Transhumanism as a problem of philosophical and religious anthropology Aksyonov Igor Viktorovich. Rebellion against God for the sake of “Heaven on earth” for the elect

home

Security systems

Katasonov Vladimir Nikolaevich,
Professor, Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Theology

In February 2011, it was created in Russia strategic public movement "Russia - 2045". The goal of this movement is “the creation of an international research center for cyborgization with the aim of practical implementation of the main techno-project - the creation of an artificial body and the preparation of a person for the transition to it.” Achieving this goal is divided into stages, the main of which are the following (Avatar project): An artificial copy of the human body (2015-2020), an artificial copy of the human body into which the brain is transplanted (2020-2025), an artificial copy of the human body into which consciousness is transferred (2030-2035), the body-hologram (2040-2045). Thus, a person will overcome suffering, illness, aging and, finally, achieve what he has long sought immortality: an artificial body, or mechanical, or holographic, or some other one is much “stronger” than a natural one, and consciousness can be transplanted at will into anything... Going into space, limitless exploration of the Universe will be facilitated by the fact that a person will no longer need those conditions, which its biological form of existence requires. Transhumanists consider themselves heirs to the ideas of N.F. Fedorov, V.I. Vernadsky, K.E. Tsiolkovsky. All this assumes that the development of information technology by 2030 will reach singularity points, when a self-improving program is invented and the path to endless machine progress opens.

The “Russia – 2045” movement, uniting some domestic scientists and philosophers, was created in the footsteps of the international non-governmental “World Association of Transhumanists”, which emerged in 2008 and pursues the same global goal. Supporters also gravitate towards these movements immortalism(in particular, based on cryonics), postgenderism(overcoming gender), techno-gayanism(ecology and environmental protection), etc.

These facts could be interpreted as some marginal futurological trends modern culture, which were always sufficient, if not for two significant points:

In the context of the rejection of classical ideologies of the 19th – 20th centuries, transhumanism, based on modern scientific and technological progress, so popular in youth environment, which also incorporates environmental trends, remains essentially the only ideology that promises progressive development for humanity;
In Russian culture, where, due to the 70-year triumph of ideological and technocratic tendencies, the role of the humanities is not very high, the ideology of transhumanism is persistently making its way. Russian transhumanists are quite active, they send letters to the Russian leadership, Secretary General UN. They are supported by a number of domestic scientists, futurologists and the Dalai Lama. In August 2011, at a meeting in the Department of State Scientific and Technical Policy and Innovation of the Ministry of Education and Science, which was attended by the leaders of the Russia 2045 movement, the Kurchatov Institute, and representatives of a number of other departments of the Ministry, the directions of work of the Movement were approved and support was promised in the plan contacts with the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences.

All this gives rise to serious concerns and urgently raises the question of scientific and philosophical analysis of transhumanist ideas.

In the 20th century, the attack of technological civilization on the natural human environment continued. The creation of artificial materials has led to the fact that a person almost never encounters things made from natural materials in his home: electric light, plastic windows, artificial wood, paints obtained from chemically, synthetic fabrics, etc. However, in the last century, an active phase of penetration of artificial “materials” and, so to speak, inside person. The industry of replacing natural organs with artificial ones is becoming more and more active. These technologies are combined with the replacement of diseased organs with healthy ones taken from other people. Most of the food consumed by people today is genetically modified.

Since the middle of the last century, information technology has begun to develop, the degree and speed of development of which by the beginning of this century has reached titanic proportions. Computers and related technologies saturate the entire space of human culture: education, science, art, media, business, trade, military sphere, household. Computer innovations where information technology is not yet used are considered progress and are encouraged in every possible way by the state, which essentially fulfills the unspoken order of the information technology industry. Computerization, implementation of information technology is responsible spirit new European civilization, which strives to make human life as much as possible comfortable , shift the hard and dirty work from your shoulders to the machine. Starting with the simplest mechanisms, with steam engine, humanity today has created a huge number of technical devices that allow us to rebuild the environment at will, “conquer” space and time, and arrange human life on earth according to our own will. Within the framework of information technology, we see that the task of controlling all these mechanisms is gradually being given to machines. The idea of creating artificial intelligence capable of self-learning, a program more or less comparable to human intelligence, is being put forward more and more persistently.

Advances in solving problems in mechanics make it possible to build mechanical models of human organs. The implementation of the superproject of the new European civilization is getting closer and closer, which, in the myths about the homunculus and the Golem, dreamed of building an artificial creature imitating a human .

The ideology of transhumanism is quite naturally connected with the most cherished, historically, perhaps not immediately clearly realized aspirations of our civilization, which has existed for the last four or five centuries. The ideology of man - the creator, building Regnum hominis on Earth, by analogy with the Kingdom of God in Heaven, has inspired man since the Renaissance. Our humanistic civilization is still inspired by these ideals, and whether it’s bad or good, it is on their basis that today’s global civilization has been built and continues to be built. But from the very beginning, the key problem facing the human creator was realized: he can create a lot, but can he create himself? Not in a natural way, given to him by God, but artificially, technologically? How far does the biblical similarity between God and man extend?

The emergence of the transhumanism movement in the 20th century is closely related to the new stage of the scientific and technological revolution, the development of new methods in biology and the emergence of computer technology. Introduction of the term itself transhumanism in the 60s of the last century is associated with the name Juliana Huxley(grandson of the famous propagandist of evolutionary theory Thomas Huxley), English biologist, philosopher of science and politician. D. Huxley actively advocated the support and dissemination of humanistic values, and was one of the ideologists International Humanistic and Ethical Union (InternationalHumanistandEthicalUnion, year of creation 1952). The latter's program activities are devoted to promoting the ideas of humanism, atheism, rationalism, free-thinking, and supporting moral teachings not related to religion. In the 60s the ideas also became very popular cryonics(R. Ettinger, E. Cooper), technologies for freezing people and animals at extreme low temperatures, with the hope that in the future, advanced science will make it possible to revive (and, if necessary, heal) these creatures. The emergence of transhumanism was significantly influenced by the works and public speeches of scientists who developed the foundations of computer technology - A. Turing, J. von Neumann, philosopher E. Toffler, etc. In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pierce organized World Association of Transhumanists(Humanity+). On the official website of this public non-governmental organization in the “Philosophy” section we read: “Transhumanism is a set of teachings about life that are aimed at continuing and accelerating the evolution of intelligent life beyond its true human forms and limitations, achieved through the means of science and technology, and guided by life-affirming principles and goals... In this area, our focus is mainly on current technologies such as biotechnology, information technology, as well as anticipated future technologies such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. Transhumanism strives for ethical use of these and other speculative technologies (italics mine - V.K.). Our theoretical interests focus on posthumanist themes of singularity, extinction risks, and consciousness uploading (full brain simulation and matter-free consciousnesses)."

After the creation of self-developing programs (“singularity point”), the time will come to create robots that produce themselves. Robots will gradually learn to do any work and will inevitably replace humans, subject to fatigue and imperfection, in all areas. Due to their tirelessness and exponential progress in their capabilities, these artificial beings will eventually become more advanced than humans. On this path to a new world of smart machines, the problem must be solved consciousness downloads, i.e. creating a complete model of the human brain, and transferring it by “scanning” human consciousness into a machine. However, the reasoning of transhumanists on this topic often looks illogical and quite crafty. Hypothetically, the development of smart machines may not follow a biological path at all. Yes, and machines can rebel against slow and weak person much earlier. If a person still remains in this “society” of endlessly self-improving machines, then, apparently, he is destined for about the same place there as our animals have in the zoo.

Transhumanism is undoubtedly something new ideology , which its adherents are trying to offer to a “distrustful humanity” mired in consumerism. Domestic propagandists of these ideas write directly: “Humanity has turned into a consumer society and is on the verge of a total loss of semantic guidelines for development. The interests of most people boil down mainly to maintaining their own comfortable existence... We believe that the world needs a different ideological paradigm. Within its framework, it is necessary to formulate a super task that can indicate a new vector of development for all humanity and ensure the implementation of a scientific and technological revolution.”

Despite all the claims to the scientific foundation of the transhumanistic perspective, fundamental questions about the possibility of such self-organizing programs, or about the similarity of consciousness to the electrical machinery of an artificial neural network remain hypotheses. Believers into these hypotheses educated people often demonstrate stunning philosophical illiteracy. Transhumanism here exploits the results of two scientific and philosophical traditions, which were mentioned above: the development of modern information technology and the evolution of structuralist ideas, which came in postmodernism to the concept death of a person. And, of course, the idea evolution, within the framework of which man is by no means the “crown of the universe,” but only a stage that had a beginning and must have an end, like all other stages of evolution. Transhumanism calls on a person to part with these ambivalent, from his point of view, values of classical humanism: feelings, faith, love, physicality, sexual differences, procreation and raising children, dreams of happiness, salvation, etc. But it promises limitless knowledge, and, in principle, the immortality of the knowing being.

Transhumanism is not just some new ideology among others, but a project that confronts a person with the fundamental questions of his existence, and requires from him the deepest spiritual honesty and responsibility in answering them.

For us, our human values are natural and familiar, by which we live, for which we work, for which we sacrifice: love, family, children, parents, Motherland, friendship, heroism, loyalty, self-overcoming in creativity, etc. But in the face of evolutionary progress, all this turns out to be “only human, too human” and must be surpassed. The society of smart machines, whether on an electronic or biological basis, is indeed a new stage in endless evolution, and what can we oppose to this Moloch of progress?..

Only if we give absolute value human life, in all the concreteness of its spiritual and material being, only then there is ideological support for the fight against the ideology of transhumanism. To recognize the absolute meaning of human life, a person’s connection with the Absolute, with God, is necessary. This does not deny the possibility of technological progress, but it does introduce certain limitations and a sober sense of responsibility into our thinking.

Friendship, love, family, self-sacrifice, faith have absolute spiritual meaning for a person. It is in this that the life of the individual is manifested, this is precisely the main content of life, without them a person is spiritually dead and, often, having lost them, he himself abandons physical life. All these spheres of human existence, one way or another, correlate with the Absolute, with God. Only in this case do they have a truly human meaning, elevating him above the animal world.

Transhumanism invites us to lose it all. We are invited to lose the highest meaning of human existence, and leave ourselves only the possibility of limitless scientific knowledge and pleasures... Moreover, transhumanism, as an ideology, already today wants to take away these spiritual values from us and accustom us to the “lentil stew” of purely scientistic joys. Already today, even before the “singularity point” is reached, or the strategy of “consciousness uploading” is implemented, when all these technologies are still purely speculative, transhumanist propaganda seeks to form a certain ethics. In this ethic, any progress in the field of information technology and science is absolutely valuable, regardless of the humanitarian consequences. Any objection from the point of view of classical humanitarian culture is regarded as an encroachment on the highest human ability, knowledge, and on the highest cultural value, science. Domestic adherents of transhumanism are also working in the same direction. Formulating the goals of their movement, they not only insist on the creation of: “... an international research center for cyborgization with the aim of practical implementation of the main technoproject - the creation artificial body and preparing a person for the transition into it(my italics – V.K.)”, but also worry about the formation of “a culture associated with the ideology of the future, technological progress, artificial intelligence, multicorporeality (!!! – V.K.), immortality, cyborgization.”

The narrow-minded, purely scientistic orientation of this program is simply blatant.

However, on the basis of a purely humanistic materialistic worldview, the fight against transhumanism is doomed to failure.

Transhumanism poses problems, the very formulation of which immediately poses a dead end. Probably the most important project here is “Avatar B”, in the designations of the “Russia – 2045” society: “an artificial copy of the human body into which consciousness is transferred at the end of life.” But the question immediately arises: who proved that consciousness is separable from the brain? If we reason in a materialistic paradigm—and this is exactly how modern science thinks of itself—then consciousness is simply the activity of the brain, and it is not clear how the activity can be separated from this actor himself. Of course, this means that consciousness will be modeled in the form of some kind of program, but who proved that this is possible? The fact that the activity of consciousness corresponds to certain electro-chemical processes in the brain has been known for a long time, but the fact that consciousness comes down to this is a pure hypothesis. Philosophical anthropology and phenomenology tell us that consciousness is closely connected with our corporeality, and how to separate it from the body, this question even seems absurd... In the logic of transhumanism enthusiasts, it is clearly felt that when they say consciousness, they essentially mean that , which is denoted by the word soul. If we take more than just the philistine use of this word, then we are forced to move into an idealistic and religious context. Here, indeed, the soul is separated from the body (in death), and represents a special essence that is not reducible to the body. But if we remain on a materialistic scientific basis, then this division is simply incomprehensible.

In general, the creation computer program, equal in power, so to speak, to human consciousness, seems extremely utopian. Not in the sense that a program could simulate some individual human functions - some of them, these programs even today perform more perfectly than a person - but in the sense that consciousness has resources that are, in principle, inaccessible information technology. This, in fact, is the main stumbling block on the path to creating a cyborg superman.

Cyborgs and post-humans, built on the basis of modern scientific technologies, will always be lower than man in the sense of his highest spiritual abilities - creativity, moral and moral consciousness, perception of beauty, faith, hope, love... Therefore, the “evolution” of man to post-humans - cyborgs, propagated by transhumanists, but in fact, the replacement of humans with post-human cyborgs will always be not development, but human degeneration, the loss of those divine gifts that cannot be modeled within the framework of information technology.

Today's civilization poses serious questions to humanity regarding the understanding of human nature itself.The problem of anthropology becomes the most pressing of problems. Depending on how we thinkperson, what content we put into this word, we willeducate, develop a person, treathim and the whole society. And thanks to modern technologies, this human development can go very far... You need to clearly understand thatfor a purely humanistic, non-religious understanding, there are and cannot be any boundaries on the path of technological experimentation and utopian design of man and society. And in this case, experimentation will inevitably give rise to many monstrosities and tragedies. It is along this path that currents of gender modification, cloning, and even anthropophagy arise today. All this can lead to a total catastrophe of self-destruction of humanity... Only if our science correlates with the knowledge given to us in revelation by God himself, with the understanding of man that humanity has preserved for centuries in the biblical tradition, only then will we be able to cope with the “genies” produced modern science.

The point of this article is not to abandon information technology. Even if we wanted to abandon them, this cannot be done today simply at will. Information technology controls many sectors of our civilization, and abandoning it would immediately lead to tragic consequences. This especially applies to today's military equipment and methods of controlling it. But we need to be sober about information technologies and not make them universal remedy to solve all problems, do not make an idol out of them. Information technology is only facilities, only assistants in human activity, by their very design they cannot surpass human nature, no matter how great their technical capabilities. But again, stopping the virus of the possible utopian idolatry of the information machine can only be done on the basis of sober religious anthropology.

Bibliography

1. Russia 2045: website. URL: http:// 2045.ru (accessed June 20, 2014)

2. Humanity+: website. URL: http://humanityplus.org (accessed June 20, 2014)

3. Russian transhumanist movement: website. URL: http:// transhumanism-russia.ru (accessed June 20, 2014)

4. Bart R. Structuralism as an activity / Roland Barthes // Gumer Library - Humanities: website. URL: http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Culture/Bart/_02.php (accessed 07/15/2014).

5. Deleuze J. On the death of man and the superman // Gilles Deleuze // Gumer Library - Humanities: website. http://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Philos/Delez/sm_chel.php

Katasonov V.N. Fought with the infinite. Philosophical and religious aspects of the genesis of G. Cantor’s set theory. M., 1999.
Katasonov V.N. Metaphysical mathematics of the 17th century. M., 1993 (2010). Chapter I.
Katasonov V.N. Information and reality // Science, philosophy, religion. Man facing the challenge of the latest information and communication technologies. Sat. materials of the XVI conference “Science. Philosophy. Religion." M., 2014

Kingdom of man (lat.). So, by analogy with the Kingdom of God, F. Bacon called his project of mastering nature on the basis of new science. See book: Saprykin D.L. Regnum hominis. Imperial project of F. Bacon. M., 2001.

Soviet scientists of the 20s, inspired by the new ideology, tried to artificially develop a new nature of Soviet man, using both eugenic methods and human-animal crossing.

As S.S. Khoruzhy rightly writes on this topic: “...it seems that noisy PR people with chicken intelligence and obsessives with intelligence developed along one straight line are going to lead us to superintelligence - convinced, according to evidence, that “man is a machine made of meat, carrying a computer in its skull" ( Khoruzhy S.S. The problem of the posthuman, or transformative anthropology through the eyes of synergetic anthropology // Philosophical Sciences. 2008, No. 2. P.29).

The weakness of V.A. Kutyrev’s position is also connected with this. In his book “Philosophy of Transhumanism” one can find the words God, Christianity, Good, Logos, Christ, as well as Buddha and Allah, but it is obvious that he is an unbeliever, in the sense that for him these names are only cultural - historical markers. God, who entered history and acts in it, has not yet become for him a term of his philosophy.

Avatar: key stages of the project // Russia 2045: website. URL: http:// 2045.ru (accessed June 20, 2014)

Although modeling the work of human organs, such as the human foot, encounters serious difficulties, and for moving automata it is necessary to use simpler and compromise solutions.

Everything that is comprehended with the help of raison de finesse (subtle mind), as B. Pascal called it ( PascalB. Oeuvres completes. Paris, 1963. P. 576).

Transhumanism(from lat. trans - through, through, for; lat. humanitas - humanity, humanus - humane, homo - man) - a rational, based on understanding the achievements and prospects of science, a worldview that recognizes the possibility and desirability of fundamental changes in the situation of man with using advanced technologies to eliminate suffering, aging and death, and to significantly enhance human physical, mental and psychological capabilities.

Story

Ideas in the form of desires or opinions that can be interpreted as transhumanist today have been present in human culture throughout history.

The word “transhumane” was first used by Dante Alighieri in his “Divine Comedy”, which brought him wide fame, but in the modern sense this word is first used only by the evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley in his work “Religion without Apocalypse”. In the spirit of his era, marked, in particular, by the penetration of the methods of natural sciences into biology, the establishment of genetics as an independent scientific direction and the beginning of the liberation of everyday life from the influence of religion, Huxley presented transhumanism as a new ideology, a “faith” for Humanity entering a new wave scientific and technological revolution. At the same time, views close to Huxley were developed by the geneticist J. B. S. Haldine and Russian cosmists. The collapse of hopes for the emergence of real ways of radical change biological nature man quickly led to the fading of widespread interest in ideas in this area.

The first to practically approach the prospect of enhancing the capabilities of the human mind with the help of special devices developed on a scientific basis was the Russian inventor S. N. Korsakov. At the end of the 19th century, the further evolution of humanity through overcoming the limitations of the human body was spoken of as a desirable prospect, in particular, by such philosophers as Francis Willard, Nikolai Fedorov and Friedrich Nietzsche.

In 1966, the Iranian-American futurist FM-2030 (Fereydoon M. Esfendiari) called transhumanists people who had a special worldview and lifestyle aimed at self-improvement. These are the people who use modern achievements of science and technology to transition to a “posthuman” - a being with fundamentally new abilities.

One of the first definitions of transhumanism was introduced by the philosopher Max More.

In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pierce founded the World Transhumanist Association.

The main goals and objectives of transhumanism

The main goal of transhumanism is the endless improvement of man, based on the latest discoveries of scientific and technological progress. To achieve this goal, transhumanism proposes:

Transhumanists support the development of new technologies; They consider nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, developments in the field of artificial intelligence, uploading consciousness into computer memory and cryonics to be especially promising.

Many transhumanists (in particular, the famous futurist and inventor Raymond Kurzweil) believe that continuously accelerating technological progress by 2050 will make it possible to create a post-human, whose abilities will be fundamentally different from those of modern people. Genetic engineering, molecular nanotechnology, the creation of neuroprostheses and direct computer-brain interfaces will especially help with this.

Also, many transhumanists believe that since the speed of technology development increases exponentially, the time will come when important discoveries will be made almost immediately, at the same time (the phenomenon of technological singularity).

Technologies

Human enhancement technologies are technologies that can be used not only to compensate or make up for the deficiencies in the functions of disabled and sick people, but can also increase a person’s abilities and capabilities to a new, previously unattainable level.

Existing technologies

Expected technologies

Criticism of transhumanism

The very concept and prospects of human enhancement have generated much criticism, controversy, and debate. Thus, Francis Fukuyama called transhumanism “the most dangerous idea in the world.” Criticism of transhumanism and its proposals takes two main forms (often complementary):

“practical” - objections to the achievability of the goals of transhumanism;
“ethical” - objections to the goals and ideas of transhumanism, moral principles and worldview of those who support transhumanism or are transhumanists as such.

Critics often see transhumanist goals as a threat to human values, government social programs, and the spread of civil rights and liberties. One extreme argument is to compare the goals (and sometimes declared methods) of transhumanism with eugenic research.

Also, the problem of transhumanism can be considered as a problem of choosing the direction of the path of human improvement. Unlike the religious solution to this issue through self-improvement using the tool of free will, that is, improving memory, skills and abilities consistently and gradually along the way, transhumanism also involves exogenous intervention, implantation upgrade also on the physical level.

