Bioeconomics, biopolitics and bioethics: evolutionary semantics of evolutionary risk (anthropological essay)
Рубрика: Мировая биоэкономика и экополитика
Опубликовано в Биоэкономика и экобиополитика №1 (2) сентябрь 2016 г.
Дата публикации: 07.09.2016
Статья просмотрена: 18 раз
Чешко В. Ф., Глазко В. И. Bioeconomics, biopolitics and bioethics: evolutionary semantics of evolutionary risk (anthropological essay) // Биоэкономика и экобиополитика. 2016. №1. С. 60-67.
Attempt of trans-disciplinary analysis of the evolutionary value of bioethics is realized. Currently, there are High Tech schemes for management and control of genetic, socio-cultural and mental evolution of Homo sapiens (NBIC, High Hume, etc.). The biological, socio-cultural and technological factors are included in the fabric of modern theories and technologies of social and political control and manipulation. However, the basic philosophical and ideological systems of modern civilization formed mainly in the 17–18 centuries and are experiencing ever-increasing and destabilizing risk-taking pressure from the scientific theories and technological realities. The sequence of diagnostic signs of a new era once again split into technological and natural sciences’ from one hand, and humanitarian and anthropological sciences’, from other. The natural sciences series corresponds to a system of technological risks be solved using algorithms established safety procedures. The socio-humanitarian series presented anthropological risk. Global bioethics phenomenon is regarded as systemic socio-cultural adaptation for technology-driven human evolution. The conceptual model for meta-structure of stable evolutionary strategy of Homo sapiens (SESH) is proposes. In accordance to model, SESH composed of genetic, socio-cultural and techno-rationalist modules, and global bioethics as a tool to minimize existential evolutionary risk. An existence of objectively descriptive and value-teleological evolutionary trajectory parameters of humanity in the modern technological and civilizational context (1), and the genesis of global bioethics as a system social adaptation to ensure self-identity (2) are postulated.
Keywords: Bioethics, stable evolutionary strategy, technology-driven evolution, evolutionary efficiency evolutionary correctness, evolutionary risk.
The humanitarian dimension of human evolution in the Anthropocene age
The famous line that ends with “The Divine Comedy” by Dante Alighieri [Dante Alighieri. La Divina Comedia. Paradiso, CantoXXXIII] ─ “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 impersonal, objective Law was the basis of everything. 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” of Vernadsky and Leroy, “pneumatosphere” Florensky etc. In all these cases, the original intention of the genesis of these is the concepts of statement rationalization and technologizing current global evolution — its biological, geological and space components, not excluding 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 this data is moved to the beginning of the Neolithic revolution [24, р.835–836].
The idea of Anthropocene owned by Eugene Stormer and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2000 . It completes the process of rationalization of the irrational concept was originally seeking to overcome the hegemony of technocratic determinism. Offensive Anthropocene 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 human himself as, simultaneously, the object and the subject of manipulation transformations. This attached 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 and 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 tools and general information and a digital control of our lives ([26, p.327]. The first (natural sciences) series corresponds to a system of technological risks, be solved using algorithms established safety procedures.
The second (socio-humanitarian) series presented anthropological risk. 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 (1), replacement anthropogenesis by socio-culture-genesis (2), made logically consistent concept of human rights and consistent transformation of its naturalistic version (“natural rights”) 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 non-rational reality. After more than a century and a half the desired goal 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” [10, 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 biological, cultural, social evolution of the human (Homo sapiens).
The introduction to the mentality of the two concepts soon became transhumanism brands by symbol of modern technological civilization (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, 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“ . 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 (Atlantic) civilization characterized by an explosive mixture of absolute individualism, technological strength and humanistic intentions of the human intellect, embodied in the declared Karl Popper [20, 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 [8, p. 12]. Because of the global constant, bracketing the equation sociocultural genesis, the human nature is transformed into a variable ones and could eliminate themselves the most. Believe to the power of the human mind to overcome the results of its own evolutionary history, and to the independence of the system of human values from the biological component of human beings has become increasingly difficult. This is true with respect to believe to the absence of the inverse effect on the evolution of human culture of the genome of modern humans too.
Positions of philosophical and biological incarnation of anthropological science at this point seem almost mutually exclusive. Even Immanuel Kant argued that having acquired the mind, a human found the ability and the duty to set goals, independent of the laws of nature,too and thereby moved from the realm of necessity into the realm 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 [7, p.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. But F.Fukuyama, with this interpretation, by the way, do not agree.
