UDC

111.7:008.2

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V408

Authors

Elena Yu. Vorob’eva
Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof. at the Faculty of On-Campus Education, Siberian Institute of Business and Information Technologies (address: ul. 24-ya Severnaya 196, korp. 1, Omsk, 644116, Russia).
e-mail: velena-05@mail.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3588-9404

Abstract

Futures studies currently take into account the principles of equality and tolerance, which have formed the basis for the postmodern intellectual space, and are aimed to critically examine the status of humans, their place in the world and the outward appearance they will have in the predicted future. The inclusion of actors of the natural world and the sphere of artificial intelligence in the sociocultural continuum pushes us to revise the values that make up the axiological core of civilization. The revision of the humanistic ideal and the anthropocentric worldview, in its turn, prompts us to rethink the norms of law, politics and human existence in general. Projects of the future propose building systems that ensure equality of value attitudes for all intelligent beings, all living beings and some non-living beings that have significance. The ideal image of a human is thus supplemented with non-human characteristics, which leads to the conclusion about its anti-humanistic orientation. Equality of the extended circle of agents of axiology holds the pitfalls of creating new inequalities, and the place that humans will occupy in the new hierarchy of values is the existential challenge of the future. Research tools characteristic of micronarratives proved rather ineffective when applied to the problems on a universal human scale. Micronarratives do not take into account the predicted risks following the endowment of non-human actors of axiology with agency. Research conducted at the level of cultures and civilizations gravitates towards the classical approach: establishment of cause-and-effect relationships, immersion in a cross-cultural context, and maximum generalization of individual positions when answering essential questions. The plasticity of the axiological space makes it possible to promptly create scenarios of the future that include the challenges of tomorrow in human existence.

Keywords

sociocultural continuum, axiology, existential challenges, agency, artificial intelligence, moral circle, posthumanism, post-anthropocentrism

References

1. Baeva L.V. Ekzistentsial’nye riski i ugrozy: ponyatie, klassifikatsiya, otsenka [Existential Risks and Threats: Concept, Classification, Assessment]. Kaspiy i global’nye vyzovy [The Caspian Sea Region and Global Challenges]. Astrakhan, 2022, pp. 604–609.
2. Vyzhletsov G.P. Aksiologiya kul’tury na rubezhakh vekov [Axiology of Culture at the Turn of the Centuries]. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal issledovatel’skoy kul’tury, 2016, no. 2, pp. 15–26.
3. Danaher J. Automation and Utopia: Human Flourishing in a World Without Work. Cambridge, 2019. 288 p.
4. Bostrom N. Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority. Glob. Policy, 2013, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12002
5. Inozemtsev V.A., Inozemtseva Yu.V., Lepskaya N.D. Vyzovy sovremennoy tekhnogennoy tsivilizatsii v kontekste formirovaniya novoy sotsial’noy real’nosti [Challenges of Modern Technogenic Civilization in the Context of the Formation of a New Social Reality]. Gumanitarnyy vestnik. MGTU im. N.E. Baumana, 2022, no. 4, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18698/2306-8477-2022-4-792
6. Danaher J. Axiological Futurism: The Systematic Study of the Future of Values. Futures, 2021, vol. 132. Art. no. 102780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102780
7. Baker R. The Structure of Moral Revolutions: Studies of Changes in the Morality of Abortion, Death, and the Bioethics Revolution. Cambridge, 2019. 335 p.
8. Hopster J.K.G., Arora C., Blunden C., Eriksen C., Frank L.E., Hermann J.S., Klenk M.B.O.T., O’Neill E.R.H., Steinert S. Pistols, Pills, Pork and Ploughs: The Structure of Technomoral Revolutions. Inquiry, 2022, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 264–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2022.2090434
9. Nazarova Yu.V., Kashirin A.Yu. Existential Risks of Artificial Intelligence in the Context of the Axiology of Transhumanism (Based on the Works of N. Bostrom). Soc. Philos. Hist. Cult., 2023, no. 11, pp. 40–45 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24158/fik.2023.11.5
10. Chopra S., White L.F. A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents. Ann Arbor, 2011. 252 p.
11. Anthis J.R., Paez E. Moral Circle Expansion: A Promising Strategy to Impact the Far Future. Futures, 2021, vol. 130. Art. no. 102756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102756
12. Braidotti R., Hlavajova M. Posthuman Glossary. London, 2018. 576 p. (Russ. ed.: Braydotti R., Khlavayova M. Postchelovek: glossariy. Moscow, 2023. 1242 p.).
13. Gagarin A.S., Novopashin S.A. Kontseptsiya postcheloveka: problema sub”ektnosti i ekzistentsial’nye osnovaniya bytiya cheloveka [The Posthuman Concept: The Problem of Subjectivity and Existential Foundations of Human Being]. Vestnik Omskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye issledovaniya, 2022, no. 2, pp. 9–14. https://doi.org/10.36809/2309-9380-2022-35-9-14
14. Danaher J., Hopster J. The Normative Significance of Future Moral Revolutions. Futures, 2022, vol. 144. Art. no. 103046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103046