DEMOCTATIZATION FROM THE SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW

ADDRESS OF RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS
TO THE WORLD SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY


The main goal of that address is to define the main causes of global problems of mankind and the starting point for constructive consolidation under the circumstances of unsteady social evolution.
The tension of geopolitical reality based on the power confrontation of states is constantly increasing, which is just a logical consequence of absence of understanding of global problems of our civilization.
The power confrontation of states taking place on the back ground of constantly increasing population of the Earth and decreasing of natural resources of the planet (including those resources that compensate the anthropogenic rise ) may become antagonistic with all the relevant consequences.
The existing situation on the planet in general reflects not only the low level of strategic mentality of mankind but the complication of the problem itself and also the state of the theory of notion, of social science. Until now neither a scientifically based conception of evolution, nor clear idea of the nearest future (to say nothing about the future of the global civilization) have been produced.
We have to state that the mankind has not created any theory of steady social evolution.
But today the impossibility of obtaining adequate answers to the challenge of time and working out any constructive, economic, political, demography, anti-terrorist, ecological or other doctrine defining effective evolution and preservation of the earthen civilization has become obvious especially without scientific understanding of the sources of existing global social problems and without identification of the prior objectives of civilization.
Conferences of Heads of States in Rio-de-Janeiro in 1992 and in Johannesburg in 2002 under the aegis of the UN also failed to determine the scientific aspect of the problem. It was not recognized that the social theory is quite specific, and that without such a theory it is impossible to create a conception of steady evolution of the global civilization.
Russian scientists address the world scientific community and suggest that scientific definition should be given to these problems:
1. History has not supplied the mankind with a scientifically based theory of social evolution. That is why the modern science should admit the priority of its creation in conformity with scientific methods, logic and experience.
2. Scientific theory of social evolution is a special type of theory, that is why it can be created only when aimed at the highest humanitarian objective.
3. The modern attitude to the problems that lie on the borders of different disciplines needs to be completed with a basic idea of civilization, as the highest goal of mankind, recognized as criteria of all social knowledge.
4. The necessity of preservation of human civilization should be admitted as the main goal of civilization. This idea should be offered to the states, members of the UNO, as the bases for their constitutions. That will allow to consolidate the mankind and to direct it to the building of rational civilization that would preserve all the variety of national cultures.
5. Freedom of speech, proclaimed by democracy is the only scientifically based exit from the impasse of existing world outlook. But in order to solve the problems of civilization the freedom of speech should be made constructive and scientifically based, with other words it should contain in its foundation the highest humanitarian goal, otherwise the freedom of speech allows to realize scientific dialogue only at the basic level.
6. At the first stage of movement towards consolidation of mankind and towards the model of steadily developing society the consolidation of international scientific community is needed for the further enlightening and educational work in society. For that purpose it is necessary to work out projects of annual international congress “Preservation of the global civilization” and international competition “Model of future civilization” which are supposed to become instruments of constructive orientation of social knowledge.
7. The main goal of today is to make everyone understand the objective reality of surrounding world. It is necessary to show the society that existing negative tendencies on our planet, chaos in minds and multiple tragedies of modern world, including terrorism, are the consequences of the absence of dialogue on a scientific not on a preconceived level.
