Lib.ru/Фантастика: A. Zharov. The Future. Evolution Continues

A. Zharov
The Future. Evolution Continues

Lib.ru/Фантастика: [Регистрация] [Найти] [Рейтинги] [Обсуждения] [Новинки] [Обзоры] [Помощь]

Комментарии: 73, последний от 28/11/2015. © Copyright A. Zharov (zharov@microart.ru) Размещен: 25/01/2009, изменен: 28/11/2015. 304k. Статистика. Статья: Публицистика Иллюстрации/приложения: 27 штук. Скачать FB2	Ваша оценка:
Аннотация: Recently more and more articles have appeared predicting that the point of technological singularity in the evolution of our Civilization will be as soon as 2030 - 2050, followed by a collapse. It is difficult to agree with such a viewpoint. On the other hand, exponential development, increasingly accelerating in our time, is a fact. What does the future hold for us?

The Future. Evolution Continues by A. Zharov

Translated by N. Bogdan

Recently more and more articles have appeared predicting that the point of technological singularity in the evolution of our Civilization will be as soon as 2030 - 2050, followed by a collapse. It is difficult to agree with such a viewpoint. On the other hand, exponential development, increasingly accelerating in our time, is a fact. What does the future hold for us?

INTRODUCTION

The increasingly accelerated evolution of Civilization has become especially noticeable in the modern era. Moreover, in recent years we have literally become spectators to changes that are occurring during the lifetime of just one generation. For an illustrative comparison, it is appropriate to cite from an excerpt from the meditations of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, which he completed circa 170 A.D.

"...Though thou shouldst be going to live three thousand years, and as many times ten thousand years, still remember that no man loses any other life than this which he now lives, nor lives any other than this which he now loses. The longest and shortest are thus brought to the same. For the present is the same to all, though that which perishes is not the same; and so that which is lost appears to be a mere moment. For a man cannot lose either the past or the future: for what a man has not, how can any one take this from him? These two things then thou must bear in mind: the one, that all things from eternity are of like forms and come round in a circle, and that it makes no difference whether a man shall see the same things during a hundred years or two hundred, or an infinite time; and the second, that the longest liver and he who will die soonest lose just the same. For the present is the only thing of which a man can be deprived, if it is true that this is the only thing which he has and a man cannot lose a thing if he has it not." [3]

In the past, people did not even take notice of progressive evolution. Now it is difficult not to notice it. Every adult, during his own lifetime, has been able to observe the appearance of personal computers, the Internet, and cell phones, while practically anyone who wants to do so is able to own his own automobile, and so on. In addition, the influence of progress on government and commercial institutions is just as great: everything is recorded in computers, instant communications are available with any employee, one can collaborate on documents without leaving one's office, and what is most important-there exists the capability of automated company management; for example, ERP-Enterprise Resource Planning. The implementation of such systems allows more efficient management of huge enterprises, whose affiliates are dispersed throughout the entire country and the world. The fact itself of implementing such systems in such large companies as Svyazinvest and others shows that management has become computerized and communications automated in the process. Although actual people handle administration, information becomes more accessible to all employees, information about all company business is more structured, and actions completed by employees more regulated (see http://www.azsoft.ru/products.htm http://www.sap.com/cis/company/press/2005/future_sap.epx).

E-commerce with delivery of goods to peoples' homes is also gaining momentum. Even a special type of money has appeared-electronic money. So, for example, the first transaction in the WebMoney system took place in 1998 and since then the number of registrations and transactions have doubled every year. A system that was created in Russia is now global.

In this way, distances cease to be a significant barrier to communication between people, organizations and countries. There are also significant changes taking place on an interstate level: in the early 1990s a sharp increase in growth of globalization processes and the interpenetration of the economies of different countries began. The developed nations are, in essence, increasingly becoming some kind of gigantic managing office. This could only have taken place, however, at a point of simultaneous industrialization of developing countries, to where most of production is moving. This is leading to an intensification of the international division of labor.

Along with the accelerating evolution of Civilization, growth of major indicators also continues: population, energy use, accumulation of manufactured products, and the growth of scientific information are all taking place exponentially. Inasmuch that such development is linked to the expenditure of energy and other resources, it is clear that with time they will be exhausted.

Sociologist M. Sukharev, in his popular work, "The Explosion of Complexity," presents the sequential steps of these changes:

"There is one more pattern that is evident in societal development-the acceleration of growth of complexity with time. For tens of thousands of years tribes lived on Earth armed only with spears or bows and arrows. In several hundred years we have leapt through industrial technological civilization. It is unclear as to how many years the computer era will last but the current speed of social evolution is unprecedented.

If we extrapolate this trend for the future then it will come to pass that the speed of social evolution will increase to such a point that social formations will begin to change every fifty, ten, or fewer years and mankind, at some point in the 21st century, will unify into a "superstate." [2]

On the other hand, if contemporary evolutionary trends of our Civilization are maintained, environmentalists and other scholars insist that a critical situation will already occur in the first decade of the 21st century, caused by the exhaustion of natural resources, a drop in industrial development, a sharp decrease in the amount of food per capita with simultaneous extreme environmental pollution [33], [36] and [41].

"...If measures are not taken today to change the nature of our civilization, (that is, the system of values which determines human activity), then the biosphere will become unstable and, even without shocks to it caused by man, will be unable to sustain human life.

...A loss of stability in the biosphere can hardly be identified as an environmental crisis: a crisis may be survived and a way out found, but to revert the biosphere back to a state which is suitable for human life is not possible!" [41]

This means that modern technological civilization may cease to exist...

We owe all technological civilization achievements to scientific and technical progress and natural energy resources. But reserves of principal energy sources (oil, gas, coal) are finite and they will be exhausted in the next several decades. And what are oil, gas, and coal? These are semi-decomposed remains of primordial bacteria and plants which have been accumulating for billions of years. In other words, this is concentrated solar energy for the indicated period which we have been using for several hundreds of years already (and more and more intensively in recent times) and which is coming to an end. The switch to universal nuclear and thermonuclear energy, even it is possible, still won't happen quickly and painlessly (and other alternative sources of energy - solar, wind and hydroelectric, will most likely not be able to fulfill the exponentially growing needs of Civilization).

As astrophysicist L.M. Gindilis writes in his work:

"The urgency of the situation is that the collapse is supposed to take place very soon, in the first decades of the 21st century. That is why even if mankind knew how to "turn around" (or even at least stem) this process, and had the resources and will to make this turnaround right now, it just wouldn't have enough time, as all negative processes have a certain inertia which make it impossible to stop them instantly...

