The planet seems to be moving toward the abyss. Can he inactive stop? Our reality reminds us of the situation known to us from the descriptions and films about the "Titanica" disaster. The ship collided with an iceberg and begins to sink, but the on-board orchestra beautifully plays and plays. possibly it's even worse than on the Titanic, due to the fact that it only had an iceberg ahead of it, and our civilization is threatened on 2 sides. Bombs and rockets are flying around, artillery missiles are exploding, and a strong group of utopian “progressors” and engineers of the fresh order, supported economically by ominous corporations and media moles. They're even harder to defend.
In the book "Tyrania of Progress" (ed. Biały Kruk), the top and bravest thinkers in modern Poland, the outstanding figures in Polish public and cultural life – prof. Andrzej Nowak, Fr. Prof. Dariusz Oko, Fr. Prof. Waldemar Chrostowski, Fr. Prof. Paweł Bortkiewicz, Dr. Jerzy Kruszelnicki, Prof. Grzegorz Kucharczyk, Prof. Ryszard Kantor, Bishop Wiesław Mering, Leszek Sosnowski, Prof. Wojciech Roszkowski, Jakub Maciejewski, Dr. Piotr Łuczuk, Prof. Wojciech Polak, Prof. Aleksander Nalaskowski, Prof. Zbigniew Stavrowski, Fr. Janusz Królikowski and Patryk Jake – from the Publisher.
Wydawnictwo Biały Kruk thank you for sharing a passage for publication. We encourage you to read the full book.
Prof. Andrzej Nowak: Who we are and who we will not be – transhumane, cyborgs and artificial intelligence
... No, there's not adequate money for everyone. I encourage you to watch a silly American comedy from December 2021. "Don't Look Up" by Adam McKay. The script is simple – a terrible, deadly comet is approaching Earth, which will destruct it. The discovery of this fact by scientists raises the question of how to prevent it. The president of the United States wonders whether to send a rocket, but yet it is the representatives of the largest companies, who can gain from various valuable materials, different on Earth, which will bring this comet, that decide to solve the substance differently. They have security, they can evacuate to Space and freeze.
This safety applies to 2,000 people. And this is simply a very crucial closing lesson on transhumanism, which is the consequence of this movie As Bulat Okujawa sang – “the rings are not adequate for all”. So there will be those who evacuate into the future happy, improved, much better than ours, and those who will stay here as an old species. The next division that will take place will be the most drastic of all possible; even the division into the feudal peasant and the master was not as drastic as the 1 that will divide the transman from the man.
In November 2019, the aforementioned Nick Bostrom presented a very comprehensive script of what to do. It is worth mentioning that this Swedish prof. is the organizer of respective very crucial meetings, including in 2017 in California (California is the main centre of the transhumanist movement) in which representatives of Facebook, Google, MIT, Oxford University and Tesla participated with Elon Musk himself in the lead role; alongside Bill Gates, he is the main spokesperson for jumping into a fresh post-human or transhuman reality. The most crucial global corporations so meet to reflect on the appropriate scenarios for humanity in order to implement the transhumanist project.
Nick Bostrom's script received the name "The vulgar planet hypothesis", or "The Hypothesis of a planet That Is At risk" – susceptible to crisis and danger. With its very fine poppy on 20 pages, Nick Bostrom develops the hypothesis in the following direction: to prevent a dangerous script that can always happen in the world—the outbreak of atomic war, the acceleration of global warming or another threat that would advancement 3 times faster, assuming that man is liable for them. This another threat may besides mention to the circumstances that occurred in November 2019. I have no uncertainty that convergence is not accidental. The pandemic that can finish humanity – this 1 did not finish – is precisely the origin Bostrom writes about in November 2019. She's the 1 who's being analyzed due to the fact that it's essential to make people aware that their species could be threatened.
What will origin specified an awareness? It will let full supervision of man. Bostrom calculates in his text that the cost of specified supervision is actually negligible – it is $140 per person, he thinks it is ridiculous money for which you can supply full control over all man 24 hours a day.
