The Great Reset is a cybernetically inspired programme designed to computerise human societies to the point of “merging the biological and the digital”, in the words of Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Information Technology must become ubiquitous, an essential part of every moment, a universal bottleneck, if we are to lead a normal life. More broadly, the aim is to go beyond the human condition and move towards transhumanism through the complete control of everyday life by NBIC technologies - nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, computer and cognitive sciences. The organisations of Western capitalism (WEF, IMF, GAFAM) enthusiastically support this programme. But as Peter Töpfer explains: “It would seem that the 'Great Reset' of Western power centres is also taking hold in countries that claim to represent alternative geopolitical poles. The application of the measures dictated by the WHO against the pseudo-pandemic, the complete digitisation of society, the replacement of cash by CBDCs [digital currencies], etc. are all part of the official agenda of all the BRICS countries without exception, as well as the Muslim countries that are also claiming their autonomy from the West.” [1]
For his part, Yurie Roșca had this to say about his speech at the Global Conference on Multipolarity organised on 29 April 2023 by Alexander Dugin: “I would like to thank our friend from Germany, Peter Töpfer, for noting my speech at the recent international conference on multipolarity. And if my modest contribution was noticed, it's because I tried to point out that at the moment, despite major conflicts between different countries, they are all obediently following the same globalist agenda. I mentioned that this is the so-called Great Reset, Agenda 21 or Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, adopted within the UN. And if all countries, without exception, follow the same agenda, the result that will be achieved will be common to all humanity. (...) The occult circles that hide behind organisations such as the WEF (World Economic Forum), the Trilateral Commission, the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the Bilderberg Group, the Club of Rome, etc., and which operate through official international bodies such as the UN, the EU, the WHO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the Bank for International Settlements, etc., have instruments of domination that no state can resist.” [2]
Is it true that no state can resist globalism and that all countries follow its agenda? This is also the view of other commentators on the situation, such as Pierre Hillard, Nicolas Bonnal and Edward Slavsquat (Riley Waggaman), who spend a lot of time explaining to us that Russia too is part of the Great Reset and the 'new world order'. Indeed, we're all in the same world, forced to fight on the same battlefield and with the same weapons as the enemy, including the authors mentioned above, who also make extensive use of computers and have already put their finger in the spiral leading to the Great Reset and the 'new world order'. We are all Charlie Chaplins caught up in machines, as in Modern Times. There is one area of study that is rarely visited: the universal rules of power relations, modelled by game theory, of which the arms race is a well-known example. Two mortal enemies can share the same battlefield and the same weapons, so look almost exactly alike, and still be mortal enemies. War today is largely computer-based, so it should come as no surprise that Russia and the other BRICS countries are also investing in this area, a sine qua non if they are to sustain the balance of power with the West in this field. You can't fight NATO with bows and arrows. And why not? Because NATO does not attack with bows and arrows. This military alliance and its military-industrial complex are imposing the choice of weapons for their hybrid war on a global scale, all the more easily because it is technology that is writing world history, and everyone is obliged to adapt to its pace, the pace of scientific discovery, if only to remain competitive and sustain the balance of power on an equal footing on the international stage, and if only to challenge NATO's agenda.
An epistemological approach, in terms of the philosophy of science, reveals that transhumanism and the Great Reset are civilian spin-offs of research carried out by the various national military-industrial complexes around the world, engaged in limitless competitive emulation. In science, everything that can be done will be done. The human condition is driven by a Promethean scientific excess that will potentially lead to its downfall, but which no actor can renounce, unless it renounces the means to defend itself, and therefore its sovereignty. Any geopolitical player wishing to defend its sovereignty, its identity and its humanity is forced to take part in the arms race and therefore to run the risk of being dehumanised by technoscience. A Cornelian dilemma. National players who are reluctant to embrace transhumanism will also be forced to position themselves in relation to this debate - for or against the alteration of human nature by technoscience - insofar as this debate is universal and inescapable, driven by the driving force of human history, namely the relentless technological optimisation of weapons systems, and its spin-offs and civilian applications. The augmented soldier inevitably leads to the augmented human. More generally, wearing clothes or glasses, travelling by car or plane, are already cultural and technological augmentations of the human body's capabilities through tools, prostheses and artefacts. Any individual who uses the Internet or a smartphone and its messaging services such as Telegram is a “connected subject”, and therefore a player in 5G, the computerisation of society, Smart Cities and transhumanism. On the question of Russia's relationship with the Great Reset, some commentators fail to distinguish between blind obedience to the Western agenda and, on the other hand, a position of “mimetic rivalry”, an application of game theory, which induces two contradictory movements in all players in a conflict: rivalrous and divergent movements, but also mimetic and convergent movements, like two intertwined sinusoids. Two mortal enemies are obliged to cross paths and maintain points of contact in order to fight, which will serve as a pretext for some commentators to say that they ultimately belong to the same system. Which is not untrue, but in fact applies to everyone. The Hegelian dialectic is universal and no one can escape it, because no one can escape contradictions, whether external or internal. To be effective on the battlefield, you have to share the same battlefield with your enemy, or even share the same weapons, in order to fight at least on equal terms. Paradoxically, it is these compulsory convergences on the battlefield, the method and the means, that make it possible to sustain the balance of power in order to diverge on the agenda and the finality.