As the antithesis to Kant and Fukuama strong argument equally compelling considerations of contemporary Italian theoretician and economist Hugo Pagano sounded. 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 [19, p.52]. This human ability is the result of structural and functional organization of the higher parts of the brain of the hominids provided the appropriate genetic programs/ It originated in the course of biological evolution. These general philosophical, abstract and theoretical calculations, paradoxically, come to a particular legal practice.
As demostrated in some modern theoretical description of human neurogenesis the formation of structural and functional organization of the higher parts of the brain and therefore the mental processes in the postnatal period is the so-called “second peak”. It synchronous with the period of puberty. Inherent in adolescence and early adulthood human plasticity and organization instability of high brain regions is a manifestation of biological adaptation — a high level of intellectual abilities. The intellectual abilities, as we know, are associated with the cephalization (increase the volume and complexity of the structure of the brain), dilated during postnatal development of human up to two decades.
However, this system is a biological adaptation entails adapting cultural and social ones — the need to adjust the application of legal rules (in practice double standards adjudication and execution), delayed on the age of the defendants. In the development of the human nervous system, there is a time when the individual an increase in the threshold to meet sensory deprivation (pursuit of new sensations) increased emotional excitability at a relatively low ability for rationally control the impulsive behavioral acts. It leads to a high dependence on the social environment, the propensity to engage in risky behavior, and so on. The social and socio-psychological characteristics of the age group correlated with the structural features of the prefrontal cortex. Correction of jurisprudence in the direction of increasing attention to the psycho-physiological ontogenetic factor is hard trends of Western legal culture, in particular the United States .
The same mutual connotations underlie modern explanatory models of social and historical dynamics of traditional culture and modern society (Turchin, Currieb, Turnerc, 2013). Technological and economic progress is a factor of demographic changes at one stage of demographic evolution as a result of the increase in the quality of life the youth share of the population (as just mentioned, different high emotionality and activity) greatly increased. It in turn destabilizes the resistance of trends of social development and the stability of social order [17, p.288]. Developmental dynamics features of the formation of the human nervous system is largely stem from cephalization, which, in turn, stimulated and stimulating sociocultural genesis. Development of social intelligence as a condition for growth and complexity of the organization of competing societies brought the size of the brain beyond the morpho-physiological norm of prenatal period of gestation of a human being. So stretched during childhood predetermined logic of the process of social development.
Then, sociocultural genesis is not only deterministic by but also adapted to the biological reaction rate and morpho-physiological limits of human possibilities. (An obvious example in terms of social statics is the legal practice. From the perspective of social dynamics, such example would be the economic and political algorithms to ensure the stability of social development — without the turmoil and crises, or vice versa, exploiting social instability in the interests of certain social groups). As part of this concept, biological (genetic) and the social (economic) reductionism, as the dilemma of explanatory models in sociology and anthropology Nature versus Nurture. are invalid and based on logical mistakes simplifications.
Therefore, on the one hand the biological, socio-cultural and technological factors, are included in the fabric of modern theories and technologies of social and political control and manipulation. On the other — the basic philosophical and ideological systems of modern civilization formed mainly in the 17–18 centuries and are experiencing ever-increasing and destabilizing risk-taking pressure from the scientific theories and technological realities.
Transdisciplinary interpretation of human stable evolutionary strategies
The projections of future human evolution and evolutionary risk assessment of modern technological tools to rationalize the evolutionary process starting point of theoretical constructs should become a conceptual model of a stable evolutionary strategy Homo sapiens (SESH).
In this study, the organization of SESH consistently viewed from three perspectives.
- The nature of the carrier (substrate) of adaptive information ˗ biological, socio-cultural and techno-rationalist adaptive modules. This aspect is equivalent to various ways of adaptive information replication ˗ genetic, socio-cultural and symbolic inheritance.
- The nature of the relationship between the generation and adaptability ˗ Darwin-Weismann modus and Lamarck modus.
- The nature of the various adaptations co-evolution, which results in their integration into a single evolutionary stable strategy ˗ co-evolutionary Informatics and co-evolutionary semantics. This aspect is equivalent to the evolutionary mechanism of overcoming the conflicts between the various adaptations.
