Stable Adaptive Strategy of Homo sapiens and Evolutionary Risk of High Tech

254 Pages·2016·3.658 MB·English

by  Cheshko V.T., Glazko V.I., Kosovsky G.Yu.,  Peredyadenko A.S. (eds.)

1
2
3

STABLE ADAPTIVE STRATEGY
OF HOMO SAPIENS
AND EVOLUTIONARY RISK OF
HIGH TECH
Transdisciplinary essay
Edited by V.T.Cheshko, V.I.Glazko, G.Yu. Kosovsky, A.S.Peredyadenko

2015
4

УДК 608.1=03(02)-039
ББК 28.703(65.5)
ISBN 978-5-905742-88-0

© CheshkoV.T., Glazko V.I., Kosovsky G.Yu., Peredyadenko A.S.
STABLE ADAPTIVE STRATEGY of HOMO SAPIENS and
EVOLUTIONARY RISK of HIGH TECH. Transdisciplinary essay
/ V.T.Cheshko, V.I.Glazko, G.Yu Kosovsky, A.S.Peredyadenko; Ed. by
V.T.Cheshko. M., 2015. 252 p.
The co-evolutionary concept of Three-modal stable evolutionary strategy of Homo
sapiens is developed. The concept based on the principle of evolutionary
complementarity of anthropogenesis: value of evolutionary risk and evolutionary
path of human evolution are defined by descriptive (evolutionary efficiency) and
creative-teleological (evolutionary correctly) parameters simultaneously, that
cannot be instrumental reduced to others ones. Resulting volume of both
parameters define the trends of biological, social, cultural and techno-rationalistic
human evolution by two gear mechanism ˗ gene-cultural co-evolution and techno-
humanitarian balance. The resultant each of them can estimated by the ratio of
socio-psychological predispositions of humanization/dehumanization in mentality.
Explanatory model and methodology of evaluation of creatively teleological
evolutionary risk component of NBIC technological complex is proposed. Integral
part of the model is evolutionary semantics (time-varying semantic code, the
compliance of the biological, socio-cultural and techno-rationalist adaptive
modules of human stable evolutionary strategy).
5

CONTENT
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..... ………5
1. CONCEPTUAL FIELD, EVOLUTIONARY FOUNDATIONS AND
IDEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF STABLE
ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES OF HOMO
SAPIENS……………………………… ......... 15
2. GENESIS OF STABLE ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES OF HOMO
SAPIENS……………………………………………………………... ......... 76
3. EVOLUTION RISKS: NATURE, ORGANIZATION
ANDSTRUCTURE………………………………………………... … ..... 86
3.1. Evolutionary load and evolutionary risk………………………………98
3.2 Evolutionary efficiency ...................................................................... 108
3.3 Evolutionary correctness .................................................................... 110
3.4. Objective and subjective components of the evolutionary risk........... 116

4. EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTIVE ASPECTS
OF POST-ACADEMIC SCIENCE………………………………… ....... 150
5. EVOLUTIONARY SEMANTICS OF TECHNO-HUMANITARIAN
BALANCE AND DEVELOPMENTAL RISKS (CONTENT ANALYSIS
OF WEB RESOURCES)……………………………………………. ....... 153
5.1 Materials and Methods ……………………………………………….151
5.2 Structure of BHDT-complex .............................................................. 158
5.3Prospects and risks of controlled evolution of human: the intentional
structure of post-academic science (A.S.Peredyadenko) ........................... 167
5.4 The thematic structure of theoretical science and the predisposition of
mass culture on technology-driven evolution(A.S.Peredyadenko) ............ 169
5.5 Mental predisposition of perception attributes of humanization and
dehumanization as a factor of the evolutionary risk gene technology ....... 179
6. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………. ....... 205
SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………..207
Bibliography……………………………………………………………. ……229
6

Abbreviations
BHDT, BHDTK ˗ Biological and Humanitarian Disciplinary Technological
Complex
SESH˗ Stable Adaptive (Evolutionary) Strategy of Homo
E ˗ Evolutionary Efficiency
High Hume technologies of control and enhancement of the genetic, socio-
cultural and cognitive codes that let to control of biological and sociocultural
human evolution, i.e.to technology of rational evolution in applied to Homo
sapiens
HN˗ «human nature» complex of mental-psychological predispositions
HU˗ «humanity» complex of mental-psychological predispositions
K˗ Evolutionary Correctness
NBIC˗ nano-bio-information-cognitive technology (technology of driven
evolution)
7

INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the Anthropocene.
Slavoj Zizek [1, p.327]

In our struggle against its own
vulnerability, we create new
vulnerabilities and thus transforming
the world transform themselves
Mark Coeckelbergh
[2, p. 87]