The purpose of this article is to analyse this intellectual optical illusion, which places on the same level the designer of the agenda and those who are obliged to follow the agenda at a technical level, and who are therefore obliged to apply it as well, at least partially, in order to be able to challenge it, with the permanent risk of ultimately being excluded and then being dominated by the adversary - what the military call the “capability gap”, to describe the moment when I am overtaken by the enemy's technology. This mechanism is at the root of the arms race, which is a race for technological innovation and to increase the capabilities of the human body in order to better sustain the physical balance of power, which presupposes sharing the same “research and development” agenda as the adversary, but in order to surpass him - which is what Russia has managed to achieve in the field of hypersonic weapons. The history of the world moves forward in a decentralised way, through interactions that are competitive and conflicting but also cooperative and convergent, even between enemies. In short: you have to stay in contact with your enemy if you hope to beat him. To believe that it would be possible to win a conflict without ever going on the same ground as the enemy would appear to be a purely theoretical view of the mind, the main effect of which is to theoretically, and then physically, desert the battlefield and hand victory to the enemy. In its conflict with the collective West, Russia has clearly understood that it must not make the mistake of excluding itself from the technological and economic battlefield. This is why the globalists are trying to expel Russia from globalisation against its will. As early as 27 February 2022, just three days after the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, Western finance used the atom bomb in the economic field and began to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT system (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), the universal system for computer transactions between banks around the world: “Western countries adopted a new volley of financial sanctions against Moscow after the invasion of Ukraine, with plans on Saturday to exclude many Russian banks from the Swift interbank platform, a key cog in global finance. In a joint statement, the White House said the leaders of the European Commission, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Canada and the US were determined “to continue to impose costs on Russia that will further isolate it from the international financial system and our economies”. “We are committed to excluding selected Russian banks from the Swift messaging system”, steps that will be taken “in the coming days”, the White House added.” [3]
In 2023, Russia's exclusion from the SWIFT system will be complete: Westerners who want to travel to Russia will have to go there with cash in their pockets to change money on the spot, because no Western bank card, whether for cash withdrawals or credit, will work in Russia. In his Stratpol bulletin No. 144, Xavier Moreau hailed the Kremlin's launch of the digital rouble, Russia's CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency), and received a volley of negative comments from people legitimately concerned about Russia's participation in the disappearance of cash. Perhaps Xavier Moreau had made a mistake: suggesting that Russia had the choice of whether or not to switch to the digital rouble. In fact, no one has a choice, it's like the arms race: if you don't do it, others will do it anyway, and you disarm yourself. A country that doesn't develop its own digital currency will be subject to other countries' digital currencies, full stop. And that can have catastrophic consequences. The collective West is waging a war of extermination against the Russians, along the lines of the “total war” launched by Hitler, and the Russians understand this well. The creation of a system of digital financial transactions as an alternative to SWIFT and the creation of the appropriate national digital currency is therefore a question of economic survival, and therefore of survival itself, for Russia. The launch of the digital rouble in August 2023, ahead of the digital dollar, is intended to occupy the position of reference digital currency before the competition - in an attempt to occupy the centre of the chessboard - and will have the collateral effect, in the medium term, of partially de-dollarising the world in the field of digital transactions. It's an arms race in economic warfare too, and if you don't play the game as imposed by new technologies, you're letting the enemy win. The Coin Academy website, which specialises in digital currencies, reported in January 2023: “Russia's Central Bank wants to use its CBDC, the digital rouble, as a means of payment between countries to get around sanctions. To this end, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation has presented two models for cross-border settlement in the form of CBDCs. The Federation will start developing the cross-border settlement model in the first quarter of 2023.” [4]