By this address Russian scientists together with world scientific community are planning to direct the chaotic movement of scientific social idea towards constructive search of solution of the global civilization problems. Russian scientists are sure that only scientific methods will allow to consolidate the efforts of the peoples of all the world to the benefit of each nation and the whole mankind. The principles of the Address allow the UN and other interested bodies to define the constructive basis for solution of internal and international conflicts.
Russian scientists hope that state leaders and the UN will support their initiative to organize the dialogue between sates in the framework of the UN and on a strictly scientific level.
Russian scientists believe that the world scientific community is constituted of all thinking and conserved with the destinies of civilization. One of the first thinkers who suggested to start the international dialogue on the preservation of civilization was V.I.Vernadsky, he was followed by B.Russel and A.Einstein with their prominent Manifest.
* * *
The Address was supported by: L.Abalkin, G.Arbatov, O.Belotserkovsriy, N.Bolkhovitiniv, E.Velikhov, V.Vinogradov, E.Vinogradov, V.Guinzburg, E.Guirousov, G.Golitsyn, Y.Dmitriev, V.Zhourkin, M.Zalikhanov, V.Kartashkin, V.Koudriavtsev, O.Kouznetsov, S.Kourdioumov, D.Lvov, V.Makarov, V.Matrosov, V.Medvedev, O.Nefedov, I.Novikov, S.Novikov, T.Oizerman, B.Osipov, G.Osipov, N.Petrakov, A.Petrov, Y.Pivovarov, Y.Poliakov, D.Roundkwist, A.Sakharov, G.Sevostianov, L.Skvortsov, S.Tikhvinskiy, T.Timofeev, B.Topornin, O.Favorskiy, E.Chazov, V.Chereshnev, A.Choubarian, N.Shmelev, B.Youdin. The Address was also suppported by T.Heierdahl, N.Moiseev, S.Zalyguin and S.Shatalin. We would like to express deep gratitude to R.Viderker, S.Wood, T.Gustufson, D.Tilly, R.Kharkin, P.Sharro for the interest they showed during the discussion of the problems of civilization and for their support of the main idea of the Address, namely the acknowledgement of the urgency of the strategy of preservation of the global civilization. We would also like to express deep gratitude to all the participants and tele-viewers of the programs “Voice of Intellect” and “Accord” for their support of Russian Science’s initiatives, presented in the Address.
The names of prominent Russian politicians supporting the idea of acknowledgement of the urgency of preservation of the global civilization and considering it the main goal of mankind and the highest criterion of civilization are not mentioned in the Address because of election legislation norms. The leaders of Russia’s political parties acknowledging the urgency of the mentioned priorities and criteria have not yet adjusted their parties’ programs according to them. But the adjustment of political parties’ programs according to the idea of urgency of preservation of the global civilization and the attraction of attention of the whole world to the problem are the main goals of the Address.
“The Address of Russian Scientists to the World Scientific Community” was supported by a number of scientific conferences. On November 20, 2003 the Address was supported by the annual international conference “Russia: priorities of choice and choices of priorities", the constant chairman of the conference is C.M.Mironov, the Chairman of the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of RF.
On January 17, 2003 “The Address of Russian Scientists”” was handed to the Ambassador of the USA to RF at the meeting at the Russian Academy of Science.
Letters with analysis of modern tendencies in the development of global civilization with the offer to support the initiatives and “The Address” and to use the civilization criteria in jurisdiction were sent to the Council of Federation of Russia (No 10729, dated 16.05.03) and to the State Duma (No 335790-3, dated 29.05.03). The letter with a proposal to strengthen Russia’s position with the help of the initiative of Russian science to start a dialogue in the framework of the UN and on a strictly scientific level and to present it to the President of Russian Federation was sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of RF ( No 928 - ДВП, dated 06.05.03 and N 2390 – ДМО, dated 06.05.03.).
“The Address” was presented on the radio “Voice of Russia” (October 28,2003) and published in “The Parliament Newspaper” on November 26, 2003.
“The Address” was prepared by the editorial group of TV programs “Voice of Intellect” and “Accord”, it was based on the summary of the work with leading Russian and foreign scientists and politicians with participation of International Scientific Movement “Voice of Intellect”.
Editor in chief of TV Programs
“Voice of Intellect” and “Accord”,
Y. Dmitriev