Often, some criticism of the transhumanist program is contained in works of fiction and science fiction films, which, however, often depict imaginary worlds rather than analyze the problem.

According to critics, the ideas of transhumanism conflict with their desired goals: for example, immortality will give rise to many of the problems considered in dystopias, such as overpopulation of the planet, low social level, and restrictions on freedoms. However, according to the opinions of supporters of transhumanism, all these problems can be resolved by adequate social management, in particular, strict birth control, as well as the expansion of humanity into space.

However, despite this, the Russian Transhumanist Movement believes that the majority of transhumanists advocate:

protection of personal freedoms, strengthening the traditions of democracy
support for social programs to improve the education system and develop information technologies
supporting developments to create more advanced technologies and production, and through this - solving the problem of poverty, resolving the environmental crisis and improving the quality of life of people.

Humanism, transhumanism and posthumanism

The subject of debate remains the question of whether transhumanism is a branch of “posthumanism”, as well as how it should be defined, taking into account transhumanism. The latter is often characterized as a subset or active form of posthumanism, both by its conservative, Christian and progressive critics, and by pro-transhumanist scholars who, for example, call it “philosophical posthumanism.” A common feature of transhumanism and posthumanism is the prediction of some new intelligent species into which man will evolve. This new species will replenish or even replace humanity. Transhumanists emphasize an evolutionary perspective, supporting directed evolution leading to a “posthuman future.”

Transhumanism was also influenced by the idea of creating Artificial Intelligence, proposed, in particular, by Hans Moravec. Moravec's ideas and transhumanism have been characterized as an "apocalyptic" form of posthumanism, opposed to "cultural posthumanism" in the humanities and arts. While such “cultural posthumanism” seeks to rethink the relationship between humans and increasingly complex machines, transhumanism not only refuses to abandon outdated concepts of the “autonomous free subject”, but also extends them into the posthumanist realm. The self-definition of transhumanism as a natural continuation of the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment is consistent with this point of view.

Some secular humanists present transhumanism as an outgrowth of the freethinking movement and point out that transhumanists differ from mainstream humanism by focusing on technological approaches to solving human problems, including the problem of human mortality. However, other progressives point out that posthumanism, whether in its philosophical or activist forms, seeks to move away from issues of social justice, reform of social institutions and other central problems Enlightenment, to the narcissistic desire for endless improvement of the human body in search of better forms of existence. From this point of view, transhumanism departs from the goals of humanism and the Enlightenment.

Currents in transhumanism

Libertarian transhumanism

Libertarian transhumanism is a political ideology that combines libertarianism and transhumanism.

Researchers who call themselves libertarian transhumanists (Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit) advocate the right to human empowerment. In their opinion, the free market is the best guarantor of this right, as it provides greater personal freedom and prosperity compared to other economic systems.

Libertarian transhumanists believe that the principle of self-ownership is the fundamental idea that unites libertarianism and transhumanism. Other principles, such as reasonable selfishness and a rational attitude towards new technologies, will, in their opinion, make it possible to achieve a significant expansion of human freedoms. Thanks to this, it will be possible to build a state characterized by complete physical, intellectual and social well-being, and not simply the absence of disease and poverty.

As unapologetic defenders of civil rights, libertarian transhumanists believe that any attempt to limit the right to empowerment own body is a violation of civil rights and freedoms. At the same time, libertarian transhumanists oppose government intervention in this area, since, in their opinion, any government intervention of this kind limits the possibility of their choice.

Communist transhumanism (technocommunism)

Communist transhumanism combines humanism, scientism and rationalism. This brand of transhumanism believes that humanity will either achieve communism or perish.

The novel by Alexander Vladimirovich Lazarevich Nanotech Network describes the goal and the path to achieving it for the development of mankind in this direction. The main idea is that with the help of nanomachines you can create any things and objects from the carbon dioxide contained in the atmosphere absolutely free of charge, which corresponds to the principles of communism. Next, a person moves his consciousness into artificial communication channels, achieving immortality.

Technogaianism

Technogaianism (from “techno-” - technology and “gaian” - Gaia) is one of the movements of environmentalists and transhumanism. Representatives of techno-gayanism advocate the active development of new technologies that will help restore the environment in the future. Technogainists also argue that the creation of clean and safe technologies is an important goal of all environmentalists.

Techno-Gaianists believe that technology becomes cleaner and more efficient over time. Moreover, industries such as nanotechnology and biotechnology can provide the means to completely restore the environment. For example, molecular nanotechnology will make it possible to transform waste accumulated in landfills into useful materials and products, biotechnology will make it possible to create special microbes that feed on industrial waste.

According to techno-Gaianists, humanity is currently at a dead end, and the only way for the development of human civilization is to accept the principles of techno-Gaianism and limit the exploitation of natural resources. Only science and technology will allow humanity to break out of this impasse into stable progressive development and avoid the catastrophic consequences of global risks.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

Aksenov Igor Viktorovich. Transhumanism as a problem of philosophical and religious anthropology: dissertation... candidate of Philosophical Sciences: 09.00.13 / Aksenov Igor Viktorovich; [Place of defense: Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical University named after Kozma Minin]. - Nizhny, 2016

Introduction

Chapter 1. Formation of the concept of transhumanism 19

1.1. Historical and cultural context of the transhumanism movement 19

1.2. Transhumanism and problems of modern natural science 31

1.3. Transhumanism and ethical problems 41

1.4. Transhumanism as an anthropological problem 61

Chapter 2. Religious and philosophical problems of transhumanism

2.1. Transhumanism and Humanism 86

2.2. Existential aspects of transhumanism 94

2.3. Attitude to transhumanism in Christianity 105

2.4. Attitude to transhumanism in Judaism 128

2.5. Attitude to transhumanism in Islam 137

2.6. Religious and philosophical foundations for criticism of transhumanism 154

Conclusion 162

References 1

Introduction to the work

Relevance of the research topic. Recent achievements in scientific and technological progress, especially in such areas of scientific knowledge as genetic engineering and information technology, highlight the problem of the possibility of using these achievements to improve biological conditions human existence. The fact that this kind of possibility is now closer to reality than ever is evidenced by the fact that the consequences of the application of new technologies to the human condition are being vigorously discussed. Some biological technologies already used today in agriculture and medicine already have an indirect impact on the quality of human life and the future of the human species. At the same time, research in the field of neuropsychology and experiments in creating artificial intelligence open up the possibility of directly enhancing many of a person’s mental abilities, and the question of how a person will be able to use these enhanced abilities is also of concern to many. All these problems force us to take a fresh look at the relationship between the biological and the social in human life, at the boundaries of what is hereditary and acquired in human nature, and at the new content with which the very concept of “human” is being filled before our eyes.

All these problems go beyond the competence of natural science and acquire clearly expressed moral, religious and philosophical aspects. Along with the possibility and scope of a particular technology, the question of its admissibility or inadmissibility from an ethical point of view also arises no less acutely. Fundamental religious and philosophical disagreements regarding changes in human nature in a future society, regarding improving the genotype of human populations and strengthening the cognitive abilities of the individual are quite natural. It is no coincidence that these issues go beyond purely academic discussions and find a natural response in public sentiment and influence the decision-making process in the field of politics and jurisprudence. In addition, we must not forget that the problem of artificial intelligence is very relevant for the field of military technology, and, therefore, cannot but play a very important role in the geopolitical and military-strategic confrontations and conflicts of our time.

If we take into account all these circumstances, then it should not be surprising that in the second half of the 20th century a specific philosophical, worldview, and even to a certain extent

a religious and moral movement, the center of interests of which was the possibility of improving human nature through new technologies, including genetic engineering. The founders of this movement - Marvin Miskey, Hans Moravec, Raymond Kurzweil, Nick Vostrom, Esfendiari, Robbert Ettinger, Max Moore and others - use the term “transhumanism” to refer to the ideological picture characteristic of this movement. Thus, two principles are mandatory in this worldview: firstly, the belief that with the help of technology it is possible to improve the human species, and, secondly, this possible improvement is not only desirable, but can also lead to the solution of many pressing problems , accompanying humanity from the very first stages of its history. Hunger, disease, poverty - all this and much more, thanks to the use of new technologies, will forever remain in the distant past. In a transhumanistic perspective, man himself will be so transformed that he will have either real immortality at his disposal, or at least the possibility of radically extending his life. Transhumanists associate their ideas of a transformed person with the convergence of technologies, primarily nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. A special acronym NBIC is used to refer to this convergence.

It is impossible not to notice that transhumanism is currently quite actively making itself known not only in the field of philosophy, but also as a social movement with an international scope. At the same time, behind this formal organizational unity hides a vivid diversity of conceptual foundations and author’s versions of transhumanism, differences in interpretations of the latest discoveries in the field genetic engineering and artificial intelligence research, sharp clashes in discussions regarding the meaningfulness, admissibility and effectiveness of using new technologies to improve human nature, as well as regarding the moral, religious and philosophical aspects of transhumanism as a philosophical movement.

The problems of transhumanism become even more acute and relevant due to the fact that they arise against the backdrop of an unfolding anthropological crisis. The beginning of the 21st century is characterized by the fact that the horizons of possible human impact on nature are becoming more and more vast. At the same time, humanity is increasingly realizing that there are limits to such influence, violation of which threatens a person with unforeseen disasters. Nature increasingly turns out to be not a passive object of application of human strength and abilities, but a kind of “subject” capable of responding

unpredictable interventions in the environment of human existence. This reverse impact of nature on humans may be so significant that civilization itself will be on the verge of destruction. Since the second half of the 20th century. this reverse effect manifests itself in a variety of global problems: in the environmental crisis, in the worsening demographic situation, in the accumulation of toxic chemical and radioactive waste, in new diseases, etc. The very biological foundations of human existence no longer seem to be something unconditional and self-evident. Many researchers are inclined to designate this set of problems as an anthropological crisis.

This crisis has two different, even opposing aspects. Firstly, disruption of the ecological balance between human society and nature has an equal negative impact on both the natural environment and the person himself. The human species was formed in a natural environment that for a long time in human history was either unchanged or changed very slowly. Anthropogenic impact on the natural environment leads to radical changes in the latter, and people find themselves in the wrong natural world, in relation to which his genetic adaptation has been carried out for thousands of years, but in a new artificially transformed environment, which he perceives as natural and to which he now has to adapt again. The effective possibility of such adaptation depends on the rate of change in this environment, and if we take into account that the genetic adaptation of the human species is a very slow process, then the rate of changes in the natural environment makes such an adaptation process almost impossible. Therefore, the anthropogenic impact on the natural environment inevitably results in the destruction of the gene pool of both individual populations and all of humanity, and results in the genetic degeneration of humans as a species. Contrary to the widespread interpretation of the anthropological crisis as, first of all, a spiritual, ideological problem, it should be recognized that this crisis rather characterizes natural and social existence itself.

The second aspect is generated not by the negative consequences of scientific and technological development, but, on the contrary, by what is most often taken to be its most visible achievements. These are advances in biology, genetics, anthropogenetics, and genetic engineering that open up dizzying possibilities for biological manipulation of bacteria, viruses, plants, animals and humans. On a practical level, the question of artificial reproduction of life, including human life, arises, the question of cloning. All this radically changes the initial attitude of a person as

his own nature, and to nature in general. Modern man
turned out to be capable of actively transforming his own
bodily and mental nature. Molecular biology takes on everything
more and more opportunities to regulate life processes and
manage them. All this inevitably entails a crisis of the old
a person’s ideas about himself and the formation of new ones. So
Thus, the very new human capabilities that arose as a result
scientific and technological progress become a source

anthropological crisis. It is out of this crisis that the transhumanism movement emerges. Therefore, the transhumanist perspective is not a set of empty fantasies, it has real foundations, and just a negative assessment of the moral, religious and philosophical aspects of transhumanism would inevitably be one-sided. Transhumanism poses and tries to solve very real problems, the philosophical aspect of which is expressed in the awareness of new types of relationships between subject and object, between humanity and nature. A fruitful understanding of these relationships serves as a methodological and ideological basis for posing and solving a whole complex of social and humanitarian problems that are of undoubted relevance in the situation of the anthropological crisis described above.

Degree of development of the problem. The issues discussed in the dissertation work are brought to life by the process of development of modern molecular biology and genetic engineering, as well as the ideological, philosophical, religious and moral problems that accompany this process. Domestic and foreign researchers (both representatives of the humanities and natural scientists) own a considerable number of works that can be used as prerequisites for understanding the philosophical and religious aspects of transhumanism. These works can be divided into several areas.

The first of them is aimed at analysis and philosophical understanding of the meaning of human existence in the perspective of the development of civilization and scientific and technological progress. Research in line with this direction is represented by the works of V. Adzhalov, L. E. Balashov, A. A. Zinoviev, V. N. Katasonov, A. S. Panarin, V. N. Shutov, etc. Against the background of these more global studies, it is natural such a more private direction as domestic thanatology is emerging (Demichev A., Ryazantsev S.). It is also natural to turn to more universal problems that have a pronounced religious and philosophical character, for example, to the problem of immortality (I. V. Vishev, O. S. Pugachev, N. N. Trubnikov, I. T. Frolov). Then domestic researchers begin the problem of immortality

consider, albeit within the framework of philosophical and ideological issues, but at the same time from the point of view of its technical solution with the help of the latest achievements of technical progress (Abramyan E. A., Batin M. A., Pride V., Churakov, B. C.). Moreover, attention is drawn to attempts to extrapolate the problems of the meaning of life, death and immortality to the field of artificial intelligence research (Medvedev D. A., Penrose R., Fukuyama F., Ettinger R.)

The second direction covers works whose authors comprehend and discuss the moral and religious-philosophical aspects of the transhumanist perspective. Among domestic authors are studies by D. I. Dubrovsky, V. N. Ignatiev, V. A. Kutyrev, R. V. Maslov, P. D. Tishchenko. Among foreign authors, we should first of all mention I. Barbour, R. Dawkins, Habermas Yu., Huntington S.

The third direction is focused on philosophical understanding of the problems that naturally arise in the future of using new information and biological technologies. These are studies aimed at creating a specific categorical apparatus that would allow us to adequately pose and effectively solve these new problems. Here, both the experience of the development of natural science (the works of R. F. Abdeev, A. Ya. Kravchenko, S. E. Kultin, etc.) and religious and philosophical experience (the works of E. Efremova, V. N. Katasonov, Rozin) can be used V. M., Sabirova V. Sh., Shaposhnikova JI.). Within the framework of this direction, serious potential has been accumulated in understanding the philosophical and ethical problems of genetics and modern biotechnologies (Akifyev A.P., Altukhov Yu.P., Baev A.A., Bekker G.K., Goncharov V.P., Egorova M.S. , Zub A. T., Korochkin L. I., Kurilo L. F., Ogurtsov A. P., Tarantul V. Z., Florinsky V. M., Hen Yu. V., Efroimson V. P., Yudin B. . G.).

Finally, since transhumanism is a type of humanism, or more precisely, secular humanism, formed during the Enlightenment, it is necessary to take into account a critical analysis of the humanistic and secular-humanistic worldview as such. In this case, we rely primarily on the classical works of Russian philosophers: Berdyaev N.A., Bulgakov S.N., Vysheslavtsev B.P., Frank S.L., Solovyov V.S. The basis for our research is the cultural concept D.K. Bogatyreva, built on a generalization of anthropological and cultural-philosophical ideas of Russian religious philosophers.

At the same time, the degree of development of historical, scientific and philosophical problems of the transhumanistic perspective of human development in domestic literature remains insufficient. Thus, in particular, the issues of the history of anthropogenetics have not been sufficiently studied,

eugenics as the historically first form of searching for practical applications of anthropogenetics; There are no studies that would carry out a holistic philosophical analysis of the entire complex of ideological, ethical, religious problems generated by the so-called convergence of NBIC, the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (not to mention the fact that the latter is generally poorly covered in the domestic literature ). Finally, those religious and philosophical foundations that should form the basis for an adequate assessment of the transhumanist perspective remain unidentified.

Object research is transhumanism as a philosophical and anthropological direction and as an institutionalized movement of international scale.

Subject research is the religious, philosophical, ethical and worldview foundations of transhumanism in the context of problems generated at the stage of convergence of NBIC (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science).

Purpose of the study consists in a comprehensive description of transhumanism at the current stage of its development and its religious and philosophical aspects.

Achieving the research goal involves solving the following tasks:

Analysis of historical, cultural and natural science context
the emergence and development of the transhumanism movement;

Identification of moral and anthropological foundations
transhumanism;

consideration of the modern stage of transhumanism in the horizon of technological and humanitarian utopias of the 20th century;

characterization of the existential aspects of the transhumanist perspective;

Characteristics of the attitude towards the ideas of transhumanism in
monotheistic religions;

Systematization of religious-anthropological and philosophical
anthropological foundations for criticism of transhumanism.

Scientific novelty The research consists of a comprehensive description of the religious-anthropological and philosophical-anthropological aspects of the transhumanism movement, as well as the formulation of a number of positive arguments in defense of transhumanism and negative arguments that are critical in nature and designed to establish certain moral boundaries of the transhumanist perspective. The scientific novelty includes the following results:

1. The historical, cultural and natural science context has been identified, in
conditions of which it turned out to be possible to formulate the main
conceptual provisions of transhumanism.

2. It has been established that transhumanism as a worldview
characterized, firstly, by the belief in the possibility of creative
transformation of human nature through our own efforts
people, secondly, the belief in the possibility and admissibility of using
technologies to improve human nature, and thirdly, in
conviction of the need to use such technologies in order to
solutions to a number of social problems (hunger, disease, poverty and
etc.).

3. It is concluded that transhumanism is
a natural continuation of the secular humanism of the New Age, in
in particular, technological utopias of the 20th century, in particular
cybernetic utopias based on limitless faith in possibilities
scientific and technological progress.

A number of critical arguments are formulated regarding the existential aspects of transhumanist ideas. In particular, it is shown that the attitude towards death is the most important existential constant of human existence, without which human life itself will be meaningless.

A comprehensive description of the religious and philosophical aspects of transhumanism is given, and the conclusion is drawn that behind the traditional religious rejection of the transhumanist perspective lies not banal obscurantism, but a realistic desire to establish moral limits to the application of new technologies to man and nature.

Theoretical and practical significance of the research. The theoretical significance of the study is expressed in the scientific and philosophical justification for a critical assessment of the phenomenon of transhumanism, which involves the formulation of both positive arguments in favor of transhumanism and negative arguments aimed at establishing the moral boundaries of the transhumanist movement.

The practical significance of the study is determined by the fact that the obtained research results allow us to assess the role of the transhumanistic perspective in making long-term practical decisions. The conclusions obtained in this dissertation research can serve as the basis for research in such areas as ethics, religious studies, philosophical anthropology, philosophy of culture, philosophy of science and other areas of philosophical knowledge. Dissertation research materials can be

used in the preparation of university educational and special courses on the philosophy of consciousness, transhumanism, and bioethics. The conclusions of the dissertation research can be used in developing practical recommendations when making decisions regarding the widespread use of biotechnologies.

Methodology and methods of dissertation research. The methodological basis of the work was the most important principles, categories and provisions of modern religious studies, philosophical anthropology and philosophy of culture. The theoretical and methodological basis for the criticism of transhumanism is the concept of “metaphysics of culture”, implicitly inherent in the tradition of Russian religious and philosophical thought and explicit in the works of D. K. Bogatyrev (Burlaki). The study uses a historical-problematic approach to analyze the formulation and resolution of issues related to the phenomenon of transhumanism. An important role is played by the comparative method, which allows for a comparative historical analysis of relations to the phenomenon of transhumanism in various religious forms and the conceptual foundations of these relations. Finally, an interpretive-analytical method was used, which contributed to the reconstruction of the semantic content of the original and critical texts on this topic.

In addition, the dissertation widely used the conceptual apparatus of specific sciences, both natural and humanities, including bioethics, biopolitics, and molecular biology. Specific scientific material is gleaned from numerous sources (articles, monographs, results of sociological research, journalism) on the history of biological sciences and biotechnology, the history of genetics; in the literature on the problems of genetic engineering, medical genetics, etc., as well as in works on the study of global problems of civilization, sociological, legal, ethical, political science, theological literature; literature on problems international relations etc. Classical philosophical and cultural studies were also widely used.

Provisions for defense:

1. Transhumanism in its development goes through several natural stages and in its modern state is a complex of heterogeneous ideas, the main ones of which are the following: firstly, the idea of an evolving human nature and that this evolution is still far from completion; secondly, the ideas of human creativity, which, being directed at human nature itself, becomes a new powerful and positive factor in evolution; thirdly, the ideas of biotechnological improvement of the human species,

which in a transhumanistic perspective gains immortality and eternal happy life; fourthly, a technological utopia of the fusion of man and machine, which will ensure practical immortality.

2. Modern natural science makes available
transhumanism a significant arsenal of assisted reproductive
technologies that can be divided into three groups: artificial
intracorporeal fertilization, in vitro fertilization,
cloning. Proponents of transhumanism are convinced that these technologies
came very close to artificially reproducing human
life and to a practical solution to the problem of immortality.