So, stable adaptive strategy of Homo sapiens is a superposition of three different adaptive data arrays: biological, socio-cultural and technological modules, based on three independent processes of generation and replication of an adaptive information — genetic, socio-cultural and symbolic inheritance. This, third component SESH focused equally to the adaptive transformation of the environment and carrier a stable adaptive strategy. Thus, its aspect of the implementation SESH can be called informational ones.
Another aspect of the realization of functions SESH (co-evolutionary semantics) is a time-varying code of correspondence between members of pairwise co-evolutionary ligaments. (Some researchers have used to refer to this phenomenon, the term semiotic cooptation [15,16]. This term equivalent (co)evolutionary semantics used in our research. Accordingly, we consider as equivalent terms co-evolutionary informatics and semiotic selection, because in the latter case, biological and socio-cultural line of modules is achieved by mutual selective pressure. The role of the operator is specifying rules of corresponds the biological and socio-cultural, socio-cultural and techno-rational, and biological information arrays. This function is performed by a system objectified interests (pragmatically oriented knowledge), or by the system of subjective values (psychological predisposition).
Replication of pragmatically oriented knowledge is carried out in the framework of techno-rational module through mechanisms of symbolic inheritance, and replication of value priorities carried out within the socio-cultural unit accordingly, sociocultural inheritance (cultural transmission). The main “appointment” of interest is a material survival of carriers of SESH (evolutionary efficiency), and the “purpose” of values (evolutionary correctness) is determined by their ability to ensure the preservation of self-identity.
The dichotomy of objective and humanitarian dimensions of the global human evolution in a technological context
Sic, in accordance with the information/semantic dichotomy of mechanisms inter-module coevolution 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.
We defined “evolutionary efficiency” as the geometric mean of the relative adaptivibility of all the members of the evolving configuration, in our case — of the genome, the culture and technology.
Evolutionary correctness will be considered as the discrepancy between the most effective and optimal (consistent to a set of ethical values and priorities) evolutionary scenarios (trends).
The influence of culture on the structure and composition of Homo sapiens populations, and on the pool of NBIC technological schemes is divided into two separate types:
- changes in the frequency of certain genes, and the prevalence of specific technologies and their applications (information coevolution) and
- the general increase in the level of genetic polymorphism and technology diversity (semantic co-evolution).
Note that the semantic mechanism of communication between the modules in a biological time scale is very fast and immediately affects the complex traits. As result, change of structure communicative and co-evolutionary relationships (gene-cultural co-evolution and techno-humanitarian balance) can regarded as discrete. As a result, for example, genetic polymorphism for a particular complex of DNA sequences is conserved after elimination of the relevant to genome socio-cultural type. With the change of the socio-cultural predisposition complex total variability of the genome should accumulate. Indeed, if the examples fixation or elimination of certain structural genes in the population under influence of socio-cultural factors are relatively few, correlation between the levels and patterns of genetic polymorphism and sociocultural types undoubtedly exist . More rapidly evolving autonomous element of the co-evolutionary pair becomes sense-factor for the partner. Semantic co-evolution is the discrete acquisition of adaptive significance of individual alleles by changing socio-cultural types and manifested as an increase in the genetic variability of populations of Homo sapiens and domesticated species parallel to socio-culturogenesis
Indeed, pattern of the impact of culture on the organization of the genome is distributed from actual human genome to the genomes of “cultivated” (domesticated) species, whose existence now depend on the evolution of human. The genome of these species formed sub-genome providing communication with biological evolution as an evolving system of social and cultural predisposition [8, p.30]. Thus, a comparison of the results of adaptability investigation by methods of biological and cultural anthropology can serve as another empirical falsifier of the our SESH concept. The evolutionary correctness is main parameter that links the two dataset.
Like the system of values and meanings priorities and predisposition evolutionary correctness in the biological time scale is capable to discrete fluctuations in instrumental regard. Thus, evolutionary risk may increase discontinuously to the existential level, not only as a result of technological disaster, but also because of the conjugated with technological progress changes in system of values priorities and semantic connotations.