РОССИЯ. НЕЗАВИСИМАЯ ГАЗЕТА. 12.04.2000

Y. Dmitriev

DEMOCTATIZATION FROM THE SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW

Preservation of the global civilization should be recognized as the true criterion.
By Yuri DMITRIEV

The dream of a primitive man came true. The human being became the master of the Earth. But has the human being become really human? In the XX century man’s destructive activity came into confrontation with nature’s capacity and in this fight people can not be winners.

The current situation reflects not only the low level of strategic thinking of mankind but the complexity of the problem as well and also the state of social and fundamental science. Until now neither scientifically based conception of development nor clear understanding of the nearest future exist, to say nothing about the long-term prognosis. Neither Carl Marx, nor Adam Smith with their followers have created any scientifically correct theory. Today in order to guarantee the stable development of society we need to look at the problems from a new moral point of view. We also need a new theory aimed to stable development.
By the beginning of the third millenium the Earth has become too small and the world has started changing with incredible speed. Interweaving of economical ties, communications and ecological crisis blend together destinies of different nations into one singe world destiny. Hundreds of satellites are constantly transmitting radio signals to all the continents of the planet. Almost forty thousand transnational companies are producing to the world market new machines, opera and pop music, video cameras and chocolate by means of global trade and transport net. Financial capitals of the world make deals in seconds due to mutual system of information exchange almost worth a trillion dollars daily. Similar pictures appear at billion TV screens causing anguish for consumer paradise, this idol of the modern world, in all parts of the world: on the Amour, on the Yantsy, on the Amazon or on the Nile rivers.
But none of the mentioned facts has not rallied the mankind together. Only during last few years more than twenty new states appeared on the map of the world and the process of separatism keeps going on. Many countries are in the state of civil war. Millions of people who have lost confidence in future are looking for help in separation and disunity. And population of the world is growing very rapidly.
And in this broken world there is not even a trace of any reasonable political order. There is neither historical model, nor any convincing theory. Rich countries (and they are few) turned to be incapable to offer any solution of the problem.
Today such ideas as freedom and democracy should be given new meaning.
What type of democracy is possible on the planet with the population exceeding six billions people? What should be the rules and social organization to solve demographic, ecological, food supply and economic problems?
The idea of individual and economic freedom has won. But that victory may turn to be a Pyrrhic victory. The American philosopher Francis Fukuyama was too hasty when he proclaimed “the end of the history”. The science has obliged to acknowledge “the end of the idea”, which was bravely called “modern”. The European model of civilization dynamism and effectiveness of which in achieving local success is considered to be beyond any criticism for arranging the future of mankind.
It is not prosperity but decay and ecologic destruction, degradation of morality and culture, corruption and terrorism, that define the modern life of mankind. All conceptions that have been tried during last decades are not of much value. “All of them turned to be equally unable to comprehend the new facts, both in the world and in their home countries”,- Helmut Schmidt, Edward Roits and others stated in their “Manifest”.
Salted soil, erosion, air pollution, increase of average temperatures undermine fertility of the Earth. In many countries food demand already exceeds nature capacity. One of the most negative tendencies is a substantial energetic disbalance of the earthen system. If the processes stimulating the climate change is not stopped, it will be impossible to mare prognosis of its further development. The level of world ocean is rising more rapidly than it was supposed to, the hurricanes started reaching Europe, bringing great destruction to it.
Russia’s integration into the international community should be regarded as an attempt to eliminate political confrontation, the permanent threat of mankind’s destruction from nuclear conflict. But today the world community should understand that it is only an opportunity to gain some more time for co-production of a scientific theory of the mankind’s development and for its realization.
Today we in Russia should not remain silent about the point of view of Western scientists on the perspectives of the Western model. That is a warning not to copy of this model thoughtlessly. It is necessary to stop the senseless behavior of the Russian ethnos, as described by Leo Gumilev. According to his theory an ethnos passes several stages in its evolution, each stage has its slogan: The birth of Ethnos – “We must change the world for it is too bad”, the Rising – “Be what you must be”, the Top – “Be yourself”, Break – “Only not the way it was”, the Stage of inertia – “Let us live in peace, do not interfere!”, Obscuration – “Is it going to stop at last?”, Transfer to Memorial stage –“ Not all is lost!”, Memorial stage – “Let us remember how nice it was!”, Degeneracy –“We do not want anything!”. It must not last like that, but it is only a scientific approach that can revive the time of hopes.