The transhumanist project is a delusion because of its mechanistic engineering approach to what is human. Transhumanism is a utopian vision that is based on the mistaken belief that the ideal is feasible in the present. Instead of a transhumanist obsession with postponing or overcoming death, it would be more appropriate for humans to accept the reality of death as one aspect of the very fabric of human life and to appreciate how we live, how we age, and how we die.

The ideas of transhumanism turn into an outright dehumanization of life, a deep ideological shift, expressed in the transformation of the substantialist paradigm of attitude towards the world into a functionalist paradigm, which then naturally turns into a relativist and constructivist paradigm. The rejection of metaphysics entails the rejection of man as a subject and as a being and gives rise to the idea of the “death of man” proclaimed by poststructuralists. Transhumanism is an essential component and a natural consequence of the postmodern state that characterizes modernity. In such a historical and cultural context, the position of orthodox Christianity, which does not reject scientific knowledge in general, but places natural moral limits on the absolutism of empirical science, acquires a positive meaning.

The idea of NBIC convergence underlying modern transhumanism - the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science - must be considered in connection with the moral prerequisites for the development of scientific knowledge. This development reveals the same contradictions and paradoxes as before, but now the possible consequences are much more serious, because we have before us a whole program of impacts on nature and humanity. Cognitive science is given the status of a metaphysical justification for the convergence of NBIC, and therefore it is not surprising that the contradictions inherent in cognitive science should be found in the metaphysics of transhumanism itself.

6. Cultural-spiritual and instinctive-vital principle in a person
not only is in indissoluble unity, but also identical from the beginning.
Thus, cultural trends, together with
characterological tendencies, along with basic
physiological and psychological needs, constitute
determined by genotype “universal natural framework of personality”
any person. Man is both subject and object
– both personality and nature. Personality is freedom in man
relation to one's nature.

7. Grounds for a pessimistic assessment of transhumanism
perspectives are found in the fact that when our ability
act in the world increases limitlessly and we are faced with new and
unforeseen forms of responsibility, then moral resources,
those at our disposal decrease in the same proportion.
The same technological aspirations that give man the opportunity
influence the world, reduce a person to the status of an object that can
be designed and shaped as desired; concept of mind as
machine is the same concept that allows us
present in the future the possibility of remaking ourselves, and at the same time
time it prevents us from achieving this. The fact is that
announces to us unprecedented freedom, the most cruel necessity lurks,
removing the issue of moral responsibility from the agenda
at all.

Credibility the provisions submitted for defense are determined by the breadth and representativeness of the research material, as well as the validity and effectiveness of the methods used in the research.

Approbation of the study. The main provisions of the dissertation research were presented in reports at various scientific conferences, such as: February 7 – 9, 2010: IV International Sretensky Readings in Helsinki; October 14 – 15, 2010: conference “Pokrovsky Meetings”. Russian Center for Science and Culture at the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Finland; February 20 – 22, 2011: V International Sretensky Readings in Helsinki.; March 2 – 3, 2011: scientific conference of the All-Church Graduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius; March 23, 2011: special seminar of the All-Church Graduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius; May 25 – 26, 2011: international scientific conference “Intellectual and spiritual traditions in the public life of Russia and Italy”; October 14 – 16, 2011: II Pokrovsky international educational meetings in Helsinki; February 18 – 21, 2012: VI International Sretensky Readings in Helsinki; April 3, 2012: Round table to discuss the “Project

concept of family policy of St. Petersburg for 2012 – 2022.” St. Petersburg State University, Faculty of Sociology, Research Institute of Complex Social Research; May 17 – 18

2012: All-Russian scientific and practical conference with
international participation “Orthodoxy and modernity: problems
secularism and post-secularism"; October 14 – 15, 2012: III
International Pokrovsky educational readings in Helsinki; 24 – 27
January 2013: XXI International Christmas Educational
Readings, Moscow, Kremlin. State Kremlin Palace; March 29

2013: Scientific and methodological conference “Formation of the Russian
student identity: the potential of the course “Fundamentals of Religious Cultures”
and secular ethics"; October 5, 2013: Conference in Leningradsky
Regional Institute for Educational Development; October 14 – 15, 2013: IV
International Pokrovsky educational readings in Helsinki; 26 – 29
January 2014: XXII International Christmas Educational
readings, Kremlin. State Kremlin Palace; May 8 – 31, 2014:
XIV Holy Trinity annual international academic readings in
St. Petersburg; October 14 – 15, 2014: V International Pokrovsky
educational readings in Helsinki; November 22 – 23, 2014: II
Arkhangelsk Diocesan educational readings; All-Russian
scientific-practical conference “Pedagogical traditions, goals
training and education in domestic education: history and
modernity"; January 21 – 23, 2015: XXIII International
Christmas educational readings, Moscow, Kremlin.
State Kremlin Palace; May 27 – 30, 2015: XV Holy
Trinity annual international academic readings in St.
St. Petersburg; October 1 – 3, 2015: V All-Russian Congress of Orthodox Christians
doctors “Church and traditions of Russian medicine”; October 14 – 15, 2015
VI International Pokrovsky educational readings in Helsinki; 29 –
October 31, 2015: XX All-Russian annual conference of the department
philosophical anthropology "Philosophical anthropology: problems and
prospects. Humanitarian development and challenges of posthumanism"; 20 – 21
November 2015: III Archangel-Mikhailovsky Diocesan
international educational readings “Tradition and modernity: experience
the past and a look into the future."

On the topic of the dissertation research, 13 scientific publications with a total volume of 11.65 printed pages were published, including 3 articles with a volume of 2.1 printed pages in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation for the publication of the main results of dissertation research.

Structure of the dissertation. The dissertation research consists of an introduction, two chapters, ten paragraphs, a conclusion and a list

Transhumanism and problems of modern natural science

At this stage of the study, we set ourselves the task of considering the new opportunities provided by science and modern technologies from a moral and philosophical point of view. At the very center of the debate about transhumanism is the concept of human nature. Already J. Huxley believed that when people come to fully understand the meaning of the theory of evolution, they will understand “the fate of man in the world process.” According to Huxley, humanity is “the dominant part of this planet and the agent responsible for its future revolution”54, i.e. for those radical environmental transformations that are made possible with the help of science. Huxley urged his readers to use all available knowledge to guide and inspire the continuing development of man. These ideas are also reflected in the characteristic understanding of modern transhumanists of human nature as an unfinished work, only half begun, but when this work is close to completion, we can learn to remake this nature in the way we desire. Modern humanity should not be the end point of evolution. Transhumanists hope that through the responsible use of science, technology, and other rational means, we will eventually succeed in becoming posthuman beings with significantly greater capabilities than humans possess today. This view of human nature is shared by Gr. Stock, head of the Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life, who similarly argues that the human species is emerging from its childhood. “It’s time for us to recognize our growing capabilities and take responsibility for them. We have little chance for this, because we have already begun to play gods in some areas of our lives.”55

The transhumanist view that human nature is malleable has received significant criticism from political thinkers, ethicists, and theologians, including F. Fukuyama and L. Kass56. Transhumanists have been criticized for equating the need to take responsibility for the future of humanity with the acceptance of the inevitability of the development of a new species, and for advocating the use of genetic engineering to take the human body beyond what they consider its present-day decrepit state. possibilities. The most important feature of transhumanism is the assertion that human nature is not fixed once and for all and that the future of humanity is determined by radical advances in technological capabilities. These are technologies that will allow people to gradually transform themselves in such a way that their abilities will significantly exceed what we understand today by the term human. This development is fully welcomed by advocates of transhumanism.

Whereas the above critics cite human dignity as what distinguishes humans from all other animals, evolutionary psychologists have advanced a stronger defense of the concept of human nature. For evolutionary psychologists, human nature is not a social construct, but a reality that has emerged as a result of a long evolutionary process and which, therefore, cannot be remade technologically. Evolutionists often speak of the psychological unities that make up human nature and define it as a set of cognitive and emotional abilities that are common to all healthy members of Homo sapiens. All human beings have a common nature, despite differences among individuals, races and sexes, since these differences also belong to our nature. Evolutionists believe that the normal composition of the human mind is the result of evolution through natural selection. Their main discovery is that the human mind has “developed a special mechanism designed to perform specific tasks. For this reason, they object to genetic engineering, which would change what defines human personality. This engineering affects the body's control system and alters a set of carefully designed mental mechanisms designed in the evolutionary process to solve problems of survival and reproduction. Human intervention in the evolutionary process may produce humans with more highly developed intelligence, but we do not know what the unintended consequences of such intervention will be

Given this understanding of human nature, evolutionary psychologists tend to criticize the transhumanist project. They identify two currents within transhumanism, which have their origins in the Enlightenment and Romanticism, respectively. The first movement is a continuation of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment project, and it involves the attempts of science and technology to improve the human condition.

Viewed from this perspective, transhumanism is not as new as it seems, since we are all already improved beings if we take into account the many technological advances of recent centuries that have transformed who we are. Thus, agriculture, writing, the postal service, navigation, costing, antibiotics, radio, television, photography and computers are all technological innovations that have shaped who we are, and it is likely that we will continue to improve with future technologies. As long as transhumanism simply advocates a commitment to progress and the alleviation of human suffering, it is difficult to criticize it for this.

However, transhumanism becomes much more problematic from an evolutionary point of view when it, in the spirit of the romantic myth of the artist who creates reality, predicts dramatic changes in the human species caused by technological advances. It is this claim that evolutionary psychology disputes, suggesting that the human brain has evolved to solve specific problems and that we are still largely ignorant of the activities of our brains. Evolutionary psychologists urge us to ask a simple but crucial question: “what is the purpose of technological progress”? They quite rightly suggest not to confuse evolution with progress. They point out that evolution is also capricious, cruel and random; and we are the result of biochemical natural selection that has produced the things we hate (such as infanticide). The example of infanticide shows that human nature is a reality; the mind is not a blank slate, but rather a computational structure filled with mechanisms selected through a long process of adaptation.

Transhumanism as an anthropological problem

Any criticism can only strengthen NBIC-convergence advocates in their belief that those who criticize them do so for religious reasons. The same phrases are always used to sum up what is supposed to be the main point in this kind of objection: Men have no right to usurp the powers reserved for God alone; Playing God is prohibited. It is often added that such a taboo is “Judeo-Christian.” And Islamic, in our opinion, no less.

But it should be noted that this rejoinder to the criticisms of the NBIC proponents completely misinterprets both the Talmudic teaching and the arguments of Christian theology, connecting them with the ancient Greek concept of the sacred. According to the latter, the gods, jealous of people who have committed the sin of pride, send to them the goddess of revenge, Nemesis. In this case, they forget that the Bible portrays man as a co-creator of the world with God. As the French biophysicist and Talmudist Henri Atlan notes regarding the literature about the Golem: “No one finds [in it], at least at first approximation, the kind of negative judgment that everyone finds in the legend of Faust, relating to the knowledge and creative activity of people “by image of God." Quite the contrary, it is in creative activity that man achieves the fullness of his humanity, in the perspective of the imitatio Dei, which allows him to be connected with God, in a process of ongoing and perfected creation.”141

Within the Christian tradition, authors such as Gilbert Keith Chesterton, René Girard and others view Christianity as the matrix of the modern West, arguing that modernity has changed and distorted the New Testament message. This analysis is connected with the idea of desacralization of the world coming from M. Weber - his famous idea of "disenchantment" - an idea applied to Christianity, or at least to the fact that modern world made from him. Christianity itself (in this context) acts as the most important factor in the “progressive” elimination of all taboos, sacred prohibitions and other forms of religious restriction.

It was the destiny of science itself to expand and deepen this desacralization (discovered in relation to the cosmos by the religions of the Bible), by stripping nature of any prescriptive or normative value. In this case, it is completely useless to blame science for its opposition to the Judeo-Christian tradition on this issue. Kantianism, in its time, gave philosophical legitimacy to the devaluation of nature, viewing it as devoid of intentions and reason, endowing it only with causes, and separating the natural world from the world of freedom, where the causes of human action fall under the jurisdiction of the moral law.

Where then is the basis for posing a moral problem? It is unlikely that it is not a violation of one or another taboo, sanctioned by nature or even the realm of the sacred. For there is no free and autonomous human society that does not rely on some principle of self-restraint. The moral issue weighs much more than any specific issue concerning, for example, the enhancement of private cognitive ability through this or that new technology. But what makes this problem even more significant is the fact that as our capacity to act in the world increases without limit and we are faced with new and unforeseen forms of responsibility, the moral resources at our disposal decrease in the same proportion.

Why is this inevitable? Because the same technological aspirations that give man the ability to influence the world reduce man to the status of an object that can be designed and shaped at will; man loses his subjectivity, and although the concept of the mind as a machine is the same concept that allows us to fantasize about the possibility of remaking ourselves, at the same time it prevents us, having lost our subjectivity, from achieving this.

Therefore, we can agree with N.A. Berdyaev and other Russian philosophers that creative freedom really is the highest manifestation of freedom. However, freedom aimed exclusively at self-realization, while ignoring the criteria established by God for the difference between good and evil, inevitably leads ultimately to self-destruction. Such is the negative dialectic of many of F. M. Dostoevsky’s heroes, revealed, in particular, by N. A. Berdyaev142. It was this topic that was once discussed by two great German philosophers - I. G. Fichte and F. Schelling. “Creative freedom”, presented by F. Nietzsche in the form of a myth, invites man to orient himself no longer towards God, and even, as the ancient Greek sophists once proposed, not towards man. In his work “Human, All Too Human” and in other treatises, the German philosopher orients creativity - namely, the creativity of himself - towards the unknown “superhuman”. But won’t that “beauty of the superman” that Nietzsche allegedly saw143 turn into the birth of a monster, the creation of Frankenstein, who is capable of living, if not forever (since eternity, from theological point of view, is the prerogative of God, and for Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre acts as an ontologically meaningless concept), then for quite a long time In such a perspective, the words of Revelation telling about the expulsion from paradise are perceived with new relevance: “And the Lord God said: behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Gen. 3:22). The existential-ontological meaning of transhumanism lies not in the demand for a return to Eden, but in the daring claim to reconstruct “leather garments” (Gen. 3:21), so that for as long as possible a person does not return to the land “from which he was taken” (Gen. 3: 19, 23). The conclusion regarding the existential aspects of transhumanism is that the cultural-spiritual and instinctive-vital principles in man are not only in inextricable unity, but also identical from the beginning. Thus, cultural trends, together with characterological trends, along with basic physiological and psychological needs, constitute the “universal natural personality framework” of any person determined by the genotype. Man is both subject and object – both personality and nature. Personality is freedom in man in relation to his nature.

Analysis of the existential aspects of transhumanism - the attitude towards freedom, creativity, death and immortality brings us closely to the religious prerequisites of existential discourse, since these topics are key for world and monotheistic religions. Therefore, the following paragraphs are devoted to the attitude towards transhumanism in the religions of Revelation.

Existential aspects of transhumanism

In this paragraph, we set ourselves the task of revealing the most important aspects of the attitude towards transhumanism in Islam. Today, despite its large number (more than 2 billion followers) and prevalence, Christianity is not the only world religion. The second largest religion in the world is Islam. Muslim communities exist in more than 120 countries and, according to various sources, unite up to 1.5 billion people. In 35 countries, the majority of the population is Muslim, and in 29 countries, followers of Islam are influential minorities. In 28 countries, Islam is recognized as a state or official religion.

Currently, according to S. Huntington, author of the famous concept and book of the same name “The Clash of Civilizations,” Slam is “the fastest growing religion in the world.” From 1950 to 2000, the share of Muslims in the population of Western Europe tripled, and in the American population it increased 14 times. French statistical authorities tend to estimate that at least 50,000 people convert to Islam every year in Europe. In the United States, the number of converts to Islam is growing much faster. According to the American Muslim Alliance, 135,000 people convert to Islam every year.

Thus, it is obvious that the degree of their implementation in medical practice and application in the transhumanist project will not least depend on the attitude of Islam to the achievements of biomedical technologies and to modern assisted reproductive technologies in particular. The history of the development of bioethics in the Islamic world begins with I

The Conference of the Islamic Organization of Medical Sciences (IOMS), held in Kuwait in 1981, at which the draft Code of Islamic Medical Ethics was adopted and the Islamic Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) was created. Then the II (Kuwait, 1982), III (Istanbul, 1984) and IV (Karachi, 1986) International Conferences of the Islamic Organization of Medical Sciences (OIMS) were held, at which, in particular, the rights of the child were considered in the context of the teachings of Islam...

At the VIII Conference of the Islamic Organization of Medical Sciences (December 2004), a draft of the first international ethical directive of medical sciences was adopted, based on the positions of Islam. It was decided that the title "International Islamic Code of Laws for Medical Ethics and Health Ethics" would be reviewed, edited and then issued in final form by the Islamic Organization of Medical Sciences187.

Before talking about Islam's attitude towards assisted reproductive technologies, it must be said that there are several different sources of law in Islam. Sharia is a set of canonical laws of Islam. Sharia is based on: the Koran - the holy book of Islam. According to the teachings of most Sunnis and Shiites, the Qur'an is the direct, eternal and uncreated word of God; Hadith are the sayings, approvals, images or actions of the Prophet Muhammad, the sum of which forms the Sunnah. Hadiths were transmitted through the companions of the prophet; The Sunnah is the second source of Shariah after the Quran. Sunnis and Shiites consider the Sunnah to be as inspired by God as the Koran.

In addition, the following sources of Islamic law are used: Ijma, or al-ijma - consent, unanimous opinion or decision of authoritative persons on the issue under discussion. Qiyas is a judgment by analogy. Qiyas allows you to resolve the issue by analogy with the situation described in the Koran and Sunnah.

Ijtihad, or al-ijtihad, is the ability and right of interpretation. The activity of a theologian in the study and solution of theological and legal issues, the system of principles, arguments, methods and techniques used by the theologian - mujtahid. The last three sources are not recognized by all Muslim jurists; in addition, different directions of Muslims may understand the sunnah to be different texts. Fiqh – understanding, knowledge. It is Muslim jurisprudence, which is inseparably linked with theology and is based on the study of the Koran, Sunnah, ijma and qiyas. Theologians and jurists who have mastered fiqh are called fuqahas (“knowledgeable”). A fatwa is a decision on any issue made by a mufti or fuqaha (plural: fuqaha). Ultimately, a fatwa is also a source of law, but rather a derivative one, since it follows from Sharia.

The absence of the institution of clergy in Islam makes it somewhat difficult to find an authoritative answer to the ethical and theological questions that arise in the practical use of modern assisted reproductive technologies. Also, “Basic provisions of the social program of Russian Muslims”188 do not contain any information on answers and slama to questions of bioethics. But this does not mean that these issues remain outside the field of vision of Muslim theologians and lawyers.

The most complete and detailed answer of Islam to questions related to the achievements of biomedical technologies and the use of modern assisted reproductive technologies is presented in the fiqh on bioethics, published in English “Islamic verdict on: Cloning, Human organ transplantation, Abortion, Testube Babies, Life Support Systems, Life and Death"189 by Sheikh Abd al-Qadim Zallum.

Also, there is a fatwa on artificial insemination by Sheikh Muhammad Salih-al-Munajjid190 and a number of articles by Muslim authors on bioethics. The peculiarities of the Islamic view of modern assisted reproductive technologies are determined, first of all, by its inherent point of view about the animation of the fetus in the mother's womb on the fortieth day and the permission of a Muslim to have up to four wives.

The United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, adopted by General Assembly resolution 59/280 on 8 March 2005, calls on UN Member States to “take all measures necessary to adequately protect human life in the application of biological sciences”191 and to “prohibit all forms of human cloning to the extent that they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.”192 Currently, there is a certain, albeit shaky, consensus among countries, regions and religious denominations on the issue of banning human reproductive cloning. However, on the issue of therapeutic cloning there is no such agreement.

Attitudes towards transhumanism in Islam

But there is one important feature that characterizes transhumanism from its most impressive and at the same time most vulnerable side. Transhumanism reproduces all the key features of secular humanism, adding to them the pathos of expectation of future transformations of the spirit and flesh of man, irreversibly distorted by materialism and scientism. From a religious and philosophical point of view, transhumanism can be viewed as a parody of deification. But of fundamental importance is the fact that the idea radical transformation the human spirit and flesh, distorted by transhumanism, loses the character of gradual spiritual ascent and acquires a certain “bad” spontaneity. Indeed, in transhumanistic optics there are no obstacles for a person to become God; it is only enough that the appropriate scientific and technical means are provided, and in general outline The transhumanist movement agrees that such means have already been created by science. The idea of the deification of man is never articulated as regards the means of its implementation. But it is easy to notice that the religious and philosophical understanding of this idea necessarily presupposes a number of steps, speculative instances, acting as only the first milestones of the beginning and ongoing process of deification. An important role here is given to the doctrine of God-manhood and ideas about theurgic synthesis. These are, as it were, the first, already manifested landmarks of deification, after which others will inevitably open, as yet inaccessible to human gaze.

