Technoscience, Humanity and Man

Abstract

This article is a reflection on some conceptual ideas of the book “Humanity and Technos: the philosophy of coevolution” related to negative assessments of the socio-anthropological consequences of the development of technoscience. It is noted that the author’s criticism of novationist interpretations of scientific and technological progress is subordinated to the main idea of the book about the incompatibility of the principles of convergence and coevolution in the relationship between man and technology. It is shown that the book examines not only the external challenges of technoscience, but also the areas of scientific research that threatens the world of traditional man. Based on the results of the analysis of the book's content the following main conclusions are made. 1. Despite the presence of a large group of social problems generated by the fourth technological order the authors of the book are most concerned about the consequences of the development of digital technologies that can change the man's generic nature. 2. Rhetorical theory of number considering in the book as a worldview paradigm of the digital revolution actually has a narrower subject specificity. 3. The assumption that exist a parallel evolution of technology independent of human is contradicting the original premise about the artificial nature of artifacts. 4. Conclusion about the presence of animal traits in humans that were lost during technological revolution is requires specification. 5. The problem of an existential crisis caused by the appearance of a new class of technical artifacts and also the theme of the deficit of freedom in the virtual space has not been its developed. 6. The project of the ideology of left conservatism positioned as the most consistent variant of the philosophy of resistance to the “technogenic degradation of mankind” seems to contradict the dialectical-revolutionary essence of classical Marxism. In conclusion the ideological sense of the main goal for humanity proposed by the authors and the relativity of the ideology of conservatism are shown.