The words of the philosopher-postmodernist cult of modern Western
civilization, handed down in the epigraph, intuitively perceived as spiced with
obvious irony, if not derision. The way it is. Anthropocene – not formalized unit of
geological time scale, the geological epoch, characterized by the transformation of
human activity in the primary factor in determining the direction and flow patterns
of geological processes.
The famous line that ends with «The Divine Comedy» by Dante Alighieri
[Dante Alighieri. La Divina Comedia. Paradiso, Canto XXXIII] ─ «Love that
moves the sun and light» (l'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle) creates
emotionally charged image of sensual evolving universe, which can be considered
a brand of Western (Atlantic) civilization of the last millennium.
The fundamental principle that the image becomes the prime mover, the
substrate that is based on the synthesis of reason and faith, begets love, and that, in
turn, determines the trajectory and the final goal of evolution of the cosmos. Only
the accents in this triad (Will ─ Reason ─ Love). In the era of Dante in Love Will
carried through reason. In the age of Enlightenment was the basis of everything
impersonal, objective law. This socio-cultural transformation has reached its peak
in terms of Darwin's theory. As a result, the confidence of Dante into a classical
Kantian antinomy: «Evolution (Law of Nature and Reason) versus the Divine Will
(and Love) moves the sun and the light?» As scientific and technological progress
first fair was «Law and Mind driven by the sun and light» and then (with the
advent of technology High Hume) ─ «laws of nature and is driven by the Will of
sun and light». The scenario of the future course of evolution of the biosphere and
man became a matter of personal choice and calculation. That is just the
interpretation of the divine perfection hammered string Alighieri quietly
disappeared. However, the human mind and Love, as it is known, to err or not see
obvious facts. The world has entered an era Anthropocene.
The term Anthropocene is in line with the concept of «noosphere»
Vernadsky, Leroy, «pneumatosfere» Florensky etc. In all these cases, the original
8

intention of the genesis of these is the concepts of statement rationalization and
technologizing current global evolution – its biological, geological and space
components, not to mention the actual socio-anthropogenesis. However,
differences still extremely important.
Anthropocene is usually dated to the 17th century – the formation of an
industrial society. In more advanced interpretation of this data is moved to the
beginning of the Neolithic revolution [3, p. 835-836].
Thus, the concept of the noosphere and the Anthropocene are not equivalent.
Noosphere implies a direct effect on the mind during the evolutionary process.
Thus, the noosphere chronologically later stage Anthropocene. However, these
significant differences between the two concepts are not exhausted.
Offensive Noospheric era of thought of the author – Vladimir Vernadsky –
diagnosed, so to speak, with the help of «socio-humanitarian syndrome» – a
complex of symptoms related to the social and spiritual life (see: [4]).The latter
include, for example, the elimination of war and the establishment of a world
government, etc. The core, the backbone of the noosphere is a new feature of the
mentality of human civilization, «the dictatorship of the Mind» as the root cause of
the subsequent evolution. Thus, the origins lie in noospherization perfect, are the
responsibility of not only natural, as the humanities. In our previous work, we have
already mentioned that the concept of the noosphere Vernadsky in terms of the
intellectual tradition has a «hybrid» origin. Equally, it was influenced by the ideas
of Russian cosmists starting with Nikolai Fyodorov and theoretical understanding
of accumulated empirical and scientific facts. Vernadsky and Tsiolkovsky,
experienced in his youth influenced by the teachings of the founder of Russian
cosmism, managed to reduce some of its ideas to scientist research and
technological-innovation program, rationalizing the concept of Nikolai Fyodorov,
made it acceptable to the technological mentality.
The idea of the Anthropocene, owned by Eugene Stormer ecologist and
Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2000 [5], completes the process of rationalization of
the irrational concept was originally seeking to overcome the hegemony of
technocratic determinism. Offensive Anthropocene – it is not abstract, theoretical,
let alone ideological and humanitarian problem. It is a matter of empirical
verification, i.e. Search criteria (symptoms) of a new geochronological period
clearly established purely empirically. Management of the evolutionary process,
including in the least the man himself as, simultaneously, the object and the subject
of manipulation transformations. This informs the term Anthropocene metaphorical
sense by putting in another, without scientific terminology and emotionality
metaphorical associative array, starting with Frankenstein and «Brave New
World». This series has obvious signs anti-utopia, color negative perception of the
image generated by them.
Since then, the sequence of diagnostic signs of a new era once again split
into technological and natural science (changing composition of the atmosphere,
the mass extinction of species, global warming), humanitarian and anthropological
(ecological catastrophe, biogenetic reduction of human beings to the manipulated
9