However, on the other hand, such object is able to spontaneously increase system complexity, and at different stages of socio-techno-anthropogenesis leadership take on its individual components. About 350–400 years ago because of the transmutation of the sociocultural component of SESH technological civilization arose. Permanent expansion of the controlled by Homo sapiens “socio-ecological niche” and the escalation of risk techno-anthropogenic effects are a features of this type of civilization. The maximum value of the evolutionary risk reached in the case of antiparallel changes dynamics of evolutionary efficiency and evolutionary correctness. In this case the intrinsic value of the risk extremely rapidly crosses the boundaries of the “physical” sense (Rint>1). Reaching this point is irreversible semantic destruction (destruction of value priorities, and concept of humanity and human nature especially).
Two specification seems quite logical. Adaptability of SESH is generally defined by reproduction of the relevant information files, and by semantics of intermodular co-evolutionary relationship. In view of this, for example, the proliferation of new system of socio-cultural innovation can`t be implemented by a simple type of contact contamination (or diffusion), but requires the inflow of biological carriers of corresponding co-evolutionary semantics.
This conclusion was confirmed by empirical observations of the relationship between the spread of dairy farming and the invasion of ethnic groups ˗ gene carriers of constant lactase activity. Previously it was thought that this type of process was a simple process of socio-cultural borrowing and imitation .
Periods of abrupt increase in the value of the evolutionary risk obviously coherent periods of “scientific and technological revolution” and the indigenous reconstructions of dominant value systems in society. As a result, the structure of co-evolutionary connections between the elementary adaptations of different modules and actual adaptive meaning of each element is destabilized and prone to unpredictable stochastic fluctuations.
The system of prevailing in society value priorities has a structure including several levels: personal (unconditional) interests, group (conventionalist) standards, abstract and theoretical (universal) values [12, 18]).
Here, above all, in the area of group norms and predispositions on specific attributes humanisation/dehumanisation relatively rapid reconstructions possible, and these reconstructions radically changing the semantics of the cultural module and biological or techno-racionalistic ones.
As a result, for example, the adaptive landscape where the evolution of a biological module (i.e. adaptive significance of its individual elements) is quickly reformatted. An example would be, a radical revision of value priorities with respect to traditional and non-traditional sexual orientation in the Western mentality from 1970 to 2015. Human values practically are not involved in this not yet completed the process of transformation of socio-cultural and psychological predisposition, but the result will have a systemic importance for the trend of the future of human social and cultural evolution especially.
As can be surmised from the three levels of value priorities and corresponding socio-cultural predispositions (personal interests, group standards, human values) group standards most susceptible to evolutionary transformation. Individual interests (as most closely associated with the living requirements biological deterministic module) and universal values priorities (the most abstract, distant from the objective reality and close to rationalistic module concepts) are more stable elements of this set.
However, the effect of perturbations of group standards (attributes humanization / dehumanisation in particular) diffuses through evolutionarily semantic gear to a biological module and destroying, in turn, semantic matching rules of the module with the two remaining modules. By virtue of this secondary impact of elements of the biological module subject to a system of objective “interests”, and then at other levels of socio-cultural module of SESH. There is a fixation of a certain set of group norms and thereupon ˗ revision of universal values as the latter are a reflection of the projective group norms and individual interests.
So some of the biological adaptation in a new social context becomes a selectively neutral or maladaptive elements, i.e. genetic load, and, conversely, some selectively harmful or neutral components of the genome acquire adaptive value. With regard to technological innovation, in their totality, they are clearly aimed at fragmentation of biological adaptive complex separation of its constituent interlocking adaptations (such as sexual and reproductive functions) on independent cultivated patterns.
A scientific and technological revolutions (a paradigm shift) has investigated some time ago (at classic monograph by Thomas Kuhn, 1962), but the evolutionary significance of socio-cultural transformation begins to become clear only now. Meanwhile, socio-cultural inheritance is also capable of a radical overhaul of its structure and composition.
An additional complicating circumstance acts relative independence of each module, and, for example, “macromutation” of cultural and psychological predisposition is aimed primarily at preserving structural distribution of subcultures within a given civilization type, and then, on the selection of appropriate elements of the biological module of SESH.
However, in relative balance of gene-cultural («gene-culture co-evolution” and techno-cultural (“techno-humanitrian balance”) co-evolutionary semantics and lack of direct formatting impact of techno-rationalist module of SESH to remaining (biological and socio-cultural) ones, the configuration of the entire system not allow uncontrolled jump to the existential level of risk.
