd statement of Moore (1990) that "Evolution has maximized both the number of niches and the variety of habitats that are used by organisms". (ii) Occupation of a niche Hi and utilization of resources Ri specific of specie Ei should provide support or improvement to an habitat Hj and resources Rj required for another specie Ej. This condition is translated in the ecological reality in terms of mutual benefit (Chanway, 1998), and mutualism is likely to constitute the convergence point of ecosystems evolution (after Ramade, 1999: personal communication). Proof. (i) The sufficient condition infers from the need for orbits integrity, and from proposition 3.3.2 and theorem 3.3.4, allowing the ecosystem space to be connected. (ii) The necessary condition is given by the Heine-Borel-Lebesgue (H-B-L) theorem. In effect, since the space of orbits is compact, in any of its closed and bounded subspaces one should be able to find a finite open subcover of any cover. Let a finite sequence of iterations of subspace Y(a,b) = {X(a,b), )}k K, where X(a,b)=(Ea,Eb), (Ha,Hb). The union of components of X(a,b) is a partition of orbit O(Xa,b). Then, for the H-B-L theorem to hold, one must have: O(Xa,b) O(Ea,Ha) O(Eb,Hb) that is: O(Ea,Hb) O(Eb,Hb) (3b) This implies the existence of a mapping of a part H'b Hb and of a part H'a Ha, so that: (H'a) Hb et (H'b) Ha. Accordingly, part of the resources of Ea comes from the milieu of Eb, and conversely. If one extracts one/ or both of the subsets (H'a) or (H'b), the orbit of the remaining members therefore constitute the minimum/ or the infimum of any cover of the orbit of X(a,b), and the existence of two members (H'a) et (H'b) is thus simultaneously necessary. This completes the proof. Remark 3.4-2. It further seems worth comparing both from the mathematical and from the biological aspect the consequences of changes in the configuration of continuous functions in a nonconnected space or discontinuous functions in a connected space, with respect to the Bolzano theorem. (3a)

4. Discussion and conclusions.

4.1. Remarks. 4.1.1. About hostile interactions. Specialization makes species become more dependent upon one single habitat (E i Hi). This enhances the risk of generating discontinuities, which in contrast is attenuated for some time by the emergence of the phenomenon of predation, parasitism or pathology against threatening species. These three forms of biological agression thus appear as limited steps which should be limited in duration, on the way to optimum states. On the other hand,

specialization also favours a decrease of interpecific competition, since, in accordance with the 144th statement of Moore (1990): " Adaptation to one niche reduces the degree of adaptation for other niches". 4.1-2. Mutualism versus hostility. Evolution towards a optimum state may involve some alteration of a strict specialization, since: (i) strict parasitism involves a complete dependence with a one-sided prejudice: the latter is first surjective and finally bijective (when the parasite disappears after the host is killed), so that it should be intermediately injective. (ii) symbiosis involves a reciprocal dependence, although with reduced or no prejudice, and a one-sided or reciprocal benefit. (iii) commensalism involves a reciprocal benefit without a strict dependence. This latter clause seems the only one that allows an evolution towards a generalization of mutualism. Then, agressive or invasive forms may appear as transitory phases at median and long term. Even among species intermediately occupying similar habitats, some kind of complementarity may hold, in consistency with statement 141 of Moore: " Among sympatric species, each has evolved a specific way of life that restricts it to a specific way of obtaining resources". This contributes to completion of orbits in the ecosystem space. 4.2. Functionals as factors of evolution. Definition 4.2.1 : ecological functionals. Let Eo an inventory of species at the iterate Yo of an ecosystem state, considered as an initial stage. A further stage Ei is constituted with transformation products: (Ei) = Eo {t(eo)i}i=0 a i=I (4a) where: t(eo)i}= {C,L,m,,t }(eo)i} (4b) Part of members of Eo is modified by the combination of functions resulting in new functions. Functional F is such that the set of preimage functions {Co,Lo,m,o,to } becomes the set of image functions {Co,Ci,Lo,Li,m,o,m,i,to,ti } by F, that is also: {F= (Fo)}: o a (o,i) (5) Hence, new members of E and of H appear, which corresponds to a new state of Y denoted (Yi). Remark 4.2.1-1. If in a sequence of iterations there appears a step (Yk) such that in either (Ek) or (Hk) some members (kj), (ekj), or (hkj) are missing, then this brings discontinuities in the system and the space can be at best locally compact, locally complete or locally connected. Then theorem 3.3.3. and corollaries 3.4.2 hold for the eventual continuation of the sequence. Remark 4.2.1-2. The orbit of members by the set of functions is filled with both the graph of functions by the set of members and the orbit of each function by the set of functionals.

Consequently, this involves the emergence of the graph of both previous and new members by the set of new functions (see definition 4.2.1). Spaces provided with this property then exhibit intersections which preclude the existence of isolated points. Therefore, although they are discrete, the relevant spaces can be connected. This completes theorem 3.3.2 and proposition 3.3.1. Remark 4.2.1-3. Sequence {(Yi)}i I identifies with the phenomenon of evolution: E, and the objective is to analyze the behavior of E = {(Yi)}i
N

. Hence, the presence of the conditions

for the system to be compact, complete and connected represent an anticipation factor which provides the sequence with a hyperincursive character, in the sense of Dubois (1998). This anticipation parameter is a mathematical clause imposed by the fundamental nature of the system: it should thus not be confused with the doctrin of "vitalism", although it may sound somewhat the like. 4.3. Binary relations on (Y). Several types of binary relations are involved in the functionality of the system. 4.3-1. Relation on adaptation or compatibility. Denote by R the relation globally addressing the compatibility or mutual adaption of species and milieu. ei R hi = "specie ei is adapted to milieu hi ". hi R ei = "the medium hi is not altered by specie ei, excepted the mapping hi a hk by the transformation function tei(hi)". Then there is a symmetrical property and relation R is an equivalence relation provided it is: (i) reflexive and (ii) transitive. (i). Reflexivity (ei R ei, hi R hi) means that existing species and medium are self compatible. (ii). Transitivity (ei R hi, hi R hk ei R hk) identifies habitats of different kinds which however allow the same specie to be adapted to them. (ei, ej) R hk = "species ei et ej are compatible with another medium hk". ({ei,ej}) R hk = "the association of species ei et ej is not compatible with another defined milieu: hk". Remark 4.3.1.1. Transitivity is applicable to incompatibility characters. This raises an important point, since accordingly, an alteration to a milieu can raise an incompatibility between some species and their habitat or resources situated at an eventually large distance from the initial change. This configuration has been modelized by Spromberg et al. (1998), who reached some important conclusions: for instance, in the case of pollutions of an ecosystem, uncontaminated sites cannot serve as reference sites, and nonexposed populations can also undergo as significant effects. This class of phenomena has been called "action at a distance". It is consistent with R and could therefore be extended to other alterations. Remark 4.3.1.2. Let the case of an iteration leading (Yi) to a pth stage such that: eipRhip. This raises a discontinuity, excepted if:

(i) the milieu Hi already contains a member h'iq , image of hi(p-1) by the functional F, and such that eip R h'iq.; (ii) there preexists from genetical diversity a specie ejpRHi such that ejpRhip. This supports the hypothesis that biodiversity should anticipate on changes in the ecosystems structures, in order to make available the presence of species able to start their development without delay in replacement of species becoming rapidly extinct because of incompatibility with the changed ecological life support system. Experiments by Naeem et al. (1994) have pointed out the need for biodiversity for maintaining the performance of ecosystems. It should be emphasized that a continuous increase in biodiversity is necessary instead of just a conservation of existing species, as warranting an anticipated adaptation to any kind of unexpected change. Remark 4.3.1.3. Antisymmetry property induces the case of an order relation. This provides sequence (Yp)p with an orientation, which means that evolution behaves like an arrow whose direction has sometimes been interpreted as a "project". In fact, what has been called a "project" again is an underlying mathematical parameter of the system. Steady states imply symmetry, i.e. general convergence of order to equivalence type. 4.3.2. Relation on resource utilization. Denote by U the relation addressing the possibility of utilization of a member as a resource for another member. ei U ej = "ei uses ej, for instance either directly or indirectly as a food resource, or a means of adaptation to habitat, etc". (ei, hi) U (hj, ek) = "ei uses on hi the member ek picked on the medium hj". Reflexivity implies cannibalism and symmetry corresponds to either a mutual predation (in the case of negative interaction) or a mutual benefit (in case of positive interaction), like in symbiosis and commensalism. Transitivity implies that the transformation of a milieu leads to a new site which remains favourable to the species living in it: ei U hi, hi U hk ei U hk. Let now the case in which this transformation results from the action at a distance of other species living on other habitats, then the condition for mutualism is fulfilled among species living in specific habitat and on specific resources. This enhanced form of complementarity further supports Corollary 3.4.2 and the Heine-Borel-Lebesgue topological condition. 4.4. Degradation of ecosystems. 4.4-1. Regressive evolution . Let Yo a reference state (arbitrarily considered as an initial one) and Ym an intermediate step such that, following a break in compatibility, namely (Em R Hm), there appears a discontinuity. Then, there can be a subspace Zm Ym such that Zm remains compact and connected. During further iterations, there will again appear a subspace V also compact and connected, but such that according to the Weierstrass theorem, one have:

supV(m+k) supZ(m+k) , etc. Each step of this regressive iteration necessarily leads to loss of diversity of both species and habitat. 4.4-2. Lower boundary of the system. At before-last stages, when the system reaches Y(n-1) = {(e(n-1), h(n-1)), }, the system finally falls on the lower boundary Yn = inf(Y) = {(, hn), }, that is the stage where the last specie has disappeared after having transformed the last milieu by the last transformation mapping t: (e(n-1) a h(n-1)) hn. 4.5. Restoration of ecosystems. Let eid a specie which got extinct from the set Ei: the next step of (Yi) is (Yi+p) such that Y(i+p) = CYi(eid) and the orbit is O(Ei+p) = CO(Ei)[O(eid)]. Thus, the space of orbits fails to keep connected, and the system is no longer allowed to evolve towards its upper boundary. For the connectivity not to be broken or to be restored, there must exist in the image set of Ei by F, or preexist as an image of E(i-k), a member eos such that: [O(E(i+p)) O(eos)] R H(i+p). (6) This defines the compatibility of a substituted specie with the space of orbits of the subsystem in which it has been introduced. In contrast, the negation of this relation R for a specie introduced either deliberately or accidentally in an ecosystem would break the functionality of the whole system. This means that a substituted specie must fulfill the full compatibility of the former one with regards to the set of functions and the set of interactions of this specie with all other species and with the whole of the ecological life support systems in its present and further iterates. For propagules and dissemules to be biologically appropriate for the restoration of a degraded ecosystem, they must, in particular, constitute a new domain set for the functions of translation (L) ranging on the next (potential) sets.

5. Parametrization of human activities.

5.1. General trends . Consistently with the controversial "Call from Heidelberg", human activities use nature for their profit, that is: (i) they divert to their exclusive use full subsets of the life support system and resources. (ii) they eliminate full subsets of living species. (iii) they transform important parts of the habitat and make it incompatible with the survival of plant and animal species. Let (eH) denote the human specie. Then: t(eH) : (Ei, Hi) a (E,H), such that: (7) [O(eH) U O(H)] [E U H] , [O(E) R O(H)] , [O(E) U O(Y)]

The subjection of the natural ecosystem to humanity raises the emergence of monopolies in the utilization of both the milieu and resources, which are incompatible with the evolution of the whole system towards its least upper boundary (or "sup", for supremum). Instead, the so-called "technological progress" in its present form, leads the system towards the sup of a subsystem from which the situation can at best stabilize at a steady state corresponding to an intermediate fixed point, as stated in 4.4.1, if and only if connectivity and compacity properties are maintained. Otherwise, the system will degenerate towards the greatest lower bound (or "inf" for infimum), which corresponds to "full charge of the planet being taken by little creatures after big brains have failed", as stressed by Cairns (1999), while the actual boundary (or minimum) would be a pure mineral state, like on dead star. 5.2. The various scales of hostile interactions . The above results can now give rise to a generalized conceptual view of the major kinds of incorrect settlement and flaws endangering the ecosystems and precluding hope for a forthcoming era of world peace, as "a necessary precondition of sustainable use of the planet" (Cairns, 1999). 5.2.1. Definition. A correct state of a natural ecosystem or subsystem implies that each and every components occupy the right place at the right time for playing the right part through the right function. This also holds for a unnocuous vs. a toxic compound. Diversion from such requirements would create a defect in the structure of the orbits, and would therefore impair the fundamental properties of the ecosystem space required for a correct evolution of the system. This conclusion is demonstrated by the above statements and the definition is therefore formally justified. Now, two main subcases can be discerned. 5.2.2. Molecular inadequation. Consider a double incompatibility of an abiotic component hi with either the remaining of ecosystem components, or the utilization of resources by other components, or both: hi R (Ei, Hi) ; hi U (Ei, Hi) [hi Hi | (Ei R Hi)] ; [hi
i

(8-1,2) | (Ei U Hi)] (8-3,4,5)

These conditions account for various kinds of pollution and toxicity. 5.2.3. Scale-range in hostile interactions. Let epi and exi denote two kinds of members of defined classes of organisms, from the molecular to the complex living states. Let CEexi denote the complementary of member exi in the set E of species in the ith iteration of an ecosystem. Let the following cases, essentially asymmetric ones: [epi U (exi, hi)] ; [epi R (Hi, CEexi)] ; (exi Uepi ) (9-1,2,3) Let the symbol (< ) denote an order relation in the magnitude of scales, also denoted Card (for "cardinal") in the biological organization. Then, Table 1 summarizes the main corresponding features.
Table 1. Unified interpretation of hostile interactions at various scales upon relations (8)-(9).

Parameter setting

Scale of interactions

Ecological

Involved

setting relations

epi <exi, epi exi

microbe to organism individual to individual group to population

Parasitism Predation

(9-1,[2],3) (9-1) (9-1,2,3) (9-1,2,3) (9-1)

Card{epi } <<Card{exi } Card{epi } <Card{exi } Card{epi } Card{exi }

individual to population population to population

Criminality Terrorism War

From the lower to the larger scale, these kinds of interaction bring discontinuities in both the sets of populations the natural life support systems, and the relationships of other species and habitat, through action at a distance: these corollaries meet with Cairn's conclusions (1999) about the incompatibility of sustainable use of the planet with development models which still incorporate armed conflicts at all levels, and further complete the formal demonstration of a previous conjecture (Bounias, 1996). 5.3. Logical equivalence of steady state and mutualism. Evolution as a progression needs relations R, U and others to hold as order relations. Then the system behaves in the sense of more or less hostile or benigne coevolution. Let the system reach a stage where relations finally hold as equivalence ones, then progression is driven to two kinds of stability : (i) mutually adverse interactions do not fulfill the complementarity condition of corollary 3.4.2. and leads at best to "cold war" or instable equilibrium, not steady state; (ii) mutually beneficial interactions characterize the optimum stage, which further supports the demonstration of corollary 3.4.2. Thus: (mutualism steady state).

6. Conclusions.
6.1. Ethical considerations. Human specie holds no pre-eminence over other species, and cannot claim any ability of owning living organisms, since it has not even been able to fully create alternative species that could substitute for destroyed ones, in the goal of restoring the connectivity of altered spaces. incidentally, genetical engineering does not creates life, but rather diverts some characters evolved by a specie towards their processing by other species for human profit. In so doing, it fails to support the claiming by some industrial groups that they are "addressing some of the most difficult and intractable problems that have confronted humanity over the generations" (Heylin, 1999). Even the possibility to grow some crops on polluted areas does not prevent the risk of regression of the agroecosystem from alteration of the orbits of components of the species and of the medium. 6.2. Economy and Earth management.

