Section introduction. The contemporary era presents humanity with fundamental existential questions. It is an age defined, on the one hand, by the revolutionary and rapid development of high technologies, including information and communication systems, genetic engineering, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence, alongside pervasive digitalization. On the other hand, it is marked by the chaotic emergence of geopolitical conflicts. Among these questions, the most acute concerns the future of humanity itself and the preservation of the essential qualities that distinguish us from the rest of the natural world. This issue is amplified by an intensifying discourse in which classical humanism is challenged by the radical concepts of transhumanism and posthumanism. These newer ideologies often frame the “enhancement” or even the superseding of human nature as a logical and desirable stage of evolution. In this ideological struggle, humanism acts as more than just a philosophical stance; it functions as a crucial bulwark against the forces of degradation and the observable erosion of what it means to be human.

The article substantiates the relevance of the humanist ideal in the contemporary era of profound technological and social transformations. These changes have given rise to a debate on the future of the human species, within which the concepts of transhumanism and posthumanism emerge as radical alternatives to classical humanism. The author critically analyzes three primary versions of transhumanist thought. The first is concerned with the transformation of human corporeality through “enhancement” and the achievement of “digital immortality.” The author demonstrates the illusory nature of this goal, emphasizing that even its hypothetical realization would lead to the loss of fundamental values (love, courage, compassion, responsibility) that are inextricably linked to human finitude and embodiment. Proponents of the second version propose dissolving the human into the world of nature and machines by endowing the latter with rights and responsibilities. Critiquing this approach, the author asserts human uniqueness, defined by consciousness, free will, and the capacity to act within cultural and moral-legal norms – preconditions for legal personhood that animals and machines lack. The third version of transhumanism proclaims the inevitable displacement of humanity from the pinnacle of evolution by superintelligent machines. However, it is argued that artificial intelligence, despite its impressive capabilities in data processing and content generation, is fundamentally distinct from human intelligence due to its lack of causal understanding and its inability to engage in genuine creativity beyond the recombination of existing patterns. It is shown that these transhumanist scenarios are not so much predictions as they are dangerous ideological projects. In contrast, a renewed humanist ideal is presented as the only productive guiding principle in the face of these anthropological challenges. This ideal calls not for the abandonment of essential human qualities, but for their preservation and development through adaptation to new realities, affirming the enduring value of freedom, creativity, moral autonomy, empathy, and responsibility. It is adherence to humanism, rather than capitulation to technology, that opens a viable path to the future for humanity.

The article explores a model of sustainable development oriented toward ensuring the long-term survival of humankind. The author proceeds from the premise that for Homo sapiens, the conscious goal should be species survival, analogous to the innate objective embedded in all other biological species. This goal is achieved through the fundamental instincts of self-preservation and procreation; however, the emergence of human reason has altered the functioning of this mechanism. In contrast to these fundamental drives, other instincts are merely instrumental or secondary. Yet, it is toward the fuller and more efficient satisfaction of these secondary instincts that humanity has directed its reason, allowing the means to eclipse the ultimate goal. As a result, human civilization has begun to degrade the natural environment, its own population’s health, and historically formed mechanisms of social stability. Within a framework of sustainable development, these negative processes must cease. The question of transitioning to sustainable development is examined through the prism of Big History, which postulates that humanity is on the threshold of a singularity. The paper reviews major potential trajectories following this singularity transition: the posthuman era, the artificial intelligence era, the era of a unified universal cosmic intelligence, and the era of ethical reason. The first three scenarios are deemed dangerous or scientifically unfounded, as they involve an attempt to detach humanity from its biological milieu, which contradicts the goal of human preservation. The fourth scenario, which corresponds to the concept of sustainable development, involves the transformation of human reason through its integration with ethics. This approach requires adherence to a genetic imperative (a prohibition on altering the normal human genome without exhaustive proof of safety) and a cognitive-psychological imperative (a prohibition on altering the normal human psyche). The conclusion asserts that this sustainable development scenario is the only acceptable pathway and thus should guide human evolution in the post-singularity era.