Another consequence of the Russian military operation in Ukraine was that the World Economic Forum (WEF) quite logically took sides with Ukraine and excluded Russia from the 2022 Davos Forum, as part of the range of sanctions designed to isolate Russia on the international stage. At the beginning of May 2022, the Swiss press reported: “WEF spokesman Samuel Werthmüller assures us that Russian money no longer reaches the Forum. VTB, Gazprom and Sberbank have disappeared from the list of strategic partners, and the director of Sberbank is no longer mentioned as a member of the Board of Trustees. And the WEF has gone even further and removed all traces of previous cooperation: the Centre for Cybersecurity, created in 2018 as a joint cyber-security initiative by the WEF and Sberbank, no longer mentions the bank as a founding partner. Is this an attempt to conceal these collaborations, which have now become embarrassing? Samuel Werthmüller refutes this: “We are simply complying with the sanctions”.” [5]
The 2023 edition of the Davos Forum did not reinstate Russia, whose expulsion appears to be definitive. As a result of being expelled from so-called international organisations, Russia is planning to take the lead and recreate its own space of independence and alternative international relations by extricating itself completely from the system under Western control. Pyotr Tolstoy, deputy speaker of the Russian parliament, the State Duma, issued an explosive statement on 18 May 2022, giving us a glimpse behind the scenes of the Russian deep state and its long-term sovereignty plans: “Committees, deputies and senators will have a lot of work to do in the near future, which I think could take more than a month. The list received by the State Duma from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs contains 1,342 items: these are international treaties and agreements that have been signed and ratified by Russia in recent decades. We will have to analyse all of them to determine their relevance and, so to speak, their usefulness for the country. Many of them have become part of our national legislation and, as a result, the relevant committees will also have to assess our Russian laws and decide which of the standards introduced into them we can and must abandon. In addition, we have the task of assessing the appropriateness of Russia's presence in supranational bodies and international organisations. We have already withdrawn from the Council of Europe and, in April, the Chairman of the State Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, instructed the relevant committees, in collaboration with experts, to study the appropriateness of Russia's presence within the WTO, the WHO and the IMF, given that these organisations have already broken all their own rules with regard to our country. Yes, these two tasks are not easy, there is a lot of work to be done and we have to weigh up the pros and cons. But this is the road to full sovereignty for Russia, which should be guided only by its own interests and those of its citizens.” [6]
The Russian deep state is slowly, too slowly - administrative time and institutional inertia oblige - beginning to rebel against all threats to its sovereignty. Traditional military threats, such as the one embodied by NATO, have been identified by the human brain for centuries. The new threats represented in particular by the World Health Organisation (WHO) are more difficult to perceive and combat. The average human being finds it hard to believe that medicine can be used against people on such a scale, and is not yet accustomed to this new technocratic and bureaucratic battlefield that has only been unfolding since the expansion of the tertiary sector in the twentieth century, but which has now invaded everything. The United Nations (UN) provides a textbook case, and a real dilemma for Russia and China: how can these two countries react to the threat to their sovereignty posed by the UN's Agenda 2030, i.e. how can they leave the UN when their dominant position in the UN strengthens their sovereignty? The slowness of the critical reaction of the Russian authorities is also due to their division, because, as everywhere else, a section of them is sincerely seduced by transhumanist globalism - what some call the “fifth column”. But we need to distinguish this faction from another apparently indistinct one, that of individuals who have understood that national sovereignty is inseparable from technological sovereignty, because it is technological sovereignty that enables national sovereignty, and nothing else, i.e. the ability to ensure by force that the integrity of one's own national territory is respected.