The analysis by Thomas Malthus finally appears as much more realistic, in view of the sequence of failure of technological substitutes supposed to allow a sustained population growth, than are the neoclassical economical doctrines said "technologically optimistic" (Costanza, 1989; see also Bounias, 1995, 1998 for reviews). Taken together, the results of works about the impairment of sustainability of the world ecosystem's services emphasizes the interest of taking in consideration the proposition about the setting up of a world scientific directory (Burdyuzha, 1989) providing the planet with a "brain" able to substitute the misleading ideological, political, economical and religious errors for a new orientation founded on an objectivity of the scientific type. 6.3. Guidelines for the Future. Among other propositions (Bounias et al., 1999), the following ones seem worth to be raised and serve as foundations for a further revisitation of universal rights. (i). The "right to own" should be identified with the responsivity of the owner to warrant the integrity of the local ecosystem's health and resources. In particular, the human specie is not allowed to divert to its nearly exclusive profit the resources and services that the planetary ecosystem makes available to the whole of living community. (ii). The right of people should not be separated from the right of humans nor should the former ignore the rights of the entire living community to equitably and sustainably benefit from the services and resources provided by the ecological support of life In particular, territorial conquest, either by the force of the number or by the force of weapons, by a population which has degraded the resources of its original territory, over a population which has preserved its ecosystem's health, should be banned as strongly as for instance ethnical segregation is presently banned. (iii). The concept of democracy should be revisited so as to take into account the impossibility to break the laws of nature without imperishing the whole of living community. In particular, threatening the existence of either individuals or small communities, may bring discontinuities endangering the whole ecosystem's integrity. (iv). The concept of "crime against humanity" should be extended to that of "crime against life", and should concern any alteration against the ability of the ecosystems to provide parts or all of the living community with the resources and services that are needed for the sustainability of life in any area. (v). Evolution drives the natural ecosystem's steps towards a least upper boundary characterized by minimization of competition and generalization of mutualism. Should this trends be for some time impaired by an accidental event in the History of Earth, it is the Honor of humankind to contribute in restoring the conditions allowing the planetary ecosystem progression to start again in the right direction. Said in non-mathematical terms, this goal implies that the maximum of possible interactions between all living species and their biotopes should be warranted

References.

Aczel,P.,1987.LecturesonNonWellFoundedSets.CSLILecturenotes9,Stanford,USA. Arunasalam,V.,1997.EinsteinandMinkowskiversusDiracandWigner:covarianceversusinvariance. Phys.Ess.,10(3),528532. Barwise,J.,Moss,J.,1991.Hypersets.Math.Intelligencer,13(4),3141. Bonaly, A.,Bounias, M., 1995. Thetraceoftime inPoincarsections ofatopological space. Physics Essays,8(2),236244. Bounias,M.,1990.Thecreationoflife:frommattertospirit.LeRocher,Paris,444pp. Bounias,M.,1995.Agricultureandbiochemistryinenvironmentalandhumantoxicology:theriskofan unsustainablefuture.IndianJ.Agric.Biochemistry,8(12),122. Bounias,M.,1996.Recentadvancesinthe"GlobalProject"andsomesociologicalimplications.Invited LectureattheInstituteofPhysics,UniversityofSzczecin,Poland,April22. Bounias,M.,1997.Definitionandsomepropertiesofsetdifferences,instansandtheirmomentum,inthe searchforprobationarymathematicalspaces.J.UltraScientistofPhysicalSciences,9(2),139145. Bounias,1998.Environmentalbiologyasakeyforthefuturemanagementofplanetaryecosystemsand humansocieties.Proc.Int.Symp."BiomonitoringandEcoconservation",Bareilly,India,1416Nov,117. Bounias,M.,1999.Atheoremprovingtheirreversibilityofthebiologicalarrowoftime,basedonfixed pointsinthebrainasacompacttopologicalspace.ProceedingsofCASY'S99InternationalConference,Inst.of mathematics,Ligeuniversity,Belgium,914Aug.,10pp. Bounias, M., Bonaly, A., 1994. On mathematical links between physical existence, observability and information:towardsa"TheoremofSomething".J.UltraScientistofPhysicalSciences,6(2),251259. Bounias,M.,Bonaly,A.,1996.Onmetricsandscaling:physicalcoordinatesintopologicalspaces.Indian JournalofTheoreticalPhysics,44(4),303321. Bounias, M., Bonaly,A., 1997a. Sometheorems onthe emptysetasnecessaryandsufficient forthe primarytopologicalaxiomsofphysicalexistence.PhysicsEssays,10(4),633643. Bounias,M.,Bonaly,A.,1997b.Thetopologyofperceptivefunctionsasacorollaryofthetheoremof existenceinclosedspaces.BioSystems,42,191205. Bounias,M.(founderandcoordinator)etal.,1999.GlobalProjectandChartoftheLiving.International collectivework.Firstprinting,122. Bourbaki,N.,1990a.Thoriedesensembles,Masson,Paris,352pp. Bourbaki,N.,1990b.TopologieGnrale,Masson,Paris,376pp. Burdyuzha,V.,1989.Scientistsandthefutureofspace.Proc.PugwashConf.,SochiDagomis,USSR,170 180. Carmesin,H.O.,1995.Neurophysicsofadaption.PhysicsEssays,8(1),3851. Cairns,J.Jr.,Pratt,J.,1992.Restoringecosystemhealthandintegrityduringahumanpopulationincrease totenbillion.J.Aquat.EcosystemHealth,1,5968. Cairns,J.Jr.,Bidwell,J.,1996a.Discontinuitiesintechnologicalandnaturalsystemscausedbyexotic species.BiodiversityandConservation,5,10851094. Cairns,J.Jr.,Bidwell,J.,1996b.Themodificationofhumansocietybynaturalsystems:discontinuities causedbytheexploitationofendemicspeciesandtheintroductionofexotics.Environ.Healthperspect.,104(11), 11421145. Cairns,J.Jr.,1999.Thequestforimmortalityonanunsustainableplanet.Int.Symp.onTheFutureof UniverseandTheFutureofOurCivilization,Budapest27July,116. Chanway,C.,1998.Bacterialendophytes:ecologicalandpracticalimplications.Sydowia,50(2),149170. Choquet,G.,1984.Coursdetopologie.Masson,Paris,317pp. Costanza,R.,1989.Whatisecologicaleconomics?EcologicalEconomics,1,17. Driscoll,R.,1997.AdetailedspecialrelativisticanalysisoftheMichelsonMorleyexperiment.Phys.Ess., 10(3),394400. Dubois,D.,1998.Hyperincursivemethodsforgeneratingfractalsinautomatarelatedtodiffusionand waveequations.Int.J.GeneralSystems,27(13),141180. Hannon,1998.Analternativeexplanationofthecosmologicalredshift.PhysicsEssays,11(4),576578. Heylin,M.,1999.Troublesdownonthebiotechnologyfarm.C&EN,77(10),27. Jain,R.,Shrivastava,A.,1996.Acommonfixedpointtheoremforthreesurjectivemappings.J.Ultra ScientistofPhysicalSciences,8(1),105106.

523.

Krasnoholovets,V.,1997.Motionofarelativisticparticleinthevacuum.PhysicsEssays,10(3),407416. Kubel,H.,1997.TheLorentztransformationderivedfromanabsoluteaether.PhysicsEssays,10(3),510

Lester,J.,1998.Doesmattermatter?PhysicsEssays,11(4),481491. Loewenstein, W., 1999. The touchstone of life: molecular information, cell communication, and the foundationsoflife.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,368pp. McCormick, P., Louie, D., Cairns Jr., J., 1994. Longitudinal effects of herbivory on lotic periphyton. FreshwaterBiology,31,201212. Mitchell,W.,1995.ThecultoftheBigBang.CosmicSenseBooks,CarsonCity,USA,240pp. Meno,F,1997.Thephotonasanaetherwaveanditsquantizedparameters.PhysicsEssays,10(2),304 314. Meno,F.,1998.AsmallerBang?PhysicsEssays,11(2),307310. Moore,J.,1990.Scinceasawayforknowing.Aconceptualframeworkforbiology.Am.Zool.,30Suppl., 6871. Myers,N.,1992.Population/environmentlinkages:discontinuitiesahead.Ambio,21,116118. Naeem,S.,Thompson,L.,Lawler,S.,Lawton,J.,Woodfin,R.,1994.Decliningbiodiversitycanalterthe performanceofecosystems.Nature,368,734736. Rothwarf,A.,1998.Anaethermodeloftheuniverse.PhysicsEssays,11(3),444466. Schwartz,L.,1991.AnalyseI:thoriedesensemblesettopologie.Hermann,Paris,404pp. Schwartz,L.,1993.Analyse.Topologiegnraleetanalysefonctionnelle.Hermann,Paris,437pp. Sharma, B.K., Sahu, D.R., Bounias, M., Bonaly, A., 1998. Fixed points for nonsurjective expansion mappings.Internat.J.Math.&Math.Sci.,21(2),277288. Spromberg,J.,John,B.,Landis,W.,1998.Metapopulationdynamics:indirecteffectsandmultipledistinct outcomesinecologicalriskassessment.Environ.Toxicol.Chem.,17(8),16401649. Verozub,L.,1995.Therelativityofspacetime.PhysicsEssays,8(4),518523. Watson,G.,1998.Bell'stheoremrefuted:realphysicsandphilosophyforquantummechanics.Physics Essays,11(3),413421. Wesley,J.,1994.ExperimentalresultsofAspectetal.confirmclassicallocalcausality.PhysicsEssays,7, 240,and11(4),610. Wesley,1995.Classicalquantumtheory.Apeiron,2(2),2732.