Contemporary challenges, stemming from accelerated digitalization and the increasing complexity of political processes, are driving the integration of interdisciplinary approaches into political science. For the first time in history, advances in neuroscience and digital technologies make it possible to probe the depths of human consciousness, enabling the analysis and prediction of behavior that circumvents an individual’s conscious will. This capability presents a fundamental challenge to the Enlightenment principle of individual sovereignty, demanding both philosophical reflection and empirical research into its profound opportunities and risks. The authors address this challenge by examining the cognitive dimensions of political decision-making, leadership, and mass belief formation. Particular attention is paid to the impact of digitalization on the transformation of political behavior and governance strategies. Drawing on findings from neurophysiology and cognitive science, the authors examine the key mechanisms that determine decision-making in the political sphere, including the influence of emotional and cognitive factors. It is argued that the integration of neuroscience and digital technologies is transforming traditional approaches to the analysis of political reality. Furthermore, the synergy between cognitive science, sociology, and political science opens new avenues for researching human potential, a critical task of particular relevance in an era of global uncertainty and digital transformation. The proposed approaches not only deepen the understanding of the cognitive and emotional mechanisms of political behavior but also facilitate the development of new tools for forecasting and governance in the contemporary political environment. The article highlights the dual nature of using the tools of political cognitive science: on the one hand, it offers unprecedented opportunities for understanding political processes; on the other, it creates risks of conscious manipulation and the erosion of human agency. The authors conclude that the development of robust ethical principles for the use of neurotechnology in politics is imperative. Such principles must be designed to enhance human potential and safeguard the role of individuals as the subjects of political development, preventing their reduction to manageable data resources.

The article investigates the question of the humane in the human being through the dialectic of ideal and reality. Engagement with debates on human essence leads to the recognition of its non-predetermined nature and of the multiplicity of potential possibilities inherent in individuals, which develop over the course of a lifetime. The separation of ideal and reality in the consideration of the human being gives rise to the distinction between the ideal human and the empirical human. Their divergence raises the question of progression toward the humanistic ideal and the cultivation of the humane element within individuals. Considering this movement towards the humanist ideal along two trajectories – the creation of general conditions for its development and the exertion of personal effort – leads to an understanding of the humane not merely as a potentiality, but also as a challenge and a responsibility. History has demonstrated the untenability of both purely optimistic and pessimistic views of human nature, which calls for the concept of meliorism – the belief in the potential for improving the world through active endeavors. A distinction must be drawn between two aspects of humanistic values: on one hand, the universal value of the human being as such, inherent in every individual by virtue of belonging to the human species; on the other, the value of the humanity cultivated within the empirical individual, the degree of which varies significantly and serves as a prerequisite for that individual to function with the full scope of their rights and responsibilities. A consequence of this duality is the necessity of a binary, or “stereoscopic,” ethics that must account for and develop both aspects of humanity: the universal, unconditional humanity possessed by birthright, and the cultivated humanity, which is measured individually.

The article examines the developmental prospects of civilization from the perspective of self-organization theory and synergetics, which are becoming foundational for understanding the processes of the 21st century. The author argues that the contemporary world is at a bifurcation point, characterized by a loss of stability in its previous developmental trajectory. At this fateful juncture, the very structure of society and the guiding principles of human evolution are being forged anew. The analysis covers four fundamentally different future scenarios: (1) the rise of a digital hyper-empire built on total control; (2) a retreat into a pre-modern religious worldview, heralding a “New Middle Ages”; (3) a purely technocratic leap, symbolized by the ambitions of Elon Musk; and (4) the humanistic vision proposed by the philosopher I.T. Frolov. The author provides a detailed examination of the negative consequences of the first three scenarios. The era of the hyper-empire and hyper-control would lead to the loss of individual freedom, the erosion of social bonds, the dominance of algorithmic governance, and poses the threat of dehumanization. The project of a “New Middle Ages,” theorized by N.A. Berdyaev, courts regression into irrationalism and tribalism, leading to civilizational stagnation. The technological breakthrough scenario, despite its apparent successes, entails risks of strategic failure due to an excessive focus on technological dominance at the expense of humanistic and social considerations. The most viable and hopeful alternative presented is the “Frolovian scenario,” which advocates for holistic human progress rooted in scientific humanism. This paradigm places the moral and cultural flourishing of the person at its center, viewing technology as a means rather than an end. It is this approach, the author argues, that holds the promise of guiding humanity through the current instability toward a balanced and sustainable future. The conclusion emphasizes the necessity for each individual to recognize their responsibility for the current historical choice, a decision upon which the destiny of our species hangs.