In the system of religious and philosophical worldview of Vladimir Solovyov, the idea of Divine-Humanity occupies a central place, but this idea is identical in content to the idea of the Church, understood as a Divine-Human organism. V. Solovyov set himself the task of bringing Christianity into a new form, which involves bringing to the forefront of Christian doctrine the idea of God-manhood. The solution to this problem was associated with a special mission entrusted to Russian Orthodoxy, with the construction of Orthodox culture. “The idea of Orthodox culture shines for us like a pillar of fire, showing us the way forward... The rapprochement of Orthodoxy and culture, the revelation of the cultural forces of Orthodoxy, the illumination of the historical movement with the light of Orthodoxy - this, in our opinion, is the historical theme of our era... The system of Orthodox culture must be built by the collective the creative efforts of not one, but a number of generations, but it is infinitely important to understand the direction of creativity, to clearly understand its tasks. We stand only on the threshold of the construction of Orthodox culture and perhaps none of us will enter its promised land, but with all the greater clarity the very idea of Orthodox culture stands before us, a grandiose plan arises that calls to itself everyone in whom the pulse of historical activity beats. ..."

Solovyov’s initial creative task was to carry out a synthesis of science, religion and art in theurgy, in an activity that transforms reality. This theurgic activity is conceived not as pure intellectual contemplation, but as an interaction and union of the spirit with objects, a union that presupposes two-way activity and mutual transformation of the knower and the known. Such activity is designed to cleanse rational speculation from the influence of dark passions, from instinctive impulses emanating from nature, from the body.

For V. Solovyov, the task of such a synthesis turns into a project of connecting two plans - ideal and real, existing and proper, earthly and heavenly - into a project of their integration in transformative activity of a theurgic nature. First of all, this is an occult project of human transformation through eros, through sexual love, directed through the “earthly plane” of the real person to the ideal essence-being, to the “goddess”, which is the prototype of the all-unified essence, Sophia. Within the framework of this occult project, through the transformation of sexual energy, through its diversion from the reproductive tasks of reproduction, the reconstruction of a complete person, and in the final perspective, of God-humanity takes place220.

Revealing the idea of cultural synthesis, its religious and philosophical foundations and, in particular, its significance for the criticism of transhumanism, we will rely on the cultural concept of D. K. Bogatyrev (Burlaki)221. At the same time, this concept itself is based on the desire to provide a generalization of the philosophical experience that Russia acquired within the framework of the Russian spiritual renaissance. “The author proceeds from the conviction that Russian religious philosophy is the true and necessary form of philosophy as such and sees the main research problem in overcoming the external, rational attitude towards the heritage of the Russian spiritual renaissance and taking the point of view of Russian religious philosophy itself. In general, this point of view is made explicit in the construction of the religious-philosophical concept of culture and in its systematic presentation. Defining the concept of culture is the first necessary step of this kind of explication.”222

To understand the idea of cultural synthesis, it is important to emphasize that the concept of culture includes not only the idea of the world created by man, the totality of the results of human creativity, but also the idea of an indicator of the quality of any activity, the level of its complexity and productivity. The last meaning is no less important than the first, since culture acts as a measure of individual freedom, a measure of the universality of its creative aspirations223, it “...unlocks with its energy any constraint of a person within the framework of the “given” - the all-powerful paradigms of the template, stereotype, into the trap of which one so easily falls the world of socially produced norms and rules – and opens up to man the boundlessness of the world of creation”224. Culture can be considered as “learned behavior”, as a “legalized form of overcoming natural impulses”, as “a specific form of resolving recurring situations”225. Thus, the second aspect of the content of the concept “culture” has a clearly expressed vertical vector and presupposes a hierarchical structure, a hierarchical organization of the culture-creating activity itself.

Transhumanism represents a radically new approach to thinking about the future, based on the assumption that the human species is not the end of our evolution, but rather the beginning. Transhumanism can be described as a continuation of humanism, from which it partly derives. Transhumanists place a special emphasis on who we have the potential to become. We can use technological means to improve ourselves, the human body, and eventually even go beyond what most consider human.

Transhumanists believe that thanks to accelerating scientific and technological progress, we are entering a completely new stage in the development of humanity. In the near future we will be faced with the possibility of true artificial intelligence. has the potential to create an abundance of resources for every person and give us complete control over the biochemical processes in our bodies, allowing us to get rid of disease. By rewiring or pharmacologically stimulating the pleasure centers of the brain, we can experience a greater range of emotions, endless happiness, and unlimited joyful experiences every day. While these possibilities are radical, they are being taken seriously by a growing number of scientists and scientifically literate philosophers and social thinkers. In Russia, he is engaged in the development and promotion of transhumanist ideas

Transhumanism FAQ

Nick Bostrom and others (See for details). Version dated May 13, 1999 (original).

Translation into Russian dated August 3, 2002. Author of the Russian translation is Danila Medvedev (2002)

GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT TRANSHUMANISM

TRANHUMAN TECHNOLOGIES AND PREDICTIONS

SOCIETY AND POLITICS

TRANSHUMANISM AND NATURE

TRANSHUMANISM AS A PHILOSOPHICAL AND CULTURAL WORLDVIEW

PRACTICAL SIDES OF TRANSHUMANISM

GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT TRANSHUMANISM

What is transhumanism?

(1) An examination of the results, prospects, and potential dangers of using science, technology, creativity, and other means of overcoming the fundamental limits of human performance.

(2) A rational and cultural movement asserting the possibility and desirability of fundamental changes in the human condition through the advancement of reason, especially the use of technology, to eliminate aging and greatly enhance the mental, physical and psychological capabilities of man.

Transhumanism can be described as a continuation of humanism, from which it partly derives. Humanists believe that the essence of people is that only individuals matter. We may not be perfect, but we can improve things and promote rational thinking, freedom, tolerance and democracy. Transhumanists agree with this, but they also place special emphasis on who we have the potential to become. Not only can we use smart ways to improve the condition of people and the world around us; we can also use them to improve ourselves, the human body. And the methods available to us are not limited to those that humanism usually offers, such as education. We can use technological ways that will ultimately allow us to go beyond what most consider human.

Transhumanists believe that thanks to accelerating scientific and technological progress, we are entering a completely new stage in the development of humanity. In the near future we will be confronted with the possibility of true artificial intelligence. New cognitive tools will be created that combine artificial intelligence with new types of interfaces. Molecular nanotechnology has the potential to create an abundance of resources for every person and give us complete control over the biochemical processes in our bodies, allowing us to become free from disease. By rewiring or pharmacologically stimulating the pleasure centers of the brain, we can experience a greater range of emotions, endless happiness, and unlimited joyful experiences every day. Transhumanists also see the dark side of future developments, recognizing that some of these technologies have the potential to cause great harm to human life; the very survival of our species may be in question. While these possibilities are radical, they are being taken seriously by a growing number of scientists and scientifically literate philosophers and social thinkers.

In recent years, transhumanism has spread throughout the world at an exponential rate. There are currently two international transhumanist organizations, the Extropy Institute and the World Transhumanist Association, both publishing online journals and organizing conferences on transhumanism. There are local transhumanist groups in many countries, and in the United States there are discussion groups in almost every major city. A growing amount of material about transhumanism is published on the Internet, as well as in books and magazines. Transhumanists also communicate online on several public mailing lists.

Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
World Transhumanist Association. http://humanityplus.org
Transhumanist mailing lists

What is a trans person?

The term "transhuman" means "transitional person", a self-aware being, first described in detail by the futurist FM-2030 as a potential step towards evolution into a post-human [See. " "]. Calling transhumans "the first manifestation of new evolutionary beings," FM lists such hallmarks of transhumanity as body enhancement with implants, asexuality, artificial reproduction, and distributed individuality.

By FM's original definition, transhumans are not necessarily the most future-oriented or most technologically savvy individuals, and do not necessarily recognize their "connective role in evolution." However, as FM ideas spread and more people began to consider themselves transhumanists, the concept of a transhuman came to include aspects of self-identity and activism, as shown in this definition from the Dictionary of Transhumanist Terminology:

TRANSHUMAN: Someone actively preparing to become posthuman. Someone informed enough to see radically new opportunities in the future, prepare for them and take advantage of all existing opportunities for self-improvement.

Many transhumanists already consider themselves transhumans, since the capabilities of the human body and mind have already been greatly increased through the use of many modern tools. Further progress is expected in the creation and use of new global communication systems, as well as methods of body modification and life extension. Any person who takes advantage of these growing opportunities will be able to be considered transhuman at some point.

FM-2030. 1989. Are You a Transhuman? Warner Books, New York.
Transhumanist Lexicon

What is a posthuman?

Although the fundamental possibility of molecular nanotechnology is fairly well established, it is more difficult to determine how long it will take for it to emerge. There is a widespread belief among experts that the first universal assembler will be created around 2017, plus or minus ten years, but complete agreement on this issue is far from complete.

Drexler, E. 1986. The Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology
Eric Drexler. 1986. . lane M. Sverdlova
Drexler, E. 1992. Nanosystems
Foresight Institute

What is superintelligence?

Superintelligence refers to any intelligence that is significantly superior to the best minds of humanity in almost all areas, including scientific research, worldly wisdom and social skills.

Sometimes a distinction is made between weak and strong superminds. Weak superintelligence is what would happen if the human brain could be run at increased speed, perhaps by uploading human consciousness into a computer [see " "]. If the operating frequency of the loaded consciousness is a thousand times greater than that of the biological human brain, it will perceive reality slowed down a thousand times. This means that in a given time it will be able to think a thousand times more thoughts than its natural counterpart.

A strong superintelligence is an intelligence that is not only faster than the human brain, but also qualitatively superior to it. No matter how much you speed up a dog's brain, it will not compare to the human brain. Some believe that in a similar way there may be a powerful superintelligence that no human brain can match, no matter how fast it works. (However, the distinction between a weak superintelligence and a strong one may not be so clear-cut. A sufficiently overclocked human brain, which does not make any mistakes and has enough memory (or blank paper) can in principle calculate any Turing-computable function. Alonzo Church showed that the set Turing-computable functions coincides with the set of mechanically computable functions.)

Many (though not all) transhumanists believe that superintelligence will be created in the first half of this century. This requires two things: hardware and software.

When processor manufacturers design the next generation of chips, they rely on a pattern known as Moore's Law. This law states that the speed of processors generally doubles every eighteen months. Moore's law covers all computing devices, starting with the old mechanical calculators. If it continues to operate for a few more decades, computers will be created that are equivalent in computing power to the human brain. Moore's Law itself is just an extrapolation, but this conclusion can be reinforced by analyzing the physical limitations and looking at the research going on in laboratories today. Massively parallel computers are another way to achieve human-brain-level computing power even without new fast processors.

On the software question, advances in computational neuroscience will give us insight into the computational architecture of the human brain and the learning principles it uses. Then we can implement the same algorithms on a computer. Using neural networks, we will be able to avoid the need to program superintelligence: it will be enough to let it learn from experience in the same way as a human child does. It is also possible to use genetic algorithms and classical artificial intelligence techniques to create superintelligence that may not bear any resemblance to the human brain.

The emergence of superintelligence will inevitably deal a serious blow to any anthropocentric worldview. The human species will no longer be the most intelligent life form in the known universe. But the practical consequences are much more important. The creation of superintelligence will be the last invention that people will need to make, since superintelligence will be able to take care of further scientific and technological progress much more efficiently than humans can do.

The prospect of the emergence of superintelligence raises many serious questions that it is time to seriously think about Now, before the actual emergence of superintelligence. Main question is what can be done to maximize the chances of the emergence of superintelligence that will not harm people, but, on the contrary, will help. Finding the answer to this question requires much broader knowledge than that possessed by researchers in the field of artificial intelligence. Neuroscientists, economists, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, philosophers, sociologists, science fiction writers, military strategists, politicians, legislators and many others will need to pool their knowledge to tackle what may be the most important challenge ever. or stood before humanity.

Transhumanists usually strive to develop themselves into superintelligence. There are two ways in which they hope to do this: (1) Through progressive modifications of the biological brain, perhaps using nootropic drugs, cognitive technologies, computer technologies (for example, wearable computers, intelligent agents, information processing systems, data visualization and analysis programs, and etc.), neural interfaces and bionic brain implants. (2) Through uploading consciousness.

Moravec, H. 1998. "When will computer hardware match the human brain "Journal of Transhumanism. Vol. 1.
Bostrom, N. 1998. "How Long Before Superintelligence?" International Journal of Futures Studies. Vol. 2. Also at
Nick Bostrom. 1998. "How long is it left to superintelligence?", trans. M. Sverdlova
Kurzweil, R. 1999. . Viking Press.

What is virtual reality?

Virtual reality is an environment that you experience without being physically in it. Theatre, opera, cinema and television are all primitive harbingers of virtual reality. Some of these (precursors to) virtual realities are based on physical realities. For example, when you watch the Olympic Games on television, you may be sitting in your home, but you will see and hear virtually the same things that you would see and hear if you were at the competition in person. In other cases, you experience environments that have no equivalent in physical reality, such as when you watch the Tom and Jerry cartoon. Such virtual realities are called artificial realities.

The degree of immersion in virtual reality while watching TV is quite limited (watching olympic games on TV cannot compare to being present at these competitions) for several reasons. Firstly, the resolution is too low. A regular TV doesn't have enough pixels to provide a complete visual illusion. High-definition television (HDTV) improves the situation, but even with the best screen, the peripheral areas of the retina are not stimulated; There is no 3D image either. These problems can be solved by using a wearable display that uses a laser beam to create an image directly on your retina. It is also advisable to use additional sensory channels - headphones with stereo sound and, possibly, a tactile interface. Another important element is interactivity; Watching TV is a passive experience, but full virtual reality will allow you to manipulate the objects you sense. This will require sensors that measure your reactions so that the virtual reality simulation can update accordingly.

Primitive virtual (and artificial) realities have been around for some time. At first they were used in simulators for pilots and the military. Nowadays they are increasingly used for entertainment in arcade games. Because virtual reality is computationally intensive, the simulations are still very crude. But with the growth of computing power and the development of sensors, affectors and displays, virtual reality will begin to approach physical reality in terms of fidelity and interactivity.

Virtual reality will create unlimited possibilities for creativity. People will be able to create artificial virtual worlds that will not be limited by the laws of physics, but will seem as real to participants as physical reality. People will travel to these worlds for fun, for work, and to communicate (and have sex) with other people who may be physically located on another continent.

What is a download?

The idea is that after scanning the synaptic structures of the brain, we will be able to implement electronically the same calculations that normally occur in the neural network of the brain. Brain scans with sufficient resolution can be done by disassembling the brain atom by atom using nanotechnology. Other approaches are also proposed, for example, based on analyzing the structure of brain slices using an electron microscope and automatic image processing programs.

Sometimes they distinguish loading with destruction, in which the original brain is destroyed during the scanning process, and loading without destruction, in which the original brain remains safe and sound along with the downloaded copy.

The question under what conditions personal identity is preserved during destructive loading remains a matter of debate. Most philosophers who have studied this problem believe that, at least under some conditions, a brain loaded into a computer will you. The point is that you are alive as long as certain information structures remain, such as your memory, values, attitudes and emotions; and it doesn’t really matter whether they are implemented on a computer or in that nasty gray mass inside your skull.

But the difficulty begins if we assume that several identical copies of your uploaded brain are made. Which one are you? Are they all you or none of them? Who will have the rights to your property? Which one will remain married to your wife/husband? Philosophical, legal and ethical problems abound. They may be among the hotly debated political issues of this century.

Some facts about downloading:

The upload should work for cryonics patients, provided their brains were frozen with little damage.
Those downloaded will be able to live in an artificial reality (that is, an environment simulated on a computer). Another possibility would be to obtain artificial bodies and sensors with which they could return to life in physical reality.
The subjective time of downloads will depend on the speed of the computers on which they are located.
The consciousnesses of the downloaded ones can be distributed across many computers in huge networks and they can regularly make backup copies of themselves. This should allow downloaded ones to live indefinitely.
To survive, uploaded ones will require very few resources compared to biological humans, as they will not need physical food, shelter, or transportation.
Uploaded ones will be able to reproduce extraordinarily quickly (by simply copying themselves). This means that we could very quickly run into resource shortages if we don't limit reproduction.

What is a singularity?

A technological singularity is a hypothetical moment in the future when technological development becomes so rapid that the graph of technological progress becomes almost vertical. This concept was first proposed by Vernor Vinge, who believes that if we manage to avoid the collapse of civilization before then, the singularity will occur due to advances in artificial intelligence, human-computer integration, or other methods of intelligence augmentation. Intelligence enhancement, Vinge believes, will at some point lead to a positive feedback loop: more intelligent systems can create even more intelligent systems, and do so faster than the original human designers. This positive feedback is likely to be so strong that within a very short period of time (months, days or even just hours) the world will be transformed in more ways than we can imagine, and will suddenly be populated by superintelligent creatures.

Often associated with the concept of the singularity is the idea that it is impossible to predict what will happen after it. The post-human world that will emerge as a result will probably be so alien to us that we can now know absolutely nothing about it. The only exception may be the fundamental laws of nature, but even here the existence of not yet open laws(we do not yet have a theory of quantum gravity) or not fully understood consequences of known laws (travel through spatial wormholes, the creation of “baby universes”, time travel, etc.), with the help of which posthumans will be able to do what we are accustomed to consider it physically impossible.

It has already been noted that what is unpredictable at one point can become predictable as the event approaches. A man living in the 1950s could foresee today's world in greater detail than a Renaissance man, who in turn could foresee much more than some Stone Age savage. Because the horizon of predictability recedes as we move forward in time, it is possible that the full leap into the unknown will never occur. At each step, you can foresee much of what is going to happen in the next step, although the end result may have been completely hidden from you when you looked from the starting point.

The issue of predictability is important because without the ability to predict at least some of the consequences of our actions, there is no point in trying to direct development in the desired direction.

Transhumanists differ widely on the likelihood of Vinge's scenario. But virtually everyone who believes there will be a singularity believes it will happen this century, and many believe it will likely happen within a few decades.

Vinge, V. 1993. "The Coming Technological Singularity"
A. Novoselov. Technological singularity as the near future of humanity
Hanson, R. (ed.) 1998. "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept" Extropy Online

SOCIETY AND POLITICS

Will new technologies be available only to the rich and powerful? What will happen to the rest?

An argument can be made that the standard of living of the average American today is higher than that of any king five hundred years ago. The king might have an orchestra at his court, but you can afford a CD player with which you can listen to the best musicians whenever you want. If the king fell ill with pneumonia, he could die, and you would simply take antibiotics. The king might have a carriage drawn by six white horses, but you can buy a car that goes faster and is much more comfortable. And you have a TV, Internet access, Coca-Cola, a shower, you can talk to relatives on another continent on the phone, and you know more about the Earth, nature and space than a king could ever know.

New technologies tend to become cheaper over time. For example, in medicine experimental methods usually available only to clinical trial participants or very wealthy patients. But gradually these treatments are becoming routine, their costs are falling and many more people can afford them. Even in the poorest countries, vaccines and penicillin have helped millions of people. In consumer electronics, the price of high-end computers and other electronic devices is falling as more advanced models are developed.

It's clear that better technology can benefit everyone. But in the beginning, the greatest advantage will be for those who have the necessary tools, knowledge and, especially, the desire to learn how to use new tools. It can be assumed that some technologies can increase social inequality. For example, if some method of increasing intelligence becomes available, it may initially be so expensive that only the richest can afford it. The same thing could happen if we find a way to genetically enhance our children. The rich will become smarter and be able to earn even more money. But this phenomenon will not be something completely new: even today, the rich can provide their children with an excellent education, and they can use tools such as information technology and personal contacts that are available only to the privileged class.

Trying to ban technological innovation because of this would be a mistake. If a society finds such inequality unacceptable, it would be wiser to increase the redistribution of income in that society, for example, through taxes and the provision of free services (education certificates, computers and Internet access in libraries, genetic enhancements covered by social security, etc.). ). The fact is that economic and technological progress is a positive sum game. It doesn't solve the old political problem of how public income should be distributed, but it does have the potential to make that income much, much larger.

Can transhuman technologies be dangerous?

Yes, and that means we must study and discuss possible problems before they become reality. Biotechnology, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence can pose serious dangers if used carelessly or maliciously [see " "]. Transhumanists believe it is very important that people think seriously about these questions. Right now.

There are many ethical, social, cultural, philosophical and scientific issues that need to be explored and thought through in detail. Research is needed, as well as the widest possible discussion. We must also create organizations and international structures, which will help us pursue responsible policies and adopt thoughtful rules. All this takes time, and the sooner we start, the greater our chances of avoiding the most dangerous pitfalls.

A good example is the Foresight Institute, which has been promoting research and public awareness of emerging transhumanist technologies, particularly molecular nanotechnology, for several years.

The Foresight Institute
Vacancies RTD

Shouldn't we focus on current problems, such as improving the lot of the poor or resolving international conflicts, rather than trying to foresee the "distant" future?

It's worth doing both. Trying to focus on current problems and use current solutions will fail - firstly, we will be unprepared for new problems, and secondly, our current methods are often insufficient even to solve today's problems.