SE TS X Y

C OM BIN ATION RU LE S

P RO P O SITIO N (P )

d e m o n s tratio n o f valid ity

SP AC E { X,

L O G IC A L S YS TE M

(P ) is tr ue for {X , } w ithin s y stem ( T )

(T)

Th e o r y o f se ts

Top ology

Subspace

Embedding space

Space of closed sets Sk

Abstract topological n-spaces

Si
Empty set

Sj Mapping conditions and properties

Unordered sets of sections

(u)

Si
u

etc.

Sj

(u)

(u)

Sk

ORDERED SEQUENCE

Observed space
(a) A sensoryperceptive systems y x

Paths

Set of fixed points

ax ay
B

{a(u), bo} xo
a(u) mental image

continuous mapping

yo

f...
f (x )=xm
n

f
uk

f...
Observing space

bo
f (y )= y m
n

um

sequences of neuronal connections

(a) = Banach-type fixed points (b) = Brouwer's fixed point

ECOSYSTEM

COMPONENTS

COMBINATION RULES FLUXES, EXCHANGES OF MATTER AND ENERGY

E H

LIVING AND NON LIVING

MATHEMATICAL SPACE Parts of the set Subspaces union (any number) finite intersection

CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES

TOPOLOGIES

A B

SHARED PROPERTIES

SET

METRIC DISTANCE

SYMMETRIC DIFFERENCE

METRIC SPACE

METRIC-LIKE SPACE

MEASURABLE COMPONENTS

NON-MEASURABLE COMPONENTS

SET (E) OF MEMBERS member

ei
SET (F) OF FUNCTIONS

e3 e1 en

1(ei)

2(ei) ,...,
ORBITS

n(ei)

(E)
GRAPHS

FUNCTIONAL

NON EMPTY

QUASI-COMPACT

DISCRETE FINITE

COMPACT

MAPPING IS CONTINUOUS

function is like numerical

WEIERSTRASS THEOREM

ECOSYSTEM REACHES OPTIMUM STATES (LEAST UPPER BOUNDARY)

sup(Y)

Y(i+p)

BOLZANO THEOREM ORBITS

Y(i+1) Y(i) i+p ...

ej ej ek

i+1 i
GRAPHS

NO POINT IS A ISOLATED ONE

ECOSYSTEM SPACE IS CONNECTED

SEQUENCE OF STATES

Sup

i+p

i+1 i
intermediate fixed point

REGRESSION

RIGHT
POSITION IN:

WRONG

TIME SITE FUNCTION

TOXICITY

IMPAIRMENT OF ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT OF LIFE

IMPAIRMENT OF THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION

BINARY RELATIONS
relation R = compatibility / adaptation relation U = Resource availability

Molecular inadequation.
E = species ; H = habitat ; hi = abiotic component of H

hi R (Ei, Hi) ; hi U (Ei, Hi) [hi Hi | (Ei R Hi)] ; [hi i | (Ei U Hi)] (8)

interpretation: pollution and toxicity.

Scale-range in hostile interactions.

epi and exi : two kinds of members of similar classes of organisms, from the molecular to the complex living states. CEexi : complementary of member exi in the set E of species in the ith iteration of an ecosystem.

[epi U (exi, hi)], [epi R (Hi, CEexi)] , (exi Uepi )

Interpretation:

(9-1,2,3)

Unified theory of hostile interactions at various scales upon relations (8)-(9). (Symbol (< ) denote an order relation in the magnitude of scales).

Parameter setting of interaction

Scale setting

ecological

epi <exi, epi exi

microbe to organism

Parasitism

organism to organism Predation (individual to individual) Criminality Terrorism War

Card{epi } <<Card{exi } individual to population Card{epi } <Card{exi } Card{epi } Card{exi } group to population population to population

COMPLEMENTARITY

a Ha H'a (H'b)

PARTITION

b Hb H'b (H'a)

HEINE-BOREL-LEBESGUE PROPERTY OF C OMPACT SPACES

Y(a,b)={X(a,b),
COVER
FINITE SUBCOVER

ECOLOGICAL MUTUALISM

STEADY STATE
MUTUALISM

EQUIVALENCE

RELATIONS

R, U

ORDER

ORDER

DEAD ENDS

Literature
BIODIVERSITY Reduction of biodiversity resulting from hostile coevolution of human populations with others generates breacks in ecosystems continuity, with severe adverse consequences (Cairns and Bidwell 1996a). Experiments by Naeem et al. (1994) have pointed out the need for biodiversity, for maintaining the performance of ecosystems. Author's emphasis: a continuous increase in biodiversity is necessary instead of just a conservation of existing species, as warranting an anticipated adaptation to any kind of unexpected change. DISCONTINUITIES Discontinuities originating in exportation of exotic species can as well impair the sustainability of planetary ecosystems (Cairns and Bidwell 1996b). Discontinuities are provoked by a change resulting from the action of a living specie (Myers, 1992; McCormick et al., 1994) The future of the ecosystem depends on the capability of parts which remain functional to restore the continuity of the damaged part. Thus, fragmentation can be fatal to integrated environmental management. A scale of evaluation was proposed of the recovery potential of ecosystems. Cairns and Pratt (1992) PARTITION / COMPLEMENTARITY 143rd statement of Moore (1990) : "Evolution has maximized both the number of niches and the variety of habitats that are used by organisms". Statement 141 of Moore (1990): " Among sympatric species, each has evolved a specific way of life that restricts it to a specific way of obtaining resources". (this contributes to completion of orbits in the ecosystem space). Statement 144th of Moore (1990): " Adaptation to one niche reduces the degree of adaptation for other niches". MUTUALISM Mutualistic endophytic bacteria stimulate plant growth, (...) antagonize microbial pathogens, (...) induce systemic resistance to disease-

causing organisms, (...) protect crops from plant parasitic nematodes and insects (Chanway, 1998). Mutualism is likely to constitute the convergence point of ecosystems evolution (Ramade, 1999: personal communication). TRANSITIVITY OF RELATIONS Spromberg et al. (1998): in the case of pollutions of an ecosystem, uncontaminated sites cannot serve as reference sites, and nonexposed populations can also undergo as significant effects. This class of phenomena has been called "action at a distance". (transitivity of relation R) FINAL ISSUES Cairns (1999): "The little creatures that have always run the world will be ready to take full charge of the planet if the creatures with the big brain fail! Author's note: the actual boundary would be a pure mineral state, like on dead star. Peace for mutualism: World peace is "a necessary precondition of sustainable use of the planet (...). War engenders hostility when a sense of community is essential" (Cairns, 1999).

PROPOSITIONS: About foundations of "rights" (i). The "right to own" should be identified with the responsivity of the owner to warrant the integrity of the local ecosystem's health and resources. In particular, the human specie is not allowed to divert to its nearly exclusive profit the resources and services that the planetary ecosystem makes available to the whole of living community. (ii). The right of people should not be separated from the right of humans nor should the former ignore the rights of the entire living community to equitably and sustainably benefit from the services and resources provided by the ecological support of life In particular, territorial conquest, either by the force of the number or by the force of weapons, by a population which has degraded the resources of its original territory, over a population which has preserved its ecosystem's health, should be banned as strongly as for instance ethnical segregation is presently banned. (iii). The concept of democracy should be revisited so as to take into account the impossibility to break the laws of nature without imperishing the whole of living community. In particular, threatening the existence of a small community, even at individual level, may bring discontinuities endangering the ecosystem's integrity. (iv). The concept of "crime against humanity" should be extended to that of "crime against life", and should concern any alteration against the ability of the ecosystems to provide the living community with the resources and services that are needed for the sustainability of life in any area. (v). Evolution drives the natural ecosystem's steps towards a least upper boundary characterized by minimization of competition and generalization of mutualism. ShoulD this trends be for some time impaired by an accidental event in the History of Earth, it is the Honor of humankind to contribute in restoring the conditions allowing the to start again the planetary ecosystem progressing in the right direction. Such a goal implies that the whole of possible interations of living organisms with the medium and between themselves should be preserved.