The article examines the trend of the increasingly widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, which is a consequence of human civilization's transition to a new stage of development: the civilization of cognitive technologies. This stage is characterized by the satisfaction of needs through the replacement of humans with artificial cognitive systems for the intelligent control of machinery. The paper investigates the possibility and dangers of the emergence of agency in artificial intelligence. The concepts of consciousness, self-consciousness, and agency (subjectivity) are analyzed, and it is argued that their conflation is erroneous. The author proposes an original definition of agency, formulated in terms of consciousness and self-consciousness. A link is established between agency and the possession of needs. In the context of assessing emerging threats to humanity from an alternative intelligence, the case of an entity simultaneously possessing both needs and a high level of intelligence is highlighted as a primary concern. Drawing upon previous research, the author asserts that it is possible for AI to achieve intelligence comparable to human reason, including the ability to solve creative problems. General system theory, particularly the author’s proposed method of multisystem knowledge integration, is presented as a potential means to this end. It is shown that artificial intelligence cannot acquire needs autonomously, and there is no practical necessity for humans to endow it with them, as agency is not required for solving intellectual problems. Moreover, an AI imbued with agency could, under specific circumstances, represent a tangible threat to humanity. Its needs and desires would inevitably enter into conflict with those of people. In a confrontation with an agentive AI of superior intellect, humanity would likely be vanquished. Therefore, the author concludes, artificial intelligence must never be allowed to attain agency.

The article examines the history of the establishment of the Institute of Man of the USSR Academy of Sciences (later, the Russian Academy of Sciences), which operated from 1989 to 2004. Throughout its existence, the Institute maintained a consistent research focus on the comprehensive, interdisciplinary study of humanity, even as its institutional affiliation evolved. This focus derived from the scientific programme developed over many years by Academician I.T. Frolov, which underpinned the Institute of Man project. Under I.T. Frolov’s leadership, a substantial journey was undertaken: various institutional forms were tested, and hundreds of scholars and research teams were engaged in the pursuit of comprehensive human studies. The immense authority that philosopher I.T. Frolov commanded among representatives of the natural and technical sciences enabled the unification of their efforts in addressing global, multifaceted problems, ultimately leading to the affirmative decision by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences to establish the Institute of Man in 1989. A contributing factor was the significant political influence wielded by I.T. Frolov as an aide to the head of state for science, education, and culture. Drawing on recently discovered documents from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (including the transcript of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences meeting on January 17, 1989, during which the question of creating the Institute of Man was considered, as well as the resolution of the Presidium on the organization of the All-Union Interdepartmental Center for Human Sciences under the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Man under the Center), the article analyzes the course of the discussion and the decisions adopted. It elucidates the arguments advanced in favor of and against the creation of the Institute of Man, as well as the organizational forms proposed in connection therewith. Given that the Institute of Man project retains its relevance today, the arguments presented by both sides hold interest for organizers of science as well as public and political figures.

The article examines the phenomenon of the Frolov Readings, a series of annual academic conferences held in memory of Academician Ivan Timofeevich Frolov (1929–1999). I.T. Frolov was a pioneer in several academic fields, notably global studies, bioethics, and the interdisciplinary study of humanity. He is known not only as a prominent organizer of the country’s philosophical community – as the editor-in-chief of the journal Voprosy Filosofii, President of the Russian Philosophical Society, the first Director of the Institute of Man of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), and Chairman of the Editorial Board of the journal Chelovek – but also as a major public and political figure, including his role as editor-in-chief of the Pravda newspaper. In all these roles, I.T. Frolov worked tirelessly to humanize social relations both in Russia and globally. The conferences commemorating I.T. Frolov have been held since 2001, first at the Institute of Man of the RAS and subsequently at the Institute of Philosophy of the RAS. They arguably constitute the longest-running and most continuously operating academic initiative in Russia’s contemporary philosophical community. The Frolov Readings have become a kind of invisible college for scholars from various disciplines who seek to engage in comprehensive, interdisciplinary research on humanity. Consequently, the presenters at the Readings include philosophers, sociologists, political scientists, psychologists, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, ecologists, and experts in engineering and the technical sciences. In this way, the Readings align with the original vision of the eminent Russian scholar and philosopher, who believed that humanity should be studied holistically, as an integral whole, through the combined efforts of all scientific disciplines. The organizers and participants of the Frolov Readings are guided by I.T. Frolov’s core principle: an adherence to the primacy of the human being and the ideals of humanism.