Gumilev's view on the fixed time of the life cycle (existence) of the ethnos in the interval 1200-1500 years is also an erroneous view. It's not even about how many thousands of years it can exist – everything in our world of course – essence of the problem is completely different.

It is impossible to consider such complex and changeable formations – the holistic communities, – as a matter of fact. similar to the life of a living being – with its fixed cycle from birth to the period of blossoming with the subsequent sunset: ups and downs, a stable existence in the intermittent development of each community can be many for thousands of years, and we have many similar examples, unlike the rather labored examples given by Gumilev.

In the last section we will dwell on this problem in more detail.

It seems that all this criticism completely destroys the concept of Gumilev, reducing it to an amateurish craft for the needs of a semi-educated public.

Nevertheless, Gumilev was the only person from the entire scholarly community who tried to solve the problem quite original, which nobody has managed to solve so far.

Be that as it may, the questions assigned by him, have posed scientists and historians at a dead end, since they themselves were incapable of suggesting something new, except for the factors mentioned above, which they considered the driving forces of social development absolutely groundless, although within the framework of the materialist approach to the problem, Gumilev was is doomed to failure, inasmuch the materialists relying on approaches of natural sciences to an explanation of world processes, are forced to operate only with natural phenomena, and this circumstance does not allow them to be engaged in those phenomena that cannot be attributed to purely natural, which, for example, is human consciousness, the source of origin of which science is still not able to determine. Science is also incapable of understanding the essence of consciousness, although, definitely, it is consciousness that controls the human body, and not vice versa.

These questions are as follows.

1. Gumilev, in contrast to the above-mentioned scientists, who for the driving forces of development of society accept a secondary or external factors, capable in fact to affect only on the acceleration or deceleration of the development of individual communities and civilization as a whole, quite adequately noted the necessity of the presence as a driving force of every intelligent being and communities of these beings of some hidden, internal "mover", having called it passionarity, but presented this property as the internal energy of an incomprehensible type, which a person replenishes in one or another volume from a reservoir of the Earth's biosphere.

Anyway, Gumilev is right in the attempt to find not some external force, but internal gradually creating dynamics both for a human, and for any group of people united by common interests.

2. Quite fairly as well Gumilev's statement that in each person a certain internal essence acts, and the degree of its activity is defined by its fullness in the person or by its level. It is this fullness that causes a person to fall into a passive state or into an active state, or both of these states are balanced.

3. It is impossible not to agree with Gumilev in the fact that every holistic human community develops unevenly, and this irregularity is determined primarily by the rise or recession at the active part of the community of some inner essence, which he refers to as passionarity, wrongly considering that the nature of this essence is energetical.