LAND PROPERTY= responsibility of maintaining

Autochtonous immigrants refugees

rights on the land

CRIME AGAINST LIFE

INTEGRITY OF ECOSYSTEM'S HEALTH AND SERVICES

LAWS OF UNIVERSE AND OF BIOLOGY

ANY DEMOCRATIC DECISION MUST FULFILL ...

minimize competition favour complementarity lead to mutualism ECONOMICAL MANAGEMENT

FOUNDATIONS OF UNIVERSAL RIGHTS

International Symposium
The Future of Universe and the Future of Civilization
Held by the Astro-Space Center of the Lebedev Institute of Physics (Russian Academy of Sciences), under the auspices of United Nations, UNESCO, ICSU, joined with the World Science Conference.

on

The future of Science aims at improving the scope and validity of scientific knowledge, while the future of life involves the sustainability of services that the planetary ecosystem provides to human societies, as members of the living community. Unfortunately, a big gap remains between science and society, since more general agreement is needed from science concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, in order to show the way the Planet Earth should be managed, at all levels. A panel of leading scientists, from Mathematics and Astrophysics to Biology and Sociology will open the way to new paradigms, through improvements of the validity of scientific reasoning, with better identification of justifications supporting propositions and conclusions. Such improvements in the understanding of universe will in turn shed a new light on the scientific assessment of the interaction of human society with its natural environmental system, so that a new paradigm of more sound, universally valid, and finally harmonious managemment of the Planet could be expected. Accordingly, science would finally get able to define the boundaries between the area which deserves formal justifications (i.e. knowledge and management applying to the whole Earth and beyond) and the domain of what does not need be justified (i.e. individual perceptions and emotions, or choices and beliefs) but involves the respect of maximum of autonomy at individual level. Both of these domains would finally be gathered by science in a non-violent / non-conflict synergy.
(Note de communication prpare en collaboration avec le Prof. Burdyuzha, l'Inst. d'Astrophysique, Paris, Automne 1998).

Thormes de Convergence dans les cosystmes comme Espaces Topologiques.

M. Bounias
* BioMathematics Unit, University of Avignon, INRA (DSPE) and The Alexandria Institute of Medicine (New York), Chemin du Petit Bosquet, 84390 Saint-Christol d' Albion, France. Fax (33).4 90 75 08 88.

1. Proprits topologiques gnrales. Proposition 1. Dans la mesure o les cosystmes vrifient les caractres qui fondent les ensembles mathmatiques, toute identification des espaces topologiques qu' ils constituent porterait la connaissance des chercheurs l' ensemble des proprits dj dmontres pour de tels espaces. Corollaire 1. Ceci permettrait d' acqurir directement certaines informations qu' il serait matriellement impossible d' obtenir au moyen d' exprimentations de terrain ni, a fortiori , de laboratoire. Ces informations seraient de nature qualitative, et leur validit chapperait toute altration par des erreurs numriques de mesures. Lemme 1. Un cosystme possde les proprits d' un espace mathmatique. Les cosystmes ont t dfinis par l' association de deux catgories de paramtres: (i) l' inventaire des lments X (vivants et non vivants) contenus dans les divers compartiments, et (ii) les "flux" f (changes d' nergie et de matire, mouvements de populations) existant entre ces compartiments, le niveau d' organisation de l' ensemble pouvant tre caractris en termes d' information hirarchise (Hirata, 1993). Ceci constitue bien un espace E(X,f) form de l' ensemble E (sous rserve de la validit de la Proposition 1), et des lois de composition f. Parmi les lois f, il convient de faire figurer l' existence de parties P(X) composes de l' association d' lments de X, et appartenant l' ensemble des parties P(X), contenant X luimme (voir plus bas: 3.3.2). Thorme 1. Un ensemble E d' cosystmes peut constituer un espace topologique T . Preuve. Les 4 clauses qui confrent un ensemble de parties d' un cosystme complexe E une structure de topologie sont les suivantes (Bourbaki, 1990): (i) - La runion d' un nombre quelconque de sous-cosystmes appartenant E comprend un ensemble d' lments qui restent reliables par un ensemble de fonctions: cette runion constitue encore un cosystme. Si l' on dsigne par E(X, ) et F(Y,T), deux lments de T, il existe l' cosystme E F = (X Y, oT), o la composition ( oT) de ( ) et de (T) peut diffrer totalement des fonctions dont elle est issue. En revanche, l' ensemble constituant sera la runion des ensembles X et Y.

(ii) - Les parties communes un nombre fini d' cosystmes appartenant E constituent encore un cosystme. L' cosystme EF= (XY, T) sera form de l' ensemble des lments communs X et Y (si cet ensemble est vide, la clause (iv) entre en vigueur), et de lois de composition ( T), pouvant galement diffrer des lois ( ) et T). Les clauses (i) et (ii) impliquent que des lments peuvent tre communs plusieurs sous-cosystmes sans qu' il y ait ncessit que ces derniers se trouvent localiss en un mme lieu. (iii) - L' ensemble E d' cosystmes fait partie de la topologie T . (iv) - L' ensemble vide fait galement partie de la topologie T. Les conditions de finitude seraient ncessairement vrifies dans l' espace si l' univers comportait un nombre fini de corpuscules lmentaires. Elles sont vrifies dans un intervalle de temps (une sous-suite de sections) fini, mais pas dans W4, o les suites Sk sont ouvertes. L' ensemble E est discret. Dans ces conditions, il est dfini une topologie d' ensembles dits "ouverts". Une topologie de ferms est dfinie par complmentarit (le complmentaire d' un ouvert est un ferm), de sorte que les clauses (i) et (ii) s' appliquent respectivement la runion d' un nombre fini d' cosystmes, et l' intersection d' un nombre quelconque d' entre eux (par exemple: les points communs travers l' volution temporelle). Proposition 2. Les cosystmes comprennent des espaces mtriques et non-mtriques. Tous les lments quantifiables d' un cosystme, des niveaux de populations la diversit spcifique, en passant par les flux de matire et d' nergie, sont mtrisables l' aide d' units de mesures connues. Mme la qualit esthtique d' un site, comme source d' inspiration artistique, peut donner lieu une mesure de la frquence des oeuvres suscites, indpendamment de tous jugements qualitatifs sur la valeur de ces oeuvres. Certains lments, en revanche, ne sont pas mtrisables: il s' agit de ceux qui appartiennent l' espace des manifestations qualitatives des perceptions motives. Dans ce cas, il reste encore examiner les possibilits offertes par l' existence d' une distance entre ensembles, dfinie par la diffrence symtrique (ensemble des lments qui ne sont pas communs aux ensembles concerns), et qui possde les proprits mathmatiques d' une distance "vraie", mais non "mtrique" (Bounias et Bonaly, 1995). Ce travail est en cours dans le cadre du "Projet Global". Remarque 2-1. Les Propositions 1 4 s' appliquent des ensembles de type "dnombrable" mais, comme il est indiqu aprs la Proposition 3, non ncessairement " effectivement numrables", au sens de Borel (1909). Remarque 2-2. Sous rserve des rsultats de travaux en cours sur les proprits topologiques d' espaces forms partir d' ensembles finis (Bounias et Bonaly, en prparation), les propositions ci-dessus permetraient l' identification des quivalents, en