The question of sovereignty in general is therefore linked to the question of power and the irresistible headlong rush it generates. In order not to be overtaken by the will to power of others, in order not to be reduced to impotence, I myself must cultivate my own will to power. Before I can overtake my competitor, I must first level with him and stand shoulder to shoulder with him. There is no universal centre of power, but there are universal laws governing the exercise of power. There are universal constraints that are the same for all subjects who wish to exercise power, over themselves or over others. Every sovereign subject must abide by these rules, which implies a similarity in the behaviour of all sovereign subjects, including enemies, which can be interpreted from the outside as an agreement, a connivance, or even a conspiracy - in short, an intentional plan. But there is no intentional plan to fall if you jump out of the window. Mortal enemies fall in the same way if they jump out of a window. This doesn't mean that they don't really clash, it just means that the laws of physics are universal and apply in the same way to everyone. But there are also universal laws of social physics which dictate that enemies behave in much the same way, or almost in the same way, when they are seeking power and sovereignty. Social physics is structured by power relations that are potentially harmful to all the players in the situation. From the point of view of techno-scientific competition, we are all in the same boat, which may end up like the Titanic, which does not mean that we are all in agreement and unified by a common agenda. Some political players, wiser than others, are anticipating the possible catastrophe and are trying to frame technoscience so that it remains at the service of human and national interests. On 6 December 2016, the Russian government published an update to its “Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation”: “ 8. The national interests in the field of information are as follows: a) to guarantee and protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen with regard to the receipt and use of information, the inviolability of privacy in the use of information technologies, to provide informational support for democratic institutions, mechanisms of interaction between the state and civil society, as well as the use of information technologies in the interests of preserving the cultural, historical, spiritual and moral values of the multinational people of the Russian Federation ; b) to ensure the sustainable and uninterrupted operation of the information infrastructure, primarily the critical information infrastructure of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “critical information infrastructure”) and the unified telecommunications network of the Russian Federation, in times of peace, in the event of an imminent threat of aggression and in times of war; (...)”. [7]
As they say, everyone would be the loser in an escalation towards a global nuclear conflict. From a pacifist, win-win perspective, in order to control, mitigate, curb and reduce as far as possible the universal collateral damage of the information technologies arms race, Vladimir Putin delivered a resounding speech on Russian digital strategy in September 2017: “Artificial intelligence represents the future not only of Russia, but of all humanity. It brings colossal opportunities and unpredictable threats today,” the leader believes. He continues: “Whoever becomes the leader in this field will be the master of the world. And it is highly undesirable for anyone to obtain a monopoly in this field. So, if we are the leaders in this field, we will share these technologies with the whole world,” says Vladimir Putin.” [8]
Two years after this speech, the Russian government published its official strategy for artificial intelligence: “Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 10, 2019 No. 490 - On the development of artificial intelligence in the Russian Federation”. [9] A few days later, Thierry Berthier and Yannick Harrel, French cybersecurity and cyberstrategy specialists, published an in-depth commentary on The Conversation website. [10] The latter, a connoisseur of the subject, had already published a book in 2013 entitled “La cyberstratégie russe” (Russian cyber strategy), the contents of which are summarised on the back cover: “Power strategy in the digital age is not a monolithic whole, and specific national characteristics are emerging in the United States, Russia, France and elsewhere. Until now, Russian cyber-strategy has never benefited from serious study; it has been reduced to approximations or perceived through the prism of very fragmented studies. Without in any way overlooking the importance of the intelligence services or the growing interest of the military in this new space, the author of this book analyses Russia's potential capabilities and alliances in cyberspace, while assessing the emergence of a specifically Russian “art of digital warfare”.” [11]
