The monograph is an English, expanded and revised version of the book
Cheshko, V. T., Ivanitskaya, L.V., & Glazko, V.I. (2018).
Anthropocene. Philosophy of Biotechnology. Moscow, Course.
The manuscript was completed by me on November 15, 2019. It is a
study devoted to the development of the concept of a stable evolutionary
human strategy as a unique phenomenon of global evolution. The name “An
Evolutionary Metaphysics (Cheshko, 2012; Glazko et al., 2016). With equal
rights, this study could be entitled “Biotechnology as a result and factor of
the evolutionary processˮ.
The choice in favor of used “The Evolutionary Metaphysics of Human
Enhancement Technologiesˮ was made in accordance with the basic
principle of modern post-academician and human-sized science, a classic
example of which is biotechnology.
The “Metaphysics of Evolution” and “Evolutionary Metaphysics”
concepts are used in several ways in modern philosophical discourse. In any
case, the values contain a logical or associative reference to the teleological
nature of the evolutionary process (Hull, 1967, 1989; Apel, 1995; Faye,
2016; Dupre, 2017; Rose, 2018, etc). In our study, the “evolutionary
metaphysics” serves to denote the thesis of the rationalization and
technologization of global evolution and anthropogenesis, in particular. At
the same time, the postulate of an open future remains relevant in relation
to the results of the evolutionary process.
The theory of evolution of complex, including the humans system and
algorithm for its constructing are а synthesis of evolutionary
epistemology, philosophical anthropology and concrete scientific
empirical basis in modern science. ln other words, natural philosophy is
regaining the status bar element theoretical science in the era of
technology-driven evolution. The co-evolutionary concept of 3-modal
stable evolutionary strategy of Homo sapiens is developed. The concept
based оn the principle of evolutionary complementarity of
anthropogenesis: value of evolutionary risk and evolutionary path of human
evolution are defined bу descriptive (evolutionary efficiency) and
creative-teleological (evolutionary correctness) parameters
simultaneously, that cannot bе instrumental reduced to others ones.
Resulting volume of both parameters define the vectors of blological, social,
cultural and techno-rationalistic human evolution Ьу two gear mechanism
genetic and cultural co-evolution and techno-humanitarian balance. The
resultant each of them сап estimated Ьу the ratio of socio-psychological
predispositions of humanization / dehumanization in mentality. Explanatory
model and methodology of evaluation of creatively teleological
evolutionary risk component of NBIC technological complex is
proposed. Integral part of the model is evolutionary semantics (time-
varying semantic code, the compliance of the blological, socio-cultural and
techno-rationalist adaptive modules of human stable evolutionary
It is seem necessary to make three clarifications.
First, logical construct, “evolutionary metaphysics” contains an internal
contradiction, because it unites two alternative explanatory models.
“Metaphysics”, as a subject, implies deducibility of the process from the
initial general abstract principle, and, consequently, the outcome of the
development of the object is uniquely determined by the initial conditions.
Predicate, “evolutionary”, means stochastic mechanism of realizing the
same principle by memorizing and replicating random choices in all variants
of the post-Darwin paradigm. In philosophy, random choice corresponds to
the category of “free will” of a reasonable agent. In evolutionary theory, the
same phenomenon is reflected in the concept of “covariant replication”.
Authors will attempt to synthesize both of these models in a single
transdisciplinary theoretical framework.
Secondly, the interpretation of the term “evolutionary (adaptive)
strategyˮ is different from the classical definition. The difference is that the
adaptive strategy in this context is equivalent to the survival, i.e. it includes
the adaptation to the environment and the transformation (construction) of
the medium in accordance with the objectives of survival. To emphasize
this difference authors used verbal construction “adaptiveˮ (rather than
“evolutionaryˮ) strategy as more adequate. In all other cases, the two terms
may be regarded as synonymous.
Thirdly, the initial two essays of this series were published in one book
in 2012. Their main goal was the development of the logically consistent
methodological concept of stable adaptive (evolutionary) strategy of
hominines and the argumentation of its heuristic possibilities as a
transdisciplinary scientific paradigm of modern anthropology. The task was
to demonstrate the possibilities of the SESH concept in describing and
explaining the evolutionary prospects for the interaction of social
organization and technology (techno-humanitarian balance) and the
associated biological and cultural mechanisms of the genesis of religion
(gene-cultural co-evolution). In other words, it was related to the sphere of
cultural and philosophical anthropology, i.e. to the axiological component
of any theoretical constructions describing the behavior of self-organizing
systems with human participation.
In contrast, the present work is an attempt to introduce this concept into
the sphere of biological anthropology and, consequently, its main goal is to
demonstrate the possibility of verification of its main provisions by means
of procedures developed by natural science, i.e. refers to the descriptive
component of the same theoretical constructions. The result of this in the
future should be methods for assessing, calculating and predicting the risk
of loss of biological and cultural identity of a person, associated with a
permanent and continuously deepening process of development of science