termes de milieux naturels, d' espaces de type Banach, Hilbert, Lp, etc., dont toutes les proprits connues seraient alors directement la disposition des recherches sur l' cosystme plantaire. Proposition 3. La hirarchisation fondamentale des cosystmes repose sur l' identification de leurs filtres topologiques. Un "filtre" topologique est une famille F de sous-espaces non vides (ici, il s' agira d' cosystmes existants), dont les proprits se conservent dans les deux cas suivants (Schwartz, 1991): (i) - Les lments communs un nombre fini de parties de F (soit: leur "intersection") conservent les mmes proprits que les parties dont ils proviennent. (ii) - tant donn un sous-cosystme A appartenant F , alors, tout cosystme B contenant A doit aussi appartenir F , soit conserver les mmes proprits que A. Remarque 3-1. Le concept de filtre dfinit une relation d' ordre par inclusions, qui permettra de raisonner sur les proprits communes de diverses catgories d' cosystmes, partir de la hirarchie de leurs genses respectives (1). Parmi nos objectifs, figure la recherche de l' ultra-filtre de l' cosystme plantaire total, dont les proprits seraient ncessairement aussi celles de l' ensemble des cosystmes, ce qui inclut ceux des "paysages" locaux. 2. Proprits topologiques spcifiques. Un cosystme ou ensemble d' cosystmes (Y) (proposition 1 et thorme 1) est dsign par un ensemble et des lois de composition: Y = {(X), ( )} o: (X) = {E,H} dsigne l' ensemble des espces vivantes (E) et celui des lments non vivants, minraux et organiques, habitat et ressources compris. ( ) = {, } dsigne l' ensemble des fonctions () et celui () des compositions de l' ensemble des parties de (E) et ( ). L' ensemble () comprend les fonctions suivantes ainsi que leurs composes:

t= transformations (exemple: E a H) m = inclusions (exemple: EH a E ou EH a H)

L = translations (exemple Hi a Hj), E(Hi)a E(Hj), ...) C = communication (exemple EjEk a EkEj) R = reproduction (exemple: H a H, EE a E) Plus gnralement, il en rsulte: = (E H)E H.

On identifiera plus spcifiquement l' habitat (biotopes B) et les ressources (R) par des termes formuler. Les fonctionnelles sont dfinies par a . L' espace des orbites est dsign par = {O(X), } o dsigne les lois de composition valeur sur , savoir: = {P(), (Oi, Oj)ij} o P() est l' ensemble des parties et la distance d' ensembles entre orbites. Remarque 3.2-1 . L' ensemble est discret donc il est localement compact dans (Wk)k
N

Lemme 3.2-1 . L' ensemble () est mtrisable dans un intervalle de temps fini et muni d' une distance d' ensemble. Preuve. Il est spar car il est fini dans (W k)k K et il est rgulier car il est discret. La mtrique ensembliste le munit d' une distance qui lui donne sa topologie. En effet: (i) toute runion de distances est une distance (soit (A,B,C) (D,E): il existe dans cette runion (CD) qui est un instans m<(C,D)> mais n' appartient pas aux groupes d' ensembles impliqus dans les distances considres). (ii) toute intersection de distances appartient encore une distance. En effet, (A,B,C) (D,E) contient une partie de chacune des distances, qui est le m<(C,D)> et n' appartient pas (A,B,C) ni (D,E) . Lemme 3.2-2. L' espace des orbites est muni d' une distance d' orbites. Preuve. (i) (Oi, Oj)ij (d0); (ii) (Oi, Oj)=(Oi = Oj); (iii) (Oi, Oj) = (Oj, Oi); (iv) (Oi, Ok) (Oi, Oj)} (Oj, Ok). D' o le rsultat suivant: Thorme 3.2-1. L' espace des orbites O(X) [ou: (X)?]est un espace complet. Preuve. Il est compact et muni d' une mtrique.

3. Fonctionnalit de l' espace des orbites.

Soient l' ensemble des fonctions : (ei, hi) a (ej, hj) et : (e,h) a (e,h). Thorme 3.3.1. Dans l' espace de l' orbite des lments d' un cosystme les fonctions atteignent leurs bornes, c' est dire leur richesse optimale. Preuve. Comme est au moins quasi-compact et non vide, il suffit que soit numrique et continue pour que le thorme de Weierstrass tablisse qu' elle atteigne ses bornes. (i) Elle est

numrique: en effet, le concept de distance suffit rendre applicables les dfinitions et les proprits topologiques et mtriques des espaces: boules, voisinages, adhrence, convergence, Cauchy, Lipschitz, etc. Donc la distance d' ensembles confre aux fonctions valeur sur des ensembles non tous vides le caractre de fonctions numriques. (ii) La continuit est prouve car toute application d' un espace discret dans un espace topologique est continue. Thorme 3.3.2. Pour que les cosystmes puissent voluer vers leurs tats optimaux (ou bornes suprieures) il faut et il suffit qu' ils disposent la fois de l' intgrit de leurs constituants et des orbites de leurs fonctions. Preuve. Le thorme de Bolzano tablit que si l' espace des orbites est connexe, une fonction numrique ne peut passer d' une valeur l' autre sans passer par tous ses points. Un cosystme pourra donc voluer d' un stade au suivant que si l' espace de ses orbites est connexe. Or, un espace discret d' au moins deux points n' est pas connexe. Proposition 3.3.2. tant donn l' ensemble des orbites = {O(X), } , si l' ensemble des parties comprend la fois le graphe des images de l' ensemble (E) par l' ensemble des fonctions (), et l' orbite de chaque fonction par l' ensemble des fonctionnelles***, alors les lments de ne sont jamais deux deux isols. Dans ce cas, n' est pas la runion de deux parties isoles, et il est connexe. (*** approfondir) Comme les fonctions impliques sont munies de la distance d' ensemble et sont assimilables des fonctions numriques valeurs dans un espace connexe, les orbites de l' espace = {O(X), (X,)}peuvent atteindre leur borne suprieure partir de leur borne infrieure, en passant par tous les tats intermdiaires. CQFD. Thorme 3.3-4. Les cosystmes doivent atteindre une stabilit l' tat optimal. Preuve. L' espace (Y) muni des proprits 3.3-1 3.3-3 est un espace complet. Donc toutes les suites de Cauchy y sont convergentes, et les ensembles de fonctions possdent des points fixes. Si les stades intermdiaires forment des suites de type Cauchy, ils peuvent atteindre eux-mmes des points fixes; mais dans ce cas leurs runions et leurs intersections pourvoient l' espace des lments ncessaires l' accession du systme vers les tats suivants. Hypothse alternative: les stades successifs d' un cosystme n' acquirent peut-tre la proprit de Cauchy que lorsqu' ils atteignent leur supremum. (** discuter)

4. Corollaires.

Corollaire 3.4-1. Dans un cosystme, il suffit qu' une altration limine une espce ou une fonction pour que l' volution ne permette plus d' atteindre l' tat optimal. La dmonstration dcoule des thormes 3.3-1 et 3.3-2.

Remarque 3.4-1. IL peut se produire qu' une discontinuit soit provoque par une transformation rsultant de l' action d' une espce vivante ou d' une site abiotique. Dans ce cas, l' avenir de l' cosystme dpend de la capacit des parties restes fonctionnelles rtablir la continuit de la partie dnature. (**** clauses dvelopper vis vis de l' chelle qualitative et quantitative des discontinuits que sont capables de provoquer les activits humaines). Corollaire 3.4-2. Dans un cosystme muni de sa fonctionnalit, l' tat optimal est accessible si et seulement si les deux conditions suivantes sont respectes: (i) les espces occupent complmentairement tous les habitats possibles et utilisent complmentairement toutes les ressources disponibles. (ii) L' occupation d' un habitat Hi et l' utilisation des ressources Ri spcifiques d' une espce Ei doit entraner la fourniture d' lments d' un habitat Hj et de ressources Rj requis par une autre espce Ej. Preuve. 1 - La condition suffisante dcoule de la proposition 3.3-2 et du thorme 3.3-4, condition pour qu' il n' existe pas de point isol dans l' espace correspondant. (**** affiner). 2 - La condition ncessaire est donne par le thorme de Heine-Borel-Lebesgue. En effet, comme l' espace des orbites est compact, pour chacun de ses sous-ensembles ferms et borns on doit pouvoir extraire un sous-recouvrement ouvert. Soit une suite finie d' itrations d' un sous-espace Y(a,b) = {X(a,b), ), o X(a,b)=(Ea,Eb), (Ha,Hb). La runion des orbites des composants de X(a,b) est une partition de l' orbite O(Xa,b). Pour que le thorme de Borel Lebesgue soit vrifi, il est ncessaire que l' on ait: O(Xa,b) O(Ea,Ha) O(Eb,Hb) soit: O(Ea,Hb) O(Eb,Hb)

Ceci implique l' existence d' une application d' une partie H'b de Hb et d' une partie H'a Ha telle que: (H'a) Hb et (H'b) Ha. De ce fait, une partie des ressources de Ea provient du milieu de Eb et rciproquement. Ds lors que l' on extrait l' un des sousensembles (H'a) ou (H'b), l' orbite des lments restants constitue donc le plus petit recouvrement de l' orbite de (Xa,b), et l' existence des deux lments (H'a) et (H'b) est donc simultanment ncessaire. Ceci complte la dmonstration. Remarque 3.4-2. D' un point de vue d' abord purement mathmatique puis biologique: comparer les consquences pour le thorme de Bolzano des configurations de fonctions continues dans un espace non connexe ou de fonctions discontinues dans un espace connexe.

