Human Evolution: the Limits of Technocentrism

M. I. Boichenko

doi:10.15802/ampr.v0i19.235956

Authors

M. I. Boichenko Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1404-180X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i19.235956

Keywords:

evolutionary anthropology, eccentricity of human nature, social modernization, dehumanization, technocracism, technology, values

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to define the limits of technocentrism through the analysis of the limiting opportunities of technique and technology from certain value positions. Theoretical basis. The philosophical anthropology of Helmut Plessner (the axiological direction in anthropology and neo-institutionalism) was the research methodology. Originality. The institutional use of technology gives it the character of a social phenomenon and turns it into technology. The ability of individuals, which is aimed at achieving a certain goal with the help of certain sustainable techniques, is not yet technology in itself but is only a certain author’s technique. Such subjectively acquired technique can be turned into socially used technology, otherwise, it will be lost. Technology is a technique that has gained recognition and has been mastered by those who did not invent it but used the algorithm proposed by the inventor, a detailed and functionally sound explanation, a method of constructing this technique. But the main thing is that technology is a technique that has received an acceptable justification for society. Conclusions. Technology is not only a means of achieving the goal, it is a way for a human being to transform the world. As such, technology is a component of human himself/herself and changes human – more precisely, a human being changed himself/herself with the help of technologies that he/she creates. However, this creates certain limits of such transformations: technology cannot replace humans in their ability to self-reproduce. Technology is always an element of social communication: the success of communication is interdependent on the success of the technology. Social modernization includes new technologies, but a more important component of social modernization is the new values for which these new technologies are created. Human evolution generates the technocratism at a certain stage. But to the extent that technocracy begins to contradict the values of humans and society, it loses its source of development – human creativity.

References

Bahr, H.-D. (2016). Die Fraglichkeit der Technik oder Das Ge-rät. Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie, 3(1), 3-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zksp-2016-0002 (in German)

Franssen, M., Lokhorst, G.-J., & Poel, I. van de. (2018). Philosophy of Technology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/ (in English)

Hanesova, D., Nelson, A., & Badley, K. (2017). Educators in Search of the Fine Line between Use and Misuse of New Technologies. Communications: Scientific letters of the University of Žilina, 19(1), 44-48. (in English)

Hao, K. (2020). The messy, secretive reality behind OpenAI’s bid to save the world. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/17/844721/ai-openai-moonshot-elon-musk-sam-altman-greg-brockman-messy-secretive-reality/ (in English)

Harari, Y. N. (2016). Sapiens: A brief Story of Humankind (Y. Lebedenko, Trans.). Kharkiv: Knyzhkovyi klub "Klub simeinoho dozvillia". (in Ukrainian)

Jaspers, K. (1986). Die moderne Techik (M. I. Levina, Trans.). In Novaya tekhnokraticheskaya volna na Zapade: Sbornik statey (pp. 119-146). Moscow: Progress. (in Russian)

Kim, J. (2014). Techno-Skeptics and Techno-Utopians. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/techno-skeptics-and-techno-utopians (in English)

Malivskyi, A. M. (2020). Descartes on the phenomenon of man and the boundaries of doubt. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 18, 144-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i18.221410 (in English)

Malivskyi, A., & Khmil, V. (2019). "The Passions of the Soul" by R. Descartes as an Explication of the Anthropological and Ethical Project. Studia Warmińskie, 56, 149-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31648/sw.4413 (in English)

McNeill, W. (2011). The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community (A. Halushka, Trans.). Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr. (in Ukrainian)

Pinker, S. (2019). Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (O. Liubenko, Trans.). Kyiv: Nash Format. (in Ukrainian)

Plessner, H. (2017). Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. De Gruyter. (in German)

Raman, R. (2017). The impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in modern agriculture: A review. GM Crops & Food, 8(4), 195-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2017.1413522 (in English)

Thoreau, H. D. (2020). Walden; or, Life in the Woods (Y. Strikh, Trans.). Kyiv: Tempora. (in Ukrainian)

Vydra, S., & Klievink, B. (2019). Techno-optimism and policy-pessimism in the public sector big data debate. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.010 (in English)

Wilson, A. (2017). Techno-Optimism and Rational Superstition. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 21(2/3), 342-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/techne201711977 (in English)

Yermolenko, A. M. (2020). Human condition in a globalized society of risks as a social and ethical problem. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 17, 110-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i17.206724 (in English)

Zhang, C., Wohlhueter, R., & Zhang, H. (2016). Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems. Food Science and Human Wellness, 5(3), 116-123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2016.04.002 (in English)

Zippelius, R. (2000). Rechtsphilosophie (Ye. M. Prychepii, Trans.). Kyiv: Tandem. (in Ukrainian)