Inclusion In The Context Of "Human Enhancement" In The Transhumanist Paradigm

Abstract

The article analyzes the understanding of inclusion in accordance with the "human enhancement" project in transhumanism. The difficulty of combining and implementing inclusion and inclusive education is fixed, in particular in the case of the successful introduction of "human enhancement" into the digital society. Transhuman and posthuman are equally thought of as approaching the "superhuman-deity" standard, thanks to Human Enhancement Technologies. The question arises whether it is possible to combine the achievements of the modern world and, in particular, inclusion with the projects of the future society? For an answer, it is necessary to understand the interpretation of the person, "human enhancement", and inclusion in transhumanism. Transhumanists have created a set of "convenient" principles and concepts for the implementation of "human enhancement", such as: "transhuman", "posthuman", "controlled evolution", "exponential thinking", "hedonistic imperative", "morphological freedom" , "Primo Posthuman" and others, which are embedded in the NBIC convergence program. However, the analysis of the semantic content of even the identical concept of "freedom" or terms that include the concept of "person" speaks of their fundamental opposition and incompatibility. An inclusive approach presupposes the upholding of the value of a person (everyone, any person), and transhumanism prioritizes progress and innovation, where a person is a means, a transitional link or an imperfect construct that needs a radical transformation.

Keywords: Ranshumanism, human enhancement, inclusion

Introduction

In connection with the need for a critical analysis of rapidly developing technologies that radically change society and, therefore, educational trajectories, which, by definition, must be proactive, it is important to assess the possibility of combining the achievements, in particular in the field of inclusion, and those models that are more likely to be implemented. This paradigm at the theoretical and practical level is being promoted more and more clearly by transhumanism with its “human enhancement” project. The latter is implemented at the educational level, including through the NBICS-technologies convergence program by “Exponential Thinking / exponential mindset” (Kurzweil, 2020). To implement such a global "reform", transhumanism radically changes and reduces ethical attitudes (to the level of neuroethics), the concept of freedom, for example, to the principles of "morphological freedom", values ​​to the "hedonistic imperative", etc. In the context of this article, such basic concepts of modern education as "inclusion" and "human enhancement" will be compared and specified.

Problem Statement

The growing popularity, an increasingly clear definition of the direction vector of the information society towards total digitalization makes inevitable the formation of a new environment, where the currently existing person will have to transform in the most radical format. The issue of “ranking” people according to their main health criteria and, in particular, how the problem of “special” children will be solved, the inclusion of inclusive education in the format of general digital education, becomes important, since all achievements can be nullified in the most negative sense of the word, when the worst strategy regarding a person and his educational trajectory is realized (see scenarios according to Bostrom (2016)). Hence it is important:

• Determine the meanings of the concepts, and their compatibility with the most popular futurological oriented concepts, in particular with transhumanist projects.
• Definition of inclusion and its implementation in terms of possible transformations of the status of a person, transhuman and posthuman in the digital age.

Research Questions

Does the “ordinary” person have future and is there a place for children with special needs, and accordingly, does inclusive education have future in the era of total digitalization from the point of view of transhumanism? If such existence is possible, then within what boundaries / parameters will it be realized? Will the inclusion criteria be revised and transformed? And will there be a place for inclusion in the world of "improved" transhumans and posthumans?

Purpose of the Study

In the context of understanding inclusion, it is necessary to determine its place and interpretation in the transhumanist paradigm due to the growing popularity and dominance of the “human enhancement” project in scientific and public discourses. How can the “inclusion / inclusiveness” trend be implemented (combined) with the new standards of the person and the improvement of the transhuman, including through educational technologies? It is necessary to critically analyze the impact of rapidly developing technologies in a timely manner, since the technical side develops faster than the philosophical and ethical reaction in the official plane, hence, proactive, not catch up approach is necessary. Forecasting is undoubtedly more difficult to develop, the pandemic clearly showed how the scientific community turned out to be not ready in terms of forecasting, for such an outcome / scenario of events. Many leading innovative programs and their leaders have literally turned 180 degrees and are now hastily adjusting their conclusions and forecasts, training programs. Due to the large volume, we will consider only one of the trend aspects - inclusion on the example of new interpretations of human nature, subjectivity or its absence, and the application of the above to the educational environment, taking into account the future proposed model of total digitalization. Obvious questions arise: either an ordinary person will become “special” and it is necessary to fight for his right to receive education and work along with “improved products” and / or inclusion will disappear as impossible in the “perfect” digital world of the Singularity. Or it will be constantly "present" as a kind of border that cannot be crossed, and therefore improvements will receive an eternal format. It is necessary to analyze the inclusion / improvement dilemma through basic ontological categories, for example through the category of integrity.