5. Discussion et conclusions.

5.1. Remarques. 5.1.1. La spcialisation rend les espces plus dpendantes d' un seul espace (Ei, Hi). Cela implique un risque de cration de discontinuits, qui est temporairement neutralis par l' apparition du phnomne de prdation, de parasitisme ou de pathologie sur les espces menaantes. Ces trois phnomnes sont alors des tapes limites des intervalles temporels courts. 5.1.2. L' volution vers l' tat optimal correspondrait plutt une d-spcialisation: en effet,: 1 le parasitisme strict implique une dpendance complte univoque avec prjudice (d' abord surjectif et finalement bijectif donc intermdiairement injectif); 2 la symbiose implique une dpendance rciproque avec prjudice rduit ou nul et bnfice univoque ou rciproque; 3 le commensalisme implique un bnfice rciproque sans dpendance stricte. Cette clause est peut-tre la seule qui autorise une volution vers la gnralisation de ce type d' interaction. Les formes agressives ou invasives sont donc des phases galement transitoires dans le moyen et long terme. 5.1.3. Le concept de "patrimoine" ne s' applique pas aux cosystmes. En effet, les cosystmes sont les supports ncessaires au maintien de la vie de la communaut des espces: le terme de patrimoine ne peut donc pas tre appliqu aux lments constitutifs et fonctionnels des cosystmes. Son champ d' application se rduit aux lments du domaine culturel qui ne font pas partie des clauses de fonctionnalit, s' il en existe.

5.2. Les fonctionnelles: facteurs d' volution. 5.2.1 Dfinition des fonctionnelles. Soit Eo un tat ou inventaire des espces l' itre Wo considre comme un syade initial. Un stade ultrieur Ei sera constitu des produits de transformation: (Ei) = Eo {t(eo)i}i=0 a i=I o: t(eo)i}= {C,L,m,,t }(eo)i} Une partie des lments de Eo est modifie par la composition des fonctions, qui constitue de nouvelles fonctions. La fonctionnelle (F) est telle que l' ensemble de fonctions antcdent {Co,Lo,m,o,to } devient l' ensemble de fonctions image {Co,Ci,Lo,Li,m,o,m,i,to,ti } par F, ou encore: {F= (Fo)}: o a (o,i) d' o apparaissent de nouveaux lments de (E) comme de (H), donc un nouvel tat de (Y) not (Yi).

Remarque 4.2.1-1. Si dans une suite d' itrations, il apparat (Yk) tel que dans (Ek) ou (Hk) il manque des lments (kj) , (ekj) , ou (hkj), alors le systme comporte des discontinuits, et l' espace ne peut tre au mieux que localement compact, localement complet ou localement connexe. Remarque 4.2.1-2. L' orbite des lments par l' ensemble des fonctions se double du graphe des fonctions par l' ensemble des lments et de l' orbite de chaque fonction par l' ensemble des fonctionnelles. Celui-ci entrane son tour le graphe des lments antrieurs et npuveaux par l' ensemble des nouvelles fonctions. Munis de cette proprit, les espaces prsentent des intersections qui vitent l' existence de points isols et bien que discrets, ils peuvent devenir connexes. Remarque 4.2.1-3. La suite {(Yi)}i
I

s' identifie au phnomne d' volution: E, et l' objectif

N

est d' analyser le comportement de E = {(Yi)}i

. De ce fait, l' existence des clauses de

compacit, compltude et connexit munissent le systme d' un facteur d' anticipation qui donne la suite un caractre de type hyper-incursif (Dubois, 1998). 5.3. Relations binaires sur (Y). Plusieurs types de relations sont impliqus, dont les suivantes: 5.3.1. La relation R indiquant globalement la compatibilit (ou adaptation mutuelle) des espces et des milieux: eiRhi = l' espce ei est adapte au milieu hi . hiRei = le milieu hi n' est pas dnatur par l' espce ei (sinon hi a hk par la fonction de transformation tei(hi)). Il y a alors symtrie et R est une relation d' quivalence si elle est rflexive (eiRei, hiRhi: espces et milieux sont auto compatibles ds lors qu' ils existent) et transitive (eiRhi, hiRhk eiRhk). ( revoir) (ei, ej)Rhk = les espces ei et ej sont compatibles avec un autre milieu hk. (ei, ej)Rhk = l' association des espces ei et ej n' est pas compatible avec un autre milieu dfini hk. Remarque 4.3.1-1. Dans le cas o une itration conduit (Yi) un stade tel que ei pRhi, il y a discontinuit sauf si Hi contient un lment hiq image de h(i-1) par la fonctionnelle F, tel que eipRhiq. Ceci implique la ncessit d' une diversit biologique par anticipation sur les changements de milieu. Remarque 4.3.1-2. La proprit d' antisymtrie induit une relation d' ordre. Celle-ci confre la suite (Yi), donc l' volution, une orientation.

5.3.2. La relation U indique l' utilisation possible d' un lment comme ressource par un autre lment. eiUej = ej est utilis par ei (ressource alimentaire directe, ou indirecte, ou ressource pour l' adaptation de l' habitat, etc.). (ei, hi)U(hj, ek) = ei utilise sur hi l' lment ek prlev sur le territoire hj. La rflexivit implique le cannibalisme, la symtrie une prdation mutuelle ou une symbiose, l'antisymtrie une relation ordonne du type prdateur-proie, utilisateur-ressource, etc. La transitivit implique que la transformation d' un milieu partir d' un autre reste favorable l' espce bnficiaire: eiUhi, hiUhk eiUhk. Si cette transformation rsulte de l' action d' autres espces, ceci rpond la clause de valorisation mutuelle des milieux et des ressources par des espces agissant en complmentarit des habitats et des ressources. 5.4. Dgradation des cosystmes. 5.4.1. volution rgressive. Soit Yo un tat de rfrence (considr comme initial), et (Ym) un tat intermdiaire tels que par suite d' une rupture de compatibilit (EmRHm), il apparaisse une discontinuit. Alors, il peut exister un sous-espace Zm Ym tel que Zm reste compact, complet et connexe. Lors des itrations suivantes, il apparatra encore un sousespace V compact et connexe, mais tel que supV(m+k) supZ(m+k) (thorme de Weierstrass), etc. Chaque tape de la rgression conduit ncessairement des pertes de diversit des espces et de l' habitat. 5.4.2. Borne infrieure du systme. En dernier lieu, lorsque le systme aboutit Y(n-1) = {e(n-1), h(n-1)}, on atteint Yn = inf(Y) = {, hn}, o la dernire espce a disparu en ayant transform le dernier milieu par t: (e(n-1) a h(en-1) hn. 5.5. Rhabilitation des cosystmes. Soit eid une espce disparue de l' ensemble Ei: le stade suivant de (Yi) est (Yi+p) tel que Yi+p = CYi(eid) et l' orbite O(Ei+p) = CO(Ei)[O(eid)]. L' espace des orbites perd sa connexit: Le systme ne peut plus voluer continment vers sa borne suprieure. Pour que la connexit soit rtablie ou non supprime, il faut qu' il existe dans l' ensemble image de Ei par F, ou qu' il prexiste comme image de E(i-k), un lment eos tel que: [O(Ei+p) O(eos)] R H(i+p). Ceci dfinit une espce de substitution comme tant compatible avec l' espace des orbites du sous-systme dans lequel elle est introduite. Par ailleurs, une espce introduite (dlibrment ou accidentellement) est susceptible de rompre la fonctionnalit du systme si sa compatibilit (R) n' est pas respecte vis vis de l' ensemble des fonctions de l' espce qu' elle remplace, et vis vis de l' ensemble des interactions de cette espce avec toutes les autres et tous les milieux.

