|
DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2023.4.40407
EDN: NBPEDE
Received:
04-04-2023
Published:
11-04-2023
Abstract:
The analysis of digital, socio-technological projects of the future is carried out in the context of post-non-classical utopian discourse based on a systematic approach, concepts of information society, dynamic information theory, K. Popper's ideas about social engineering. In order to identify the social effects of modern IT innovations, the current situation with universal ChatGPT is considered. It is argued that technology does not have an autonomous moral status, it is a projection of a person on the world. Their ethical burden, as well as the functionality and framework of self-organization are set from the outside. Artificial intelligence is a technology for simulating the reproduction of human reality, including patterns of social deviations. It means that not so much the virtual world as the actual reality needs humanizing correction. Information – technological, communicative mechanisms of overcoming social imperfections can be traced in the conceptually successive projects of "holotechnodemocracy" by M. Bunge, "information democracy" by M. Rocard, in projects of digital, cloud, electronic democracy. It is revealed that the modeling of an ideal digital future is based on a procedural approach, characterized by the authors of the article in the terminology of K. Popper as a "piecemeal" method, that is, "social engineering of private solutions". Therefore, digital techno-democracies are defined as a kind of modern praktopia, which evolutionarily and permanently forms an alternative social reality based on information and communication technologies and socio–network self–organization of a person and neural networks.
Keywords:
virtual reality, technology, artificial intelligence, digital democracy, techno utopia, praktopia, information, self-organization, ethics, social engineering
This article is automatically translated.
The post-non-classical vision of an ideal future is associated with technical changes in the human environment, with the effects of network IT and universal AI.Recognition of the system-forming status of information and online communications forms the basis of digital techno-utopias. In accordance with D. S. Chernavsky's dynamic theory of information, the definition of the basic concept implies an emphasis on self-organization of social subjects and alternativeness: "information is a memorized choice of one option from several possible and equal ones" [18, p. 6]. A subject who has recorded individually selected information is able to influence the configuration of the entire social system, thanks to the phenomenon of "convivialite" ("public communication") This term belongs to the French researcher J. d'Arcy means the right of a person not only to receive information and be its consumer, but also the right to disseminate information, being its creator [19]. Participation in information exchange presupposes the formation of new meanings through mutual understanding and consensus. The possibility of public discourse and consent increases the level of awareness and comfort of social existence. Therefore, the Japanese researcher I. Masuda in the 1980s defined the future as a "society of harmony" and abundance [20, p. 29]. According to the assumption of the Japanese futurist, the social structure of the coming society is represented by a small management apparatus formed in accordance with the audit of functions and equal communities of "homo intelligens" that interact without conflicts based on the dominance of socio-cultural values. Representatives of the "holotechnodemocracy" or integral technodemocracy also pin their hopes on the positive social effects of the development of scientific cognition, sociotechnologies and lifelong learning. According to the philosopher M. Bunge, the structure of the future society is based on egalitarianism and meritocracy, i.e. on "qualified equality" [21, p. 48], which is formed in the process of integrating the following principles of social structure: from each according to abilities, to each according to work (P.- J. Proudhon); each person benefits from permissible inequalities in the basic structure (J. Rawls); legal possession of the fruits of one's labor (J. Locke). The state is a neutral intermediary, and citizens exercise enlightened, "information governance" using sociotechnologies, scientific, expert knowledge, and it can be assumed, given the modern IT context, on Internet platforms with Open Source technologies. The scientist admits that this model of social structure is a utopia, but this is the aspiration to the future, to which should be sought. The relevance of techno-models of an ideal social future is confirmed by the further development of the ideas of integral technodemocracy by M. Bunge in the concepts of "information democracy" by M. Rocard, in electoral and information projects of cloud, network, digital, virtual democracy. These future projects assume that electoral law and free information are ideas focused on the removal of censorship and informed participation, and electronic means of communication are technologies that form the "virtual identity of the electorate" [22]. Electorality is essentially an informational process, since the presence of an alternative and the situation of a "remembered choice", as follows from the definition of D. S. Chernavsky, is information. Information needs and socio-political activism motivate users to discursive practices in the network space, to master new communication platforms, platforms and technologies. If M. Rocard focuses on ensuring the circulation of free media information, awareness of civic behavior [23], then e-democracy projects represent a specific procedural mechanism that ensures this freedom on the basis of network IT. The elements of the procedural mechanism include: the degree of voluntary openness of the policy; trust, depending on the quality of the execution of powers; the mechanism of delegation. Of course, election campaigns are a competition of professional political technologists, but the online electoral design is ideally designed to increase the competence of voters, the honesty of politicians, the stability of the social system due to the frequency of online measurements of its condition. By adapting network innovations, both technological and activist, e-democracy