3. The push to increase the passionarity Gumilev sees in the external factor (bursts of cosmic radiation). The fact that the pushes have cosmic origin apparently results from the fact that Gumilev could not explain by earthly reasons the linear form and huge extent on the surface of the Earth of these pushes [16]. "One and the same push can create several foci of increased passionarity (and as a consequence – several super-ethnoses). So, the push VI touched Arabia, the valley of the Indus, Southern Tibet, North China and Middle Japan. "The same push can create several centers of the increased passionarity (and as a result – several superethnoses). So, push VI reserve Arabia, valley of Indus, Southern Tibet, Northern China and Central Japan. And in all these countries arose ethnoses-peers, but each of them had original stereotypes and cultures" [17, p. 14-17].
The logic of development of a civilization, according to Gumilev, consists in series of ethnoses, i.e. in replacement of the perished ethnoses by emerging ones, and the term of life of each ethnos is 1200-1500 years old.
Presented by Gumilev mechanism of emergence, existence and disappearance of holistic communities (ethnoses) – ethnogenesis, as it is evident at once, has in itself no strong basis, it is rather a set of the facts fastened with quite superficial considerations of the author.
But at first we will look at critical remarks of colleagues-scientists to address Gumilev's concept which concern a basis of ethnos, life cycle of ethnos, influence on this cycle of external factors, structure of life cycle of ethnos.
L.S. Klein points out that the basis of the ethnos, according to Gumilev, constituting the "geobiochemical energy of living substance" cannot be correlated with any kind of energy known to natural science [18, p. 228-246].
Shnirelman V. A. and Panarin S. A. state the absence of transparent, distinct and consistent definition of ethnos [19, p. 5-37].
M.I. Artamonov believes that Gumilev underestimates a role of social, cultural, religious and other non-biological factors in ethnogenesis, exaggerating a natural factor and equating ethnos and population [20, p. 75-77].
Yu.K. Efremov notes numerous mistakes of Gumilev at his definition of communication of ethnogenesis with landscapes [21, p. 77-80].