Global bioethics and other SESH tools for self-identity in the evolution of Homo sapiens
Not so long ago E.Koonin very observant diagnosed curious feature of explanatory models of modern evolutionary biology: they are narratives with more or less teleological component consciously or not, in explicit and implicit logic constructs “to occur...” inevitably present in these models. A language of these narratives is best suited to describe the evolutionary processes and phenomena, and to create verifiable hypotheses, although it is contrary to the classical (not modern, transdisciplinary) methodology of science [13, p. 473]
This is even more true for that phase of human and mind evolution, which is characterized by a universal process of rationalization and technologizing evolutionary process. As an example of such explanatory model proposed here is an evolutionary model of risk. It is combined in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity of objective-scientific (evolutionary efficiency) and subjective humanities (evolutionary correctness) criteria for the value of evolutionary risk. The proposed concept is largely methodological. In other words, it is a meta-theory. It will, we hope, is able serve as a heuristic incentive to formation of available empirical and social verification concrete scientific hypotheses.
This total consideration is, in turn, determines the civilizational and evolutionary function of bioethics.
As a priori it is clear that each of the three modules of SESH should to have its own system of self-preservation. In the biological module it is the most well studied and is referred to as immunity. In techno-racionalistic module such system is the concept of verification and falsification of reliability of scientific knowledge. At socio-cultural module the system of pre-dispositions regulate human identity in the global-evolutionary transformation and performs the function of self-preservation.
Previously we have formulated conditions of such semantic stability in terms of socio-humanitarian knowledge [3, p. 11, 506; 5]:
- the core mentality of the West serves the human desire to ultimate ideal (“Per aspera ad astra — Through thorns to the stars”). It is complemented by the second intention
- of the sacred and at the same time, putting limits to this ideal (“Ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei — The image and likeness of God”) and
- the emphasis on God's chosen people, the absolute priority of the uniqueness of the human person (“Unus ex nobis — One of Us”, says the God of Adam).
Thus the actualization of the desire to bring together the world of things and the world due receive the nature of the movement to the Absolute, ultimate goal (“Omega Point”, as he called it Teilhard de Chardin).
The objectified exempt from metaphorical form the same argument comes down to ascertaining. The trend for the release of the social role and social status person from the preformation by properties of biological of the substrate (the genome) is a criterion of social (and evolutionary) progress and belongs to the set of basic mentalpredispositions of technological civilization in its Western form. This trend, in turn, is balanced by an irrational fear of a possible intervention in the human psyche from the outside, violating the free will of the individual and causes him to act contrary to his “human nature». This trend can be traced at least since biblical times and legends about werewolves and vampires, through gothic novels of 18th centure to modern thrillers and science fiction at most recent years.
The system of socio-cultural balances to ensure the identity of Homo sapiens has been very stable, but only until the birth of technology-driven evolution (NBIC, High Hume). At this point, the ontological antinomy of evolution versus intelligent design have been completely overcome by West civilization. As a result, limited technology tools transformation of reality proved to surmountable, at least in potentio. Semantic code humanization / dehumanisation remains the only integrated into the current SESH stabilizer to global evolutionary process. However, the controller itself is susceptible to considerable stochastic fluctuations, and opened for technological interventions and, therefore, requires continuous monitoring.
With the advent of High Hume technology, risk has reached the existential significance level. At the existential level of technical risk is, by definition, an evolutionary risk as possible leads to the genesis of disappearance of humanity as a species (but not necessarily — disappearance of intelligent life and the noosphere in general).
When the actual evolution becomes the object of the rationalistic management and/or manipulation, account specific features of the social response to scientific and technological development are essential in determining and prognosis of innovational risk. These factors stem from the substantial foundations of human consciousness and culture, and are the result of the previous biosocial evolution.
Changing the techno-cultural balance as adaptive response of the sociocultural component of SESH to described above processes led to the transformation of classical science to post-academician science. As part of the same global-evolutionary transformation has to consider and the emergence of bioethics as a form of modern (transdisciplinary) scientific concept that combines the features of the humanities, classical scientific theory and social utopia.
The asymmetry of semantic communication defines (from the denoted object to denoting symbol) the disparity of composition of socio-cultural module. This dichotomy is due to the process of socio-cultural self-identification and implies the relation to each other causal (cause ˗ effect) and semantic (object and its sign) binary oppositions.
In this case, determinate and transmitted by itself culture elements can be designated as protected by ethical and legal standards tools (or adaptations) for self-identification of Homo sapiens (humanity).
