Book review: P. Baofu "The future of human civilization"

A book by P. Baofu refers to a number of those who thinks about the main philosophic questions: “Where do we go?”. In the dynamically changing world these questions are not philosophic speculations but life imperatives of human civilization. This doesn’t mean that this or that researcher finds the only right answer and the mankind will follow it. Such research fulfill at least two functions. For the first they  focus our attention  on the main point, for the second they stimulate the discussion of the proposed variant of answer and by means of that to clear up answers. The generation will find them not complete and inadequate to new realia but these generations like we will have the  a stating point, no matter whether it is “The Civilization History of England” by G. T. Boklya or “The Sunset of Europe” by O. Schpengler.

Such books are doomed to be  an encyclopedia as the proposed scale of problem is metatheoretical. Here the theory is the wise, sage comprehension of the world. That is why it is not verified but at best is falsified. From here comes the possibility of various evaluation of the book – from unrestrained apologetics to extreme criticism. But we can surely say that a reader who bother to read the book will find a lot of interesting and significant.

It is impossible to present in a review even briefly that factorological  material that the author uses in order to find an answer about the future of the civilization. But this, probably, shouldn’t be done. It is more important to focus on the trends of  modern civilization.

 Here is the synopsis of the author.

After Nietzsche claimed that God is dead – with the help of science the gap vacuum was closed.  But the time of our innocence has passed, and if in the modernist period there were people who thought this change to be inadequate, in the present coming post-modernist period  it has become clear that we need the appropriate to the time answer.  The mankind doesn’t have anything to propose instead of Science. And the fact that it is inadequate – is becoming more and more obvious.  Open modern newspapers. Here is the only topic –man’s cloning. Science is weak to answer difficult for mankind questions.  It has destroyed not only men’s believes and values but itself as well.  But if God is dead and science is weak  where to find answers?  But if today,  as the author reckons,  the contour of post-human –is clon, robot,   cyborg and so on  - in the postmodernist epoch, then what can be the answer?

In order to see this future the author stops on the questions of modernism and post-modernism. It is very important for him to  define the elementary conditions of his very hard task. But before it he builds a model in which the main parameters of the human existence are True (about knowledge), Holy (about Religions), the God (about morals), the Just (about Justice), Everydayness (about folk/mass culture), and the Beautiful, Sublime (about arts and literature). Reduction of believes  and values was like in  This (Western world) and in That (non-Western world). And if to lead this questions to a logic end, we need to understand the post-human  consciousness  in the after postmodernism epoch.

P. Baofu defines modernism in the following way: “Modernity is (1) free spirited, (2)  capitalist, and (3) hegemonic”. He states:

-         the project of modernism can be understood in the context of tough struggle between Enlightenment thinkers and their rivals of Romantism epoch after “God’s death”;

-         capitalistic transformation after industrial revolution has made this struggle more cruel.

-         has spread it  out the borders of the Western world.

The time came to stop this struggle. It it loosesn  sense.

P. Baofu studies the development of consumeristic and technofhilic culture and tries to prove that modern life in its everydayness is more comfortable, but nevertheless banal, more abundant but nevertheless expensive. It should be mentioned that the author finds convincing arguments for his proof. Analyzing the consumeristic Culture he comes to a conclusion that it is tolerant, but empty; entertaining but trivial;   imaginative but psychosis; free but decadent.  Technophilic culture evokes practical and mental anxiety.  Technologic force  is both constructive and destructive. It opens not only new possibilities but destroys human mental ability. The border between symbolic and imaginative, between organic and mechanic that makes the appearance of post-human possible in some period of time after post-modernism. The author reckons that the answers of post-modernism on such questions  are the same problematic  like of modernism. The process of trivilialization of life is intensified, its banality will be intensified after the post-modernist epoch.  But it’s a pity that it will be spread on the non-western world.

Not more consolatory  the situation with Science thinks P. Baofu.  Research in the sphere of scientific objectiveness are not stable as in the result they keep naїve metaphysics. Only critical spirit remains from Science.

Religion in its turn in the post-modernist epoch meets with problems. It marginalizes    in the instrumental world  of late capitalism. But the idea of post-soviet society is the same myth  of post-modernism like the idea of free high society was the myth of modernism.

Not optimistic  the situation with Art which is in crisis now. Art can’t overcome stylistic eclecticism  even by means of deepening of human instincts  and sensibility.

There is also no any moral universality  for just society. Modus vivendi of liberalism morally disorients people. And it impossible to decide  the questions by giving status of new kindness to rational discourse in the society. Mentality can’t fill this  niche.

To achieve justice occurs to be impossible  in the conditions of modernism. In the modern liberal society unprotected lays of population are incapable to  gain political power  - it’s in the hands of those who is better organized  and better defend their interests and more powerful and all these by means of majority. In this concern the post-modernistic discourse turns to be insolvent both intellectually and institutionally.

The author asks the question: may be there is now no justice at the end?  And Justice of ones becomes injustice of others.

Thus the author comes to a sad conclusion that both modern and post-modern projects occurred to be insolvent, do not find the adequate answers on the questions put by time. 

 The conclusion of the book is very pessimistic. The man has inherited  all the negative processes and they are spreading all over the world and this the historical trend. It leads to the understanding of the fact that people at the end of time are deprived of everything what nature and society gave them. They are doomed to give  place to a post-human.

The author puts a question what shapes  may the post-human have. Taking into the consideration the modern achievements of cosmology, cybernetics, artificial intellegence, genetic engineering    and other sciences and technologies he comes to a conclusion that this human being will be the mixture of cyborg, humanoid,  super clon, thinking robot, intellectual computer.  Of course if people do not destroy themselves in the nuclear Armageddon or die in the giant nature disaster.

At the end of mankind existence there won’t be  God and consolation. There won’t also any complaints because people grow into the post-humans not by means of natural selection but as the result of its technological achievements.  And the new post-humans’ world will mean the end of the men history that means the end of man’s domination in the world.

 The author doesn’t find consolation  to people  and the prognosis  of the men’s civilization future as we can see is rather sad. But we reckon that the prognosis is not the most important thing in the book. It can be objected in many ways. He wants to see  the far future. Both it is impossible to see the black holes with the help of Galileo’s telescope and to see the next epoch over the borders of horizon. We haven’t find the term to the word modernism though we live in it. How can we point and more over understand our future over the borders of the horizon.  The book of P. Baofu is interested from the point of view that he nevertheless tries to look so far but it is doomed to be a modern myth.

 The “Sunset of Europe”  or  “the end of history” (Fukuyama) hasn’t come yet. But “The name of Rose” by Umberto Ekko and “The rose of the world” by Daniil Andreev were already written. Perhaps the answers that the author  seeks are located  in another coordinates  between laugh (that differs a man from animal) and of a man who is now responsible for everything. These are remarks of reviewer and reader but the topic of other books  that can appear in the argument with P. Baofu.