Many of the transhuman technologies already exist or are actively being developed and are the subject of ongoing debate. Biotechnology is already a reality. Information technology has transformed many sectors of our economy. From the perspective of transhumanism, the future happens all the time.

Most transhuman technologies work well together, resulting in synergistic effects between different aspects of human society. An important factor influencing life expectancy is access to quality health care—improvements in medicine prolong life, and work to prolong life is likely to make routine medical care more effective. Intelligence enhancement work has obvious applications in education, stewardship, and communication. Improvements in communication, rational thinking, trade and education are very effective methods, contributing to the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. Nanotechnology manufacturing promises to be both cost-effective and environmentally friendly.

Working to create a world order characterized by peace, international cooperation and respect for human rights will greatly increase the chances that potentially dangerous future technologies will not be used irresponsibly or for military purposes. It would also free up resources currently spent on weapons, and perhaps allow them to be used to improve the lot of the poor.

Transhumanists do not have a simple solution to achieve this result, and no one else does, but technology will certainly play a significant role. For example, the development of communications can help people find a common language more easily. As more people gain access to the Internet and can watch satellite radio and television channels, dictators and totalitarian regimes will find it more difficult to silence dissent and control the public's access to information. And, as many Internet users will discover, world wide web helps you find friends, acquaintances and business partners around the world. And this, of course, is simply wonderful.

Will life extension make the problem of overpopulation worse?

Population growth is a problem that we will eventually have to tackle, even if life extension does not occur. Some people blame technology for the problem of overpopulation. Let's look at it another way - if it weren't for technology, most people alive today wouldn't exist - including those who complain about overpopulation! If we stopped using modern methods in agriculture, most people would soon die of starvation and related diseases. If it weren't for antibiotics and medical intervention, especially at birth, many of us would die in childhood... It's worth thinking twice about calling something a "problem" when we owe our very existence to it.

But there is no denying that too rapid population growth leads to overcrowding, poverty and depletion of natural resources. In this sense, overpopulation is indeed a real problem. Family planning and contraceptive programs should be supported, especially among families in poor countries where populations are growing fastest. According to transhumanists, the constant lobbying by some religious groups in the United States to stop this humanitarian aid is a serious mistake.

The number of people that the Earth can feed and support at a sufficient standard of living and without harming the environment depends on the level of technological development. New technologies, from simple improvements in land reclamation and management to modern breakthroughs in genetic engineering, will continue to increase food production (while reducing animal suffering).

One thing that environmentalists are right about is that the status quo cannot be maintained. Things cannot, simply for physical reasons, go on as they do now, indefinitely or even just for a very long time. If we continue to use resources at the current rate, we will face serious resource shortages before the middle of this century. Radical greens have an answer: they propose that we turn back the clock and return to an idyllic pre-industrial age when we lived in harmony with nature. The problem is that the pre-industrial age was anything but idyllic - poverty, suffering, disease, hard physical labor from dawn to dusk, superstitious fear and cultural restriction (and it was not environmentally friendly either - just look at the deforestation of Europe and the Mediterranean , desertification of much of the Middle East, and depletion of soil by the Anansi Indians). We don't want this. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine how it would be possible to support more than several hundred million people at an acceptable standard of living using pre-industrial production methods, so that 90% of the world's population would somehow have to be gotten rid of.

Transhumanists offer a much more realistic alternative: not to retreat back, but to press forward with persistence and persistence. Environmental problems that are caused by technology are problems of ineffective intermediate technology. Less developed industry in the countries of the former socialist bloc pollutes the environment much more than similar Western enterprises. The high-tech industry is quite safe for nature. When we develop molecular nanotechnology, not only will we be able to produce virtually any product absolutely cleanly and efficiently, but we will also be able to reverse the harm caused by today's crude production methods. Thus, transhumanists set such a high standard of environmental cleanliness that traditional greens cannot oppose it.

Nanotechnology will also make space colonization inexpensive. On a cosmic scale, the Earth is an insignificant, absolutely tiny grain of sand. It was suggested that we preserve space in its pristine beauty and leave it untouched. It is difficult to take such a point of view seriously. Every hour, in a completely natural way, a huge amount of resources, thousands of times more than the human species has spent in the entire history of its existence, turns into radioactive waste or is wasted in intergalactic space in the form of radiation. It would take a very limited imagination not to be able to think of more creative uses for all this matter and energy.

But even with full-scale space colonization, population growth may remain a problem (even if we assume that an unlimited number of people can be sent from Earth into space). Since the rate of expansion will be limited by the speed of light, the amount of available resources will only grow polynomially (~ t 3). At the same time, the population can easily grow exponentially (~ e t). If this happens, then, since a factor growing exponentially will eventually catch up with any factor growing polynomially, average income will inevitably fall to the Malthusian subsistence level, which will slow population growth. How soon this will happen depends mainly on the rate of population reproduction. Increasing average life expectancy will not have a big impact. And even significantly improved technology can only delay the inevitable for a relatively short period of time. The only long-term solution is population control, limiting the number of new individuals created each year. This does not mean that the population cannot grow, only that growth must be polynomial rather than exponential.

A few more points to take into account:

In technological developed countries, spouses typically have fewer children—below the replacement level. The only source of population growth in most Western countries is immigration. Evidence shows that giving people more rational control over their lives (especially education and equal rights for women) results in them having fewer children.
If we take seriously the idea of limiting life expectancy to control population levels, why not be more proactive? Why not encourage suicide then? Why not kill everyone who lives to be 75? This is simply absurd.
Extending human life should not worsen the problem of overpopulation any more than improving road or industrial safety or reducing violent crime.
When transhumanists say they want to increase life expectancy, they mean that they want to increase healthy life expectancy. There is no point in living an extra ten years in a state of senile dementia. This means that the additional person-years will be productive and provide economic benefits to society.
The rate of population growth has been declining for decades. It peaked in 1970 at 2.07%. In 1998, the growth rate was about 1.33%. It is expected to fall below 1% by 2016. [UN Report (1998)]. The doomsday predictions made by the Club of Rome in the early 1970s inevitably turned out to be wrong.
The larger the population, the more minds will be working on new ideas and solutions.
If people can expect to live a long life, they will have a vested interest in the future and hopefully will be more concerned about the long-term consequences of their actions.

Are there any ethical standards by which transhumanists measure the “improvement of the human condition”?

Transhumanism is compatible with a variety of ethical systems, and transhumanists hold a variety of views. However, the following ideas are agreed upon by most transhumanists:

Transhumanists believe that we can talk about the improvement of humanity if the situation of individual people has improved. Usually only the person himself can judge what is good for him or her. Therefore, transhumanists are proponents of personal freedom, especially the moral right for those who want it to use technology to expand their mental and physical capabilities and increase control over their own lives.

In this view, an improvement in the human condition would be a change that increases the ability of individuals to consciously change themselves and their lives in accordance with their informed desires. Notice the word "consciously". It is important that people understand which options they are choosing between. Education, freedom of information, information technology, futures of ideas and perhaps increased intelligence can help people make more informed choices. (Idea futures are a market in which people will bet on scientific hypotheses or predictions about the future, thereby forming a consensus consensus. Hanson (1990).)

Hanson, R. 1990. "Could Gambling Save Science?" Proc. Eighth Intl. Conf. on Risk and Gambling,London. http://hanson.gmu.edu/gamble.html

What kind of society will transpeople live in?

We do not yet have enough information to give an accurate answer to this question. The nature of the society in which posthumans will live depends on the characteristics of the posthumans that will descend from today's people. Transhumanists now see several possible directions for the development of posthumans [See. " "]. Some of these directions may lead to a single posthuman, but only time will tell which of these directions, if any, will lead to an entire society of individual posthumans.

Transhumanists can speculate about how a posthuman might interact with humans, if a posthuman wants to interact with them at all, but it is difficult to imagine how posthumans would interact with each other and how a posthuman society would function. Any description of it at this point can only be based on the current experiences and desires of humans or transhumans, whose concerns may have no bearing on posthumans. Posthumans will probably come up with completely new forms of social life. As posthuman society emerges and develops, some of us hope to observe posthumans interacting with humans, transhumans, and other posthumans to provide insight into what a future posthuman society might become.

What happens if these new technologies are used in war? Could they lead to our extinction?

Some of the technologies that will be developed in this century will be very, very powerful. If used for bad purposes, they can cause great harm to people and the environment. Some could even, in the worst case scenario, lead to the extinction of intelligent life. This is the worst thing that can happen, and we must avoid it at all costs.

Here are some of the disastrous scenarios for humanity that have been discussed by transhumanists:

Gray goo. - Self-replicating nanomachines [See. " "] accidentally go out of control and devour the entire biosphere, turning it into a “gray swamp”. Since molecular nanotechnology will use new chemical structures, there is no reason to believe that the natural mechanisms that maintain equilibrium by keeping organic self-replicating creatures from multiplying will be an obstacle to nano-replicators.

In principle, it is relatively easy to build in redundant fuses that will make such a development impossible. For example, it is possible to make self-replicating machines (replicators) dependent on some kind of “vitamin” - a rare chemical substance that they need to function. Or adaptive mutations can be made as unlikely as desired by proper design. Experiments with self-replicating machines may be limited to the confines of "sealed laboratories", small chambers that automatically explode, destroying everything inside, if anything tries to penetrate their walls (whether from inside or outside). Thus, if nanotechnology development is carried out by responsible people and with strict precautions, the gray swamp can be avoided.

Black goo. - It is generally accepted that the “black swamp”, which refers to deliberately manufactured destructive nanomachines, is a much bigger problem.

One way to protect against the threat of the black swamp is to create "active shields" - automatic defense systems with built-in restrictions designed to prevent their use for aggressive purposes. One can imagine a global immune system consisting of nanomachines roaming the surface of the Earth in search of dangerous replicators. The problem with this approach is that while creating a reliable global immune system may be possible, it may be much more difficult than creating destructive nanomachines. In this case, the world will be defenseless for some time. During this period, non-proliferation agreements and worldwide controls are needed to prevent aggressors from misusing nanotechnology.

Another way to reduce the risk of our destruction is to create dispersed space colonies. Again, the problem is that such projects will take too long to implement on a large scale.

How long the critical period will last (from the development of dangerous nanomachines to the creation of adequate protection) depends on the pace of technological progress during this interval. Those who believe that a singularity will occur in the future [See " "], we are confident that this period may be very short.

Overmind. - While transhumanists generally desire the creation of superintelligence, some fear that a poorly programmed superintelligence might want to exterminate all humans or even destroy all sentient life, including itself. What further reinforces such fears is the idea that superintelligence will be so mentally alien to us and so superior to human intelligence that it will be very difficult for us to anticipate or regulate its motivations and impossible to control it against its will. [Cm. " "]

Nuclear and biological weapons. - Nuclear and biological weapons continue to be threats. Today's weapons supply is not enough to completely destroy our species. However, it is quite possible that in the future, with the help of genetic engineering, even more deadly biological agents will be created than we have today. Hopefully, the development of vaccines and antidotes will keep pace with the development of toxins and pathogens, but we cannot be sure.

Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction must be the highest priority for any responsible country. Beyond a massive war that could wipe out our species, it is all too easy to imagine a “rogue state” or terrorist group using, perhaps for the purpose of blackmail, weapons of mass destruction to cause heavy civilian casualties and destroy civilization.

Other doomsday scenarios. - A rapidly increasing greenhouse effect, in which warming releases more and more methane, which itself is a greenhouse gas (according to most transhumanists, this is unlikely to lead to our extinction); natural pandemics spreading rapidly through intercontinental transport (unlikely to kill us, but they need to be taken seriously); collision with a comet or asteroid (very unlikely); the decay of a metastable vacuum caused by high-energy physics experiments (the energy achievable today is significantly lower than even the energy of cosmic background radiation, but in the future more powerful methods of accelerating particles may be developed, which could be potentially dangerous). There is no doubt that there are other dangers that we are not yet aware of. In this regard, of interest is the controversial Carter-Leslie Doomsday argument, which, based on Bayes' theorem and several small empirical assumptions, concludes that the risk of human destruction has so far been systematically underestimated [see link].

Drexler, E. 1986. , chapters 11-15. http://e-drexler.com/p/06/00/EOC_Cover.html
Eric Drexler. 1986. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000328/
Leslie, J. 1996. The End of the World: The Ethics and Science of Human Extinction. Routledge.
Bostrom, N. 1996. "Observational Selection Effects and Probability" http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints.html

How will posthumans or superintelligent machines treat humans whose capabilities have not been expanded?

This will depend on the motivation of posthumans, so no one knows the exact answer yet. Let's look at three possible scenarios:

(a) It is possible that a future society will include both humans and posthumans, as well as many types of transhumans. If posthumans evolve gradually, it is easy to imagine that, over a period of time, completely different life forms will coexist peacefully. It is possible that humans will initially dominate due to their numbers, but soon the influence of posthumans will increase.

When posthumans become significantly stronger than humans (this could happen quickly or take several decades), it is likely that the relationship will change from equality to something else. Here we can distinguish two options, one optimistic and the other pessimistic.

(b) The optimistic option assumes that posthumans will spare humans and continue to tolerate their existence. Posthumans will be able to live as good demigods among humans and help them when they are in trouble, for example, taking care of the environment or ensuring that no one goes hungry. Any person who wishes to become posthuman will have this opportunity, but those who choose to remain human will be able to lead a traditional human life. And if ordinary people do not want posthumans to live among them, posthumans will be able to find sufficient Lebensraum ("living space") on other planets and in other solar systems.

(c) The pessimistic option (at least from a human perspective) assumes that posthumans will decide that humans are a completely inefficient use of matter and energy that could be put to better use. If posthumans are not initially constrained by the demands of friendliness and are not bound by a morality that says this is bad, they may take measures that will lead to the extinction of the human race. Maybe after this they will turn our planet into a giant computer or into space probes that will be sent to the stars to speed up the colonization of the Universe.

Humans and transhumans can take proactive steps to make (b) more likely than (c). After all, although posthumans will ultimately become much stronger than people, posthumans will either be artificial intelligences originally constructed by humans, or humans who have taken the next step in their development. In the first case, we can ensure that the values of tolerance and respect for human well-being are built into the very foundation of their programs, forming part of an inviolable moral code. In the second case, we can increase the chances by promoting these qualities among people today, so that the people who eventually develop into transhumans will have high ethical standards. And in both cases, it may be useful to continue to strengthen the traditions of democracy, and ideally, to transfer the principles of legality from the national to the international plane.

Do transhumanists think technology will solve all problems?

Technology won't solve any problems. What technology will do is give us extraordinarily powerful tools that we can use to solve almost all material problems (including providing material abundance for everyone) - given that that we will be prudent enough to take necessary measures security, and that we will be cooperative enough not to use new technologies for internecine warfare.

These are challenging conditions, and they show us that the biggest obstacles facing us are not technological or scientific. No matter how difficult the technical obstacles may be, sooner or later we will overcome them. Technological development is already largely moving in a transhumanist direction.

The really difficult part will be the political part. Will the world's people and their leaders be prudent and cooperative enough to accept and enforce international agreements that will prevent the dangerous military use of new technologies, or at least delay them until effective defense systems are in place? ? No one knows, but our very survival may depend on it.

TRANSHUMANISM AND NATURE

Why do transhumanists want to live longer?

Have you ever been so happy that you wanted to scream? Has there been a moment in your life when you felt something so deep and majestic that you felt as if your ordinary life was just a monotonous, dark dream?

It's easy to forget how good life can be at its best. But on those rare occasions when you think about it, when you are completely absorbed in creative work, rejoicing in your success, or in a fit of romantic love, you realize how precious every minute of your existence can be. And maybe you said to yourself: “I wish this moment would never end. Why can’t it last forever?”

Well, what if he could?

When transhumanists talk about extending life, they are not trying to add a few extra years of old age and illness in a nursing home. It would be pointless. No, what they want is to give a person more healthy, happy and productive years. Ideally, everyone should have the right to choose when and how they want to die - or not die at all. Transhumanists want to live longer because they want to do, learn, and experience more than they can in a normal human life. They want to continue to grow, mature and develop much longer than the measly eighty years that our evolutionary past has given us. As stated in a presentation from one cryonics organization:

"The way of life and the wisdom of the heart depend on time; in the last quartets of Beethoven, in the last words and works of "old men" like Sophocles, Russell and Shaw, we see glimpses of maturity and wisdom, experience and understanding, mercy and humanity, which are not found in children or They acquired these qualities because they lived for a long time; because they had time to experience a lot, to develop and reflect; imagine that people like Benjamin Franklin, Lincoln, Newton, Shakespeare, Goethe, Einstein, would enrich our world not for several decades, but for centuries. Imagine a world consisting of such people. It would truly become what Arthur Clarke called “The End of Childhood” - the beginning of humanity’s coming of age. you must. Join us. Choose life." (The Cryonics Institute)

Isn't transhumanism an intervention in nature?

This question goes to the heart of transhumanism. Transhumanists believe that this Right interfere with nature. There's nothing to be ashamed of. There is absolutely no moral or ethical reason why we shouldn't interfere with nature and improve it if we can, whether by eliminating disease, making agriculture more efficient to feed Earth's growing population, or sending communications satellites into orbit to power our home news and entertainment.

Of course, in many cases there are compelling practical arguments for relying on “natural” processes. The point is that you cannot decide whether something is good or bad simply by asking whether it is natural or not. Some natural phenomena are bad, such as starvation, tuberculosis, or being eaten alive by a tiger. Some man-made things are bad, such as DDT pollution, car accidents, and nuclear weapons.

As an example, consider the debate over human cloning. Some argue that human cloning is not artificial because human clones are essentially just identical twins. They are right. But the much more important point is that it doesn't matter whether human clones are natural or not. When we debate whether to clone humans, we need to weigh various possible desirable consequences against various possible undesirable consequences. We must then try to estimate the likelihood of these consequences. This type of discussion is much more complex than simply rejecting cloning as unnatural, but it is much more likely to lead to the right decisions.

Does all this seem obvious? That's how it should be! Still, it's amazing how people can still get away with using arguments that are essentially thinly disguised statements like, "That's a good thing because it's always been that way!" or “This is good, because this is how Nature intended it!”

Will transhuman technologies make us inhuman?

This question is based on confusion between the words "human" and "humane". Human means "Pertaining to a person or humanity; having the qualities or characteristics of a person; belonging to or peculiar to a person or human race"Transhumans will change many of these qualities and attributes. Many human traits are inconvenient or harmful; most transhumanists want to develop the positive traits of human nature (such as "humanity" - compassion) and get rid of (or at least control them) the negative ones.

There is no intrinsic value in being human, just as there is no intrinsic value in being a rock, a frog, or a post-human. Value lies in who we are as individuals and what we do in our lives.

Isn't death part of the natural order of things?

Transhumanists insist that whether something is natural or not has no bearing on whether it is good or desirable [see " " And " "].

The search for eternal life is one of the most ancient and deep-rooted human aspirations. This search is one of the most important themes of our literature, starting with the oldest known poem, , and in countless myths and poems since. It underlies most of the world's religious teachings about spiritual immortality and hope for an afterlife. If death is part of the natural order of things, then so is man's desire to overcome death.

Before transhumanism, the only hope of escaping death was reincarnation or resurrection in another world. People who saw that such religious doctrines were a figment of human imagination had no alternative but to accept the inevitability of death. Secular worldviews, including traditional humanism, usually included some explanation for why death wasn't such a bad thing in the first place. Some existentialists even argued that death was necessary to give meaning to life!

It is understandable why people tried to find an excuse for death. Until recently, there was absolutely no way to avoid it, and it made a certain amount of sense to create these comforting philosophies (transhumanists call them "deathism"), according to which death from old age is natural and good. Such beliefs were relatively harmless, but they had outlived their usefulness. Today we see the possibility of overcoming aging over time, and we can take active steps to stay alive until that point through life extension techniques or cryonics. This makes such comforting illusions dangerous and even deadly, since they teach us helplessness and encourage inaction.

There is a widespread misconception, especially among young people, that old people are “fed up” with life. In fact, many older people are enjoying life as much as ever. Some people feel tired of life when they become very old, but this is usually because they are seriously ill with no hope of improvement; they feel their body and mind being exhausted; their best friends dead or dying. In such a situation, death can bring welcome relief. But imagine that you could get a new breath of life, that it would be possible to restore your mind and body to the way they were in your youth (with the knowledge gained throughout your life), and perhaps bring some of your old friends back to life. Would you refuse such an offer? Even if you think now that you will refuse, most likely you will change your mind if such a choice ever actually confronts you.

Some people may still choose to die. This is quite normal if they made a conscious choice. For the rest, unlimited life in the post-human era awaits.

The transhumanists' position on the ethics of death is simple. According to transhumanists, death should be voluntary. This means that everyone should be able to extend their life or arrange for their body to be cryonicsed. This also means that the right to voluntary euthanasia should be an inalienable human right.

Are transhumanist technologies environmentally acceptable?