Abstract, of course, from what many of us do voluntarily, utilizing mobile phones, computers, etc., and giving all the data related to it to de facto owners of large corporations specified as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter, which form metadata collections.
This constant supervision of man is needed to prevent violent occurrences of the crowd, due to the fact that the crowd may besides be dangerous. For example, it can unexpectedly gather together and overthrow only the right government, or endanger only its right decisions. So this kind of sense of danger that will get people to reconcile with full supervision is much needed, says Nick Bostrom. He adds that surviving this kind of threat will bring the thought of a planet government closer together. The planet government does not necessarily should be based on the UN, but it can trust on close cooperation between governments of states that are permanent members of the safety Council – China, France, the USA, Russia of large Britain. They are the ones who will agree on how to set up the world, due to the fact that smaller countries evidently have no meaning. The most crucial ones will agree on how to prevent the threat of this planet and will act in good supposedly intent, but in specified a way as to completely effectively control the script outlined "for the good of humanity" by the strongest, without any anticipation of going beyond its framework.
This is the imagination presented by Nick Bostrom: the establishment of effective global governance. This is the most crucial goal of change, without which there will be no transhumanism, due to the fact that primitive barbarians could endanger this task here and there, knowing finally, as in the script of this film, that they would not take and evacuate from the destroyed Earth, that only superhumans will leave her. Then there may be a demolition, any uncontrollable reflexes that must be prevented, which must be paralyzed in the embryo.
This kind of declaration is the only 1 interesting to me, the point of reasoning about the directions of transhumanism, which present is part of our reality. I am not saying that the most important, that the only, I am not saying that Vladimir Putin or Joe Biden are implementing a transhumanism script as the only 1 crucial to them. However, I think that for Google or Facebook's owners it is undoubtedly a key scenario, just as their influence on American politics is truly very high; it is surely little crucial for Russian and for Chinese to be negligible.
I want to draw attention to another aspect – where can this lead? And here I return to the reflections of historian Reinhard Koselleck. In texts devoted to the concept of tolerance and emancipation, he points out that the most interesting point to self-emancipation, which developed wings in the 18th century, was added by the Marquis de Sade. He is the 1 who most consistently and radically showed what auto-emancipation leads to. Koselleck describes the consequence of a transhumanist imagination of a man whose aim is allegedly to make a perfect, eternally happy, surviving in the sphere of constant pleasures. "De Sade wondered what a man might be like," Koselleck writes. – It is simply a man who exhausts his abilities, all the reserves of sensual possible beyond good and evil, to experience all the possibilities available to him with reflection.
The resulting discipline of sexual pathology is only 1 of the effects, due to the fact that de Sade’s explanation continues, his anthropologically rooted anarchy ends with a totalitarian system. Constantly intensified pleasance produces its incompatibility. It leads to constant isolation and to compulsions that lead to death as fulfillment. The degradation of people to the object of pleasure, welcomed with joy and increased sadomasochistically, ends in destruction.
Mord belongs to the course of nature, it only speeds up metamorphosis in another life forms. Nature itself has no interest in the endurance of mankind. If he destroys himself, it is an act of perfect autonomy.” I would like to draw attention to the very interesting fork, the divided way of consequence to Darwin's challenge, to his message from the mid-19th century that man is only an animal participating in the eternal conflict for existence, without any warrant of survival.
One answer is summarized in the concept of posthumanism; alongside transhumanism it is present the most repeated word in social sciences. This is simply a more pessimistic vision: man in the past of surviving organisms on Earth has proved to be the most parasitic, destructive species and should so yet come off the communicative scene.
Sounds like a definition of post-humanism. The full green ideology supports this kind of dynamics, the concept of anthropocene introduced in 2000 by Dutch climatologist Paul Crutzen (1933–2021), the Nobel Prize winner from 1995 in the field of chemistry, is simply a callative movie of this current.