The Earth's economy resembles a heavily loaded vehicle which is racing at high speed on a roadless expanse straight toward an abyss. It is evident that we have already passed the point where we should have turned in order to enter the "turn trajectory." Nor do we have time to brake. The situation is further worsened because no one knows where the wheel and brake are located. Nevertheless both the crew and passengers are extremely complacent in their attitude, naively believing that "when necessary" they will figure out the vehicle mechanism and will be able to carry out the necessary maneuver. I don't think that the picture outlined means the automatic destruction of mankind, although an ordeal for us is inevitable. If mankind will be able to survive these challenges, then the nature of development must fundamentally change." [1]

In this article, on the basis of analysis of extensive scientific and factual materials, a hypothesis will be formulated providing answers to the noted questions and allowing predictions to be made for both the immediate future of the planet as well as the general direction of evolution in the far distant future; there is also an explanation proposed for the "Great Silence" paradox.

1. TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY

1.1 Acceleration of computer technology development.

1.1.1 How many years will the computer era last? At the VISION-21 symposium which was held in 1993 by the NASA Lewis Research Center and the Ohio AeroSpace Institute, mathematician and writer Vernor Vinge's speech caused a great stir. In it, when examining the future development of computers, Vinge proposed a new term, "Technological singularity."

"The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. We are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater-than-human intelligence. Science may achieve this breakthrough by several means (and this is another reason for having confidence that the event will occur):

1. Computers that are "awake" and superhumanly intelligent may be developed. (To date, there has been much controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine. But if the answer is "yes," then there is little doubt that more intelligent beings can be constructed shortly thereafter.)

2. Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake up" as superhumanly intelligent entities.

3. Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.

4. Biological science may provide the means to improve natural human intellect.

The first three possibilities depend on improvements in computer hardware. Progress in hardware has followed an amazingly steady curve in the last few decades. Based on this trend, I believe that the creation of greater-than-human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years. (Charles Platt has pointed out that AI enthusiasts have been making claims like this for thirty years. Just so I'm not guilty of a relative-time ambiguity, let me be more specific: I'll be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.)

What are the consequences of this event? When greater-than-human intelligence drives progress, that progress will be much more rapid.

...This change will be a throwing-away of all the human rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye -- an exponential runaway beyond any hope of control. Developments that were thought might only happen in "a million years" (if ever) will likely happen in the next century.

It's fair to call this event a singularity.

...And what happens a month or two (or a day or two) after that? I have only analogies to point to: The rise of humankind. We will be in the Posthuman era. And for all my technological optimism, I think I'd be more comfortable if I were regarding these transcendental events from one thousand years' remove...instead of twenty..." [4].

What "computer hardware" progress does Vinge mean? How did he come to such radical conclusions? It is possible that the fact that the ever-accelerating rate of computer technology development strictly follows "Moore's Law," as it is known, influenced Vinge's views.

1.1.2 In April of 1965, approximately three and a half years before the founding of the Intel Corporation, Gordon Moore, at that time the director of the Development Department at Fairchild Semiconductor, predicted the evolution of microelectronics, soon after dubbed "Moore's Law," in an article for Electronics Magazine. Showing the improvement in performance of integrated circuits in the form of a graph, he discovered an interesting pattern: new models of integrated circuits were developed after more or less identical periods of time - 18 to 24 months - after the appearance of their predecessors but their capacity in this process doubled each time. If such a trend were to continue, Moore concluded, the power of computer devices would grow exponentially in a relatively short period of time.

The timeline of microprocessor development corresponds to Moore's Law [47]

Moore's observation, at that time not yet elevated to the level of a law, was subsequently strikingly confirmed and the pattern he discovered is still evident at this time, and is reasonably accurate as well, being the basis for many predictions of productivity growth. For example, in the 30 years that have passed since the appearance of the 4004 microprocessor in 1971 and up to the launch of the Pentium 4 processor, the number of transistors has increased by more than 18,000 times-from 2,300 to 42 million.

V. P. Dyakonov conducted an interesting study of Moore's Law from a mathematical position.

"From a mathematical position 'Moore's Law' is represented by a simple formula.

N0 is the number of chip transistors in a certain year (for our purposes we consider it to be zero);

N(y) is the number of chip transistors years later;

yy is the time period (in years and fractions of a year) in which the number of transistors doubles.

The diagram shows a Mathcad 2002i system document with a mathematical illustration of Moore's Law... The left graph sets the number of transistors as a function of the yy (doubling time) parameter in a linear scale. At the same time, the nomograph has a typically exponential appearance." [5]

The assertion made in 1965 has been confirmed in past years in a variety of fields both in microelectronics as well as in related technological fields: according to Moore's Law both random access memory chips and microprocessors are becoming more complex, the clock speed of electronic computer cores is multiplying, and many other parameters and indicators are evolving. Even the dimensions of telescopes (size of mirrors/lenses, sensitivity) are following this law. [42]

In the more than forty years that have passed, skeptics have predicted the impending end of Moore's Law hundreds of times but... it is still valid.

Despite that fact, Moore's Law is far from mathematically accurate: it even describes integrated circuit complexity very approximately, and Moore himself, when revising it in 1975, was forced to depend on numbers obtained by approximation. In its substance Moore's Law is not a fundamental law of nature but more an empirical rule, and sooner or later the sophistication of microelectronic products will lead to an exhaustion of possibilities of existing technologies (a transistor cannot be smaller than an atom).

1.1.3 A development strategy for the near future has been unveiled at a leading processor- manufacturing corporation (Intel). In 2007 a transition to a 45-nanometer process is planned, in 2009-the introduction of a 32-nanometer process, and in 2011 a 22 nm process will be instituted.

The minimum possible size is 4 nanometers. And if Moore's Law continues to hold true this figure will be attained as early as the year 2023. By that time or a bit later, however, the dimensions of all transistor elements will attain atomic dimensions and it will simply be impossible to reduce them further, which is why new approaches for future development are already being sought at this time. Time will show the direction of future evolution. However, an assumption can be made that at some point around 2023 one of the critical points will occur. And, if proceeding from the fact that evolution continues according to the principle that an increase in size is proportional to the size itself (self-similar evolution - more about this in paragraph 1.4. of the article), then after each critical point, the time remaining until the critical date (the point of singularity) will be half the length of the cycle. In other words, the length of the microprocessing cycle is 2023-1971=52. Singularity will accordingly occur - 2023+52/2=2049 which is a bit later than predicted by Vernor Vinge.

Interestingly, attempts to calculate the point of singularity by other well-known events following the same method lead to the conclusion that singularity is really located sometime in the interval between the years 2000 and 2050 (such an interval, according to historical measures, is very small). For example:

- 1650 - O. Gericke built the first electrostatic machine (the beginning of electrical technology)

- 1904 - the first two-electrode diode lamp was built (the beginning of radio technology) and when calculating dates by the same principle, we get: 1904-1650=254. Then the date of singularity is 1904+254/2=2031. Continuing the series of the beginning of radio technology - the beginning of microprocessing technology we get 1971-1904=67; accordingly, 1971+67/2=2004.