The mankind has passed a long and difficult way in understanding the surrounding world and itself. Very often scientists thought that the top of knowledge had been reached already and that no mysteries of nature which could be copied in the form of scientific model had been left. But it seems that ambitious attempts of human beings will never come true. At least they always failed in the minutes of apparent triumph when confronted with some facts, details or phenomena that had seemed to be of minor importance. In natural sciences such situations taught the mankind a good lesson and inevitability of cognition was obvious. In social science the historical experience usually disappeared together with generations, and each new generation had to start everything from the beginning. To the question why physics was developing so rapidly and social science stagnated, Albert Einstein used to answer: “Maybe physics is easier”.
But this situation is an evidence not of the complexity of the social science, but of the total absence of this science. Even the starting point for the creation of this science does not exist. There is another fact onfirming the absence of social science, it is social opinion that modern economics, law, sociology and politology are sciences though their basis doesn’t correspond the scientific criteria. The latter, by the way demand revision of scientific terminology. The natural science approach, which allowed to create such a science as physics, is the only possible way which will permit to solve the problem and to make the social quasi-science a real science.
The attempts to create a universal science, including all kinds of knowledge from physics to social processes have appeared not so long ago. But today the social processes themselves put the question about improving physics as science, for its laws contradict the laws of real evolution of the nature and the social processes. Such a science can not become the fundament of a universal science. Physics as a science should have such a structure that would help to answer the main question: is the behavior of human beings predictable or people have real freedom of choice? Of a human being is just an imitating machine and the freedom of its actions is illusory, then it can not influence the history, and all the physical processes should be completely determinated. Modern physics considers probability to be an element of reality, and as the consequence of that we must look for logical contradictions. If Homo sapiens is able to introduce its creative changes into natural processes unplanned by the nature, that means it will be able to influence the run of time, at least locally and in principle.
Today synergetic is trying to make demographic prognosis on the base of logistic, hyperbolic and exponential models, suggesting to recognize the human society as a thoughtless machine, submitted to some a priori existing laws, which are not discovered yet. On the other hand, synergetics makes a diametrically opposite statement, that the future of the mankind is not predicted.
The idea of putting forward an objective by people themselves and not by the Creator remains till now without any broad discussion. Such an approach requires the creation of an active social science. The realization of that would be possible only in the conditions of a permanent dialogue between science and society. To achieve this the mankind will have to develop the intellect and creative abilities of each member of society, that will need, in its turn, a new social model. A vicious circle? But it seems that a more rational way for our civilization does not exist. And it is the scientists who must break that vicious circle. That is their professional duty.
“Common sense makes us to assume a completely unprecedented situation which the mankind has reached in general demands unprecedented decisions, unprecedented theory of non-preconcieved nature. Only thus the way out of that threatening state could be found out”,- said Andrey Sakharov, and these words demonstrate to us his understanding of the solution of the problems that mankind came up with. The same idea was expressed by Pier Teilhar de Chardin in his work “Human fenomenon”: “ To see more, better, deeper – it is not a caprice, not a curiosity, not a luxury. To see or to die! The mankind was forced into that state by the mysterious gift of existing. And if the whole history did not guarantee to us that the truth seen at least by one bright mind would finally become the property of collective human knowledge there would be a good reason to lose one’s faith and to be in despair.”
And two questions are still on the agenda: the question of possible fatal predetermined movement of mankind towards omnicide and location of that programme somewhere outside the trajectory of this movement, which means that it will never be accepted. It is rather difficult to state that human activities influence the expansion of the Universe, but it is not less problematic to accept that the human society was planned by nature. That is why many prominent physicists who had a deeper understanding of the world structure than representatives of other professions could not reject from the idea of Creator. In any case that will need additional argumentation.