Research Methods

Within the framework of the topic of the article, the works by Kurzweil (2020), Bostrom (2016), Pearce (2018), More (1993); More and Vita -More (2013). A critical analysis of transhumanism is presented in the works of Fukuyama (2003), Habermas (2005), Kutyrev (2016) and others. Inclusion in Russian science is presented in the works of Iarskaia-Smirnova and Iarskaia-Smirnova (2015); Iarskaia-Smirnova (2019), Voronich (2013) have been analyzed.

Findings

Having considered the above definitions, guidance and principles, as well as methods, it is necessary to clearly answer and highlight such aspects as the compatibility of concepts, the correlation of inclusion with the most popular futurological oriented concepts, in particular with transhumanist projects. To reveal their compliance / non-compliance. To determine the degree of realism / mythology. The issue of conformity and the possibility of convergence should be considered through the basic categories - integrity, individuality, dignity, gender.

Integrity. For the humanistic European and for the Russian philosophical traditions, the category of integrity was initially characteristic, and more specifically the integrity of a person as the person, and hence the integrity in education and upbringing. However, gradually in European philosophy, in the post-classical direction, the tendency of dismemberment, separation of any "parts" in human nature and the emergence of the concepts of "man-construct " took shape. Against this background, the policy of inclusion looks very ambiguous. Scientists from a wide variety of spheres have joined the "anthropological confrontation." “Comprehension of the idea of ​​integrity requires the analysis of materials from different sciences, but we will be interested in integrity as a cultural value, as a prior conviction of a person that he is integral. ... In the phenomenological and, moreover, in the spiritual sense, the subject has integrity, which is the space of the bodily embodied personality. This topos of personal presence can be expressed by the concept of "untouchable zone", developed by the Danish philosopher Knud Lögstrup. A reference to the protection of the bodily and mental integrity of the human person becomes an indispensable point in the formulation of legal norms” (Semenyuk et al., 2020). So, integrity through identity is a fundamental inviolable law of human existence. Transhumanistic "improvement" ignores or, more precisely, violates, invades this sphere and irreversibly breaks the human self. From the point of view of methodology, at all levels the categorical approach with its emphasis on meaningfulness, immersion into the essence of the phenomenon is replaced by the dimensional approach. Scientism, biological reductionism with its neuroethics, with the domination of quantitative indicators in it and the requirements of natural scientific accuracy, gave rise to the illusion of the omnipotence of graphs, rating scales, statistical indicators and mathematical models. However, all of the abovementioned can lead away from the truth or hide erroneous ideas no worse than "metaphysical, contemplative or theological" philosophizing. It is in this kind of reductionism that the concept of "inclusion" began to develop in the modern social field. In this manner it is interpreted in the program "inclusive capitalism" or "inclusive economy". The substitution of a natural person for only a certain variation of it, often in the form of something that can be measured with clear and limited parameters leads to the emphasis on exceptions, not on norms. It is easier to measure just some deviation or a side effect. It is no coincidence that attempts continue to legalize and replace the processes of diagnosis, comprehension of meaning by dimensions with clear, convenient methods for measuring what neuroscience deals with. Now, in all directions, it multiplies its categorical apparatus, creating neuroethics with an aim to replace all existing ethical theories. Everything is replaced, and in fact, is reduced to fit the future neurosubjectivity or neuroessence of the posthuman. However, from the point of view of deep and holistic foundations, and in particular from the standpoint of the Russian philosophy, inclusion, as well as the improvement of a person itself, should be understood and interpreted in an incommensurably wider and deeper way.

With regard to the concept "human dignity", which also harmoniously complements the category of integrity, uniqueness and subjectivity of the person, it is necessary to emphasize its (dignity) compliance with the principles of inclusion (all people are valuable in themselves, regardless of their merits or qualities and "deviations"). Dignity reinforces a person's position at the legal and philosophical level, and socially provides a reasonable basis for equal, respectful dialogue, interaction and communication. In the transhumanistic paradigm, dignity is dissolved and / or withdrawn from the basic principles of human understanding.