One can try to find singularity by alternative dates also-the history of computing machines. So, the first mechanical computing device which did not just exist on paper but actually worked was a tabulating machine built in 1642 by Blaise Pascal. Pascal's mechanical "computer" was capable of addition and subtraction.

The first electrical mechanical tabulating machine which used electrical relay was built in 1888 by Herman Hollerith and in 1890 was used in a census of the population.

The first electronic computer is generally considered to be an Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC) machine, developed in the U.S. ENIAC contained 17,000 electrical lamps, 7,200 crystals, 4,100 magnetic elements, and was 300 sq. meters in size. It was 1,000 times faster than relay computers and was built in 1945.

But still, what date should be considered the date of birth of computers? Was it when the single-item produced, constantly breaking down lamp monster was created or the relatively within reach and massive machines (as the previous computing devices were as well)? Probably the series produced devices, as their input into future progress was already substantive.

In 1965, Digital Equipment Company produced the first mini-computer, the PDP-8 (the size of a refrigerator) based on transistors and costing only $20,000 (computers in the 1940s and 1950s usually cost millions of dollars). And it was in 1968 that the Burroughs Corporation produced the first integrated circuit computer. In 1975, the first personal computers appeared. We will calculate the dates of singularity for all these events.

1890-1642=248 1890+248/2=2014

1945-1890=55 1945+55/2=1972 or 1965-1890=75 1965+75/2=2002 or 1975-1890=85 1975+85/2=2017

The fluctuation of points of real events around a line of exponential development is completely natural -an event includes its own corrections. Therefore one thing is clear- following the principle of self-similar exponential evolution, as a rough estimate, singularity should occur between the years 2000 and 2050.

1.1.4 In the last 10 years we have become witnesses to a revolution in neurophysiology. Brain scanning technology and molecular biology have allowed an integral understanding of how memory, perception and consciousness work. Parallel with this, the inexorable improvement of personal computers as well as supercomputer performance continues. And the latter are now practically being compared to the human brain in terms of performance level. That is why the time to implement the results of brain studies on the basis of the reasonably fast supercomputers which have just appeared, has only just arrived.

For a project on human brain modeling, a special version of a supercomputer with the code name Blue Brain [http://bluebrainproject.epfl.ch/] was built in 2005. With its help researchers hope to shed light on the greatest riddles of the human brain - cognition, memory, and if possible, on consciousness itself as well. The machine has a peak speed of close to 22.8 teraflops.

Despite all the importance of the "steel" which constitutes Blue Brain, the world's most complete computer model of the neocortex (the latest, "higher" section of the brain, the neocortex surface in the human brain is 95.6% of the cerebral cortex surface)-the creation of which required an entire decade by the Markram Group (Brain Mind Institute, Switzerland)-will be the key part of the project. Making use of state-of-the-art technologies, scientists were able to study the principles of electrical interaction of individual neurons and compile a set of rules, which model connections between various types of neurons.

In the end, a complete system should be created which reacts to external stimuli just as the human brain does. According to preliminary calculations, building a completely functional model of the human brain will take at least ten years. Only after such a time period will it be possible to use the finished "product" in scientific experiments.

The main result of Moore's Law is that at some point between the years 2015 and 2035 the computing power of personal computers will become equal to the "raw" computing power of the human brain (the range of the latter is assessed at 10¹⁶ operations per second; although signals in the human brain are transmitted very slowly [6], using parallel processing, its general performance is higher so far) and afterwards will exceed it. This does not at all mean that AI will definitely appear but such a possibility will appear.

Advanced supercomputer BlueGene/L (280.6 teraflops)

The famous supercomputer Deep Blue, which in 1997 beat world chess champion Gary Kasparov for the first time in history, had a computational performance of 1 teraflops. And as early as 2006 IBM reported that it was beginning work on the creation of a new supercomputer for the U.S. Department of Energy, the agency in charge of nuclear security. The Roadrunner supercomputer, which has a peak computational performance of 1.6 petaflops (which is equal to 1600 teraflops or 1 x 10¹⁵ operations per second), will be delivered in 2008. This is more than a thousand-fold increase in performance in comparison with the supercomputer that beat Kasparov, and all in a period of about ten years!

The new supercomputer will consist of 16,000 AMD Opteron processors and 16,000 Cell processors. Roadrunner will be the size of approximately three basketball courts.

This is only the beginning. Work on modeling the human psyche or "intelligence" in an electronic environment will take place practically universally as soon as the power of advanced supercomputers becomes attainable in personal computers of the near future. And this will take place very soon according to Moore's Law.

Supercomputer power is also increasing in accordance with Moore's Law [55]

1.1.5 The outlook is even more interesting than that. Molecular computers, which will become a reality in just 10 to 20 years, will have a computing performance a billion times better than those of today that are based on silicone microprocessing technologies. Their processors will be of sizes tens of thousands of times smaller than contemporary ones. A lot of hope is also being placed on quantum computers in the future.

What is the advantage of AI and what are the conditions for its creation or its autogenesis?

1. The absolutely incredible superiority of future AI over human intellect:

a) the speed of dissemination of signals between neurons - 100 m/s, and between integrated circuits - 300,000 km/s (the speed of light); in addition, the human brain neuron response time is approximately a billion times slower in comparison with silicone elements (as of today) and this gap continues to increase;

b) there are 10 billion neurons in the human brain while AI has practically no limits;

c) The functioning time period of AI will most likely be comparable to the lifespan of a star (billions of years), which may be related to, for example, being able to transfer an AI program (similar to human consciousness) from one electronic medium to another;

d) in the administration of civilization "the human factor" will not manifest itself (every human being has shortcomings and also, possibly, a lack of understanding of development priorities);

e) the instant simultaneous processing and control of billions of channels (that is, the direct "implantation" of AI into the electronic computer network, which is ever more encircling the planet).

2. All the logic of evolution of organic matter at the previous level (animals) shows the inevitability of the emergence and self-development of AI (an analogue of the brain). There is also indirect evidence of this in the steady overwhelming growth rate of computer and information technologies. [6]

Let us for a moment digress from the accelerating evolution of technology and Moore's Law. We shall examine evolution in a broader sense; we will try to understand under which law human and other life evolution progressed on our planet during this entire time (close to 4 billion years). Is it possible that it also conforms to Moore's Law? Does evolution have a point of singularity?