Anthropocene, or geological era, in which man has a decisive influence on the environment, occurs after respective 1000 years after holocation, or glaciation. We inactive live in an anthropocene, which occurred about 200 years ago, but now this era is ending – so the age of man is ending. In a moment, the human species will destruct itself or destruct the Earth; so it is better to destruct itself.
Therefore, any extremist feminists and at the same time extremist representatives of the green movement appear to have no children. Not only in the name of freedom to choose a woman, but in the name of the noble thought of ending the human species, due to the fact that 1 more kid is an additional tonne of spent CO2. These are genuine arguments: I will not have children due to the fact that I do not want to contribute to the demolition of my planet. This, of course, stems from the presumption that I am the last, the last, that after me there will be no demolition of the planet by humans. Another Swedish prof. called for people to eat the dead, due to the fact that in this way we will reduce the consumption of inhuman meat and yet bring about the minute when, for self-sufficiency, we scope suicide. The transhumanism movement very much welcomes euthanasia as another realization of human freedom.
Transhumanism is about freedom, the realization of full emancipation, and thus besides the choice of death.
The free choice of death is besides a choice of freedom there, but that transhumanism speaks not of euthanasia, but of optania—the best choice of death, so that the data we have collected throughout our lives can be passed on in the right way next; I can decide myself to die, but what has gathered in my head or through my experience, better be utilized by those who choose to live free. Malignant critics are talking about it again – I wonder who will own data from the dead: Google, Apple or Amazon? individual will no uncertainty own them, due to the fact that there is nothing for free.
We come to a very interesting, separate aspect of this issue. According to posthumanism, everything ends and we gotta accept it. And as Darwin described it, we will come down from this world, unfortunately, with the awareness of the culprits: as a species we destroyed this world. That is why we should rightly commit collective suicide – whether it be by giving up children or by limiting our standard of living. And I am not talking about any abstractions here, about crazy professors from Stockholm, I am talking about European Union Commissioners and their spending on energy production prices.
In the end, the point is to be much little of us and to live much poorer. Not all of them, of course, will be able to live on at the highest level.
However, when, as a applicable policy, the ideology of post-humanism triumphs, the vast majority of people who present form the alleged mediate class or are located below the mediate class will no longer be able to live on the current level. Unfortunately, this ideology is already triumphing, it is already gaining its powerful successes, the most crucial applicable consequence of which is the division of humanity into a tiny group that will have better surviving conditions guaranteed, and a immense majority that will be demoted. I return to Koselleck's fair remark that if you hear of humanity as an ideal, remember that there is always a division behind it, that there will always be superhumans or transhumans; this is, of course, besides a feature of the ideology of post-humanism.
Transhumanism is to be a positive, enthusiastic answer: we do not gotta give in to this fate, we can change it, we can become gods, we can free ourselves from it. However, the consequence of division will stay the same. There will be superhumans or transhumans who will transport to a fresh wonderful world, and there will be subhumans who will stay here in the old human condition, whether transhumanism will take place on earth or it will take off into space.
The forging of modern answers, concerning the crisis of humanity, to transhumanism and posthumanism yet leads us to conclusions which Bostrom has reported – all of this must end with totalitarianism. This conclusion was besides reached by the Marquis de Sade, who was a terrible but crucial figure in the past of our civilization. In his "Historia Juliette" de Sade puts the words, "This is: the government must direct the population itself, must have all the means in his hand to exterminate it erstwhile he fears it to multiply it erstwhile he considers it necessary. It is so essential to replace spiritual chimera with utmost terror. adequate to free the people from the fear of hell, and they will come to all things, but this chimeric fear must be replaced by the strictest criminal law to reconcile the people themselves.”
So we request to invent a fresh fear that makes us accept the rules of transhumanism or posthumanism. We must be intimidated – this thought is profoundly disturbing. It not only resonates in long forgotten works, not only in the works of thinkers and dreamers, reminded somewhere in the margins. It sounds in the political and economical practice of the 21st century – in 2023.