With regard to sex and gender, the article should emphasize the positive role of inclusion as highlighting the particular vulnerability of the double disadvantageous position of women with special needs (World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, 1994). In transhumanism, not only diversity is ignored or overcome, but also the goal is determined - the achievement of postgenderism or, alternatively, the digital download of the mind without bodily self-identification (the existence of digital copies and human avatars). At the present stage, women often become a kind of target for transhumanist projects and experiments, since the main goals: elimination of aging (eternal youth), death (immortality), disease (constant happiness and pleasure) are especially attractive for women in a world where it is not at all fashionable and “it is not profitable "to grow old, get sick and suffer. However, such a fantastic existence of a transhuman itself is doubtful, as Braidotti (2013) emphasizes that transhumanist postgenderism does not imply the integrity and protection of the subject - without the body the subject is not possible.

Inclusion and its implementation from the perspective of “Human Enhancement”. So, inclusion is the involvement of everyone, in education it is the inclusion of each student into the educational process by adapting learning to his special needs (Voronich, 2013). Inclusive education ideally includes all children, regardless of their intellectual and physical abilities, when “special” children learn with others and get the necessary social real experience in the same class, the same classroom. However, even now double standards are being fully implemented, since the program of inclusive education is mainly taken over by the mass general academic school. At the same time, all the disadvantages of a “poorly resourced” school are doubled (high class size, shortage of technical support, shortage and optimization of teaching staff, etc.). Integration (joint learning) and technical inclusion are most often chosen as a form of implementation of inclusive education, i.e. redevelopment of premises and adaptation of educational programs for children with special needs.

Let's compare the basic principles of inclusive education with the principles of transhumanists (The Transhumanist Declaration, 2009):

Each or every person is self-worth, regardless of ability or achievement. 2. Each person is a feeling and thinking creature. 3. Therefore, everyone has the right to two-way communication (the right to speak and be heard). 4. Every person is social and needs another. 5. Human education is full only in a social context (in interaction). 6. Hence, a person needs communication with peers. 7. Progress is the ability to do what you can. 8. Diversity is the basic principle of education and fulfilling life (Voronich, 2013).

Now, here are some attitudes from the Declaration of Transhumanists, version 2002/2009: “1. Mankind will change radically in the future thanks to new technologies. We foresee a change in the conditions of human life, including the abolition of the inevitability of aging, the limitations of natural and artificial intelligence, the inviolability of the psychology of behavior, the elimination of suffering and the elimination of our imprisonment within the planet Earth” (The Transhumanist Declaration, 2009). So, the first thesis already contradicts the principles of the inclusive approach. In modern society, the self-worth of any person is officially proclaimed, despite all the circumstances; transhumanists want the opposite situation: to build up a creature through a trance to the posthuman and this process should embrace all mankind, leaving no community aside and ideally eliminating any possible “shortcomings”. The next four principles of inclusive education also presuppose the presence of the "natural man". Since he will be overcome and radically transformed, the very social interaction, dialogue and empathy will undergo deformation here and can disappear. A “thinking and feeling person” is one who has personal space, freedom and a place for the existential “I”. In the event of a radical transhumanistic transformation, posthumans will have no space for a purely personal “I”. Everyone will be in the system of global communication “posthuman –Network – AI”. Even a seemingly general principle such as reliance on the concept of "progress" does not bring inclusion and transhumanism closer together. In the first case, progress is driven by the "human" factor, according to the system "do what you can, and this is already progress", in the second case "progress is valuable in itself and is a priority in relation to the natural man." Transhumanists describe the future according to the scheme " progress without the person is better than a limited person" doomed. " So, in the inclusive approach, priority is given to the person with a substantial reservation - "to every (each) person, in transhumanism, progress and innovation are primary, and the natural characteristics of a person and even more so his" ailments and shortcomings "are declared “enemies, fetters "that should be overcome. So, the Declaration of Transhumanists states “4. Transhumanists defend the moral rights of those who want to use advanced technology to expand their mental and physical abilities (including reproductive) and improve their own control over their lives. We are looking for ways to grow our personality beyond our current biological limitations. ... 7. Transhumanism protects the right to a dignified life of all highly developed creatures with sensory perception (be they people, posthumans, animals or organisms with artificial intelligence)”. The updated version of 2009: 7. We stand for the well-being of all sentient creatures, including humans, animals, as well as any future artificial intelligences, modified life forms, or other sentient creatures that can give rise to technological and scientific progress. 8. We stand for giving people a wide range of personal choices about how they make their lives. This includes the use of techniques that can be developed to improve memory, concentration and mental energy; life extension therapy; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible technologies for human modification and improvement (The Transhumanist Declaration, 2009). From the above quotes, it is obvious that transhumanists have softened some theses or formulations, but the essence remains. So back in 2002, they declared neutrality (they did not support political parties). Later they themselves registered the party in the United States and nominated their own presidential candidate. The declaration contains many pitfalls that directly or indirectly deny existing international norms and classical principles of understanding the nature of the person and his role, life and dignity. In fact, an ordinary person will not be able to exist in the new reality of "posthumans". In all versions, the 7th thesis crosses out classical anthropology and equates creatures (people and animals) and products (artificial intelligence or modified life forms, avatars and programs) of different orders, calling them all "intelligent creatures or highly developed creatures with sensory perception."

