AXIOLOGICAL FUTURISM AS A VECTOR OF MODERN SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT

Aim. To reveal the features of the influence of axiological futurism on modern society.
Methodology. The current state of the axiological space of possibilities is analyzed in terms of the use of social-virtual environments. The research methodology is a socio-philosophical analysis of the problem of the axiological space of opportunities model influence on social systems, as well as general scientific methods of theoretical knowledge, methods of system analysis, comparison and generalization of foreign and Russian studies on the problem of studying value-semantic dominants in the situation of digital transformation. As the methodological foundations of the study, the main approaches to understanding the models of development of society in different locations are used - from the society of individual intelligence to the society of collective intelligence and artificial intelligence.
Results. The main elements in the axiological model of the probabilistic possibilities of the future, including the cause-and-effect relationships of technological and value-semantic change of a person, the fundamental component of which is the intellect as the main resource of people and human civilizations, necessary for survival, are determined. Intelligence has three forms: individual, i.e. the ability to solve individual problems; collective, that is, the ability to solve problems of groups of people to work and coordinate their actions together; artificial, i.e. the ability of machines to solve tasks.
Research implications. The material on the topic under study is summarized. The results of the study contribute to the methodological basis of social philosophy. Their relevance is due to the disclosure of the practical significance of “axiological futurism”, the development of an intellectual model of the axiological space of possibilities of the post-human individual of the future. The authors of the work come to the conclusion that axiological futurism is necessary because it takes into account the history of value changes and variations, and complements other futurological requests in scientific reasoning, thus allowing you to design a space of axiological possibilities and consider how civilizations can move and change value-semantic dominants in the future.

1. Maikova V. P. Social’no-filosofskie problemy dinamiki obshchestvennogo soznaniya v sovremennoj filosofii [Social and Philosophical Problems of the Dynamics of Social Consciousness in Modern Philosophy]. Moscow, Moscow State Forest University Publ., 2013. 385 p.

2. Maikova V. P. Celostnyj podhod k problemam teorii poznaniya. Idei. Metody. Resheniya [A Holistic Approach to the Problem of the Theory of Knowledge. Ideas. Methods. Solutions]. Berlin: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2011. 70 p.

3. Danaher J., Nyholm S. Automation, Work and the Achievement Gap. In: AI Ethics, 2021, no. 1, pp. 227–237.

4. Flanagan O. The Geography of Morals: Varieties of Moral Possibility. New York, Oxford University Press, 2017. Р. 232–362.

5. Kudina O., Verbeek P.-P. Ethics from Within: Google Glass, the Collingridge Dilemma, and the Mediated Value of Privacy. In: Science, Technology, & Hum Values, 2019, vol. 44 (2), pp. 291–314.

6. Baum S. D., Timoteus Ekenstedt S. A., Häggström O., et al. Long-term Trajectories of Human Civilization. In: Foresight, 2019, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 53–83.

7. Mulgan T. Big Mind: How Collective Intelligence Can Change Our World. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2017. 280 p.

8. Schröder W. M. Robots and Rights: Reviewing Recent Positions in Legal Philosophy and Ethics. In: Braun J. S., Archer M., Reichberg G. M., Sorondo S., eds. Robotics, AI, and Humanity. Berlin, Springer, Cham, 2021. 269 p.

9. Van De Poel I. Design for Value Change. In: Ethics and Information Technology, 2021, no. 23, pp. 27–31.

10. Verbeek P. P. The Empirical Turn. In: Vallor S., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Technology. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 35–54.