Les propagules et dissmules, lorsqu' ils sont biologiquement valides, pour la reconstitution d' un cosystme dgrad, doivent en particulier constituer un ensemble de dpart pour les fonctions de translation (L) valeurs dans l' ensemble d' arrive.

6. Paramtrisation des activits humaines.

6.1. Orientations gnrales. En conformit avec l' "Appel de Heidelberg", les activits humaines dtournent des sous-ensembles du milieu et des ressources, liminent des sousensembles des espces, et transforment certains milieux en les rendant incompatibles avec la survie d' espces animales et vgtales. Soit (eH) l' espce humaine: t(eH) : (Ei, Hi) a (E,H), tel que: [O(eH) U O(H)] [E U H] , [O(E) R O(H)] , [O(E) U O(Y)] La mise sous tutelle de l' cosystme naturel au service de l' humanit cre des monopoles d' utilisation du milieu et des ressources, incompatibles avec l' volution de l' cosystme global vers sa plus petite borne suprieure. Le "progrs technologique" aboutit l' orientation du systme vers le sup d' un sous-systme partir duquel la situation peut au mieux se stabiliser un point fixe, si la connexit et la compacit sont maintenues, soit dgnrer vers la plus grande borne infrieure, reprsente par le retour un tat strictement minral. 6.2. Cas particuliers homotopiques . Selon qu' un lment abiotique ( partir du stade molculaire) ou une espce vivante, ne s' insrent pas correctement dans les orbites correspondantes, deux cas se prsentent: (i) hi R (Ei, Hi), hi U (Ei, Hi) Ce cas est celui des diverses formes de pollution. (ii) [epi U (exi, hi)], [epi R (Hi, CEexi)] , (exi Uepi ) (non-symtrie) Soit le quantificateur (< ) appliqu au degr d' organisation biologique: alors, les cas epi <exi, et epi exi , symbolisent respectivement le parasitisme et la prdation, et pour des populations humaines: Card(epi ) < Card(exi ) dsigne l' chelle de la criminalit au terrorisme, et Card(epi ) Card(exi ) celle de la guerre. Celle-ci entrane des discontinuits la fois dans l' ensemble des populations et celui des milieux.

Conclusion.
L' espce humaine ne dispose d' aucune prminence sur les autres espces, du fait qu' elle est incapable de crr elle-mme de toutes pices des espces de substitution capables de restituer la connexit des espaces altrs. Le gnie gntique n' est qu' une voie de

dtournement de certains caractres d' une espce vers leur utilisation par d' autres espces: dans son principe, elle ne rpond en rien aux affirmations de certaines corporations conomiques prtendant "rsoudre certains des problmes les plus difficiles et ingrats auxquels l' humanit s' est confronte durant des gnrations" (Heylin, 1999). La possibilit de faire crotre certaines cultures en mmilieux pollus, par exemple, ne rpond en rien au risque de rgression de l' agro-cosystme du fait de l' altration des orbites des espces et des milieux. L' analyse faite par Thomas Malthus s' avre finalement beaucoup plus raliste, la lumire des checs successifs des palliatifs technologiques destins rsoudre le problme de la surpopulation, que les doctrines conomiques fondes sur l' hypothse technologiquement optimiste (Bounias, 1995; 1998). L' ensemble de l' analyse suggre que soient prises en considration les propositions formules par Burdyuzha (1989) relatives l' instauration d' un Directoire scientifique mondial, afin de doter la Plante d' un "cerveau" capable de substituer aux garements des opinions idologiques politiques, conomiques et religieuses une orientation fonde sur une objectivit de type scientifique.

References.
Aczel, P., 1987. Lectures on Non-Well-Founded Sets. CSLI Lecture-notes 9, Stanford, USA. Arunasalam, V., 1997. Einstein and Minkowski versus Dirac and Wigner: covariance versus invariance. Phys. Ess., 10(3), 528-532. Barwise, J., Moss, J., 1991. Hypersets. Math. Intelligencer, 13(4), 31-41. Bonaly, A., Bounias, M., 1995. The trace of time in Poincar sections of a topological space. Physics Essays, 8(2), 236-244. Bounias, M., 1995. Agriculture and biochemistry in environmental and human toxicology: the risk of an unsustainable future. Indian J. Agric. Biochemistry, 8(1-2), 1-22. Bounias, M., 1997. Definition and some properties of set-differences, instans and their momentum, in the search for probationary mathematical spaces. J. Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences, 9(2), 139-145. Bounias, 1998. Environmental biology as a key for the future management of planetary ecosystems and human societies. Proc. Int. Symp. "Biomonitoring and Ecoconservation", Bareilly, India, 14-16 Nov, 1-17. Bounias, M., Bonaly, A., 1994. On mathematical links between physical existence, observability and information: towards a "Theorem of Something". J. Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences, 6(2), 251-259. Bounias, M., Bonaly, A., 1996. On metrics and scaling: physical co-ordinates in topological spaces. Indian Journal of Theoretical Physics, 44(4), 303-321. Bounias, M., Bonaly, A., 1997a. Some theorems on the empty set as necessary and sufficient for the primary topological axioms of physical existence. Physics Essays, 10(4), 633-643. Bounias, M., Bonaly, A., 1997b. The topology of perceptive functions as a corollary of the theorem of existence in closed spaces. BioSystems, 42, 191-205. Bourbaki, N., 1990a. Thorie des ensembles, Masson, Paris, 352 pp. Bourbaki, N., 1990b. Topologie Gnrale, Masson, Paris, 376 pp. Burdyuzha, V., 1989. Scientists and the future of space. Proc. Pugwash Conf., Sochi Dagomis, USSR, 170-180. Carmesin, H.O., 1995. Neurophysics of adaption. Physics Essays, 8(1), 38-51. Choquet, G., 1984. Cours de topologie. Masson, Paris, 317 pp. Driscoll, R., 1997. A detailed special relativistic analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Phys. Ess., 10(3), 394-400. Dubois, D., 1998. Hyperincursive methods for generating fractals in automata related to diffusion and wave equations. Int. J. General Systems, 27(1-3), 141-180. Hannon, 1998. An alternative explanation of the cosmological redshift. Physics Essays, 11(4), 576-578. Heylin, M., 1999. Troubles down on the biotechnology farm. C&EN, 77(10), 27. Jain, R., Shrivastava, A., 1996. A common fixed point theorem for three surjective mappings. J. Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences, 8(1), 105-106. Krasnoholovets, V., 1997. Motion of a relativistic particle in the vacuum. Physics Essays, 10(3), 407-416. Kubel, H., 1997. The Lorentz transformation derived from an absolute aether. Physics Essays, 10(3), 510-523. Mitchell, W., 1995. The cult of the Big-Bang. Cosmic Sense Books, Carson City, USA, 240 pp. Meno,F, 1997. The photon as an aether wave and its quantized parameters. Physics Essays, 10(2), 304-314. Meno, F., 1998. A smaller Bang? Physics Essays, 11(2), 307-310. Rothwarf, A., 1998. An aether model of the universe. Physics Essays, 11(3), 444-466. Schwartz, L., 1991. Analyse I: thorie des ensembles et topologie. Hermann, Paris, 404 pp. Schwartz, L., 1993. Analyse. Topologie gnrale et analyse fonctionnelle. Hermann, Paris, 437 pp. Sharma, B.K., Sahu, D.R., Bounias, M., Bonaly, A., 1998. Fixed points for nonsurjective expansion mappings. Internat. J. Math. & Math. Sci., 21(2), 277-288. Watson, G., 1998. Bell's theorem refuted: real physics and philosophy for quantum mechanics. Physics Essays, 11(3), 413-421. Wesley, J., 1994. Experimental results of Aspect et al. confirm classical local causality. Physics Essays, 7, 240. Wesley, 1995. Classical quantum theory. Apeiron, 2(2), 27-32.