Growth limits: corkscrew

It’s time to sum up the results of the year, it’s time to say vulgarities: so, like, we are convinced that the 21st century has really begun, not only in America, but also here; and so, like, he doesn’t bring us anything new except new problems.

These vulgarities contain a certain amount of folk wisdom. On the one hand, we agree: “essentially” everything is repeated. Many historical analogies can be cited: the Roman Empire in decline, France before the revolution, France after the revolution, the Third Rome, the Third Reich, even the Third International... I will not delve into all these analogies now: for each of them, one of the the authors will find (and have found more than once) the proper place.

It's more interesting to talk about progress . This topic is not very popular now: delving into history (especially those versions of it that have undergone the necessary cosmetic repairs) is much more pleasant. Where does progress lead us? After all, he is definitely leading us somewhere. There is, of course, a lot in common between primitive society and modern society - which cultural scientists and ethologists (including myself) love to talk about, but there is also an obvious difference. Some things about humanity do evolve linearly. What? The simplest answer is technology, methods of achieving certain goals. The goals themselves are unchanged, or rather, they replace each other in accordance with the circular movement of history.

The linear component of this movement, the progress of methods, leads to a certain crown (forgive the eschatologism). This crowning achievement lies in the fact that the methods themselves have their own goals . This is, of course, just an image, but the image is not empty. I have often heard, for example, the following statement: “I believe in science!” It is customary to hammer nails with a hammer, rather than pray on it, but many prefer to pray (especially those who do not know how to hammer nails: faith in the exact sciences is very popular among the older generation of humanists). If we are already talking about the “oldies,” let’s remember our difficult childhood, namely, Marx’s “law” about the priority development of the production of means of production in relation to the development of the production of consumer goods. I am not an economist and do not insist on anything, but if this law really works, then production as a whole primarily serves itself.

Globalization is only the external, profane-social side of a truly global process: around the earth, along with the biosphere, a technosphere arises (what Vernadsky at one time took to be the “noosphere”). And the technosphere has its own tasks, which do not at all consist of harmless or, in any case, understandable tasks of those people who - each at their own workplace - create and strengthen this technosphere. Durkheim also pointed out that the laws of existence of a social whole do not have to be a superposition of the laws of existence of parts of this whole. Thus, we are not talking at all about some kind of fantastic “artificial intelligence”. It’s just that people are steadily building a new habitat, which, as it becomes more complex, begins to show “independence.” This environment, spreading more and more widely, provides its opportunities to more and more people, removing the stigma of exclusivity from such means that previously provided individuals or groups with power over all others. As a result, individuals or informal groups - hackers, terrorists, stock speculators - are gaining power again. The monopoly of those in power on the use of weapons loses its meaning: money or a computer turn out to be more effective weapons than the good old AK, and the same machine gun, if necessary, can be obtained and used. But freedom cannot last forever. Already in the new environment - at a new level - battles for spheres of influence will begin (are already beginning), consolidation of groups around new, still “primitive democratic” or “feudal” authorities. Then the era of new empires will come... In short, "the same circles" or "the same rake." The new level, however, will turn out to be somewhat more primitive than the previous one - just as a computer game is always inevitably more primitive than the emulated “offline” reality.

Now let's forget about "global problems" - from environmental to terrorist - and trace the further path of progress (assuming that this path will not be interrupted in any way from the outside). When the technosphere is divided, the time will come for the “meta-technosphere.” I find it difficult to answer what its “metaness” consists of. But “meta-technosphere” will be followed by “meta-meta...”, etc. Each of these spheres, emulating the previous one, will become more and more primitive. Progress, therefore, cannot continue indefinitely. It will stop at the stage when people turn into cells of a certain system, from which only two answers are required: “yes” or “no”.

Or (since the binary nature of our logic follows from our bisexuality) - only one answer: “uh-huh.” After all, the difference between the sexes of the inhabitants of “developed societies” has already begun to disappear today.

Kirill Yakimets