| Annotation |
The article is devoted to the philosophical analysis of the problem of the ways of evolution of modern man
and the man of the future, who is often called digital, information man or e-homo (electronic man). The purpose
of the article is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the digital person, as well as to understand which
directions of his evolution are promising, and which are dangerous and lead to dehumanization. The author’s
hypothesis is that, although the main directions of evolution of Homo sapiens in Homo informaticus lie in the socio-
anthropotechnical plane, that is, they are carried out using artificial methods, yet the possibilities of biological
evolution are not completely exhausted. The methodological basis of the research is a systematic review and
analysis of literature in two main areas: biological (evolutionary biology, neurophysiology) and socio-philosophical
(literature on the problems of building an information society and human existence in it). Interdisciplinary
analysis shows that the brain of the becoming Homo informaticus undergoes significant physiological changes,
entailing changes in thinking, memory, human behavior, and, therefore, indirectly – and changes in society and
culture. From the “book culture” of perception of a voluminous coherent printed text, we move on to the “clip culture”. Stress has proven evolutionary significance, accordingly, in the impact of information stress, to which
the inhabitants of a digital society are very much exposed, one can look for evolutionary potential. This problem
is acutely relevant for modern research in the field of philosophy of biology and human ecology, as it opens up
new perspectives in understanding the problem of human evolution. Never before in the history of mankind have
technologies reached a level that allows them to directly interfere with the foundations of human existence. The
result of the research is a philosophically grounded answer to the question in which direction the further evolution
of man is possible, which, in turn, will allow us to find new and take a fresh look at the already known philosophical
meanings of the concept of “man”. |
| References |
1. Lamark, Zh. B. Philosophy of Zoology. V. 1. M. ‒ Leningrad, Biomedgiz. 1935. (In Rus.)
2. Darvin, Ch. The origin of man and sexual selection. M: Izdatel’stvo AS USSR. 1953. (Sochineniya. V. 5)
(In Rus.)
3. Chaikovskiy, Yu. V. Evolution. Vol. 22. “Cenological research”. M: Centr sistemnykh issledovaniy – IIET
RAN. 2003. (In Rus.)
4. Ellul, J. The Technological Order. Ed. by C. F. Stover. The Technological Order. Detroit: Wayne State
Univ. Press. 1963: 10–37. (In Engl.)
5. Alekseeva, I. Yu., Arshinov, V. I., Chekleczov, V. V. “Techno-humans” versus “posthumans”: NBICS ‒
revolution and the future of man. Questions of philosophy, no. 3, pр. 12–20, 2013. (In Rus.)
6. Khoruzhiy,S. S. The problem of the posthuman, or transformative anthropology through the eyes of synergistic
anthropology. Philosophical Sciences, no. 2, pp. 10–31, 2008. (In Rus.)
7. Motorina, L. E. Historical grounds and semantic boundaries of the concept of “posthuman”. Bulletin of
the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, no. 3, pр. 5–10, 2010. (In Rus.)
8. Lektorskiy, V. A. Man in the electronic world: opportunities and dangers. Polylogos. no. 1, 2018. Web.
15.03.2022. https://polylogosjournal.ru/s258770110000036-1-1 / (In Rus.)
9. Aseeva, I. A. Ethical challenges of the digital age, Proceedings of the Southwestern State University.
Series: Economics. Sociology. Management, no. 3, pp. 202–212, 2019. (In Rus.)
10. Rakitov, A. I. Philosophy of the computer revolution. M: Politizdat, 1991. (In Rus.)
11. Tsukanov, E. A. The place of the information environment in the ecosystem “man-society”. Relga, no. 7,
2004. Web. 15.03.2022. http://www.relga.ru. (In Rus.)
12. Kurbatov, V. I., Papa, O. M. “Homo informaticus” – a man of the information age: characterological features.
Humanities, Socio-economic and Social sciences, no. 1, pp. 46–51, 2017. (In Rus.)
13. Alekseev, A. P., Alekseeva, I. Yu. The fate of intelligence and the mission of reason: philosophy before
the challenges of the era of digitalization. M: Prospekt, 2021. (In Rus.)
14. Petrova, E. V. The image of the information society in culture: is optimism replaced by pessimism?
Questions of philosophy, no. 8, pp. 25–35, 2021. (In Rus.)
15. Nekrasov, A. S., Nekrasov, S. I., Nekrasova, N. A., Klepatskiy, V. V. From “information man” to “digital
man”. Bulletin of the University of the Russian Academy of Education, no. 3, pp. 4–10, 2019. (In Rus.)
16. Ivanchenko, M. A. Posthumanism: the values of a digital person and the evolution of an analog person.
Practices of reproduction of values: humanitarian, social and economic aspects: collection of abstracts of reports
of the All-Russian Scientific Conference of scholarship students of the Oxford Russian Foundation. Yekaterinburg,
November 14–15, 2019. Ekaterinburg: Izdatel’stvo Ural’skogo universiteta, 2020: 116–118. (In Rus.)
17. Abat Ninet, А. Protecting the “Homo Digitalis”. Naveiñ Reet: Nordic Journal of Law and Social Research
(NNJLSR), no. 9, pp. 153–170, 2019. (In Engl.)
18. Spitzer, M. Digitale Demenz. Wie wir uns und unsere Kinder um den Verstand bringen / Droemersche
Verlagsanstalt Th. Knaur Nachf. GmbH & Со. KG. 2012. (In Germ.)
19. Parshin, S. A., Akhlibininskiy, B. V. Human ecology in the information and post-information society, Russia:
past, present, future. Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference. St. Petersburg,
December 16–19, 1996. Izdatel’stvo BGTU, 1996. (In Rus.)
20. Carr, N. If Google Make Us Stupid? The Atlantic. July/August 2008. Web. 15.03.2022. https://www.
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/ (In Engl.)
21. Trufanova, E. O. Information glut: key problems. Philosophical problems of information technologies
and cyberspace, no. 1, pp. 4–21, 2019. (In Rus.)
22. Lynch, M. Information Pollution in the Space of Reasons / New Preface for Éloge de la Raison, French
translation of in Praise of Reason: Why Rationality Matters for Democracy. Benoit Gaultier (tr.) Paris: Agone
Press, 2018. (In Engl.)
23. Tesich, S. A Government оf Lies. The Nation. 1992: Web. 15.03 .2022. https://www.questia.com/magazine/
1G1–11665982/a-government-of-lies (In Engl.)
24. Sel’e, G. At the level of the whole organism. M: Nauka, 1972. (In Rus.)
25. McClintock, B. Mechanisms that rapidly reorganize genome. Stadler Symp, vol. 10, pp. 25–48, 1978.
(In Engl.)
26. Nazarov, V. I. Ecosystem theory of evolution instead of synthetic. In: The idea of evolution in biology
and culture. M: Canon+, 2011: 100–113. (In Rus.)
27. Chaikovskiy, Yu. V. The problem of inheritance and genetic search. Theoretical and experimental biophysics.
Mezhvuz. sat. Vol. 6. Kaliningrad, 1976: 148–164. (In Rus.)
28. Gnatik, E. N. Anthropogenetics and philosophy: indissoluble unity. In: Life sciences and modern philosophy.
M: Canon+, 2010: 99–127. (In Rus.)
29. Cuartas Arias, J. M. Homo Digitalis and Contemporary Psychology. International Journal of Psychological
Research, no. 12, pр. 6–7, 2019. (In Engl.) |