In 2021, the Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI, French Institute of International Relations) published a report on its website: “Signed by the Russian president in October 2019, the national strategy for the development of artificial intelligence aims to put Russia on the map of countries that count, initiating a technological and financial catch-up effort in artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced robotics. Both fundamental AI (research) and applied AI (intended for commercial use) are still monopolised by the defence sector, which is using them as a tool to modernise its equipment and the operational skills of its armed forces”. [12] Also in 2021, at the annual meeting of the Valdai discussion forum, Vladimir Putin outlined Russia's national strategy on new technologies: “The technological revolution and the impressive achievements in the fields of artificial intelligence, electronics, communications, genetics, bioengineering and medicine are opening up colossal prospects, but they are also raising philosophical, moral and spiritual questions that, until recently, were only asked by science fiction writers. What will happen when technology surpasses man's ability to think? Where is the limit of interference in the human organism, beyond which man ceases to be himself and is transformed into another entity? What are the ethical limits in a world where the possibilities of science and technology are becoming almost limitless, and what will this mean for each of us, for our descendants, and for our children and grandchildren?” [13]
Clearly, Vladimir Putin does not wish to sacrifice the question of identity on the altar of techno-scientific competition. Bioethics, the passing on of knowledge to future generations and the protection of children have already been given legal expression in Russia with the ban on LGBT propaganda and “gay marriage”, which sets limits on transhumanism and re-establishes a fundamental divide with the West and its institutional paedophile developments (cf. the WHO standards for the sexual education of children from birth). When Putin takes up the concept of the “new world order”, it is to subvert the meaning given to it by President George H. Bush at the time of the collapse of the USSR and the advent of a unipolar world dominated by the USA, what Francis Fukuyama called the “end of history”. Putin takes up the same signifier but with a different signified. What is this new signified? The doctrine of the Russian government is conservative materialism, a policy of concrete antagonisms, in the light of what has been selected by experience, achieving a kind of synthesis of the organising empiricism of Charles Maurras and the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx. This political and geopolitical vision proposes a realistic and pragmatic treatment of the competitive and conflicting interactions and interdependencies that write universal history, and which are summed up in Heraclitus' aphorism: “Combat is the father of all things”. A few centuries later, Nietzsche would tell us that it is violence and the means of increasing or preventing it that write History, as the eternal return of Good, but also of Evil. Conservative materialism is an archaeo-progressivism, neither technophobic nor technophile, or both at the same time, which assumes the relations of material and physical forces in their own terms, those of technological innovation and the arms race, avoiding the distorting prism of metaphysics and essentialism, while remaining capable of forging an alliance with the conservative adherents of metaphysics, on the basis of a common project of considered technological sovereignty, aware of the risks and maintaining critical control of science to limit its negative impact on human nature. Two curves will intersect: that of the increasing computerisation of our lives, and that of the decline in the intelligence quotient of computer programmers that the increasing computerisation of our lives is causing, which will lead to an increase in human errors in programming, and therefore to an increase in bugs and breakdowns, and to an overall malfunctioning of this information technology that has become omnipresent in our lives. Another generation or two, and humans will no longer be intellectually capable of managing the global digitalized system they have locked themselves into. As artificial intelligence increases, real intelligence decreases, hence the dysgenic phenomenon of generations X, Y or Z that is precipitating the West towards complete collapse. As Bernard Stiegler put it, technoscience is a pharmakon, simultaneously a remedy and a poison, authorising the best and the worst, capable, depending on the dosage, of improving the human condition but also of reducing it to nothing.
The author of these lines hopes to have clarified Russia's relationship with the Great Reset and the 'new world order', and more broadly the relationship of all living beings with technoscience. It is an intrinsically problematic relationship. It is neither black nor white, depending on the context. Commentators who fail to take this into account will find their comments instantly obsolete. Let's now try to turn the page on a certain number of pointless questions and set the terms of the debate at the next stage, in the archaeo-futuristic field of the common intellectual and advocacy platform to be created between bio-conservatives of all origins in the age of the internet and connected subjects.