1.2 Acceleration of biological and social evolution rates

1.2.1 The acceleration of both biological as well as human evolution rates has long been noted; see, for example, [9]. One of the founders of evolutionary paleontology, V. O. Kovalevsky, in a letter to his brother dated December 27, 1871, wrote, "The fact of acceleration of the progress of life, so to speak, is interesting; more time passed, of course, from the Laurentian to the Silurian periods than from the Silurian period to the present epoch; each subsequent major Earth period is shorter than the previous one, and in this short time, more diverse forms of life had time to come into being and become extinct than in the previous era; beginning with the Tertiary period, life has been hurtling along at full speed: since the Eocene, large species, entire families appeared and died out and new ones evolved... clearly, comparatively little time has passed but there has been a huge change: finally man appeared, took control of the world and things moved along even faster" (cit: [Davitashvili, p. 413]).

Building on materials of E. Haeckel's works, published in 1874 and 1875, F. Engels noted that the law of evolution acceleration rates of the organic world during geological time was natural and historical. "For the entire evolution of organisms the law of acceleration in proportion to the square of the distance in time from the point of departure must be accepted," F. Engels wrote ("Dialectics of Nature," K. Marx, F. Engels, 2nd edition, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 620) [12]

1.2.2 A. D. Panov did some very interesting research about accelerated evolution rates in his work "Crisis of a Planetary Cycle of Universal History and a Possible Role of Program SETI in Post-crisis Development." For understanding the processes that are taking place, he uses the concept of an attractor, which is usually defined as the trajectory in the space of states of a system around which all real trajectories are located and often coincide. An attractor of history is an ideal self-similar sequence around which real revolution points fluctuate.

"One might say that, despite the nature of the crisis, all preceding human history follows a single smooth attractor, characterized by a self-similar acceleration of historical time...

...An ideal self-similar sequence of t_n points is described by the equation
t_n = t* - T / aⁿ

In the formula, a > 1 is the coefficient of historical time acceleration, which shows that the reduction of the duration of each subsequent period is shorter compared with the preceding one. T is the duration of the entire described interval of time, n is the number of the revolution, and t* is a certain moment in time which may be called the moment of singularity... It is easy to see that with n approaching infinity, sequence t_n is coming arbitrarily close to the point of singularity t*, never passing it. The intervals between crises or revolutions near singularity approach zero, while their density is infinite. Evolution in self-similar mode does not continue past singularity, and in reality, of course, is not even able to approach it, as the situation, when sequential revolutions are separated by days or hours, is meaningless.

Evidently we are in direct proximity to singularity of a self-similar sequence of crises or revolutions. What does this mean? Because singularity is predicted for as soon as the year 2027, one might say with certainty that the time of self-similar history has passed or is going to pass in the near future. That is why the approaching evolutionary crisis is not a usual evolutionary crisis, of which there have been many, but is a crisis of the entire attractor of the history of civilization. One might say that it is a crisis of the very evolution of intelligence on Earth itself, crisis-oriented in nature and stretching back millions of years- a crisis of crises. It is difficult to make long range predictions about the evolution of civilization but one very definite prediction can be made: there will no longer be a historical time acceleration effect because we are already close to the point that this speed is formally infinite. Now the nature of human evolution must inevitably change in the most profound manner, history mast pass through the point of singularity and continue on a completely different course. It is important to note that passage through the point of singularity does not at all signify an impending catastrophe for mankind." [8]

S. P. Kapitza makes a similar argument:

"The compression of system time is distinctly visible if large historical periods are presented on a logarithmic grid. ...Observations of anthropologists and traditional conceptualizations of historians clearly mark the boundaries of periods, equally dividing time in a logarithmic scale from T0 = 4 - 5 million years ago up to T1 = the year 2000. After each cycle, time remaining until the critical date is half the length of the cycle. And so, the Lower Paleolithic period lasted for millions of years and ended 500,000 years ago and the Middle Ages lasted for thousands of years and ended 500 years ago." [13]

Moving on to an examination of biological history during the entire period of Earth's existence, Panov shows that analogous self-similarity is characteristic for the entire period of its development also (almost 4 billion years). "The best approximation is provided by self-similarity coefficient a = 2.66 (which is amazingly close to the number e = 2.718...)" -the author marvels but does not rush to make the corresponding conclusions. We will continue to specifically use e (for the reason why, see below), and t* = 0 - assuming that singularity falls at some point in our time (this simplifies the formula, but does not make it any less accurate). We will accept time T as equal to 4 billion - the approximate time period of biological evolution on Earth. When we substitute whole numbers in the evolution formula (t_n = -T/eⁿ), we get the time of key events, which can be compared to real "revolutionary" events that have taken place in the process of evolution on Earth. The formula reflects that same principle of evolution: an increase in size is proportional to the size itself.

n - number of event	Time by formula t_n = -T/еⁿ (years ago)	Real time (years ago)	Event
-1	-10.87x10⁹	-10.8x10⁹	The creation of our Galaxy and beginning of chemical evolution.
0	-4x10⁹	-4.5-3,8x10⁹	"Explosive" creation of life on Earth - bacteria (prokaryotes)
1	-1.47x10⁹	-2.0-1,3x10⁹	Oxygen Catastrophe, one-celled eukaryotes. First simple many-celled organisms.
2	-541x10⁶	-570x10⁶	Paleozoic (Cambrian explosion, vertebrates). First specialized nerve cells.
3	-199x10⁶	-200x10⁶	Cephalization significantly developed in reptiles. Nervous system divided into cerebral-spinal axis.
4	-73x10⁶	-70x10⁶	Nervous system and brain of warm-blooded mammals changed qualitatively. Nerve cells developed a special membrane which accelerated the passage of nerve impulses. However, the most important event was the increase in size of the brain. In the series of mammals from early to modern the absolute and relative size of the brain, the number of neurons, and the size of all brain sections grow.
5	-27x10⁶	-24x10⁶	Neogene (subhuman primates) Developed brain
6	-9.9x10⁶	-4.4x10⁶	Quaternary Period. First hominids.

As is evident, the congruence is very good. The table may be continued even further: this will be the graph included above.

"It is evident that self-similarity occurred with amazing precision during the entire 3.8 billion years of biosphere history including the history of mankind (with two small aberrations which are not surprising as this is not about precise self-similarity but about a self-similar attractor)... For the point of singularity the value is t* = the year 2004, which is very close to 2027, obtained on the basis of analysis of human history only. The difference between these two dates is determined by the scale of the error of the utilized mathematical process... It may be assumed that the result obtained is not accidental: all biosphere as well as noosphere evolution is really a unified process, subject to a single profound evolutionary law, the main manifestation of which is the self-similar acceleration of evolution... And it is this unified self-similar process that has now come to an end. Not just human history but all planetary evolution must turn onto some kind of completely new course. Therefore the modern system crisis of civilization is a crisis of a global planetary attractor of Universal history and not just an attractor of human history." [8]

Acceleration of evolution rates on a planetary scale [56]

1.3 Acceleration of economic development and integration; formation of a single planet-sized "organism."

One of the distinctive features of the world economy in the latter half of the 20th century is the intensive development of international economic relations.

