Anthropological challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies

The paper considers phenomenon of technoscience and NBICS technologies that are forming the technoscience core. Convergent technologies are affecting transformation in the individual person and in the society, which is accompanied by the growing problems caused by uncertainty and innovation risks. Technoscience requires a search for responsible solutions already at the stage of technology design, and not at the final stage associated with their application. Technoscience includes not only fundamental research, but also the social practice. The new quality that science acquires at this level lies in the fact that the picture of the world created by technoscience includes not only objects, but also the human world. At the present stage of social dynamics referred to as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, information and digital technologies are becoming the drivers in development. Prospects and risks of the influence of information technologies and modern digitalization processes on a person and society were analyzed. Digitalization ambivalence is indicated, which, on the one hand, provides global communication, labor automation, forecasting capabilities based on big data, but, on the other hand, indicates the threat of social ties transformation, unprecedented social stratification, virtualization of culture, destruction of the personal space, manipulation of consciousness, computer propaganda, deformations of thinking, cognitive decline, etc. Identification of the digitalization risks does not mean rejecting the digital technologies, which is impossible, but an increase in the effectiveness of humanitarian expertise, awareness of the need to form cultural regulators that include digital ethic determining the communication mechanisms in a network society and decision-making in the interests of a person, but not the digital capitalism.

References
[1] Latour B. From the world of science to that of research? Science Magazine, 1998, vol. 280, no. 5361, pp. 208, 209.
[2] Gorokhov V.G. Tekhnonauka – novyi etap v razvitii sovremennoy nauki i tekhniki [Technoscience as new stage in the development of modern science and technology]. Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii — Higher Education in Russia, 2014, no. 11, pp. 37–47.
[3] Kiyashchenko L. Prednaznachenie biotekhnoidentichnosti (problema realnosti tekhnonauki) [The purpose of biotechnoidentity (the problem of the reality of technoscience)]. In: Neyrotekhnologii i tekhnonauka: fenomen biotekhnoide-ntichnosti [Neurotechnology and technoscience: biotechnoidentity phenol-menon]. Moscow, Moskovskiy Gumanitarnyi Universitet Publ., 2020, p. 38–54.
[4] Stepin V.S. Nauchnoe poznanie v sotsiokulturnom izmerenii [Scientific knowledge in the socio-cultural dimension]. In: Filosofiya i nauka v kulturakh Vostoka i Zapada [Philosophy and Science in the Cultures of East and West]. Moscow, Nauka — Vostochnaya Literatura Publ., 2013, pp. 28–38.
[5] Bostrom N. Superintelligence. Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press, 2014 [In Russ.: Bostrom N. Iskusstevennyi intellekt. Etapy. Ugrozy. Strategii. Moscow, Mann, Ivanov and Ferber Publ., 2016, 496 p.].
[6] Leonhard G. Technology vs. Humanity. Fast Future Publishing, 2016 [In Russ.: Leonhard G. Tekhnologii protiv cheloveka. Moscow, AST Publ., 2018, 320 p.].
[7] Vasilkova V.V. Globalizatsiya lzhi ili diversifikatsiya pravdy: informatsionnye iskazheniya v sotsialnykh setyakh [Globalization of lies or diversification of truth: information distortions in social networks]. In: Chelovek v globalnom mire: riski i perspektivy [Man in the global world: risks and prospects]. Moscow, CANON+ Publ., 2021, pp. 268–280.
[8] Mironov V.V. Tsifrovaya peschera kak vozmozhnyi vektor razvitiya kultury [The digital cave as a possible vector for the development of culture]. In: Mirovoye razvitie: problemy predskazuemosti i upravlyaemosti: XIX Mezhdunarodnye Likhachevskie nauchnye chteniya [World Development of the Problem of Predictability and Controllability: XIX International Likhachev Scientific Readings]. St. Petersburg, SPbGUP Publ., 2019, pp. 183–187.
[9] Birch K., Chiappetta M., Artyushina A. The problem of innovation in technoscientific capitalism: data rentiership and the policy implications of turning personal digital data into a private asset. Policy Studies, 2020, vol. 41, no. 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1748264
[10] Mironov V.V. Na puti k “Homo sapientissimus”, ili o transformatsii cheloveka i kultury [On the way to “Homo sapientissimus”, or about the transformation of man and culture]. In: Chelovek v globalnom mire: riski i perspektivy [Man in the global world: risks and prospects]. Moscow, CANON+ Publ., 2021, pp. 93–101.
[11] Kroker A., Weinstein M.A. Data Trash: The Theory of the Virtual Class. Montreal, New World Perspectives, 2001, 158 p.
[12] Leonov V.V. Dvadtsat tri printsipa Asilomara [Twenty-three Asilomar principles]. Sovremennoe mashinostroenie [Modern engineering]. Available at: https://www.sovmash.com/node/348 (accessed December 13, 2022).
[13] Capurro R. Informatsionnaya etika [Information ethics]. Available at: http://emag.iis.ru/arc/infosoc/emag.nsf/BPA/7c972fbe98fca119c32577dc0036bb4f (accessed September 12, 2022).
[14] Floridi L. Information: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 108–111.
[15] Castells M. Communication power. Oxford University Press, 2013 [In Russ.: Castells M. Vlast kommunikatsii. Moscow, Izdatelskiy Dom Vysshey Shkoly Ekonomiki Publ., 2016, 564 p.].