- Peter Töpfer, « Une contribution à la méthodologie multipolariste », Multipolaristen, 07/05/2023. https://multipolaristen.de/multipolaristen/politik/peter-toepfer-notre-lutte-antisataniste-et-la-cinquieme-colonne-07-05-2023/
- Yurie Roșca, « La mort du paradigme libéral et la montée de la technocratie », Geopolitika.ru, 12/05/2023. https://www.geopolitika.ru/fr/article/la-mort-du-paradigme-liberal-et-la-montee-de-la-technocratie-iurie
- « Qu’est-ce que le système Swift dont des banques russes viennent d’être exclues ? », Euronews, 27/02/2022. https://fr.euronews.com/2022/02/27/qu-est-ce-que-le-systeme-swift-dont-des-banques-russes-viennent-d-etre-exclues
- « CBDC : La Russie prépare son système de paiements transfrontaliers », Coin Academy, 11/01/2023. https://coinacademy.fr/actu/russie-cbdc-paiements-transfrontaliers/
- « La Russie exclue du Forum de Davos, l’Ukraine pourrait prendre le devant de la scène », Le Matin, 01/05/2022. https://www.lematin.ch/story/la-russie-exclue-du-forum-de-davos-lukraine-pourrait-prendre-le-devant-de-la-scene-788387079059
- Piotr Tolstoï, Telegram, 18/05/2022 : « Комитетам, комиссиям, депутатам и сенаторам в ближайшее время предстоит большая работа, которая, думаю, может занять не один месяц. Перечень, который поступил в Государственную Думу от Министерства иностранных дел, содержит 1342 пункта: это международные договоры и соглашения, которые были подписаны и ратифицированы Россией за последние десятилетия. Нам предстоит все их проанализировать на предмет актуальности и, так сказать, полезности для страны. Многие из них стали частью нашего национального законодательства, а следовательно, профильным комитетам предстоит также оценить наши российские законы и принять решение о том, от каких из внедренных в них норм мы можем и должны отказаться. Кроме того, перед нами стоит задача оценить целесообразность пребывания России в наднациональных органах и международных организациях. Мы уже вышли из Совета Европы, а в апреле Председатель Госдумы Вячеслав Викторович Володин дал поручение профильным комитетам совместно с экспертами изучить вопрос о целесообразности присутствия России в ВТО, ВОЗ и МВФ в связи с тем, что эти организации в отношении нашей страны все свои же правила уже нарушили. Да, обе задачи непростые, работы много, надо взвесить все «за» и «против». Но это путь к полному суверенитету России, которая должна руководствоваться только собственными интересами и интересами своих граждан. » https://t.me/petr_tolstoy/1374
- Доктрина информационной безопасности Российской Федерации, Утверждена Указом Президента Российской Федерации от 5 декабря 2016 г. №646 : « 8. Национальными интересами в информационной сфере являются: а) обеспечение и защита конституционных прав и свобод человека и гражданина в части, касающейся получения и использования информации, неприкосновенности частной жизни при использовании информационных технологий, обеспечение информационной поддержки демократических институтов, механизмов взаимодействия государства и гражданского общества, а также применение информационных технологий в интересах сохранения культурных, исторических и духовно-нравственных ценностей многонационального народа Российской Федерации; б) обеспечение устойчивого и бесперебойного функционирования информационной инфраструктуры, в первую очередь критической информационной инфраструктуры Российской Федерации (далее - критическая информационная инфраструктура) и единой сети электросвязи Российской Федерации, в мирное время, в период непосредственной угрозы агрессии и в военное время; (…) » https://rg.ru/documents/2016/12/06/doktrina-infobezobasnost-site-dok.html
- « Vladimir Poutine : “Le leader en intelligence artificielle dominera le monde” », La revue du digital, 02/09/2017. https://www.larevuedudigital.com/vladimir-poutine-le-leader-en-intelligence-artificielle-dominera-le-monde/
- Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 10.10.2019 №490 – О развитии искусственного интеллекта в Российской Федерации. http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201910110003
- « La stratégie russe de développement de l’intelligence artificielle », The Conversation, 26/11/2019. https://theconversation.com/la-strategie-russe-de-developpement-de-lintelligence-artificielle-127457
- Nota Bene : « Yannick Harrel : ''L’intelligence artificielle – révolution anthropologique'' », Dialogue Franco-Russe, 12/06/2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOQe_nYSFvw
- « L’intelligence artificielle : enjeu stratégique de la Russie », IFRI, 21/04/2021. https://www.ifri.org/fr/espace-media/lifri-medias/lintelligence-artificielle-enjeu-strategique-de-russie
- « Заседание дискуссионного клуба “Валдай” », Kremlin.ru, 21/10/2021 : « Далее. Технологическая революция, впечатляющие достижения в области искусственного интеллекта, электроники, коммуникаций, генетики, биоинженерии, медицины открывают колоссальные возможности, но они же ставят в прикладном плане философские, моральные, духовные вопросы, которыми ещё недавно задавались только писатели-фантасты. Что будет, когда техника превзойдёт человека по способности мыслить? Где предел вмешательства в человеческий организм, после которого человек перестаёт быть самим собой и превращается в какую-то иную сущность? Каковы вообще этические границы в мире, в котором возможности науки и техники становятся практически безграничными, и что это будет значить для каждого из нас, для наших потомков, причём уже ближайших потомков – для наших детей и внуков? » http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975