These processes are manifested by the intensification of the international division of labor, financial and economic relations, in the globalization of business life, the increase in the openness of national economies, their interaction and convergence, and the development and strengthening of regional international economic structures.

After the disintegration of the USSR and revolutionary transformation of Eastern European countries, the world economy began to acquire traits of a single integral entity. The forming global world economy is not homogeneous and includes the national economies of industrially developed nations, which are very different in their level of economic development from developing nations and nations with economies in transition.

International economic integration is considered to be a three-level model:

- on a microlevel, i.e., on a corporate level, when individual companies enter into direct business relations;

- on an interstate level, when results-oriented activity of a state facilitates integrated processes of intertwining of labor and capital within the boundaries of one or another group of countries;

- on a supranational level, when member countries voluntarily transfer a series of political and economic functions to the union, relinquishing their sovereignty in this areas.

"The scale of development of an economy and the necessity for cooperation (social division of labor) has led to local national economies gradually losing their potential ability to self-develop. They have started to integrate themselves into a unified planetary economic organism with a universal system of regulation. ...Transnational corporations (TNC) have gradually begun to play a decisive role in determining the nature of the future development of the global economy." [59]

Modern TNCs, in addition to the existing international exchange of goods and services, have created international manufacturing, matching it with an international sphere of services and an international financial sphere. Some of the names are familiar to everyone: they are IBM, Sony, Intel, Microsoft, Coca Cola, Boeing, Volvo, Toyota, Samsung, and many others. And although their organizations are scattered all over the world, their manufacturing power is usually located in developing countries, due to their cheap labor. International manufacturing is a cooperative production process, which is implemented in a series of countries and regions, encompassing tens and hundreds of thousands of workers, organized from a single center. As scholar N.N. Moiseyev writes:

"In combination with an elemental transformation of traditional market mechanisms, an economic monster has been created but one can hardly take the responsibility of making any recommendations of an economic nature without determining its distinctive features. I will note once again that it was created independently as a result of a natural process of self-organization. And, as of yet, its scientific theory has not been created.

I will note just a few numbers which characterize what is going on in the world. In the last several decades, a total of 37,000 TNC's have come into being, which have almost 200,000 national affiliates in various countries of the world. They are forming a specific system which has spread throughout the entire planet. This complex of TNCs is a sort of single network, a single system, controlling a third of all production funds on the planet, producing more than 40% of the total planetary product, carrying out markedly more than half of foreign trade transactions, more than 80% of trade in higher technologies, and controlling more than 90% of capital export. In the last couple of decades, the volume of foreign trade on the planet has increased not by 2-3 times as has the volume of industrial production but by 10 times! This shows how much more effective international division of labor has become." [60]

The number of foreign TNC affiliates continues to grow exponentially today as well; those who are interested may look at the relevant UN reports (see below).

What is the modern economic power of a TNC? Their role in today's world economy is assessed with the help of the following figures:

- TNCs control approximately 2/3 of world trade;

- they handle almost 1/2 of world industrial production;

- approximately 10% of all those employed in non-agricultural production work at TNC companies (of these, almost 60% work at the parent company and 40% at the subsidiaries);

- TNCs control approximately 4/5 of all patents, licenses and know-how that exist in the world.

Similar to how TNCs are the business elite, the TNCs themselves have their own elite -super-large companies, competing with many nations both in terms of production as well as budget and number of "citizens." [61]

Some economists even believe that the influence of nation states is decreasing and real power is increasingly being transferred to the hands of self-interested transnational corporations and the international institutions controlled by them.

All countries of the world in one way or another are involved in the international division of labor; its intensification is dictated by the development of production forces which feel the impact of the Scientific and Technical Revolution. This has an additional economic effect on countries and allows them to satisfy their needs more completely and with fewer costs. A comparison of expenditures, related to production of goods, leads to the conclusion that instead of producing all goods for which there exists a demand, it is significantly more profitable to concentrate on the production of one type of good, requiring the least expenditures. Specializing production on this item will allow, by way of exchange, to obtain all other goods on the external market.

The globalization process has other positive aspects. For example, a result of this process is that an international product has a high degree of standardization, universalization, quality and competitiveness.

"...Study of patterns of formation of world economic ties and prospects of their development shows that a general trend of development of the world economy is the movement toward creating a single planetary market of capital, goods and services, and the economic convergence and unification of individual countries into a unified international economic complex.

...The previous world economy, based on the self-sustainability of national cultures and stability of specific economic forms, is beginning to approach the stage of its logical conclusion. A new structure and form of world economic organization is materializing right in front of us. The global international economy is becoming the new reality, subject to new laws, which are to be studied and consciously utilized.

...The information revolution will have an exceptional influence on the world economy and the entire system of international relations.

New information technologies first allow the creation of a unified world information region and then a formation of a collective integral intellect of civilization." [59]

One should especially highlight a particular parameter, such as foreign investment flow, which characterizes mutual integration of countries. According to known figures (from UN annual reports) for each year it is possible to indirectly judge the rates and strength of the total process on a planetary scale.

Export of capital (foreign investment) is a process of removing part of the capital from national circulation in a given country and moving it in product or monetary form into the production process and circulation of another country. International migration of capital is a counter movement of capital between countries, bringing its owners corresponding revenue. Many countries simultaneously are importers and exporters of capital: so-called cross investments take place. Below, the volume of direct international investments is shown (the first part of the graph was shown in [59]; data for plotting the graph after the year 1996 are taken from UN world investment reports [62]).

"...In the beginning, export of capital was common for a small number of industrially developed nations, which exported capital on the periphery of the world economy. The development of the global economy substantially expanded the framework of this process: export of capital is becoming a function of any dynamically developing economy. Leading developed countries, moderately developed and developing countries, especially new industrial nations, all export capital.

Since the latter part of the 20th century, export of capital has been growing continuously. Capital export is outpacing both product exports as well as the GDP of industrially developed countries in its rate of growth" [61].

Direct international investments reached their peak amounts in the year 2000, while in 2001 they were among the main victims of the world economic recession. Nevertheless, this fluctuation does not negate the total exponential growth of foreign investment flow. In 2006, international investments almost reached 2000 levels ($1.31 trillion in 2006 against $1.41 trillion in 2000).

1.4 World Population Growth Acceleration.

1.4.1 We shall note that the self-similarity of revolutionary event distribution in the history of the evolution of the animal world cited in paragraph 1.2.2, and incidentally, in the history of human evolution as well, bears a great resemblance to the features of self-similarity of world population growth, studied in detail by S. P. Kapitza [10], and, is evidently closely related to it. The law of population growth also has a point of singularity, but currently the population growth law is already substantially deviating from the theoretical constantly increasingly accelerating exponential time-table.