Transhumanist technologies are usually environmentally friendly. Intermediate technologies tend to be much more polluting than advanced technologies. The industry of the former Soviet Union, for example, is environmentally much dirtier than more modern enterprises in the West. Information technology, medicine and high technology in general are generally relatively harmless.

Transhumanists may make more serious claims regarding the environment - modern technology does not allow sustainable development. We use the resources we need (oil, metals, opportunity atmospheric pollution) faster than they can recover. At current rates of consumption, we will deplete these resources within this century. The realistic alternatives that have been proposed involve following transhumanist recommendations: taking technology to a new, more advanced level. Transhumanist technologies are not just environmentally friendly - they may turn out to be the only one an environmentally feasible option in the long term.

With advanced molecular nanotechnology, we will have a way to produce almost any product, without any waste or pollution. Moreover, this technology will allow us to undo the damage caused by the rather primitive technologies we use today. This sets a high standard that other approaches to environmental protection cannot match. Nanotechnology will also make it cost-effective to build space-based solar power plants, mine ores and minerals from asteroids or other planets, and move heavy industry off Earth. The only truly long-term solution to resource depletion is space colonization.

It should also be noted that from the point of view of transhumanism, humanity and all human actions and creations are part of the biosphere, and human intervention is also a normal part of the biosphere.

TRANSHUMANISM AS A PHILOSOPHICAL AND CULTURAL WORLDVIEW

What preceded transhumanism philosophically and culturally?

Man's desire to obtain divine qualities is apparently as old as the human species itself. People have always sought to expand the boundaries of their own existence, geographical, environmental or mental. There is a tendency in some people to always try to overcome any limitation or obstacle encountered.

Funeral rites and surviving fragments of religious records suggest that prehistoric people were deeply disturbed by the death of their loved ones and tried to reduce cognitive dissonance by suggesting the existence of an afterlife. However, despite the idea of an afterlife, people still sought to extend their lives in this world. In the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh (c. 2000 BC), the king goes in search of a plant that can make him immortal. Two assumptions are worth noting: that death was not inevitable in principle, and that there was an (at least mythological) means of achieving immortality. That people did strive to live longer and richer lives is seen in the development of various systems of magic and alchemy; Lacking practical means, people turned to magical methods. A typical example is the various esoteric schools of Taoism in China, which sought physical immortality and control/harmony with the forces of nature.

The Greeks had different attitudes towards people going beyond their natural boundaries. On the one hand, they were fascinated by this idea. We see this in the myth of Prometheus, who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to people, thus improving the situation of people for a long time. In the myth of Daedalus, the cunning engineer and master Daedalus successfully challenges the gods several times, using non-magical means to enhance human capabilities. On the other hand, there was a concept khubris: that some goals are forbidden and attempting to achieve them will result in retribution. In the end, Daedalus's bold undertaking ends in disaster (which, however, was not a punishment sent by the gods, but was caused entirely by natural causes).

Greek philosophers were the first to try to develop a worldview based not on faith, but on logical reasoning. Socrates and the Sophists expanded the application of critical thinking from metaphysics and cosmology to the study of ethics and questions about society and human psychology. The study of these questions led to the birth of cultural humanism, a movement of particular importance throughout Western history for science, political theory, ethics, and jurisprudence.

The Renaissance was an awakening from medieval thinking, and the study of man and the world around him became acceptable again. Renaissance humanism encouraged people to rely on their own observations and judgments rather than relying on religious authorities for everything. Renaissance humanism also proposed the ideal of a harmonious individual, developed scientifically, morally, culturally and spiritually. An important milestone in the development of humanism was Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s treatise “Speech on the Dignity of Man” (1486), where he directly states that man does not have ready-made form, but must turn himself into something. Modern science begins to take shape, primarily in the works of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo.

We can say that the Age of Enlightenment began with the publication of Francis Bacon's book New Organon, "a new instrument" (1620), where he proposed a new scientific methodology based on empirical research rather than a priori reasoning. Bacon promoted the idea of “expanding the boundaries of human power to the point of subordinating everything possible to him,” meaning by this the strengthening of power over nature to improve the condition of man. The legacy of the Renaissance, combined with the influence of Columbus, Isaac Newton, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and others, formed the basis for rational humanism, which emphasizes science and critical thinking, rather than revelation and religious authorities, as methods of understanding the world around us, the fate and nature of man, and laying the foundations for morality. Rational humanism is the direct predecessor of transhumanism.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries we see the first glimmers of the idea that even man himself could be developed and improved through science. Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire pondered the idea of extending human life through medicine. Atheism and agnosticism, especially after the advent of Darwin's theory of evolution, became increasingly attractive alternatives to Christianity. However, the optimism of the late nineteenth century often degenerated into positivism and a belief in the inevitability of progress. The collision of these views with reality had the opposite effect, and many turned to irrationalism, mistakenly believing that if reason was insufficient, then it was useless. This gave rise to anti-technological, anti-intellectual views that are still with us today, such as the New Age movement.

An important impetus for the formation of transhumanism was the essay “Daedalus: Science and the Future” (1923) by British biochemist John B. S. Haldane, in which he describes how scientific and technological discoveries can change society and improve the human condition. This essay set off a chain reaction of discussions about the future, including John Bernal's The World, the Flesh, and the Devil (1929), in which he discusses space colonization and bionic implants, and the enhancement of intelligence through advanced sociological and psychological techniques; works by Olaf Stapledon; and the essay "Icarus: The Future of Science" (1924) by Bertrand Russell, who took a more pessimistic view of things, arguing that without kindness in the world, the power of technology would mainly increase the ability of people to harm each other. These ideas, which were developed by Aldous Huxley in his novels and later by many science fiction writers, have had a great influence on the ideas of transhumanism and futures studies.

World War II changed the direction of many movements that have led to transhumanism today. The early eugenics movement was greatly discredited, and the idea of creating a new, better world became taboo and passé. (Even today's transhumanists remain deeply suspicious of collective change, the goal now being to reconstruct oneself and perhaps one's descendants.) Instead, optimistic futurists turned their attention to technological advances, particularly space travel, electronics, and computers. Science has begun to catch up with speculation.

Transhumanist ideas were discussed and developed during this period mainly in science fiction works. Authors such as Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Heinlein, Stanislaw Lem, and later Bruce Sterling, Greg Evan, Vernor Vinge and many others explored various aspects of transhumanism and contributed to its spread.

Robert Ettinger played an important role in giving transhumanism its modern form. He started the cryonics movement with the publication of his book "The Prospect of Immortality"(1964). He argued that since medical technology is constantly advancing, and since chemical activity ceases at low enough temperatures, it should be possible to freeze a patient today and preserve him until such time as the technology has advanced enough to correct the freeze damage and diseases he may have developed. be. In 1972, Ettinger published "From Man to Superman", where he considered some possible improvements to the human body, continuing the tradition begun by Haldane and Bernal.

Another influential early transhumanist is F. M. Esfandiary, who later changed his name to FM-2030 (Future Man 2030). One of the first professors in the field of future studies, FM taught at New school social sciences (New School for Social Research) in New York in the 1960s and formed around himself a school of optimistic futurists known as the UpWingers. In 1989 in his book "Are you transhuman?", he gave the first description of the concept of the transhuman as an evolutionary bridge to posthumanity. (A note on terminology: FM also used the word "trans" to describe transhumans. The word "transhuman" was first used in a science fiction story by Damien Broderick in 1976, although the meaning there was slightly different. The word "transhumanism" was first used by Julian Huxley in his book "New bottles for new wine" (1957).)

In the seventies and eighties, many organizations arose to promote the ideas of life extension, cryonics, space colonization or futurism. They were generally divided, although many of them shared similar views and values. A prominent advocate of the transhumanist position during this period was Marvin Minsky.

In 1988, the first issue of the magazine was published Extropy Magazine edited by Max More and T.O. Morrow (a pseudonym for "tomorrow"), and in 1992 they founded Extropy Institute. The magazine and institute served as catalysts for the unification of many separate early groups. Max Moret gave the first definition of the concept of "transhumanism" in its modern sense. If we choose a specific date and place for the emergence of modern transhumanism, then it happened in America in the late eighties. Thanks to the works of Natasha Vita-More, the movement of transhumanist art was formed around the same time.

Book by Eric Drexler "Engines of Creation"(1986) became the first great job, which examines molecular technology, its potential applications, potential abuses, and the strategic questions its development poses. This important book had a huge and lasting impact on the ideas of transhumanism. Also important were the books of robotics researcher Hans Moravec. "Children of the Mind"(1988) and later "Robot"(1999). Today, Drexler and Moravec remain at the forefront of transhumanist thought. Two other important contemporary transhumanists are Anders Sandberg and the American economist and polymath Robin Hanson.

Many transhumanists disagree with the political views of the Extropy Institute. Therefore, in 1998, Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded World Transhumanist Association, to complement the Institute and act as an umbrella organization for all groups and movements related to transhumanism. With a special focus on supporting transhumanism as a rigorous academic and scientific discipline, BTA issues Journal of Transhumanism, the first peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to research in the field of transhumanism.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. 1486. Oration on the Dignity of Man. http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Mirandola/
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. 1486. Speech about human dignity. http://psylib.org.ua/books/_pikodel.htm
Haldane, J. B. S. 1923. Daedalus: Science and the Future. http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Daedalus.html
Russell, B. 1924. Icarus: The Future of Science. http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Icarus.html
Bernal, J. D. 1929. The World, the Flesh & the Devil. http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Bernal/
Ettinger, R. 1964. The Prospect of Immortality. http://www.cryonics.org/book1.html
Drexler, E. 1986. The Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, chapters 11-15. http://e-drexler.com/p/06/00/EOC_Cover.html
Eric Drexler. 1986. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, trans. M. Sverdlova, chapters 11-15. http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000328/
Journal of Evolution and Technology. http://www.jetpress.org

Are there differences between extropianism and transhumanism?

Extropianism is a separate branch of transhumanism (so all Extropians are transhumanists, but not vice versa). Extropians get their name from the concept of "extropy", developed by Max More and Tom Morrow, which characterizes the growth and vitality of a system.

The core ideas of Extropianism are outlined in the Extropian Principles, a document written by the founders and members of the Extropia Institute. Version 3.0 of this document names seven core principles that are of particular importance to Extropians in the development of their ideas: endless progress, self-transformation, practical optimism, smart technology, open society, self-direction and rational thinking.

Politically, Extropians oppose authoritarian social control and advocate the rule of law and decentralization of power. Transhumanism, as such, does not imply any political position, although certain political conclusions can be drawn from transhumanism. Transhumanists hold a wide range of political views (including liberals, social democrats, libertarians, greens, etc.), and some transhumanists prefer to remain apolitical.

More, M. 1998. The Extropian Principles, v. 3.0. http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm

What currents are present within transhumanism?

There are a variety of viewpoints within transhumanism, and a large number of distinct groups have been created based on shared interests, views, values, or geographic location.

Groups classified by their interests include cryonics advocates, life extension advocates, nanotechnologists, the online community, space exploration enthusiasts, transhumanist artists and performers, science fiction fans, digital punks, and people experimenting with alternative social groups.

Extropians are a prominent transhumanist group that places great value on self-reliance, self-transformation, personal freedom, and freedom from government coercion [see " "].

Another current in transhumanism is represented by defenders of the idea of “paradise-engineering”, described in “The Hedonistic Imperative” by David Pearce (David Pearce. Hedonistic Imperative). Peirce makes an ethical case for a biological program to abolish all forms of cruelty, suffering and disease. In the near term, our emotional lives may be enriched by synthetic mood-regulating drugs (not drugs), and in the long term, it may be technically possible to rewrite the genome of all vertebrates. In this way, biotechnology can eliminate suffering throughout the animal kingdom. Peirce is convinced that "post-Darwinian superconsciousness" will inspire only varying degrees of genetically programmed well-being.

Transhumanists disagree about the timeline for future changes, as well as how radical these changes might be. Proponents of the singularity [see " "] represent one end of the spectrum, while other transhumanists make predictions based on gradual, evolutionary progress.

Local transhumanist discussion groups were founded in largest cities America and European countries. In Russia, the company, founded in 2003, is engaged in the development and promotion of transhumanist ideas. Although transhumanism is cosmopolitan, these groups have individual characteristics, perhaps caused by local memetic conditions.

Leading transhumanist thinkers sometimes defy classification. Each of them represents a different branch of transhumanism, adhering to a complex and nuanced system of beliefs that is constantly subject to revision and development.

Russian transhumanist communities
Links to personal pages and websites of individual transhumanist movements: http://www.transhumanism.com/index.html

Is transhumanism a cult/religion?

NO. Transhumanism is definitely not a cult; it does not meet any of the criteria for a cult adopted by the Cult Awareness Network (no longer active) and other similar organizations. Transhumanism is not a religion, although it performs some of the functions that people have traditionally assigned to religion. Transhumanism offers an understanding of the meaning and purpose of existence, as well as the idea that humans can achieve more than we have today. Unlike most believers, transhumanists strive to fulfill their dreams in this world, relying not on supernatural forces, but on rational thinking and empiricism, through continuous scientific, technological, economic and personal development. Even things that once could only be loudly claimed by churches, such as immortality, eternal bliss and divine intelligence, are discussed by transhumanists as possible technological advances!

Transhumanism is a naturalistic philosophy. To date, there is no reliable evidence for the existence of supernatural forces or unexplained spiritual phenomena, so transhumanists prefer to rely on rational methods, especially the scientific method, to study and intervene in this world. And while science underlies most of the aspirations of transhumanists, they understand that the scientific method has its flaws and is not infallible.

Religious prejudice, fanaticism and intolerance are unacceptable among transhumanists. They believe that many prejudices can be overcome through scientific and humanistic education, training in critical thinking, and interaction with people from different cultures.

It is worth noting that transhumanism is not a fixed set of dogmas. It is an evolving worldview, or rather a family of evolving worldviews, since transhumanists often disagree with each other on many issues. Transhumanist philosophy, while still in its infancy, must continue to evolve in the light of new experiences and new possibilities. Transhumanists are willing to adjust their views accordingly when they learn where they went wrong.

Will things like uploading, cryonics, and AI fail because they can't store or create a soul?

Although the idea of the soul does not fit well with or be of much value to a naturalistic philosophy such as transhumanism, many transhumanists are interested in related issues regarding personal identity and the nature of consciousness. These issues have been the subject of lively debate among contemporary analytic philosophers, and although some progress has been made (for example, in Derek Parfit's work on personal identity), they have not yet been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. An accessible introduction to the mind-body problem is found in Churchland (1988).

If you believe in the existence of the soul and that it enters the body at the moment of conception, then cryonics may work, since human embryos have been successfully frozen, stored for a long time, and then implanted into their mothers, developing into normal healthy children (who , presumably, there is a soul). The download will in many ways prove to be an empirical test for many views of the soul. If the download works, some ideas about the soul will have to be reconsidered. The same goes for machine intelligence. (It is interesting to note that the Dalai Lama does not rule out the possibility of reincarnation in a computer.)

Churchland, P. 1988. Matter and Consciousness. MIT Press, MA.
Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
(Interview with the Dalai Lama http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Uploading/lama_upload.txt)

Does transhumanist art exist?

Yes. Emotions are valuable tools in comprehending and understanding life. Transhumanist artists seek to intuitively understand and explain the transhuman condition and the world view revealed by science. In transhumanist art, the fusion of human culture with science and technology often characterizes both content and form. Transhumanist art expresses transhumanist values such as life extension, increased activity and creativity, exploration of the world, unlimited self-transformation and enhanced sensory perception. Some trans people use art to live out their philosophy.

Transhumanist art is created by transhumanists from various fields of knowledge. It includes known species arts such as literature, music, visual arts, electronic, robotic and performing arts, as well as yet to be discovered expressive forms. Transhumanist art also includes the work of scientists, engineers, philosophers, athlete, teachers, mathematicians, and other specialists. Ideas and dreams of evolution, transhumans, biotechnology, artificial life, extropy and immortality have become part of the art world.

Subgenres include: extropian art, automorphic art (an individualistic approach to extropian self-transformation involving mind and body - the transhuman as a work of art) and ethereal art (the fusion of art and the universe).

http://www.transhuman.org
Transhumanist Arts & Culture

PRACTICAL SIDES OF TRANSHUMANISM

What evidence is there that this will happen?

Look around you, look at the world today. Compare what you see now with what you would have seen just sixty years ago. It is not too bold to suggest that in another sixty years the level of technology and the way people live will be simply amazing by our current standards. Even with the most conservative projections, if we assume that the world continues to develop gradually as it has since the seventeenth century, you could see dramatic changes in the next few decades.

This forecast is supported by the fact that decisive breakthroughs are expected in many important areas. The Internet unites the world's population, adding a new layer to human society, a layer in which information reigns supreme. We are completing the deciphering of the human genome and developing genetic engineering methods with which we can use this information to intervene in the adult human body or to make beneficial changes in our children. The speed of computers is doubling every eighteen months and will soon approach the processing power of the human brain. Pharmaceutical companies They are improving drugs that will allow us to control a person’s mood and change character traits without side effects. Many transhumanist goals can be achieved with today's technology. What doubt can there be (except for the possibility of the collapse of civilization) that technological progress will give us much more radical possibilities in the future?

Molecular manufacturing has the potential to completely change the human condition. But is such technology possible? Eric Drexler and other scientists have shown that nanotechnology does not contradict the laws of chemistry and have described several different paths for its development [see " "]. The description of nanotechnology may seem far-fetched, perhaps because its possibilities are so limitless, but nanotechnology experts note that to date, no papers have been published criticizing Drexler's technical arguments. No one was able to find an error in his calculations. Meanwhile, investment in this field (already amounting to billions of dollars) is growing rapidly, and some simple molecular manufacturing methods are already in full use.

There are many independent ways and technologies through which people can turn into posthumans. It is not yet known which technology will be improved before others, and which method we will choose. But if civilization continues to exist, it seems inevitable that we will have the opportunity to become posthumans. And, unless someone prohibits such a transformation and prevents it by force, many will decide to use this opportunity.

Drexler, E. 1992. Nanosystems, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY.

Will this transhumanist development take thousands or millions of years?

Sometimes it is very difficult to predict exactly how long it will take to develop a certain technology. The moon landing took place sooner than most expected; but thermonuclear energy still eludes us after half a century of waiting. The reasons why it is so difficult to accurately estimate timelines lies partly in the possibility of unexpected technical obstacles, and partly in the fact that the speed of progress depends on funding levels, which in turn depend on difficult-to-predict economic and political factors. Thus, although in many cases there may be good reason to believe that the technology will be developed sooner or later, one can usually only make assumptions about how long it will take.

The vast majority of transhumanists believe that superintelligence and nanotechnology will appear in less than a hundred years, and many predict that they will appear in the first third of this century. [The arguments are described in the two corresponding sections on these technologies.] And once superintelligence and nanotechnology emerge, they will immediately be used in many different fields.

There is a long list of examples of people in the past confidently declaring that something was technically absolutely impossible:

"People will not master the secrets of flight during our lifetime - and even for thousands of years after that." (Wilbur Wright, 1901)

or useless:

"There's no reason why anyone would want to have a computer in their home." (Ken Olsen: President, Chairman and Founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977)

Only to see it happen just a few years later. However, we can give an equally long list of examples of how people predicted some achievements that we never saw. This question cannot be resolved by drawing historical parallels.

It would be more appropriate to perform a detailed analysis of physical limitations and possible design problems. In the case of key technologies of the future, superintelligence and nanotechnology, similar analyzes have been carried out and many experts believe that they are likely to be created within the first decades of this century. Other experts believe it will take much longer.

Another way to form an opinion about the future is to look at trends from the past. Since at least the late nineteenth century, the amount of scientific and technological knowledge (measured by various indicators) has doubled approximately every 15 years. Extrapolating from this exponential trend, we can expect even more dramatic changes in the near future. A complete cessation of existing trends, an unexpected stop of progress, is necessary in order for the changes expected by transhumanists Not occurred during this century.

Erroneous Predictions: http://www.foresight.org/news/negativeComments.html
Drexler, E. 1992. Nanosystems, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY.
Moravec, H. 1998. Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. Oxford Univ. Press.
Kurzweil, R. 1999. The age of spiritual machines. Viking Press.

What if it doesn't work?

Then, presumably, we will return to the 'status quo', but at the same time we will enrich ourselves with many discoveries made during this attempt. But really, the question is not so much whether it will work, but rather what will work and when. With so many world-transforming technologies now available, and many more just around the corner, it is clear that great opportunities for human self-modification lie ahead. More powerful transhuman technologies, such as nanotechnology and superintelligence, can be developed in several independent ways. If one path is blocked, you can try another, increasing the likelihood of success.

If, for some unexpected reason, scientists are unable to develop molecular nanotechnology and create superhuman artificial intelligence, along with all the technologies that flow from these - uploading, cryonics, unlimited life extension - it will be the greatest tragedy for transhumanists. Then you may never see a world free from suffering, disease and death; never reach the greatest limits of mental creativity and understanding, which are accessible only to more advanced information processors than the human nervous system; will never be able to experience emotions and states of deepest understanding that your unenhanced brain is unable to contain or tolerate; you will never know what heights in your personal development you could achieve if you lived with youthful energy for 120, or 400, or even 50,000 years. Of course, people will find some comfort in all the useful tools that will no doubt be created along the way - new methods of genetic engineering, mood-regulating drugs, information technology, fast computers, useful chemicals, new drugs, organ transplant methods, productive computer memory - but transhumanists strive for more.