tools and general information and a digital control of our lives [1, p.327]). The first
(natural sciences) series corresponds to a system of technological risks, be solved
using algorithms established safety procedures. The second (number of socio-
humanitarian) series presented risk anthropological. At the end of both series have
obvious destination intersection and merge evolutional existential risks.
During the previous three or four centuries of being technological
civilization its rational humanistic ideologue could make «bracketing» the equation
of social and global evolution of the substantial foundation of human existence –
the notorious human nature as a kind of global constant. This operation is primarily
focused its individualism, as a resultant of the genesis of society interests and
individual life projects of its members. In the post-Darwin era it been reduced to
the establishment of the damping of the biological evolution of Homo sapiens,
replacement anthropogenesis socio-culture-genesis, made logically consistent
concept of human rights and its consistent transformation of its naturalistic version
(«natural law») in a purely conventionalist doctrine. The basis of this
transformation macro evolutionary and macro-Kantian rationalist mentality has
been a revolution in epistemology paradigm: emancipating the mind from the
shackles of its material substantiality. In other words, – exemption from the non-
rational characteristics of the material substrate, which is an attribute of
intelligence with his characteristic ability to transform subjective and objective
reality in accordance with its own way – for purposes not related to that, the non-
rational reality. After more than a century and a half the desired goal of Teilhard de
Chardin called the «Omega Point.» The mind does not simply become the ruler of
the reality, it becomes over it as a transcendental agent, programming and formats
the evolution of the universe.
There were during the first half of the twentieth century two events – the
rediscovery of Mendel's laws and the establishment of chromosome theory and the
creation of models of DNA and deciphering the genetic code, the person who made
the object of manipulation of information technology. They radically transformed
our understanding of the evolution and the universe and of our own nature, have
radically changed the structure of science itself, its social status and, finally, have
led us to the threshold of «post-human future» intelligent life.
These changes affected all aspects of human life – from the global
environment to economic theory. In addition, it turned out that the new system of
spiritual priorities and guidelines evolutionary «rational model psychologically
unrealistic»[6, p. 1449]. Specifically, it has been said about the economy.
However, fact applies to the evolution of any self-organizing system involving
human subjects. This is even more applicable to the evolution – biological,
cultural, social – of the human (Homo sapiens).
The introduction of the mentality of the two concepts soon became the
symbol of modern technological civilization brands transhumanism (J. Huxley, the
end of the 1950s.) In addition, bioethics (Van R. Potter, 1960s.) was a symptom of
the deep multi-dimensional reconstruction of the evolutionary landscape in which
the socio-culture-genesis process takes place. As one researcher recently wrote,
10

«we do not need to know a lot of human nature, we had to ethical concerns on
changed human nature by biotechnology ...» concept «human nature» must be
related to something real world, if we want to have the moral reasons for this, but
we are not necessarily at the same time be able to say exactly, what means 'to be a
man' »[7]. This dimly intuitionistic anxiety in specific scientific research and
empirical gets, because inevitably fragmentary confirmation. These arguments,
however, violate a coherent hierarchy of deductive inferences linking limit abstract
principles with individual fragments of human existence, and strengthening
alarmist expectations of modern civilization.
In our previous articles we wrote that the mentality of Western civilization
characterized by an explosive mixture of absolute individualism, technological
strength and humanistic intentions of the human intellect, embodied in the declared
Karl Popper [8, p. 53-54] ideology of «social engineering of partial solutions.» In
the age of genetic engineering technology and High Hume this mixture threatens to
blow up the line anthropogenesis by astrosphere existential individual projects,
which would mean the end of humanity as a certain integrity of intelligent beings
[9, p. 12]. Because of the global constant, bracketing the equation sociocultural
genesis, the nature of man is transformed into a variable that could eliminate
themselves the most. Believe in the power of the human mind to overcome the
results of its own evolutionary history, the independence of the system of human
values from the biological component of human beings has become increasingly
difficult. As well as in the absence of the inverse effect on the evolution of human
culture of the genome of modern humans.
Positions of philosophical and biological incarnation anthropological science
at this point seem almost mutually exclusive. Even Immanuel Kant argued that
finding the mind, a man found, and the ability and the duty to set goals,
independent of the laws of nature, and thus moved from the realm of necessity to
the kingdom of freedom. Two hundred years later the cult American social
philosopher Francis Fukuyama in his sensational turn of the century book «Our
Posthuman Future» brought Kantian maxim that even thinking devils in hell will
have to adhere to certain rules of morality [10, с.35]. The obvious interpretation of
this saying: the world of moral norms have a transcendent reality, not reducible to
the physical reality, and, consequently, the evolutionary-biological ones. F.
Fukuyama, with the interpretation, by the way, do not agree. As the antithesis, Kant
and Fukuama strong argument sounded equally compelling considerations of
contemporary Italian theoretician and economist Hugo Pagano. The categorical
imperative of Immanuel Kant requires that a person belonged to humans is not the
means of achieving of goal. It comes indirectly from the inherent human capacity
for compassion and empathy, the possibility to put yourself mentally in the place of
another human being [11, p. 52]. Its human ability is the result of structural and
functional organization of the higher parts of the brain of the hominid, provided the
appropriate genetic programs and there in the course of biological evolution. These
general philosophical, abstract and theoretical calculations, paradoxically, come to
a particular legal practice.