is able to produce ideas-impulses for the development of the social system, but the implementation of these ideas is possible only if there is an institutionalized mechanism of reaction to the results of measurements, initiatives and control. From a socio-philosophical point of view, the projects of digital techno-democracies can be viewed as a statement of the complementarity of the concepts of "ideal human condition" (T. Mohr) and "ideal citizen of the State" (T. Campanella), as an attempt to combine the principles of "utopias of freedom" and "utopias of order", as a dialectic of the relationship between governance and self-government. In the perspective of utopian discourse and social technologies, e-democracy is, according to E. Bloch and Yu. Habermas, "realistic utopia" [24], a kind of transforming post-non-classical utopias that focus not on mega-design, fraught with social cataclysms and unpredictable results, but on achieving an ideal social state through permanent "private improvements". The essence of the online technology of social transformations can be defined in K. Popper's terminology as "social engineering of private (piecemeal) solutions" [25, p. 30], i.e. as a praktopia. The term "praktopia" was introduced into scientific circulation by E. Toffler to determine the specifics of the "third wave" of "truly human civilization" [26, p. 16]. The future in praktopia is more favorable for a person than the present world, but at the same time the presence of individual imperfections, their gradual overcoming and irreversible social transformation is recognized. "The changes of today," writes E. Toffler, ... give direction to a viable countercivilization, ... give direction to a praktopia" [26, p. 246]. Theoretical analysis of techno-digital projects of the future allows us to draw the following conclusions: 1) technologies do not have an autonomous moral status, this is a projection of a person on the world: arrays of data, neural network learning algorithms are a reproduction of human reality, as well as user behavior in immersive worlds. Therefore, in the "man – technology" system, the improvement of the human world itself is in demand through the norms of interactions with AI, the development of methods for the social assessment of technologies by public-state regulators; 2) information, post-non-classical models of an ideal future are based on a sociotechnological approach and a procedural method, which is defined as "social engineering of private solutions" (K. Popper); 3) models of techno-digital democracy are attributed to a variety of practices using "piecemeal"-a method for the modernization of system integrity. Thus, the sociotechnological, procedural method of private improvements is a method of entering a practical future based on information technologies, social network self–organization of a person and neural networks, and digital techno-democracies are "realistic utopias" that fragmentarily, but permanently and evolutionarily form an alternative "new reality" - a single online–offline continuum.
References
1. Leontyev, G. D., Leontieva, L. S. (2020). Praxeology of social utopia: protest-project-practice. Sociodynamics, No. 2, Ð. 64-73. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2020.2.30089 Retrieved from https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=30089
2. Schwab, Klaus. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution / K. Schwab.-Random House (USA), 192 p.
3. Safina, A. M., Leontyev, G. D., Gaynullina, L. F., Leontieva, L. S., Khalilova, T. V. (2018). Dialectics of freedom and alienation in the space of the internet. Revista ESPACIOS, Vol. 39 (Nº27), Ð. 8. Retrieved from http://www.revistaespacios.com/a18v39n27/18392708.html
4. Khalutornykh, O. N., Egorova, E. A. (2022). Digital utopia in modern society: socio-philosophical aspect. Humanitarian Bulletin of the Moscow State Technical University. N.E. Bauman. No. 2 (94). DOI: 10.18698/2306-8477-2022-2-771
5. Kuzemina, E. F., Pashkova, N. V. (2022). Utopia as a form of existential isolation. Society: philosophy, history, culture. No. 8, Ð. 45-49. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.24158/fik.2022.8.6.
6. Lanier, Jaron: How to remake the internet. Retrieved from https://www.topspeaker.ru/articles/media/dzharon-lane-kak-nuzhno-peredelat-internet/
7. Kosorukov, A. A. (2020). Technologies of augmented reality in the field of public administration. Sociodynamics. No. 1, Ð. 1-11. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2020.1.31949 Retrieved from https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=31949
8. Markus, Gabriel. (2020). Philosopher says digitalization leading to new totalitarianism // The Asahi Shimbun. September 17. Retrieved from https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13721770
9. Kosorukov, A. A. (2021). Promising technological solutions in the field of building neurodigital public administration. Sociodynamics.. No. 6. Ð. 53-66. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2021.6.35675 https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=35675
10. Baudrillard, J. Passwords. From fragment to fragment. Yekaterinburg: U-Factoria, 2006. 200 p.
11. Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter // Future of Life Institute. March 22, 2023. Retrieved from https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
12. Mironov, A.V. (2006). Science, technique and technology: technoethical aspect. Bulletin of Moscow University. No. 1, Series 7: Philosophy. P. 26-41
13. Kapp, E. (1925). Philosophy of the machine // The role of tools in human development / E. Kapp, G. Kunov, L. Noiret, A. Espinas.-L.: Surf,. Ð. 96-129
14. Wat’s the Ìîst Dangerous Emerging Technology? 21.02.2022.-URL: https://gizmodo.com/whats-the-most-dangerous-emerging-technology-1847957403
15. Slavin, B. B. When digital democracy does not work // Vedomosti. 2.11.2019.-URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2019/11/12/815993-tsifrovaya-demokratiya
16. Gorokhov, V.G, Grunvald, A. (2011). Each innovation has a social character (Social assessment of technology as an applied philosophy of technology). Higher education in Russia. No. 5, P. 135-145.
17. Our common agenda. – Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. – New York, UN Publishing, 2021. 85 p.
18. Chernavsky, D.S. Synergetics and information: dynamic theory of information / D.S. Chernavsky. M., Nauka, 2001. 244 p.