How can I use transhumanism in my life?

Transhumanism is a practical philosophy that can be very utilitarian. Therefore, there are many ways to apply it in your life: use diet and exercise to improve your health and increase your life expectancy; enter into a contract for cryonic freezing; earn money by investing in shares of technology companies; use medications to change mood and character, or nootropic drugs to improve mental functions; use various cognitive or psychological techniques for self-development (training techniques, time management; mnemonics; meditation; critical thinking); learn to make good use of new information technologies; Take nutritional supplements (vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, hormones) to reduce your risk of heart disease and cancer, and possibly slow down aging; create works of transhumanist art; and, in general, try to live a more fulfilling and responsible life. A sentiment shared by many transhumanists, called active optimism(or practical optimism): the belief that desired results can usually be achieved, but only through hard work and good decisions (More (1997)).

You can also get involved in research related to transhumanism or the activities of transhumanist organizations [see " "].

More, M. 1998. Dynamic Optimism. http//:www.maxmore.com/optimism.htm
Mentat Wiki - site by existing technologies intelligence enhancements such as creative and critical thinking, mnemonic techniques, note-taking techniques, nootropic drugs, etc.

How can I become posthuman?

There is no way today by which anyone could become posthuman. This is the main reason for the strong interest among transhumanists in life extension and cryonics. Those of us who can live long enough to see the results of technological development may eventually become posthumans.

However, each of us can live to become transhuman, and this in itself is an exciting stage in human evolution. We live in an age when (at least in democracies) we are free to hold views that are no longer defined by national boundaries, family allegiance, or allegiance to political organizations. In this era, people's consciousness is expanded and restructured by longer training, repeated job changes, and growing global networks. personal contacts, and computer communications. Human bodies are modified through improved childhood nutrition, implants, artificial body parts, and life extension programs. We have combined our physical bodies and consciousness with biological science and technology to overcome the barriers that prevented our ancestors from living endless lives.

Isn't the success rate of cryonics too low?

Cryonics, the freezing of people who are legally "dead", can be considered an experimental medical procedure. By its nature, cryonics cannot currently undergo clinical trials to determine its effectiveness. But we know that the patient’s condition can be stabilized by cooling him to the temperature of liquid nitrogen (- 196 C°). The freezing process causes significant cellular damage, but once frozen the patient can be stored for thousands of years without further deterioration. Cryonics is based on the hypothesis that at some point in the future, technology will emerge that will make it possible to revive cryonics patients by correcting the freezing damage and the original cause of death.

To prove that cryonics will not work, it is necessary to prove that no future technology, no matter how advanced, never will not be able to revive a frozen patient. When you think about what is considered common today and how it would have been viewed in, for example, the 18th century, it becomes clear how difficult it is to make a valid argument that future medical technology will never be able to repair the damage done during cryonic freezing.

In this light, taking out a cryonics policy (which is usually done by naming the cryonics company as the beneficiary of your life insurance policy) appears to be reasonable insurance. If cryonics didn't work, you'd be dead anyway; if it works, it could save your life. (And your life saved will be a very long and healthy one, considering how advanced medical techniques must become to revive you.)

Most experts in the field of molecular nanotechnology are confident that, at its mature stage, nanotechnology will make it possible to revive cryonics patients. Thus, it is possible that frozen patients will be revived within the next few decades. The uncertainty about the technical feasibility of resuscitation may be even smaller than other uncertainties, such as the risk of ending your life in an unfortunate manner (drowning in the ocean; losing the contents of your brain due to Alzheimer's disease), the possibility of your cryonics company going bankrupt, the collapse of civilization, or that the people of the future will not want to revive you. Thus, a freezing contract is far from being a 100% guarantee of survival. As cryonics proponents say, being cryonically frozen is the second worst thing that can happen to you.

Compared to other transhumanist projects, eliminating boredom is likely to be easy. In fact, we already have reliable (though perhaps still toxic) remedies for fighting boredom. for example, psychostimulants such as amphetamines. Current clinical mood-altering drugs may increase zest for life and enthusiasm in some people, including those suffering from depression. (But these examples can be misleading. They can only give a rough idea of what awaits us.) Only by completely isolating different technologies from each other in your forecasts can you imagine a world in which there will be advanced molecular nanotechnology and superhuman artificial intelligence, but still won't have the means to control the brain circuits responsible for boredom.

It may be useful to maintain some functional analogue of boredom, since boredom can prevent us from wasting time on monotonous and meaningless activities. Possibly, positive emotions of varying intensity associated with different types activities can motivate us to choose the best activity. Thus, in the world of the future, we will avoid certain routine operations because we will consider them merely mildly entertaining rather than mind-boggling and delightful.

Ed Regis (1990, p. 97) suggests the following points:

1. Usual life sometimes boring. What of this?

2. Eternal life will be as boring or as exciting as you make it.

3. Is it more exciting to be dead?

4. If eternal life becomes boring, you will have the opportunity to end it at any time.

Pearce, D. 1998. The Hedonistic Imperative. http://www.hedweb.com
Regis, E. 1990. Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition. Penguin Books

How can I get involved in transhumanism?

There is a growing number of organizations created to study and develop transhumanist technologies and address the issues facing us on the path to posthumanity.

The World Transhumanist Association was founded in 1998 as an umbrella organization to promote transhumanist ideas and promote academic recognition of transhumanism as a philosophical and cultural movement.

Local transhumanist organizations exist in several European countries and American cities. The Extropy Institute also operates in America, promoting extropian transhumanism. The Foresight Institute and the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing are dedicated to the development and study of nanotechnology and its peaceful applications for human benefit. Alcor and the Cryonics Institute are two non-profit organizations that offer cryonic freezing services to their members. Life Extension Foundation, another non-profit organization, provides information about and sells nutritional supplements.

The Russian Transhumanist Movement (RTD) was created at the end of 2003. In January 2005, RTD held the first interdisciplinary seminar on transhumanism and immortalism in Moscow. Since then the seminar has been held monthly. But participants in the movement do not only discuss transhumanism. Work is underway on a number of projects (see “Projects”). Among them are the creation of a Russian cryogenic company, the unification of the efforts of Russian gerontologists, the collection and systematization of information about human aging, and the creation of a news site on super technologies “Eternal Mind”. In a section of the site called “What Can I Do? » you can find out how to take part in the movement's activities.

All of these organizations offer opportunities to learn more about transhumanism and the various technologies and ideas that transhumanists seek to use. They organize conferences and meetings and maintain electronic forums for communication with others interested in promoting transhumanism. New business ideas are constantly being considered by members of these organizations, and in the near future there will be more and more opportunities for active work to help us move towards a transhuman future. There are many companies, university departments and other organizations whose activities are directly related to transhumanism.

Russian Transhumanist Movement. http://www.transhumanism-russia.ru
World Transhumanist Association. http://humanityplus.org (this site contains links to other organizations).

CO-AUTHORS OF THIS DOCUMENT

The section on nanotechnology is based on an introduction by John Storrs Hall, which in turn is based on the work of Eric Drexler and Ralph Merkle. The section on cryonics is based on the writings of Ralph Merkle, from which some suggestions are directly borrowed. The definition of transhumanism used in this document is based on proposals from many people, notably Kathryn Aegis and Max More. Answers to questions about the soul, the difference between human and humane, and historical antecedents are offered primarily by Anders, with a few other answers based in part on his comments and ideas from other members of the Swedish transhumanist organization Aleph ). Kathryn wrote answers to the question about the society in which posthumans will live, "How can I become a posthuman?" and most of the answer to "What is a transhuman?" The answer to the question about transhumanist art is based on a post by Natasha Vita-More. Greg Burch provided early editing assistance, and David Pearce and especially Kathryn Aegis and Anders Sandberg were very helpful in late editing. In addition, they contributed their ideas, criticism, questions, phrases and suggestions to the development of this document (in no particular order):

Henri Kluytmans, John S. Novak III, Allen Smith, Thom Quinn, Harmony Baldwin, J. R. Molloy, Greg Burch, Max More, Harvey Newstrom, Brent Allsop, John K Clark, Randy Smith, Daniel Faublich, Scott Badger, [email protected], Anders Sandberg, Dan Clemmensen, Kathryn Aegis, [email protected], Natasha Vita More, Michael Nielsen, Geoff Smith, Eugene Leitl, William John, [email protected], Joe Jenkins, Damien Broderick, David Pearce, Michael Lorrey, Bryan Moss, Derek Strong, Wesley R. Schwein, Peter C. McCluskey, Tony Hollick, [email protected], Michelle Jones, Dennis Stevens, Damon Davis, Jeff Dee, Andrew Hennessey, Doug Bailey, Brian Atkins, Erik Moeller, Alex ( [email protected]), David Carey, [email protected], Arjen Kamphius, Remi Sussan, Dalibor van den Otter, Robin Hanson, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Michael Wiik, Dylan Evans, Jean-Michell Delhotel.

I want to thank you all for your help in creating this document and for making transhumanism possible.

In February 2011, the strategic public movement “Russia - 2045” was created in Russia. The goal of this movement is “the creation of an international research center for cyborgization with the aim of practical implementation of the main techno-project - the creation of an artificial body and the preparation of a person for the transition to it.” Achieving this goal is divided into stages, the main of which are the following (Avatar project): An artificial copy of the human body (2015-2020), an artificial copy of the human body into which the brain is transplanted (2020-2025), an artificial copy of the human body into which consciousness is transferred (2030-2035), the body-hologram (2040-2045). Thus, a person will overcome suffering, illness, aging and, finally, achieve the long-sought immortality: an artificial body, or mechanical, or holographic, or some other much “stronger” than a natural one, and consciousness can be transplanted at will into anything... Exit to space, the unlimited exploration of the Universe will be facilitated by the fact that man will no longer need the conditions required by his biological form of existence. Transhumanists consider themselves heirs to the ideas of N.F. Fedorov, V.I. Vernadsky, K.E. Tsiolkovsky. All this assumes that the development of information technology will reach a point of singularity by 2030, when a self-improving program will be invented and the path to endless machine progress will open.

The “Russia – 2045” movement, uniting some domestic scientists and philosophers, was created in the footsteps of the international non-governmental “World Association of Transhumanists”, which emerged in 2008 and pursues the same global goal. Supporters of immortalism (in particular, based on cryonics), post-genderism (overcoming gender), techno-Guanism (ecology and environmental protection), etc. also gravitate towards these movements.

These facts could be interpreted as some marginal futurological tendencies of modern culture, which have always been sufficient, if not for two significant points:

1. In the context of the rejection of the classical ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries, transhumanism, based on modern scientific and technological progress, so popular among young people, incorporating environmental trends, remains essentially the only ideology that promises progressive development for humanity;

2. In Russian culture, where, due to the 70-year triumph of ideological and technocratic tendencies, the role of the humanities is not very high, the ideology of transhumanism is persistently making its way. Russian transhumanists are quite active, they sent a letter to D.A. Medvedev, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, they are supported by a number of domestic scientists and futurologists, they were supported by the Dalai Lama... In August 2011, at a meeting in the Department of State Science and Technology Policy and innovations of the Ministry of Education and Science, which was attended by the leaders of the “Russia - 2045” movement, the Kurchatov Institute, representatives of a number of other departments of the Ministry, the directions of work of the Movement were approved and support was promised in terms of contacts with the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences.

All this gives rise to serious concerns and urgently raises the question of scientific and philosophical analysis of transhumanist ideas.

§ 1. In pursuit of a dream: artificial man

In the 20th century, the attack of technological civilization on the natural human environment continued. The creation of artificial materials has led to the fact that people almost never see things made from natural materials in their homes: electric light, plastic windows, artificial wood, chemically produced paints, synthetic fabrics, etc. However, in the last century, an active phase of penetration of artificial “materials”, so to speak, into humans also began. The industry of replacing natural organs with artificial ones is becoming more and more active. These technologies are combined with the replacement of diseased organs with healthy ones taken from other people. Most of the food consumed by people today is genetically modified.

Since the middle of the last century, information technology has begun to develop, the degree and speed of development of which by the beginning of this century has reached titanic proportions. Computers and related technologies saturate the entire space of human culture: education, science, art, media, business, trade, military sphere, household. Computer innovations where information technology is not yet used are considered progress and are encouraged in every possible way by the state, which essentially fulfills the unspoken order of the information technology industry. Computerization and the introduction of information technologies correspond to the spirit of the European civilization, which strives to make human life as comfortable as possible, to shift hard and dirty work from one’s shoulders to a machine. Starting with the simplest mechanisms, with the steam engine, humanity has today created a huge number of technical devices that allow us to rebuild the environment at will, “conquer” space and time, and arrange human life on earth according to our own will. Within the framework of information technology, we see how the task of controlling all these mechanisms is gradually being given to machines. The idea of creating artificial intelligence capable of self-learning, a program more or less comparable to human intelligence, is being put forward more and more persistently. Examples of building “robots” based on these programs are already everywhere today: in astronautics, in military affairs, robotic vacuum cleaners, etc. Military circles are extremely interested in solving this problem, which, as we know, is always one of the decisive factors in technical progress.

The achievements of computer technology cannot but amaze. The speed of calculations (more precisely, the performance of elementary operations) is increasing more and more. Thanks to this, it is possible to solve more and more complex problems. A machine translation program from one language to another is effectively developed. To a certain extent, the long-defying problem of pattern recognition has been solved. This, in turn, opens the way to the construction of artificial vision, voice communication with a machine, voice machine translation from one language to another, etc. Advances in solving problems in mechanics make it possible to build mechanical models of human organs. The implementation of the super-project of the new European civilization, which, in the myths of the homunculus and the Golem, dreamed of building an artificial creature imitating a human, is getting closer and closer. Moreover, this creature, by definition, will surpass humans in some of its functions: physical strength, mechanical reaction, speed of decision-making in certain areas, consistency in achieving goals, etc. Initially, a person conceived and created this robot to help himself, a person. It was only about helping and replacing a person in performing certain functions. The issue was not about human existence. But isn’t this assistant beginning to take up too much space in the life of humanity? Doesn't he become a competitor in terms of human existence?

§ 2. The role of the tradition of structuralism

The emergence of the ideology of transhumanism was also facilitated by the evolution of the ideas of structuralism. Structuralism was - and remains - a broad general scientific movement, the essence of which is the application of some special method of research. Structuralism considers the thing being studied not in terms of its substance or the associated concepts of essence and nature, but in terms of functionality, in terms of the properties and actions of this thing. To do this, we must interpret a thing as a certain structure, or a set of structures. A structure is a set of elements between which certain connections are established. The structuralist researcher must isolate these elements and identify these connections. Since its discovery in the 1920s, structuralism has found wide application in many areas of humanities: ethnography, cultural studies, sociology (C. Lévi-Strauss), religious studies (J. Dumézil, J.-P. Vernant), linguistics (R. Jacobson, L. Hjelmslev, E. Harris, N. Chomsky and others), literary criticism (R. Barthes, W. Eco), history and philosophy of science (M. Foucault, M. Serres), political science (L. Althusser), psychology (J. Lacan), philosophy. Over time, the connection between the methodology of structuralism and the concept of mathematical structure became increasingly clear.

As a result of applying the structuralist method, the thing being studied is replaced by some scientific construction - a model. The structuralist is not at all concerned that the model is not identical with the original thing. “A model constructed in this way,” wrote one of the ideologists of structuralism in literary criticism, R. Barthes, “returns to us the world no longer in the form in which it was originally given to it, and this is precisely the meaning of structuralism. First of all, he creates a new category of object, which does not belong either to the realm of the real or to the realm of the rational, but to the realm of the functional, and thus fits into the whole complex scientific research, currently developing on the basis of computer science."

Structuralism grew out of structural linguistics, created by the Swiss linguist F. de Saussure at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. De Saussure considered linguistics as part of the general study of signs - semiology (or semiotics). The methods of linguistics are transferred to the study of culture, which is also a kind of language, a certain sign system with its own elements and structure. Revealing and describing the structures of various areas of culture is one of the main methods of humanities in the last century. The cultural structures discovered by this method, although associated with human spiritual activity, are of a transpersonal and impersonal nature. A person uses them; moreover, he cannot communicate with society without them; they are the language of culture. Since these structures revealed by analysis are intersubjective and supra-subjective in nature, the question of the status of the subject in culture and in existence in general arises more and more acutely. If significances are created by structures, and not by the subject, then it is not the subject that speaks through the structures, but they themselves, as it were, speak through the subject. This is how the concepts of the death of the author (R. Barthes), the disappearance of a person (M. Foucault) gradually arise. Man, Deleuze writes, is only a certain form of the relationship between internal and external forces, and this form can change. “One can foresee in advance that the forces in man are not necessarily part of the form-Man, but can be located differently, enter into a different connection, into a different form: even for a relatively short period. Man has not always existed and will not exist forever." If the new European man, as Foucault explains to us, is only a manifestation of some special cognitive attitude, an episteme, which did not exist before the 17th century, which arose and can, therefore, disappear if its defining elements change, then man with all his features , faith in God, in the possibility of knowledge, humanism, etc. may disappear “like a face drawn on the coastal sand disappears.”

Structuralism was, in its own way, a very logical embodiment of new European rationalism and therefore it was no coincidence that it had such a great influence on the science of the 20th century. Here his connection with the mathematics of this century, set theory, and “Bourbakism” in mathematics was extremely important. In a certain sense, he revealed the nature of the scientific method that underlies modern European civilization. Expanding the scope of its application, structuralism helped to draw far-reaching ideological conclusions in postmodernism, which also prepared the ideology of transhumanism.

§ 3. Connection between man and machine. Transhumanism.

The ideology of transhumanism is quite naturally connected with the most cherished, historically, perhaps not immediately clearly realized aspirations of our civilization, which has existed for the last four or five centuries. The ideology of a human creator, building Regnum hominis on Earth, by analogy with the Kingdom of God in Heaven, has inspired man since the Renaissance. Our humanistic civilization is still inspired by these ideals, and whether it’s bad or good, it is on the basis of these ideals that today’s global civilization has been built and continues to be built. But from the very beginning, the key problem facing the human creator was realized: he can create a lot, but can he create himself? Not in a natural way, given to him by God, but artificially, technologically? How far does the biblical similarity between God and man extend?

The entire Renaissance dreams of this idea. The creation of a homunculus by magical-alchemical means is a problem on which scientists of the 16th century struggle tirelessly. The next century begins to build mechanical automata either with the claim to simulate the whole person - here, usually, it could not do without a real person hidden inside - or as a model of individual human abilities (Pascal's computer). To build a universal automaton, you need a special algorithmic language that would represent the “soul” of this automaton (a program, as we say today). Descartes and Leibniz, each in his own way, begin to develop this language. All subsequent centuries, this project of new European civilization, as the cherished goal of the efforts of many scientists and thinkers of various ideological orientations, looms on the horizon of their activities. Logicians, mathematicians, mechanics, engineers are discussing the technical problems of creating an artificial person, and philosophers and cultural scientists are trying to understand the “conditions of possibility” for the realization of this dream. This is not the place to trace this process in more detail, but in this regard it is impossible to pass over in silence the figure of the Russian thinker N.F. Fedorov, who, by the way, transhumanists rightly consider one of their predecessors. Fedorov was a talented, self-taught philosopher who left many brilliant articles devoted to the criticism of modern civilization. But he considered his main work to be “The Philosophy of the Common Cause,” a project that set the task of resurrecting the dead (“resurrection of the fathers”) within history by technological means. Fedorov was a believer; on almost every page of his work we will find the name of the Holy Trinity. However, he considered the prophecy of the second coming of Christ to be conditional. The Second Coming of Christ and the Last Judgment are inevitable if humanity does not repent and... turn to the common cause of resurrecting the dead. Despite the heretical nature of his eschatological project, Fedorov correctly expressed the key motive of Christian civilization: victory over death; however, he believed that man is sufficiently gifted by God to solve this problem independently, within history. And the latter, paradoxically, makes him perhaps the most striking exponent of that titanic understanding of man in our civilization, which comes from the Renaissance.

