Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Morality and God

Random Neuron Connections

Digital Afterlife: 2045

Is the UN up to the job?

Digital Leaders TV: The Internet of Things (S01E01) - Full Episode (48min)

Winning the war on cancer?


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
Martine Rothblatt


comments

rms on 'Science Fiction and our Dreams of the Future' (Oct 20, 2014)

rms on 'Sousveillance and Surveillance: What kind of future do we want?' (Oct 20, 2014)

dobermanmac on 'Transhumanism and the Will to Power' (Oct 20, 2014)

instamatic on 'Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?' (Oct 18, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?' (Oct 18, 2014)

philosophytorres on 'Nick Bostrom's "Superintelligence" (Part II)' (Oct 18, 2014)

Roger on 'Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?' (Oct 17, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Google’s Cold Betrayal of the Internet
Oct 10, 2014
(7346) Hits
(2) Comments

Dawkins and the “We are going to die” -Argument
Sep 25, 2014
(5491) Hits
(21) Comments

Should we abolish work?
Oct 3, 2014
(4976) Hits
(1) Comments

Will we uplift other species to sapience?
Sep 25, 2014
(4502) Hits
(0) Comments



IEET > Vision > Galactic > Directors > Giulio Prisco

Print Email permalink (12) Comments (7674) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Russian Cosmism, Transhumanism and Space Exploration


Giulio Prisco
By Giulio Prisco
Turing Church

Posted: Mar 17, 2012

I watched George Carey‘s film “Knocking on Heaven’s Door,” aired by the BBC last year on the 50th Yuri’s Night. The one-hour film is recommended to all those who are interested in space, the history of the Russian space program, the amazing beautiful philosophy known as Russian Cosmism (and, more recently, just Cosmism), our place and future in the universe, technological immortality and resurrection.

The film captures the popular enthusiasm for space in the Soviet Union of the 60s. We had the same enthusiasm in the West at the time, and God knows we could use it now, all over the planet.

I think we can look, again, at the Cosmist philosophy to renew our enthusiasm and drive with beautiful and energizing cosmic visions, and to remember that wonderful adventures are waiting for us in outer space. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was a brilliant scientist and engineer, but his motivation and drive came from his philosophical convictions, his belief in humanity’s destiny to leave the Earth and colonize the universe, and his vision of a deep unity between man and the cosmos.

Today, following the Cosmist tradition, Russia has a lively transhumanist community and Singularity scene, with the only operational cryonics facility not in the U.S. and, recently, the Global Futures 2045 conference and social movement with its “Project Avatar” dedicated to immortality and mind uploading.

The film features Gagarin, Tsiolkovsky and other Russian cosmonauts and space engineers, but the real protagonist is Tsiolkovsky’s mentor, the Cosmist mystic Nikolai Fedorov. He was one of the first modern thinkers who dared to suggest that, some day, science and technology may be able to resurrect the dead and bring back to life every person who ever lived.

Fedorov thought that the physical resurrection is to be brought about by restoring the body to a condition that existed prior to death. A person is made up of atoms, and when a person dies these (finitely many) particles are scattered. Resurrection of the person occurs as a consequence of restoring the atoms to their previous arrangement. To carry out the resurrection it is necessary to determine what this arrangement was and then to reposition the particles. This is a problem to be solved by science rather than by appeals to an outside power.

His resurrection theory reflects 19th-century models of the universe and seem naive today. More modern resurrection theories have been proposed, for example by Michael Perry and Frank Tipler. See also my article Transcendent Engineering. But Perry’s and Tipler’s approaches, and mine, will probably seem equally naive to future scientists. Fedorov must be credited for the idea of technological resurrection, and we, his followers, are happy to see that many people are warming up to his vision.

See this interesting review and discussion of Fedorov’s ideas on Charlie Stross’ blog.

I have taken the liberty to paste some excerpts of the best reviews of the film below, with [annotations] and links.

BBC | Knocking on Heaven’s Door — April 12th 2011 was the fiftieth anniversary of Yuri Gagarin’s flight into space, hailed by the Soviet Union as a triumph for socialist science over capitalism. But the true story is much stranger. George Carey’s film shows how the Russian space programme was kick-started by a mystic [Nikolai Fedorov] who taught that science would make us immortal, and carried forward by a scientist [Konstantin Tsiolkovsky] who believed that we should evolve into super-humans who could leave our overcrowded planet to colonise the universe. Stranger still, Carey shows how those ideas have survived Communism and adapted themselves to the science of the modern world.