On the contrary, other the elements are at its core stimulated by culture biological and genetic innovations. It can regarded as just a symbol of human attributes (human nature), open to manipulation and control by technology. Naturally, the most stable and evolutionary plastic organization of human evolutionary strategy, will be the case when the self-identification system of sociocultural module is basically the same as objective knowledge on the essence of anthropogenesis. This knowledge generated by techno-rationalistic module.
Conclusion. Some global long-term evolutionary prospects
At the highest level of analysis of the problem of evolutionary risk and its components come into conceptual field of the anthropic principle. One of the parameters of the mathematical model of population growth (“Doomsday equation”) becomes a universal constant human genesis at Universe, and also derived from the characteristics of the socio-cultural and biological evolution. It did not fail to specify one of the discoverers of the anthropic principle Brandon Carter .
In 1960, the Heinz von Foerster formulated the law of hyperbolic demographic growth of Homo sapiens, also known as non-academic title “Equation of the Doomsday» .
In accordance with the equation of Foerster about population growth in the last 10 thousand years governed by the equation hyperbole. In other words, volume of global human population growing with the increasing acceleration and about 2025 will become infinite, i.e., lose its physical meaning. This will mean the end of the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens, although it does not necessarily mean the death of intelligent life in general. Rather, it involves the passage of a certain evolutionary singularity point, the achievement of the magnitude of the evolutionary risk of a value close to 1.
In Foerster equation present parameter T*, which the author has been calculated empirically and, in their estimation, was approximately 2.1011. Brandon Carter in the above-cited paper considers this option as a member of a pool of world constants determine the appearance of the humans and the formation of their capacity for reflection of natural laws and civilization development. In his understanding of this quantity is a function of the amount of contained in the human genome information (1010 bits) and the length of a generation (20 years). By reducing this parameter is below the threshold, the transition from the biological to the socio-cultural, and then technological phases of anthropogenesis (Phase II-III in our periodization of the evolution SESH) becomes impossible.
Both phenomenological interpretation and explanatory model of Foerster “equation of Doomsday” are in full agreement with the views of the organization and formation evolutionary risk SESH defended in this study.
On the one hand, population growth increases the frequency of techno-rationalist and socio-cultural innovations/adaptations and speed of their spread in the population as the co-evolution of these processes in accordance with the Lamarck mode flows through contagious mechanism. This extends the limits of ecological niches available for mastering Homo sapiens and creates conditions for further acceleration of population growth [11; 14].
On the other hand, the integrity of the structure of three-modal SESH implies a certain inter-module communication correspondence between the elements of the biological and socio-cultural modules (co-evolutionary semantics). After exceeding some threshold, number of adaptive socio-cultural elements in comparison with the pool associated with them biologically determinate signs of adaptive evolution efficiency drops sharply. (This conclusion is still valid even under condition ambiguity of semantic connections between the modules).
It is manifested in the accumulation of genetic and cultural imbalances, and inconsistencies to social and cultural environment and psychophysiological features of organism (evolutionary load). In the first approximation, the threshold of the fracture zone of the curve of demographic growth is achieving volume of replicated by social and cultural inheritance adaptive information a value comparable to the amount of genome information. This situation has two fundamental and alternative evolutionarys.
The first («hard») decision means technologization of biological human evolution, i.e., “Improvement” (“enhancement”) of Homo sapiens using genetic engineering, etc. technology. As already mentioned, this solution is fraught with the completion of the evolutionary history of humankind (loss of self-identity of generations of carriers mind).
“Soft” solution involves creating a radically transformed versions of evolutionary semantics for regulating gene-cultural co-evolution and techno-humanitarian balance. The newly emerged coevolutionary semantics is to provide best match of the biological and techno-rationalist modules to so-called universal value priorities, preserving self-identity of carriers mind.
Bioethics is largely methodological concept. In other words, it is a meta-theory. It, we hope, can serve as a stabilizer system for attribute identifiers identity of the person, as well as a system of cultural and mental predisposition formed based on them. This system maintains the current version of evolutionary semantics NBIC-technological complex within the “universal values» to ensure the preservation of humanity in the process of permanent development of technologies addressed on the subject of the evolutionary process.