The emergence of the transhumanism movement in the 20th century is closely related to the new stage of the scientific and technological revolution, the development of new methods in biology and the emergence of computer technology. The introduction of the term transhumanism in the 60s of the last century is associated with the name of Julian Huxley (grandson of the famous propagandist of evolutionary theory Thomas Huxley), an English biologist, philosopher of science and politician. D. Huxley actively advocated the support and dissemination of humanistic values and was one of the ideologists of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (founded in 1952). The latter's program activities are devoted to promoting the ideas of humanism, atheism, rationalism, free-thinking and supporting moral teachings not related to religion. In the 60s, the ideas of cryonics (R. Ettinger, E. Cooper), the technology of freezing people and animals at ultra-low temperatures, also became very popular, with the hope that in the future science, having reached a high level, will make it possible to revive (and if necessary , heal) these creatures. The emergence of transhumanism was significantly influenced by the works and public speeches of scientists who developed the foundations of computer technology - A. Turing, J. von Neumann, philosopher E. Toffler, etc. In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pierce organized the World Association of Transhumanists (Humanity+). On the official website of this public non-governmental organization in the “Philosophy” section we read: “Transhumanism is a set of teachings about life that are aimed at continuing and accelerating the evolution of intelligent life beyond its true human forms and limitations, achieved through the means of science and technology, and guided by life-affirming principles and goals... In this area, our focus is mainly on current technologies such as biotechnology, information technology, as well as anticipated future technologies such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. Transhumanism strives for the ethical use of these and other speculative technologies (italics mine - V.K.). Our theoretical interests focus on posthumanist themes of singularity, extinction risks, and consciousness uploading (full brain simulation and matter-free consciousnesses)."

After the creation of self-developing programs (“singularity point”), the time will come to create robots that produce themselves. Robots will gradually learn to do any work and will inevitably replace humans, subject to fatigue and imperfection, in all areas. Due to their tirelessness and exponential progress in their capabilities, these artificial beings will eventually become more advanced than humans. On this path to the new world of smart machines, the problem of downloading consciousness must be solved, i.e. creating a complete model of the human brain and transferring it by “scanning” human consciousness into a machine. However, the reasoning of transhumanists on this topic often looks illogical and quite crafty. Hypothetically, development is evolution! – smart machines may not follow the biological path at all, and machines may rebel against a slow and weak person much earlier. If a person still remains in this “society” of endlessly self-improving machines, then he is destined for approximately the same place there as our animals have in the zoo.

Transhumanism, undoubtedly, is some new ideology that its adherents are trying to offer to a “distrustful humanity” mired in consumerism. Domestic propagandists of these ideas write directly: “Humanity has turned into a consumer society and is on the verge of a total loss of semantic guidelines for development. The interests of most people boil down mainly to maintaining their own comfortable existence... We believe that the world needs a different ideological paradigm. Within its framework, it is necessary to formulate a super task that can indicate a new vector of development for all humanity and ensure the implementation of a scientific and technological revolution.” Despite all the claims to the scientific foundation of the transhumanistic perspective, fundamental questions about the possibility of such self-organizing programs or the similarity of consciousness to the electrical machinery of an artificial neural network remain hypotheses. Educated people who believe in these hypotheses often demonstrate stunning philosophical illiteracy. Transhumanism here exploits the results of two scientific and philosophical traditions, which we discussed above: the development of modern information technology and the evolution of structuralist ideas, which in postmodernism came to the concept of human death. And of course, the idea of evolution, within the framework of which man is by no means the “crown of the universe,” but only a stage that had a beginning and must have an end, like all other stages of evolution. Transhumanism calls on a person to part with these ambivalent, from his point of view, values of classical humanism: feelings, faith, love, physicality, sexual differences, procreation and raising children, dreams of happiness, salvation, etc. But it promises limitless knowledge and, in principle, the immortality of the knowing being. Immortality is what man has dreamed of throughout his entire history, isn’t this a gift? What else do we need?..

§ 4. Criticism of transhumanism

Speaking about the criticism of transhumanism, we have to admit today its amazing weakness and helplessness. In general, in our literature today there are more admiring popular essays about the brilliant possibilities of the development of computer technology on the path of merging man and machine, creating robots, modeling the brain, etc., than thorough and courageous attempts to resist this new ideology of the destruction of humanity. And this is exactly what we are talking about. Russian philosopher V.A. rightly writes. Kutyrev: “Philosophy, especially anthropological philosophy, must be responsible to people for the goals it offers, for the assessments it gives to the state of the world, and if it is tragic, it must help them maintain dignity in any turn of events. If it serves as a worldview drug, helping them die in a dream unworthy of a conscious being, then it should be called that: narcotic philosophy. Or – thanatosophy. At best, it is an ideology, a technoscientific myth. A similar role, in our opinion, is played for humanity by the ideology of post(trans)modernist anti-human “posthuman transhumanism”. A living person cannot sleep all the time or be an indifferent witness to his life, he is a participant in it. Philosophy, how alive it is, too. It is for those whose soul does not sleep. A person can be destroyed, but he cannot be defeated - this is what the best representatives of Homo vitaesapiens have always believed.” However, even this professional author, a brilliant writer, feels internal confusion and a certain helplessness in the face of the threat. You can swear all you want in philosophical jargon, and, nevertheless, still fail to put forward decisive arguments against the ideology of transhumanism. And this, I think, is no coincidence. Transhumanism is not just some new ideology among others, but a project that confronts a person with fundamental questions of his existence and requires him to have the deepest spiritual honesty and responsibility in answering them. But first, I think we need to divide the critical part into two: 1) what we don’t like about the transhumanism project; 2) why its implementation is impossible.

I. What we don't like about transhumanism

It would seem that the second point “why the implementation of transhumanism is impossible” is more important and decisive. If transhumanism is only a feverish dream of humanity, and in reality it is impossible, then there is no concern, “it will pass on its own.” However, we know that the “dreams” of humanity do not pass so easily... Therefore, not the second, but precisely the first question we need to first discuss: what we don’t like about transhumanism, or, in other words, what is dear to us in man, in that natural man which transhumanism wishes to overcome. This natural man can, of course, be thought of in different ways. And if we think of it as a result of evolutionary development, then we are practically helpless in front of the new ideology. Of course, we feel sorry for our purely human values and joys by which we lived, for which we worked, for which we sacrificed: love, family, children, parents, Motherland, friendship, heroism, loyalty, self-overcoming in creativity, etc. But in the face of evolutionary progress, all this is “only human, all too human,” and must be transcended. The society of smart machines, whether on an electronic or biological basis, is indeed a new stage in endless evolution, and what can we oppose to this Moloch of progress?.. All we can do is resign ourselves and lay our heads on the chopping block of historical inevitability... And yet, it’s a pity.

In a purely evolutionary paradigm there is no scope for resistance. Only if we attach absolute significance to human life, in all the concreteness of its spiritual-material being, only then there is ideological support for the fight against the ideology of transhumanism. To recognize the absolute meaning of human life, a person’s connection with the Absolute, with God, is necessary. This does not deny the possibility of technological progress, but it does introduce certain limitations and a sober sense of responsibility into our thinking.

In the already mentioned “Manifesto of the strategic social movement “Russia 2045”” we read: “In our opinion, no later than 2045, the artificial body will not only significantly surpass in its functionality existing, but will also achieve perfection of form and will be able to look no worse than human. People will independently decide to continue life and development in a new body after all the resources of the biological body are exhausted.” The concern for the body of robots, “no worse than a human one”, looks curious... Why is there such attention to this issue suddenly? Because it is assumed that after these innovations the society will be mixed, partly natural people, partly humanoid robots, and partly robots, but into which “by independent decision the consciousnesses” of already deceased people have moved... What will be the communication between all these creatures? Well, scientific conferences, industrial relations - this is all, most likely, as it should be. But is a relationship of friendship, love, or sexual relationship possible between them? If we talk about friendship and love, then we, frankly, don’t even know what it is. It simply exists or not, it is given to us (or not), and it is not clear how to turn it into a computer program. As for sex, the answer is positive, but in a specific mode: already now sex shops offer certain types of sexual relationships with a mannequin... Then, of course, everything will be much more “humanitarian,” but in principle – that’s exactly it, sex with a mannequin. And generally speaking, sex will have to end. Sexual relations exist either for the sake of conceiving children, or for the sake of pleasure. But the conception of children will either be extracorporeal (in particular, cloning), or, if we are talking about robots, simply a factory assembly. Actually, the concept of children, parents, family is lost here. If we talk about sex as pleasure, then the developed computer industry will be able to provide virtual pleasures much stronger than sexual pleasures (it can already do this today). But it is clear that the machine component of society will gradually gain the upper hand, as it is more rational and consistent. And all these humanistic “subtleties”: love, friendship, family - will gradually fade into oblivion. Just like naturally conceived people. Only the “society” of robots will remain.

But friendship, love, family, self-sacrifice, faith have absolute spiritual meaning for a person. It is in this that the life of the individual is manifested, this is precisely the main content of life, without them a person is spiritually dead and, often, having lost them, he himself abandons physical life. All these spheres of human existence are somehow related to the Absolute, to God. Only in this case do they have a truly human meaning, elevating him above the animal world. If transhumanism invites us to lose all this, then we really don’t like it. We are invited to lose the highest meaning of human existence, and leave ourselves only the possibility of limitless scientific knowledge and pleasures... Moreover, transhumanism as an ideology today wants to take away these spiritual values from us and accustom us to the “lentil stew” of purely scientistic joys. Above, when quoting from the Humanity+ website, it was not by chance that we highlighted the words: “transhumanism strives for the ethical use of these and other speculative technologies.” Already today, even before the “singularity point” is reached or the “consciousness uploading” strategy is implemented, when all these technologies are still purely speculative, transhumanist propaganda is already striving to form a certain ethics in society. In this ethic, any progress in the field of information technology and science is absolutely valuable, regardless of the humanitarian consequences. Any objection from the point of view of classical humanitarian culture is regarded as an encroachment on the highest human ability - knowledge - and on the highest cultural value - science. Domestic adherents of transhumanism are also working in the same direction. Formulating the goals of their movement, they not only insist on the creation of: “...an international research center for cyborgization for the purpose of practical implementation of the main techno-project - creating an artificial body and preparing a person for the transition into it (my italics - V.K.)”, but also they are worried about the formation of “a culture associated with the ideology of the future, technological progress, artificial intelligence, multicorporeality (!!! - V.K.), immortality, cyborgization.” Those. work to reassess traditional human values must begin now. They should be replaced by the values of technical progress, artificial intelligence, cyborgization, etc. The narrow-minded, purely scientistic orientation of this program is simply blatant. And it’s scary if new generations are brought up in this spirit...

The perspective of transhumanism is incompatible, of course, with the Christian perspective of history: the Second Coming of Christ and the Last Judgment. However, this argument is only valid for believers. The discussion of the ideology of transhumanism involves many non-believers who, nevertheless, respect the traditional humanistic values of European civilization, and for whom the possibility of a transhumanism scenario is a scandal. One of the values of our civilization is science, and we need to be able to explain the depravity of this ideology in the language of modern science. I am deeply convinced that on the basis of a purely humanistic materialistic worldview, the fight against transhumanism is doomed to failure. But at the same time, even in modern science itself there are points that appeal to the Absolute either logically or historically, you just need to be able to see them, and it is on them that you need to build a polemic with transhumanism. Let's move on to this.

II. Why the implementation of the transhumanism project is impossible

Transhumanism poses problems, the very formulation of which immediately poses a dead end. Probably the most important project here is “Avatar B”, in the designations of the “Russia – 2045” society: “an artificial copy of the human body into which consciousness is transferred at the end of life.” But the question immediately arises: who proved that consciousness is separable from the brain? If we reason in a materialistic paradigm—and this is exactly how modern science thinks of itself—then consciousness is simply the activity of the brain, and it is not clear how the activity can be separated from this actor himself. Of course, this means that consciousness will be modeled in the form of some program, but who has proven that this is possible? The fact that the activity of consciousness corresponds to certain electro-chemical processes in the brain has been known for a long time, but the fact that consciousness comes down to this is a pure hypothesis. Philosophical anthropology and phenomenology tell us that consciousness is closely connected with our corporeality, and how to separate it from the body, this question even seems absurd... In the logic of transhumanism enthusiasts, it is clearly felt that by saying “consciousness”, they essentially mean in appearance that which is denoted by the word soul. If we take more than just the philistine use of this word, then we are forced to move into an idealistic and religious context. Here, indeed, the soul is separated from the body (in death) and represents a special essence that is not reducible to the body. But if we remain on a materialistic scientific basis, then this division is simply incomprehensible.

In general, the creation of a computer program that is equivalent to, so to speak, human consciousness seems extremely utopian. Not in the sense that a program could simulate some individual human functions - some of these programs even today perform more perfectly than a person - but in the sense that consciousness has resources that are, in principle, inaccessible to information technology. This, in fact, is the main stumbling block on the path to creating a cyborg superman. Let's talk about it.

A very important point here is that the information appears in discrete form. The philosopher A. Bergson spoke very well about the role of this discreteness back in his time, at the beginning of the 20th century. He emphasized that in this discreteness a certain tendency of our mind is manifested, the “cinematic effect”, which strives to decompose everything into a series of states of rest, mercilessly distorts the natural perception of movement, the natural perception of development, which is necessarily associated with the concept of reality.

Of course, the discreteness of information somehow correlates with the fact that we reduce everything here to a number. The entire tradition of using numbers in natural science is rooted in ancient culture. From the Pythagoreans we got the thesis: everything is a number. But the question is - what number? Pythagoreans and ancient culture they knew, in fact, only the natural number, the maximum - the ratio of numbers, rational numbers, but antiquity did not know - and, more importantly, did not want to know! – an irrational number. The irrational number is a fundamental innovation of the New Age, which tried to carry out the arithmetization of geometry (Cartesian construction of analytical geometry), and through geometry to arithmetize all of physics. And all physics spoke in the language of mathematics, in contrast to traditional Aristotelian physics, which did not use mathematics for fundamental reasons.

The main obstacle to the arithmetization and total application of number in science was the problem of continuum: is it possible to arithmetize continuum, continuity, is it possible to measure everything? Modern times at first simply took this for granted (as the inventors of differential-integral calculus did in the 17th century), then this problem was discussed more and more vigorously, and finally, by the end of the 19th century, the theory of real numbers was built through the works of Dedekind, Cantor, and Weierstrass. Irrational numbers also began to be called numbers. The famous 20th century logician W. Quine calls irrational numbers a myth. Indeed, many major mathematicians were highly suspicious of the concept of an irrational number. The fact is that this concept uses the concept of actual infinity, but many aporias are associated with the concept of actual infinity, and therefore it is here that all the criticism unfolds, here all the serious problems associated with the concept of an irrational number unfold.

In particular, of course, this was due to the project put forward by the creator of set theory, Georg Cantor. His project was quite radical; he wanted to reduce all science, all natural science, to the calculus of set theory. Not only mathematics, but also physics. Cantor tried to draw a final conclusion from the trend that existed in European science since the 17th century. This tendency was reductionism, reducing the complex to the simple. Its founder was Rene Descartes. So, Kantor wanted to scatter anything complicated into sand simple elements set theory, any entity had to be composed of these elements, any entity had to be represented as a certain set. Cantor continued the line that initially manifested itself in one conscious form or another in the science of modern times and which ultimately led to structuralist ideology. Related to this is the idea of knowledge as calculus, which was very popular in the 17th century, and even earlier, starting somewhere in the 13th century, with Raymond Lull. In any case, Hobbes (17th century) already says that thinking is calculus: as we connect two numbers, so we connect two ideas, this is the synthesis of ideas. Leibniz was simply obsessed with the idea of finding a universal calculus, and reducing all problems to some application of a universal algorithm.

This is not the place to discuss all these problems in detail; it is important for us that the key one is precisely the problem of continuum arithmetization, i.e. reducing it to something discrete. The continuum, through the concept of a real number, was presented as a certain construction within the set natural numbers(or integers). Very often you encounter the fact that scientists almost unambiguously understand the continuum as exactly what Dedekind or Cantor described. But you need to be aware that there is the idea of a continuum, and there is its mathematical model. These are different things. The idea of continuum, the idea of continuity, is much stronger. Continuum puts forward the idea of a universal connection, but this connection can be more or less intense. A more intense level of continuum connection is no longer a spatial separation of elements, but when everyone is close to everyone else, and yet these are different elements. The closest such model is consciousness. Consciousness is an amazing and mysterious thing: on the one hand, it is a kind of multitude, but at the same time it is all a multitude in unity, here everything is connected. The human soul, it seems to be somehow distributed throughout the body, but at the same time it is my single soul, identical to itself everywhere. This is what makes the classical psychophysiological problem so difficult to solve: the body is in space, it has parts, but the soul that animates it, generally speaking, does not.

As soon as we started talking about consciousness, it is natural to talk about spirit, an even more unified principle, an even more unified essence, and, finally, about God. God as Spirit. Theological disputes about the extent to which the soul is spiritual, and to what extent it is still spatial, are essentially all about this. “How many angels can fit on the tip of a needle?” - this question of medieval theology is precisely about how spatial the spirits of the invisible world are, how united they are. Probably, there is still a certain scale of degrees here, but it is clear that God is already an absolute Spirit, he is outside of space and outside of time. But the Spirit has such paradoxical properties that it is one Substance, but three Persons...

Modern information technologies ignore the problem of continuity; they traditionally try to reduce everything to discreteness. But that’s just it, the question “is the world really discrete?” remains unanswered. Much evidence suggests that continuity plays no less important role in the structure of the world than discreteness. If discreteness expresses the formality of the world, its certainty, then continuity expresses the universal connection and dependence in the world. Discreteness and continuity as general dialectical categories are as important as form and matter, masculine and feminine. And both of these categories play a significant role in our perception of the world and in the very nature of knowledge.

And most importantly, all these problems - the problem of continuity, irrational number, consciousness and the related problem of freedom, the problem of nothingness, the problem of creation - are connected with the concept of actual infinity. As soon as we try to approach them scientifically, within the framework of logic or mathematics, we immediately stumble upon this significant obstacle, actual infinity. But actual infinity is not algorithmizable. Roughly speaking, a computing machine does not and cannot have this idea; it does not have a rule to operate with it. A person cannot imagine even two dozen objects at once, but he has the idea of actual infinity as an idea (not a representation). A computing machine can quickly operate with huge numbers, but they are all always finite, no matter how large they are, and it never has and cannot have the idea of infinity...

It is curious that purely historical methods associated with the idea of infinity came to modern European science from Christian theology. Ancient mathematics did not want to let actual infinity into science. Only through the preliminary affirmation of actual infinity in Christian theology - God is infinite in his creative power, omniscience and goodness - did this idea gradually become legalized in both philosophy and science. The idea of actual infinity in modern science is a certain Christian graft, a kind of scientific icon of the Divine. And the information machine, no matter how perfect it is, will never be able to “digest” or generate this idea. This means that the ideas of continuity, consciousness, freedom, and creativity are inaccessible to information technology. Therefore, cyborgs and post-humans, built on the basis of modern scientific technologies, will always be lower than man in the sense of his highest spiritual abilities - creativity, moral and moral consciousness, perception of beauty, faith, hope, love... Therefore, the “evolution” of man to post-humans - cyborgs, propagated by transhumanists , but in fact, the replacement of humans with post-humans - cyborgs will always be not development, but degeneration of man, the loss of those divine gifts that cannot be modeled within the framework of information technology.

Today's civilization poses serious questions to humanity regarding the understanding of human nature itself. The problem of anthropology is becoming the most pressing of problems. Depending on how we think about a person, what content we put into this word, we will educate, develop a person, treat him and the whole society. And thanks to modern technologies, this human development can go very far... It is necessary to clearly understand that for a purely humanistic, non-religious understanding there are and cannot be any boundaries on the path of technological experimentation and utopian design of man and society. And in this case, experimentation will inevitably give rise to many monstrosities and tragedies. It is along this path that currents of gender modification, cloning and even anthropophagy arise today. All this can lead to a total catastrophe of self-destruction of humanity... Only if our science correlates with the knowledge given to us in revelation by God himself, with the understanding of man that humanity has preserved for centuries in the biblical tradition, only then will we be able to cope with the “genies” produced modern science.

The pathos of this article is not to abandon information technology, nor to the new Luddism. Even if we wanted to abandon them, this cannot be done today simply at will. Information technology controls many sectors of our civilization, and abandoning it would immediately lead to tragic consequences. This is especially true of today's military equipment and methods of controlling it. But we need to take a sober approach to information technologies and not make of them a universal means for solving all problems, and not make an idol out of them. Information technologies are only means, only assistants in human activity; by their very design they cannot surpass human nature, no matter how great their technical capabilities are. But again, stopping the virus of the possible utopian idolatry of the information machine can only be done on the basis of sober religious anthropology.

As S.S. Khoruzhy rightly writes on this topic: “...it seems that noisy PR people with chicken intelligence and obsessives with intelligence developed along one straight line are going to lead us to superintelligence - convinced, according to evidence, that “man is a machine made of meat, carrying a computer in her skull" (Khoruzhy S.S. The problem of the posthuman, or transformative anthropology through the eyes of synergetic anthropology // Philosophical Sciences. 2008, No. 2. P. 29).

The weakness of V.A. Kutyrev’s position is also connected with this. In his book “Philosophy of Transhumanism” one can find the words God, Christianity, Good, Logos, Christ, as well as Buddha and Allah, but it is obvious that he is an unbeliever, in the sense that for him these names are only cultural historical markers. God, who entered history and acts in it, has not yet become for him a term of his philosophy.

Everything that is comprehended with the help of raison de finesse (subtle mind), as B. Pascal called it (Pascal B. Oeuvres completes. Paris, 1963. P. 576).

Sections