19. Jean, d’Arcy. (1977). Direct broadcast satellites and the right to communicate. Right to communicate: collected papers / edited by L.S. Harms, Jim Richstad, and Kathleen A. Kie: University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 229 ð.
20. Masuda, Y. (1983). The Information Society as Postindustrial Society / Y. Masuda. – Wash. World Future Soc., 419 p.
21. Bunge, M. (1994). Holotechno-democracy: an alternative to capitalism and socialism / M. Bunge. Questions of Philosophy. No. 6, Ð. 42-46.
22. Gigauri, D. I. (2021). Elections to the State Duma 2021: blogs, social networks and party identity in the virtual space. Sociodynamics.. No. 11, P. 1-21. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2021.11.36962 – URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=36962
23. Rocard, M. (1990).Work with soul / M. Rocard; Per. V. Kolomiytsev, V. Chernegi, V. Nikolaev. – M., International relations, 344 p.
24. Quot. E. Bloch by: Habermas, J. (2012). The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights. Questions of Philosophy. ¹2, Ð. 66-80
25. Popper, K. (1992). Open society and its enemies. T. 1: Enchantment of Plato. Per. from English. ed. V. N. Sadovsky. M., Phoenix, 448 ð.
26. Toffler, E. (2004). The Third Wave. Transl.: A. Mirer, I. Moskvina-Tarkhanova, V. Kulagina-Yartseva, L. Burmistrova, K. Burmistrov, E. Komarova, A. Mikisha, E. Rudneva, N. Khmelik / E. Toffler. M., Ed. ACT, 261 p.
Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.
The present work is devoted to topical modern topics of a conceptual nature and analyzed from different points of view by researchers from various scientific fields. E–democracy is a form of democracy characterized by the active use of information and communication technologies as the main means for collective thought and administrative processes at all levels, starting from the level of local government and ending with the international one. The idea of the effectiveness of e-democracy is based on both theoretical research and experimental data obtained, for example, in the course of research on the collective mind. The purpose of the digital manifesto is to describe digital tools for governing a state in which the people, being the only source of power, never separates this power from themselves, but only delegates to elected representatives the functions of governing the state and only for the time that citizens allow. By 2022, most of the technical means have been developed to make the digital transition to a new form of government – digital democracy or digitalism. However, the political situation in each country was different, as was the readiness for the digital transition. In most countries, digital technologies have begun to be used as a tool to strengthen the current government. At the same time, civil rights and freedoms began to be rapidly curtailed. Electronic voting, digitalization of national currencies, video cameras in public places with the ability to identify any person, total recording of all telephone conversations, preservation of all Internet activity, control of "likes" and comments on social networks, assignment of a "social rating" to a citizen – all this led society along the path of a "digital camp" with total control states over citizens. Democracy began to collapse and was in danger. The state, represented by a narrow group of people, seized control of digital technologies, increasingly usurping power, and society did not have time to consolidate around this problem. Most citizens are inclined to believe that they have nothing to hide, so the state can monitor them. The ideology of digital democracy assumes that the people, being the only source of power, have the right to defend democracy and must put power under their control with the help of digital technologies. The "digital camp" should not be for the whole society, but only for government representatives. Praktopia (the term was introduced by Alvin Toffler) is a literary genre in which, as in utopia, a model of a better society is described, but, unlike utopia, the imperfection of this society is recognized.The utopia genre itself is intended to describe a model of a perfect society in which a person acquires higher development and perfection. Utopia is a virtual model (image) of a society that meets the criteria of social justice and universal happiness as much as possible to the author in conditions of striving for the ideal of human nature, which is an alternative to the social present and, according to the author's plan, should act as a guide for future development. E. Toffler draws a rather extensive and generally optimistic panorama of the future society, calling his utopian composition the term "praktopia", i.e. a genre that describes a model of a better society, but unlike utopia, it is not ideal, but contains some imperfections. In practice, there is a place for diseases, dirty politics and bad manners; it is not static, as if frozen in unreal perfection; at the same time, it does not embody some imaginary ideal of the past. Praktopia is not the embodiment of concentrated evil, which is characteristic of dystopia; it does not have ruthless anti-democracy, militarism; it does not depersonalize its citizens, does not attack neighbors and does not destroy the environment; praktopia offers a positive and even revolutionary and, nevertheless, realistic alternative to modern reality. In a certain sense, postmodern society represents a praktopia, a praktopic future. The main weaknesses of all non-classical and post-non-classical varieties of utopias are, firstly, their fragmentation associated with the absolutization of certain aspects of an ideal society, and secondly, strangely enough, a limited fantasy that cannot overcome historically obsolete ideologies, especially the ideology of bourgeois liberalism and cannot imagine an ideal society without private property, as the basis of personal individuality. Finally, the utopian nature of all these modern projects of an ideal society is due to the fact that none of them not only solves, but also raises the question of real ways and means of transition from a modern society to an ideal one. The article provides a wide range of opinions, including an appeal to counterarguments to opponents, the work is based on a wide bibliographic material and will be interesting to a certain part of the journal's audience.
|
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