The Telegraph | Knocking on Heaven’s Door, film-maker George Carey explains the mystic secrets of the cosmos and the Soviet space programme  — The man some people say is the true father of space travel in Russia was not a scientist at all, but a reclusive mystic who was the illegitimate son of a prince called Gagarin.

His followers today say the name is not coincidental – because it was that mystic, Nikolai Fedorov, who set Russians on course for Yuri’s moment of glory. In the 19th century, Darwinism and modern science seemed like enemies of God. But Fedorov came up with an extraordinary counter-suggestion: that science was a tool given to us by God to enable us to resurrect the dead and, as promised, enjoy immortal life. And, with curious practicality, he added that because the Earth could not sustain a population that never died, we must first learn to conquer space… the person who really injected his philosophy – known as Cosmism - into the bloodstream of Russian science was an unknown teenager (Konstantin Tsiolkovsky) who turned up in that library one day looking for advice about what to read… [Danila Medvedev] calls himself a Transhumanist, and believes that he will achieve his own immortality by uploading his personality into cyberspace.

How to think about the future | Cosmism, Transhumanism and Space Exploration — George Carey’s ‘Knocking on Heaven’s Door  [is] a quite amazing film about the birth of the Russian space program and the ideas that prefigured it and were inspired by it. And it is a fascinating portrait of some of the early pioneers and thinkers who began Russia’s race for the stars.

[Nikolai Fedorov] is the philosophical great-grandpapa of the Russian dream of space exploration. He believed in the perfectibility of the human race through evolution, and thought that we would one day conquer death and bring about the resurrection of the physical body through science, and live forever. He also thought that we would extend human presence throughout the solar system and beyond. His ideas about human evolution, and in particular the idea that humans should take control of the process and direct it towards their own goals (i.e. achieving greater intelligence and conquering physical limitations) have led directly to the ‘transhumanist’ movement in Russia, and are echoed, albeit in a less poetic way, in the work of the famous proponent of the ‘Singularity’ [Ray Kurzweil]

Fyodorov not only believed that we must overcome the natural decrepitude and entropy of the body as a biological system, but that we would also one day be able to ‘regulate nature’ so that natural disasters such as volcanoes, earthquakes and so on no longer threatened the human population. Fyodorov is identified with the Cosmists, who advanced ideas about the proletariat conquering space and venerated the machine and technological progress…

But Fyodorov goes much further and is much more radical than the other Cosmists. His ideas concern the very fundamental questions of what it is to be human, what the nature of a human being is or can be, and the purpose and direction of life itself. This is the origin of Transhumanism in the 20th century and has led to whole genres of science fiction, scientific speculation, and the development of experiments and technology to explore the reality of these concepts. The contemporary efforts to preserve life indefinitely through cryogenics follow on from Fyodorov’s writings. There are now scientific institutes in Russia which carry on research into these ideas, attempting to allow humans to communicate directly with cosmic intelligences by ‘tuning’ themselves in, a complicated process of spiritual preparation or clearing. The subject attempts to develop a new awareness, a new kind of sensitivity through which they can receive or respond to the faint communications of other minds.

Fyodorov’s ideas directly inspired another great figure in the history of Russian space science, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky… One of the students who was inspired directly by Tsiolkovsky’s work was the young  Sergey Korolyov, who would go on to become the Russians’ chief rocket scientist and design the launcher for Yuri Gagarin’s historic first flight into space in 1961.

Tsiolkovsky, like Fyodorov before him, also held much wider philosophical views about human progress and space exploration. In 1928 he published a book called ‘The Will of the Universe. The Unknown Intelligence’ in which he claimed that humans would colonise and explore the entire galaxy. He believed that the basic physical constituents of the universe and space also had mental properties, that the cosmos itself has a kind of soul with which it might be possible to commune, and he imagined incorporeal beings whose intelligence far exceeded humans inhabiting distant realms of space. But unlike Fyodorov, Tsiolkosky’s vision of eternal life was not of a coherent physical existence, but rather a joining with the stuff of the cosmos, a re-cycling of ‘happy atoms’ into new shapes, new forms of life…

You don’t have to be Ray Kurzweil to believe that by the end of this century we may be on the brink of a new era of space travel and possibly even permanent habitation on other planets. We are still far from the enormous dreams of men like Fyodorov and Tsiolkovsky, but our determination to explore and push the boundaries of human knowledge has never been greater. Our pursuit of space exploration today does not have the same philosophical and spiritual corona surrounding it. We are inspired by science, by the pursuit of verifiable knowledge, but not by the dream of overcoming death or coming into closer relationships with matter and energy, praying to the angels of the cosmos. And we tend to draw a neater distinction between science and philosophy than those early prophets of the space age did. But we should not lose sight of their visions and their teachings because they still have the power to revive our desire for flight, our dream of visiting the edges of the galaxy and finding out what our human nature truly means.