Researchers of the effective implementation of inclusive education usually identify obstacles or barriers, among which always appear: a) people as unprepared or hindering. For transhumanists, people are either excluded from the decision-making process towards passive recipients, or they are transformed into a “norm” that excludes their disagreement. There seems to be a positive moment in this thesis for inclusion, but inclusion itself, which presupposes the diversity of people, is absent here. b) knowledge as inadequate or insufficient. According to transhumanists, they pass into some kind of externally introduced competencies. This also leads to problems: either the competencies are introduced (genetic interference with DNA) and they cannot be modified in the future, or they are not there and they also cannot be corrected in the future. c) material resources. According to transhumanists, they will be ranked according to the ranking of the trans and posthumans themselves. d) social resources are completely revised, since transhumanism focuses on certain posthumans - "products" in different modifications.

So, when considering the basic principles of inclusion and transhumanism, an obvious contradiction is revealed: on the one hand, the desire to provide conditions and a chance to everyone, regardless of opportunities, and on the other hand, new concepts increasingly limit and drive into the rigid framework of a person as such. An “ordinary” person is declared an outcast, not competitive and unprofitable for the future world. And people with special needs are often interesting only as the first candidates for experiments. Returning to the questions posed: does an “ordinary” person have future and is there a place for children with inclusion and, accordingly, does inclusive education have future in the era of total digitalization from the point of view of transhumanism? And will there be a place for inclusion in the world of "improved" transhumans and posthumans. To answer this question, let us turn to the opinion of another herald of future, who has real political and economic leverage, to K. Schwab "... soon one should expect the emergence of engineered babies with specific qualities or resistance to certain diseases" (Schwab, 2016, p. 200). And “... these incredible discoveries can be used to serve the interests of specific groups that do not always coincide with the needs of society as a whole ... Technological advances have brought us to new ethical frontiers. Should we use the staggering advances in biology only to treat disease and remediate the effects of trauma, or should we also focus on human improvement? If we accept the second option, then we risk turning parenting into another manifestation of the consumer society; in this case our children can turn into a product made according to our wishes. Increasingly, there are fears that as the fourth industrial revolution deepens our personal and collective relationship with technology, our social skills and empathy will deteriorate.” (Schwab, 2016, p. 300). So, Schwab (2016) has no doubt in the implementation of radical technologies in relation to humans and at the same time emphasizes significant shifts already at the present stage and the probabilistic strong degradation of "humanity" in trans and posthumans. Technology is already making us heartless, insensitive, indifferent, “embittered”. They are not able to support love and empathy, as a result, we will turn into morally limited insensitive pragmatic biomachines.

With regard to the implementation of inclusion, including education, harmonious and most importantly "human" conditions are necessary, and the digitalization process reduces humanity to the minimum, where the gap between the rich and the poor, the elite and the masses is only increasing. Now it is obvious that globalization as it was imagined 30 years ago did not happen, but on the contrary, an enclave of globalities (instead of global sociality) arose, the gap between enclaves and the rest of the territories and communities is aggravating (Ivanov, 2020). Similarly, digitalization will develop (has already begun), the introduction of virtual and augmented reality, the Internet of things, genetic development. The dichotomy here describes consumption and income even more obvious and pragmatic the elite will apparently be able to choose and use high-quality and relatively safe drugs and doses, and the population will become an experimental platform for the drainage and testing of everyone and everything on the principle of a lot, cheaply, quickly, poor quality (intellectually and morally). Such a gap precisely due to the inequality of opportunities and the deterioration in the standard of living of the population will create a caste of posthumans - gods and others (biomaterial). Transhumanists blur out from time to time, as D. Pierce, believes that happiness can be created by immersing in a more complex environment and providing a rest from it (people will be happy with this already). So, amid the dullness and intolerance of the future world, some half-hour virtual walk will be the ultimate dream of an exhausted person. Therefore, the modern democratic version of inclusion is not only not being implemented, but will be curtailed.