Will the Earth be able to sustain its "human burden?" Concern about this issue is as old as written language. Judging by cuneiform clay tablets dated 1600 B.C., the Babylonians feared that the world was already crowded with people. In 1798, Thomas Malthus again expressed concern in this regard as did Donella Meadows in her book The Limits to Growth, published in 1972.

Attempting to calculate the number of people the Earth is able to sustain, scholars of the Middle Ages believed that conditions necessary for the existence of a viable society may be measured in units of space. But they were erroneously proceeding from technologies that existed at that time. Today a unit of space cannot be considered the only measure limiting the existence of a viable society (and in the future, the more so due to technological development and genetic engineering). For example, the current state of civilized countries allows families to have several children without loss of comfort. However, we have seen a decrease in their numbers especially in developed countries. This appears to be a paradox.

In 1999, a book by the well-known Russian scholar S.P. Kapitza was published, How Many People Lived, Live, and Will Live on Earth. An Essay on the Theory of Humanity's Growth. In it, he convincingly shows, in particular, that the speed of evolution of human civilization is directly proportional to the number of its inhabitants.

And under what law, in its turn, did the Earth's population grow? S.P. Kapitza cites both the results of paleontologists' estimates as well as figures resulting from his own model of human population growth. They, on average, provide similar results. At the beginning of the Stone Age, close to 1.5 million years ago, when distant ancestors of man in all likelihood began to more or less regularly use the simplest roughly shaped stones, the number of our ancestors who had separated earlier into an independent branch from other subhuman primates, reached 100,000. Kapitza notes that the growth of Earth's populations is characterized as a process of self-similar evolution [13].

Time (years ago)	Earth's population
1.5 million	100,000
100,000	1 million
10,000	10 million
5,000 (3000 B.C.)	20 million
2,000 (beginning A.D.)	100 million
1,000 (1000 A.D.)	200 million
500 (1500 A.D.)	400 million
250 (1750 A.D.)	700 million
150 (1850 A.D.)	1.2 billion
100 (1900 A.D.)	1.6 billion
50 (1950 A.D.)	2.8 billion
20 (1980 A.D.)	4.4 billion
0 (2003 A.D.)	6 billion
Prediction (2050 A.D.)	9 billion

One of the conclusions of his theoretical model of human population growth is the discontinuation in the 1960s of the functioning of the law of hyperbolic growth, steadily holding true until then for tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of years.

After a century of soaring growth, earth's population numbers stabilize. If the current demographic trends are maintained, then in the middle of our century equilibrium will be reached at the mark of 9 to 10 billion people.

So, the peak population growth rate (approximately 2.1% per year) in all of human history occurred between 1965 and 1970. The world's population had never increased with such speed before the 20th century and it is unlikely that it will grow at such a speed ever again. Our descendants will more than likely view the peak population growth rates in the late 1960s as the most significant demographic phenomenon in the planet's history.

Currently, the growth that is occurring is fast but slowing. And although population growth rates have decreased in comparison with the 1970s, the logic of its composition formation means that the current level is still higher than it was before World War II. World population numbers reached the billion mark for the first time only at the beginning of the 19th century. The current population of the Earth will increase by 1 billion people total in 13 or 14 years. [11]

"Future population calculations, wherein the modeling results may be compared with data of the UN and the International Institute of Applied System Analysis (IIASA), are interesting. The UN estimate is based on an aggregation of possible birth and death figures in nine regions of the world and is continued to the year 2150. According to the UN's optimal scenario, the Earth's population by this time will reach a permanent limit of 11.6 billion.

...In the provided periodization, without even addressing formal conclusions of modeling, it is evident how, after reaching the compression limit of historical time, an end of an entire period of growth takes place and, as a consequence, a shift of the evolution paradigm. After the demographic transition, mankind will enter a new period of his evolution with a new structure of time and zero or small population growth" [13].

Thus, we will make a very serious conclusion: population growth, which earlier conformed to the law of exponential growth (possible even according to a hyperbole) has now begun to slow, in other words, on a large interval of time it now corresponds to the graph of S-curve evolution (see graph above).

1.4.2 Here, it is very important to record the relation of the level of societal development to the minimal number of people in it which has existed up to this point. If we compare, based on this criteria, various human organizations and societies in various historical periods, then we will discover very extensive differences.

So, for example, knowledge and technology of Stone Age primitive civilization were able to sustain very small human communities. A tribe in those times was capable of reproducing itself, and, most importantly, its culture, with only several hundred people. This was enough in order to preserve customs, skills to hunt various animals, knowledge of plants, abilities to make weapons and clothing, and construction of primitive dwellings.

"An evolving system is one that is capable of reproducing itself and surviving historical time segments on the basis of lower integrative level systems... So, to maintain the Stone Age level in the earthscape, tribes of several hundred people are required. To maintain the civilization of the Middle Ages several hundred thousand people are required. A full-fledged modern civilization may be maintained only by a state with hundreds of millions of inhabitants. In the next decade this number will approach a billion." [2]

"...Hundreds of different professions and thousands of types of products have appeared, thousands of types of knowledge and skills, together composing an inimitable picture of this civilization.

In our time, a civilization like the Western one is capable of existing and reproducing only in enormous communities, consisting of hundreds of millions of people. Not one country in the world today is able to provide everything that it requires for itself. It is enough to keep in mind that even in the U.S. practically all home electronics used by Americans are produced by foreign companies. But try to imagine modern civilization without televisions or video! And since this is so, then home appliances are an integral part of modern civilization.

We present this pattern in the form of a graph.

What awaits us in the event that the complexity of civilization extends its growth? It is clear that in a very short time, on a historical scale (two to three hundred years), all of mankind will be forced to become integrated into one single civilization." [15]

"Sociology shows that the numerical size of a group has a strong correlation to its complexity: large groups, not supported by a sufficiently complex structure, become unstable. Therefore, if in the Paleolithic age, there existed groups numbering only from 5 to 80 people, by the year 1500 20% of people lived in nation states, and today a tiny percentage of people remain outside state formations. [J. Diamond, 1999]." [20]

Therefore, the deceleration of population growth must somehow be related to the possible slowing of acceleration rates of civilization evolution and even its halt in the very near future. But progress cannot simply stop in this way. This would be more than strange: it has continued for four billion years and is continuing even more quickly now and then, all of a sudden, it is supposed to stop... Moreover, the deceleration of population growth rates is occurring even now, while the deceleration of evolution rates is not yet evident. We will attempt to explain why this is taking place.