Giulio Prisco is a physicist and computer scientist, and former senior manager in the European space administration. Giulio works as a consultant and contributes to several science and technology magazines. In 2002-2008 he served on the Board of Directors of Humanity Plus, of which he was Executive Director, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Italian Transhumanist Association. He is often in Hungary, Italy and Spain. You can find more about Giulio at his Turing Church, RSS feed and skefi'a science/fiction, RSS feed.
Print Email permalink (12) Comments (7675) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


Since learning of Federov and reading some translations of his writings, I’ve felt a bond of faith with him. We shouldn’t forget that Federov was a Christian, and Cosmism emerged within that influence.





@Lincoln - yes, Fedorov was a Christian, and we are left wondering how Christianity may have produced both Cosmism and some, um, less edifying stories. The same can be said of most other religions that I am aware of.

Cosmism says that we can build Heaven on Earth (and the rest of the universe), and even resurrect the dead, with science and technology. This is refreshing and beautiful, but is a dangerous heresy for a Church that has built its power on its role of intermediary between people and God.

I think we must make a difference between religious faith, which gives beautiful visions of hope to billions of people, and organized religions, which often become like corporations and governments, only motivated by lust for power and money.





Yeah. How do we channel more religious energy at the good stories and less at the evil stories? I don’t think avoiding organization is the answer. That just ensures we’ll get less of both the good and the evil.





Perhaps not avoiding organization, but reforming organizations.

If powerful persons in the Church had to obey the same rules that they want the faithful to follow, the Vatican would be almost empty. Like, if politicians had to obey the laws of the land, parliaments and ministries would be almost empty.





I support ongoing reformation, memetic evolution, and perpetual revelation according to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.





A little cold war competition never hurt anyone.





I chuckled at Khannea Suntzu’s comment!

@Giulio I’m curious about your reference to “a neater distinction between science and philosophy” since these earlier visions. I think you’re right, but it’s not something I’ve really thought much about. Could you elaborate?





@Peter re ““a neater distinction between science and philosophy”

That reference is not mine, it is from the last article that I quote (quite extensively):
http://www.howtothinkaboutthefuture.com/?p=92

I agree that we tend to draw a neater distinction between science and philosophy now, than at Fedorov’s times. But I think the need to draw such a distinction depends (as most things) on the perspective.

An engineer who is designing a bridge uses Newtonian physics, and forgets about general relativity and quantum theory, because using Newtonian physics is the best way to design a bridge. But the same engineer, away from day-work and in a philosophical mood, knows that general relativity and quantum physics provide a more accurate and generally applicable model of reality.





Thanks Giulio, and sorry for not noticing it was an excerpt.

Newton vs GR and QT is more about using simplifying approximations within their range of validity than science vs philosophy per se. What the review might be getting at, perhaps, is a distinction between science, which is our attempt to understand the universe and what are the likely consequences of our actions, and (moral) philosophy, which, at its best, is about trying to agree on what we actually want. As you said on another thread, we like what we like, and others like what they like. Some of us might find the cosmist vision appealing, others less so.

Anyway it’s fascinating reading.





@Peter - I prefer to consider _everything_ as a simplifying approximation that can be useful if and when applied within its range of validity.

The Newton vs GR and QT example shows this in physics and engineering. Coming to moral philosophy, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” (like all other morality models) is an approximation with its own range of validity, very wide but not universal. In some cases, shooting somebody dead may be the best thing to do. Yet, we all consider the model true enough to be regarded as a practical truth, that can (and should) be applied in all but a few extreme circumstances.





Indeed…except that, as you know, I still tend to regard morality as ultimately a matter of choice rather than of truth. Maybe this will change one day, but only when I find a version of moral realism that I find _genuinely_ convincing. Until then, I would say the following about “Thou Shalt Not Kill”: the reason we tend to see it as “true enough to be regarded as a practical truth” is that societies that have evolved such taboos have tended to outcompete those that haven’t. Weakening this taboo would clearly have deleterious consequences for our societies, so those of us who value the societies we live in have an interest in maintaining it. But again, it’s a matter of choice, not of truth.





Re “I still tend to regard morality as ultimately a matter of choice rather than of truth”

So do I. I also tend to define truth as practical utility, which is in agreement with what you say about the societal utility of Thou Shalt Not Kill.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Cosmic Ambition: Russia wants manned base on Moon

Previous entry: Tim Ferriss at SXSW: “Hacking the Human Body”

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376