So, it is necessary to remember about the specifics of interpretations of concepts among transhumanists, where there is an “author's” filling of terms and definitions. So “Human Enhancement” is not an improvement of the original nature while preserving its basic parameters, its integrity and individuality, but it is a radical transformation or breakdown of the entire system. When applied to a person, at first, he is conceived as a construct that can be disassembled into separate parts and assembled or used to create a hybrid. In transhumanism, a person is not conceived as a unique creature with dignity and rights. This creature is transitional, imperfect and intended for further transformation, or it should serve as a "base" for more advanced creatures like robots or AI. Such guidance allows you to start experiments, to introduce "improvements" into any normal healthy organism to create something new that cannot be fully predicted, but must be approved. Hence the question or basic assumption for modern inclusion is also radically changing. Inclusion implies the introduction of everyone into a unified social space, but not with the aim of bringing diversity to an average model, but with the aim of accepting each different and allowing the other (with special needs, minorities) to occupy a niche. The Human Enhancement Technologies project sees inclusion as a mixer method, where people undergo special processing and move into the transhuman format, and then inevitably into the posthuman. The NBIK technology convergence program does not stop at the human norm, human nature and its integrity, it only needs various “components” for a global experiment.

Conclusion

The paradoxical feature, multi-vector nature, illogic and mythologization are obvious, and as a consequence, the fallacy of the official rainbow descriptions of the prospects and their real translating into “human enhancement”. A diametrical discrepancy between inclusion and transhumanism in the choice of the dominant is fixed. In an inclusive approach, this is a person according to the formula “each and every person”; in transhumanism - the technical progress to which a person must adjust, “shrink”. In light of such narrow parameters and standards, normative advances in understanding inclusion and implementing inclusive education policies will lose ground. An analysis of the principles of inclusion and inclusive education and their comparison with the principles of transhumanists (The Transhumanist Declaration, 2009) clearly demonstrates their disparity and fundamental antagonism. So, based on the analysis of the works of leading transhumanists, the logical line for the improvement of the person as a biological species is ultimately reduced to the concept of "product", article, unit. And in such a new "interesting" status, inclusion will undergo revision; a new interpretation and a new standard of inclusion will appear. We will most likely come from the modern maximally democratic and pluralistic version of the recognition of every person, any unique and special child and his inclusion into society, to the opposite situation: the complete erasure of uniqueness and the creation of the most identical creatures. Uniqueness will be excluded at the initial stage (genetic engineering), the posthuman will be deprived of the qualities of inclusion as such, or the equal sign will be put transhuman = inclusive person and thus the achievement of the next stage of the controlled evolution will be proclaimed. Neuroethics and neurobiology eliminate mercilessly any “deviations” and the standard overruns. For example, emotionally and behaviorally through designer drugs, or nanotechnology, electrical stimulation, etc. In the biological physical sense, body standards will acquire a strict framework (Human 2.0 in N. Vita-Mor and other variations of body design). This is a controlled mind in a human-machine-network symbiosis at the cognitive neurolevel. In this case the ability to remain the only, unique, or even “lonely” will become an impracticable, closed or forbidden form of being.

The modern level of legal support for social inclusion, cultural attitude to inclusion and inclusive education are a kind of challenge for theories and paradigms that are still being formed, but claim to become basic in the future society. The problem of inclusion is an indicator that is able to highlight the ideas, principles, methodology and argumentation of transhumanism. For example, M. Mor and N. Vita-Mor in their book often refer to the diversity and victories of minorities. This diversity will supposedly continue in the digital virtual world of "technical paradise". However, the basis and definitions of the basic concepts: the person, the transhuman, the posthuman, consciousness. Transhumanists already presuppose unification, elimination and complete uncertainty without any guarantees under the slogans “forward to innovations”.

