The article explores the philosophical dialogue between transhumanism and evolutionary psychology regarding the limits and consequences of the technological transformation of human nature. The growing relevance of this debate is analyzed in the context of the rapid development of genetics, nanotechnology and robotics, which open up unprecedented opportunities for changing human nature. The main provisions of transhumanism are considered, which, continuing the ideas of the Enlightenment, offers a radical vision of the future, where humanity can consciously direct its own evolution with the help of technology. The position of evolutionary psychology is highlighted, which, based on an understanding of the natural mechanisms of the development of the human species, warns against hasty intervention in a complex system of adaptive mechanisms that have been formed over millions of years. The paper analyzes in detail the works of leading representatives of both directions, including J. Huxley and Gr. Flow from the side of transhumanism, as well as critical views of F. Fukuyama and L. Kass. Special attention is paid to the research of evolutionary psychologists, who provide scientific justification for the concept of universal human nature and warn against the risks of “planned evolution”. A fundamental contradiction has been revealed between the views of transhumanists, who consider human nature as plastic and ready for technological changes, and evolutionary psychologists, who consider it a fixed reality formed by long evolution. It is emphasized that modern technologies create fundamentally new conditions for human existence that go beyond the traditional enlightened understanding of science. The study shows that although technological development of mankind has already changed our nature, further radical changes require careful consideration and study. The main problem of “planned evolution” is determined by the risk of uncontrolled acceleration of natural evolutionary processes without understanding all possible consequences.
Read full abstract