1.4.3 A possible alternative is the appearance of "electronic entities," certain smart programs which are replacing hundreds of millions of people in social production (we are already using primitive programs now and are decupling the powers of individuality, in other words one person with a computer today replaces dozens or even hundreds of people with abacuses-this is the possible answer to the question posed at the end of the last paragraph). It is true that today many peoples' work is closely tied to computers. There is no reason why applicable "smart" programs, if they should appear, will not replace these people completely. Moreover, for "electronic entities" resources (energy and space) are practically unnecessary. Accordingly, if the number of people in Civilization stops at the 10 to 15 billion person mark, the number of "electronic entities" may continue to grow exponentially to astronomical amounts, in this way predetermining future evolution. It is probable even that there should be much fewer people in the new world than now. Then they would have enough renewable resources, biomass, hydroelectric and wind power.

"As some researchers believe, human civilization has already almost reached, it would seem, that critical level of energy allocation, the future growth of which may disturb the existing balance between the absorbed and reflected solar and thermal radiation of the planet. And consequently, in order to avoid disastrous consequences of a complete imbalance of the temperature and climatic regime, man, even in the event that he acquires thermonuclear energy or, let's say, installs powerful solar batteries in space, will still have to make do with the energy framework of approximately the same order that provides for the needs he has today.

...And only a dependence on natural forces, on the natural potential of the living biota, can, possibly, prevent the worst alternative of future development: demographic collapse, a massive drop in population numbers, erosion of the foundations of modern civilization, and so on.

Such is, in any case, the understanding of the essence and meaning of the stability of evolution in light of the theory of biotic regulation of the environment. And if its real goal is the weakening of human-caused pressure to a level responsive to the economic capacity of the biosphere, then the discussion must be, accordingly, about not just ceasing whatever "advances" there are on nature but about a retreat. Moreover, about a retreat that is by no means metaphorical but completely real, in the form of man vacating some of the territories that he has taken over, which are absolutely necessary for the biota to fulfill its planetary stabilization mission..." [33]

Combining the "vacating of territory" and a decrease in human population numbers with a continuation of Organization of Matter (progress) is possible only when a replacement of a number of real people with "virtual- type" ones is allowed. Moreover, not just a replacement by addition, which we are already seeing now, but a quantitative and qualitative replacement.

1.5. Nature's fundamental principle: an increase in size is proportional to the size itself.

We'll return to Panov's formula, which describes the ever increasing acceleration of evolution and will try to understand whether it is possible to use the number e in it.

B. Gorobets did a very interesting study of the attributes of the number e relative to basic laws of physics and physiology. Of course, it is not a strict confirmation of the possibility of use in the evolution formula (t_n = -T/eⁿ) of specifically the number e, however, it does provide some basis for it. We will cite a small excerpt from his work:

"Everyone knows that a constant wave in time may be described by a sine or the sum of a sine and co-sine. In mathematics, physics, and electronics such a wave (with an amplitude equal to 1) describes exponential function (Euler formula)

е^iB^t= cos Bt + i sin Bt,

where B is the frequency of sinusoidal motion.

...Further, let's imagine a wave not in time but in space. An obvious example of this may be a standing wave (vibration of a string, fixed at several points) or offshore sand ripples. Mathematically this wave along the O_x axis is written as

еⁱ^x=cos x + i sin x.

... The number e as the basis of the function of a complex variable reflects two basic conservation laws: of energy through homogeneity of time, and impulse through homogeneity of space.

...The most important class of processes - linear and linearized processes -- maintain their linearity specifically because of the homogeneity of space and time. Mathematically a linear process is described by a function which serves as the solution of a differential equation with a fixed factor (this type of equation is taught to first and second year college and university students). And its kernel is the Euler formula cited above. So the solution contains a complex function with the base of e, the same as the wave equation. Moreover, specifically e, and not another number as the base number! Because only the function e^x does not change no matter the number of differentiations and integrations. And consequently, after substitution in the base equation only a solution with the base of e gives identity and also is necessary for the correct solution.

And now we will write down the solution of a differential equation with a fixed factor, which describes the dissemination of a sinusoidal wave in the environment taking into account non-elastic interaction with it, which leads to the dissipation of energy or the acquisition of energy from external sources.

f(t) = е^(a+ib)t = е^at(cos Bt + i sin Bt).

...And now we'll make B = 0, that is, we will eliminate the vibration factor with the number i in the solution, containing Euler's formula. From the previous vibrations, there remains only exponentially damped (or growing) "amplitude."

...In the absence of an imaginary purely vibrational part of the function f(t) with B = 0 (that is, with zero frequency), the actual part of the exponential function describes a multitude of natural processes which proceed in accordance with the fundamental principle: an increase in size is proportional to the size itself.

The formulated principle looks like this mathematically: I ~ I t, where, let's say, I - is the signal and t - the small interval of time in which the growth of the signal I takes place. Upon dividing both parts of the equation by I and integrating them, we obtain 1nI ~ kt. Or I ~ e^kt - the law of exponential growth or decrease in the signal (depending on the symbol k). Therefore, the law of proportionality of an increase in size to the size itself leads to a natural logarithm and thereby to the number e.

...Exponentially with the actual argument, without variations, there are a multitude of processes in physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, and so on.

Vision, hearing, smell, touch, taste, emotions, memory follow this law (of course, as long as physiological processes do not abruptly cross over to pathological ones, when the receptors have undergone modification or destruction). ...We'll use tea as an example: a glass of tea with two lumps of sugar is perceived to be twice as sweet as tea with only one lump of sugar, but tea with 20 lumps of sugar will seem to be scarcely sweeter than tea with 10 lumps...

Such a principle is certainly optimally economical in the evolution of many organisms as well. This may be graphically observed in the formation of logarithmic spirals in mollusk shells, the rows of seeds in a sunflower head, and cone scales. The distance from the center increases according to the law.

р = aе^kj.

At each point the growth rate is linearly proportional to the same distance itself (which is easy to see if one differentiates from the expressed function). Spirals complete the sections of revolving blades and pointers logarithmically." [16]

2. CONCLUSIONS AND HYPOTHESES.

So all the evolutionary spirals of development on planet Earth converge to a point at approximately the same time, moreover this is from the years 2030 to 2050. They are:

1. The general evolution of organisms from the beginning of the formation of planet Earth until today (chemical evolution probably began even earlier, immediately after the formation of the Galaxy). The length of the process was about 4 billion years.

2. Human evolution and, to this end, the formation of a civilization encompassing the entire planet ("body"); the population growth of the Earth concurrent with this process. The length of the process was about 4.4 million years.

3. The evolution of computer systems and the formation of AI ("brain"). The length of this process, assuming its beginning from the moment of the appearance of the first radio technology diagrams, was about 200 years.

In actuality, one may consider all of these spirals as included in one main spiral (the one that is under number 1), but if they are examined separately one may more accurately predict the threshold of convergence (singularity).

They all follow, in essence, one law of exponential development and appear identical: a straight line in a logarithmic scale or a line, sharply rising upward (or downward, depending on the selected direction of measurement reference) in a linear scale - see the diagram, "Moore's Law from a mathematical position."