- Boryanskaya S., Yankovsky N. Combination of Genetic and Humanitarian (Cross-Cultural) Methods for the Identification of Human Genes Involved in the Process of Adaptation to Evolutionary New Environmental Factors // Rusian Genet. Journ., 2015. Vol.51. (4), 479–P. 490.
- Carter B. Hominid evolution: genetics versus memetics // Intern.Journ. Astrobiol. 2012. Vol.11, No 1. P. 3–13.
- Cheshko V. T. Stable adaptive strategy of Homo sapiens. Biopolitical alternative. The problem of God: Monograph. Kharkiv: PH «INZHEK», 2012. 596 p.(In Russian).
- Cheshko V. T., Ivanitskaya L. V., Kosova Y. V. (2014). Configuration of Stable Evolutionary Strategy of Homo Sapiens and Evolutionary Risks of Technological Civilization (the Conceptual Model Essay) Biogeosyst. Tech., 1 (1), 58–69.
- Cheshko V. T. Stable adaptive strategy of Homo sapiens and evolutionary risk High Tech. Transdisciplinary essay / V. T. Cheshko, V. I. Glazko, G.Yu.Kosovsky. A. S. Peredyadenko/ Moscow: New Publ.Tech., 2015. 252 p.
- Crutzen P. J. Geology of mankind // Nature. 2002. Vol.415. P. 23
- Fukuyama F. Our post-human future. M.: AST.
- Glazko V. I. Shaping and microevolution: livestock formation, metabolomics, SubGenome // Farm animals.2014. No 1. P 20–32.
- Kaebnick G. E. Human Nature without Theory The Ideal of Nature, N.Y.: Johns Hopkins University, 2012. P.50.
- Kahneman D. Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioural conomics // American Economic Review. 2003. Vol. 93. No 5. P. 1449–1475.
- Kapitza S. P. Global population blowup and after the demographic revolution and information society. Hamburg: Global Marshall Plan Initiative, 2006. P. 272.
- Kohlberg L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Ran McNally, 1969. Р. 347–480.
- Koonin E. The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution. N.Y.: Pearson, 2014. Р. 527.
- Laws of history. Mathematical modeling of historical macroprocesses. Demography, economy, war / Korotayev A., Malkov A. Khalturina D. A. M: URSS, 2005. Р. 344.
- Maran T., Kleisner K. Towards an Evolutionary Biosemiotics: Semiotic Selection and Semiotic Cooption // Biosemiotics. 2010. Vol.3, No 2. P. 189–200.
- Maran, T., Kull, K. (2014). Ecosemiotics: main principles and current developments Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96 (1), 41–50.
- Modelling and forecasting of the global dynamics / Scientific Programme Board Presidium Economics and sociology of knowledge / Sadovnichii V.A, Akaev A.A, Korotaev A. V. M.: ISPR, 2012. P.359.
- Neural Correlates of Post-Conventional Moral Reasoning: A Voxel-Based Morphometry Study / Prehn K., Korczykowski M., Rao H., Zhuo Fang / PLoS One.2015. Vol. 3, No 10(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122914.
- Pagano U. Love, war and cultures: an institutional approach to human evolution // J Bioecon. 2013. Vol 15. P. 41–66.
- Popper K. The Open Society and Its Enemies. 2-ed. — M.: Phoenix. 1992. Vol.1. 448 p.; Vol.2. 528 p.
- Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia / Allentoft M. E., Sikora M., Sjougrenetal K.-G.N. (2014). Nature, 522, 167–171.
- Steinberg L. The influence of neuroscience on US Supreme Court decisions about adolescents’ criminal culpability // Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2013. Vol. 14. P. 513.
- Zalasiewicz J., Williams M., Haywood A., Ellis Ph. M. (2011). The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? Trans. Royal. Soc. Ser.A., 369 (1938), 835–841.
- Von Foerster H., Mora P. M., Lawrence L. W. Doomsday: Friday, 13, November A. D. 2026. Science. 1960. Vol. 132, No 3436. P. 1291–1295.
- Turchin P., Currieb Th. E., Turnerc E. A. L., Gavriletsd S. War, space, and the evolution of Old World complex societies // Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci, 2013. Vol.110, No 41. P. 16384–16389.
- Zizek S. Living in the and of times. L.: Verso, 2010. 416 p.
 We include in «directed evolution technology» category the complex nano-, bio-, information and cognitive (NBIC) flowsheets