But necessity of creation of social science is still on the agenda and it does not matter whether the mankind is a biological system –robots or people are able to build their life thoughtfully. The main thing is that we, people, do understand it today. The social science becomes more important in the universal science than physics for it should contain the sense the cognitive process itself. There are some grounds to state that social science can not be based on the postulats of physics. Sociology is the second fundamental science after physics studying the problems of the world creation. Methodology of both sciences is the same. It is a natural scientific method based on logic and experiment.
One of the main demands of such an approach is the necessity to realise the conceptual problem. Otherwise that won’t be a scientific theory but a kind of religion the main thesis of which is – believe and don’t ask for any proof. The history of mankind has been developing and is still going on in such conditions, but until now the mankind did not understand the sense of such basic concepts of social science as freedom and justice. To solve the conceptual problem means to turn the social quasi-science into an effective science which would serve for the good of the whole mankind. Until now the modern principles of society have remained as they were several thousand years ago. That is the way the human history develops. First of all, it is subjectivism of power, which is normal in the absence of scientific principles. People’s fuss about the choice of god, idol, chief, monarch, democracy, communism and so on – is nothing but search for conceptual problem solution under the condition of subjectivism of power or personality or money or something else. The absence of scientific principles in constitutions demands constant explanation of the words in favor of repressive machine so as to make the society accept its subjective interpretation. Under such conditions it is quite impossible to create a state governed by law as well as it is impossible to create jurisdiction independent from power. People manage to live under these conditions and that would not be of such importance if it had not been for obvious negative tendencies in human civilization evolution which make problematic our survival.
If the life of the society is not changed so that it reflects the priority of survival in a reasonable interval of time all the human activities even its greatest discoveries will become senseless. Taking into consideration the dynamics of ozon layer destruction the mankind already has no time at its disposal. Even the idea of an artificial technical world won’t give a chance to save the world.
From the point of view of the constantly moving world matter indifferent to people’s sufferings and aspirations this priority is relative. But why does the mankind itself treat it so inadequatly? Why doesn’t it correlate its life with this priority? Why does it stick to the priority of unlimited thoughtless activities and influence the nature? Why are the governments of different countries so sure in impunity of existing strategy? Any arguments will be unconvincing here, that is why first of all civilized ratification of survival priorities as constitutional basis of all the states is needed. The conference of the Heads of states in Rio-de-Janeiro in 1992 failed to define scientific aspect of the problem. Ecological problems have not been recognized as political problems, the social theory has not been recognized as a special kind of scientific theories, the fact that it is impossible to create a conception of stable development and a political model of future civilization without a social theory has not been recognized.
The main criteria of truth should be the preservation of global civilization. That will allow to create a vector social science in which the problem of terminology will be solved by their orientation at civilization priorities. The idea of the notion itself “what for?” as the main feature of the social science is also defined with the help of orientation at accepted criteria. The declaration of the priority of human civilization’s survival by the science is nothing but a sequel of individual instinct of self-preservation given to each of us by the nature and defining our behavior. The mankind in general does not have such an instinct, that is why today the priority of individual survival dominates the priority of global survival, and that domination has brought the civilization to ecological abyss. If we fail to organize a civilized referendum and to coordinate the individual and global priorities of survival, the mankind will be doomed to destruction.
In this context it is necessary to stress the historical meaning of the world’s leading religions. In fact in the absence of a scientific theory they have led the mankind through the darkness of history with the help of moral principles – commandments , which have not become less actual in the beginning of the third millenium. But religions can not give the mankind any theory of development, constitution and jurisdictional basis for the future society. Only science can and must do it.
The author expresses his deep gratitude to L. Abalkin, G. Arbatov, E. Velikhov, V. Ginzburg, V. Danilov-Danielian, S. Zalygin, V. Kartashkin, V. Koudriavtsev, S. Kurdiumov, L.Makarov, D.Lvov, N. Moiseev, O.Nefedov, I.Novikov, Y. Osipov, A, Sakharov, v. Stepin, S. Shatalin, A. Yablokov and also T. Heierdal, R. Vidercor, R. Harkin, T.Gustafson and D. Tilly for their interest in the discussion of the problems of civilization.