The recent sociological article provides statistical data, quantitative and qualitative indicators and draws a disappointing conclusion about reporting pressure and paper genocide already now, at the stage of digitalization in the context of the market economy and consumer standards in education. It is logical to assume that such an imperfect strategy, which led, among other things, to institutional dysfunction, embedded in most programs and algorithms, will intensify, since it will be multiplied by software errors and the “absence of the person” format (Osipov et al., 2020). The possibility of public discourse and dialogue will narrow even further, perhaps to zero. Reporting, ratings, and bureaucracy have already immersed people in the "around life", that is, not life itself, but many hours of its description and not even life description, but description of individual selective formats. Digitalization and the transition to a more technogenic existence will intensify all these processes and consequences. Digitalization itself is more and more plunging society into imitation of life and all processes, rather than direct existence in the world. Similarly, the educational and scientific process is being imitated and mythologized increasingly, which does not contribute to the development of creativity, spiritual qualities and does not increase motivation (Seliverstova, 2020).

The concept of transhumanists, approving, among others, the selection of embryos, already suggests that we do not accept, do not agree with any uniqueness and, as a result, inclusion. "Human enhancement" implies deep dissatisfaction and a struggle with "imperfection" and the natural norm. Therefore, while some are told “be together and accept everyone,” others accept only the select and even want to radically transform themselves. The principles of morphological freedom, originally genetically given, will abolish any possibility of choice on the part of the individual himself. There will be no place for "not improved", all "improved" will be so within the framework of the standard. If it is possible to agree with a person, find out, cancel an unsuccessful decision “on the run”, the computer system will not give a person a chance, implementing improvement launching algorithm in any conditions and for any subjects, which as a result does not guarantee the achievement of universal supermen or happiness.

References

• Bostrom, N. (2016). Artificial intelligence. Stages. Threats. Strategies. Mann, Ivanov and Fer-ber. [in Rus].

• Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Polity Press, UK Polity Press.

• Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

• Habermas, J. (2005). The Future of Human Nature. Translated by Hella Beister, Max Pensky, and William Rehg: The Future of Human Nature Article (PDF Available), in Ethics 115(4), 816-821.

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Iarskaia-Smirnova, V. N. (2019). On the role of temporality in the life of people with disabilities. Sociological Studies, 45(3), 42-48. [in Rus]. https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250004277-7

• Iarskaia– Smirnova, V. N., & Iarskaia-Smirnova, Е. Р. (2015). Inclusive culture of social services. Studies, 12, 133-140. [in Rus].

• Ivanov, D. V. (2020). Augmented modernity: the effects of post-globalization and post-virtualization. Sociological Studies, 5, 44-55. [in Rus].

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Kurzweil, R. (2020). The law of accelerating returns. https://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweils-law-aka-the-law-of-accelerating-returns

• Kutyrev, V. A. (2016). Gone By Progress: The Eschatology Of Life In A Technogenic World. Aleteia.[in Rus].

• More, M. (1993). Technological Self-Transformation: Expanding Personal Extropy. Extropy, 4(2).

• More, M., & Vita-More, N. (2013). The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future 1st Edition. John Wiley & Sons.

• Osipov, A. M., Matveeva, N. A., Boyadjieva, P. A., & Vorontsov, Ya .A. (2020). Russian education in the abyss of paper: the experience of sociological analysis. Sociological Studies, 3, 60-70. [in Rus].

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Pearce, D. (2018). The Hedonistic Imperative. (n.d.). https://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/tabconhi.htm

• Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. Eksmo.

• Seliverstova, N. A. (2020). Imitation of educational practices in the field of higher education. Sociological Studies, 3, 71-77. [in Rus].

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Semenyuk, A. P., Semenyuk, X. A., & Dolbnya, A. D. (2020). The principle of integrity as the basis of cultural and personal identity (a bioethical statement of the problem). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 58, 67-74. [in Rus]. https://doi.org/ 10.17223/1998863Х/58/7

• The Transhumanist Declaration. (2009). https://ru-transhuman.livejournal.com/413065.html

• Vita-More, N. (2008). Designing Human 2.0 – Regenerative Existence Article in Artifact, Artifact 2(3-4), 145-152.

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Voronich, Е. А. (2013). The essence of an inclusive approach in education. Periodical journal of scientific works "Fan Science", 1(16), 17-20.

• World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. (1994). Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June 1994 United Nations Ministry of Educational, Scientific and Education and Science Cultural Organization Spain. Salaman Declaration and Framework for Action on Education for Persons with Special Needs. (1994) https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/pdf/salamanka.pdf