So what awaits us after the year 2050? Collapse? Gradual deterioration? Everything really does have a beginning and an end. The question remains as to when and why will it come. We will attempt to discover the answer.

2.1 Future deceleration of development.

2.1.1 Why is it that in every evolutionary index, with the exception of the population growth graph, accelerated development is still continuing? After all, as was shown above, the demographic curve acquired an S-shaped appearance, and in addition, according to the logic of things, it should follow the same law of exponential growth. One may assume that all processes will develop on an S-curve law with a point of singularity in the years 2030 to 2050. A premature drop in population growth rates will not be an exception to the general rule, if the simple multiplying of peoples' power through automation and especially computers and then the future appearance of e-entities is taken into account from the beginning. This will be discussed in further detail below.

In the beginning of 1975, Altair-8800, the first commercially distributed personal computer appeared, based on the Intel-8080 microprocessor. At the end of 1975, Paul Allen and Bill Gates (the future founders of Microsoft) created an interpreter of Basic language for the Altair computer which allowed users to fairly easily interact with the computer and easily write programs for it. It should be noted that the time of their appearance and the rates of power growth coincide with the first point of human population growth deviation in the direction of deceleration. More than likely, this is not an accidental coincidence. Personal computers, whose primary purpose was automated calculations, acquired a second very important purpose-they became the irreplaceable helpers of mankind in his intellectual activity. Proceeding from the above, one may conclude that the more population growth will decelerate the larger the role computers will play. A mass appearance of computers, equal in computing power to the human brain, will most likely coincide with the appearance of "electronic entities," which are only prototypes of real AI (the planet's "brains"). But an increase in their numbers will compensate for the stop of population growth and will allow progress to continue.

2.1.2 Nevertheless, a universal deviation in the direction of deceleration of development will begin after the year 2050. Moreover, if the S-curve is symmetrical, the deceleration will take place at the same rates as did the growth. In other words, if people did not notice progress until the year 1600, then correspondingly they will again stop noticing it after the year 2500.

Development will decelerate and some time later after the appearance of AI will probably remain at one level. How is this possible?

In the article "ON THE BOUNDARY OF CIVILIZATION," M. Sukharev writes:

"Elementary particles, primitive organisms and tribes lost in the jungle exist to this day. But leading systems, constituting a branch of progressive evolution, have been becoming more complex for many billions of years already, and it is a bit strange to expect that this growth will cease in the coming century, which is only an instant according to historical, geological and space time scales." [17]

On the one hand, it is strange, true. But on the other, as noted above, "...this unified self-similar process has come to an end. Not just human history but all of planetary history must turn onto some kind of completely new course. Therefore the modern system crisis of civilization is a crisis of a global planetary attractor..."

2.1.3 Prior to moving on to the next discussion, we should particularly emphasize the fundamental suppositions for building a model of Civilization evolution.

Every state is a living organism in a literal sense. If before various types of states were in many ways analogous to various types of animals (similar to those forever warring with each other "for their place in the sun"), then, in recent times, they have been integrating into a single organism. Our Civilization is beginning to more and more resemble a single integral gigantic living organism on a planetary scale, where the various countries are organs and the people cells. Currently, we are observing the transition phase (in its most rudimentary stage), when former separate "living organisms" (the state) become more and more integrated into a global organism, for example, the countries of the European Union. But the trends are much broader and are based on the acceleration of economic development rates (globalization: more about this below).

The Belgian scientist Francis Heylighen, in his work, "Global Superorganism: An Evolutionary-cybernetic Model of the Emerging Network Society," tried to define what it means for a system to be an "organism."

"It is an old idea-that society is in a number of respects similar to an organism, a living system with its cells, metabolic circuits and systems. In this metaphor, different organizations or institutions play the role of organs, each fulfilling its particular function in keeping the system alive. For example, the army functions like an immense immune system, protecting the organism from invaders, while the government functions like the brain, steering the whole and making decisions...

Function	Organism	Society
Food intake	eating, drinking, inhalation	mining operations, harvesting of crops, pumping of water
Processing	digestive system, lungs	oil refineries, factories processing other resources
Distribution	blood circulation	transportation networks
Production	growth of cells	factories, builders
Release of waste	urination, evacuation, exhalation	sewers, garbage dumps, pipes
Storage	fats, bones	warehouses, containers
Support structure	skeleton	buildings, bridges...
Engine	muscles	motors, people, animals

...I would venture that... the global superorganism itself should have taken a shape clear enough for everybody to recognize it by the next half century." [57]

It really is obvious that today the internal structure of any society in its construction is similar to organisms: on the face of it, a clear specialization of groups of "cells," i.e., people. There is also a "circulation system" - money, and the rudiments of a nervous system - the Internet. States develop and improve just like any organisms. The lifespan of a state in the order of things is longer than the lifespan of a human being just as the lifespan of an organism is in relation to cells. The priority of the state's interests over individual interests is clear (just as the organism's is over the cells - an obvious example is a lizard casting off its tail when necessary), although the opposite is declared. For example, if it is necessary for the state, abortions will be prohibited, although the interests of a specific individual may be different. There are numerous other examples (see 6 and 7).

In general, the individual cannot appear outside the society as the individual is its direct product. Man, in an elementary way, does not pay attention to the fact that he is a product of society and is an integral part of it. Everything that a specific person utilizes has been conceived by billions of preceding generations, that is, by society, and that is why the input of an individual even if he is Einstein, is insignificant against this background. Even language itself, which allows one to think abstractly, is a product of society's evolution.

Let's suppose that a man with a gun goes hunting for a lion and easily kills one. The question is: between which two entities did we observe a confrontation? "Between a specific person and a specific dangerous predator, the king of all beasts. Therefore, man is the most powerful being on Earth, `the king of nature,'" an opposer would declare.

But this is not so! This predator was not killed by a man. It was killed by a being of a qualitatively higher level in comparison to both beast and man. The lion was killed by SOCIETY through its representative-man. In reality, why was there a victory? Because of skills, knowledge, and most importantly, weapons. And what are skills, knowledge and weapons? This is a discovery, the work of thousands and thousands of generations of people (that is, society) materially expressed even if only in that very weapon. In other words, one might say that behind such a hunter there are millions of invisible people standing who are organized into societies (they may have died but the society has not). In comparison with them, the significance of the most specific person with a gun drops to a very small level, turning him simply into a tool of society.

2.1.4 Moreover, human intelligence is not an attribute inherent to each individual but a certain function of society. If the latter doesn't exist, the individual will become an animal - the "Mowgli syndrome" is proof of this.

Man did not have "abstract thought" initially. There were and are higher capabilities. The rest is formed by the social environment. What is the "Mowgli syndrome?" A person who lives and is raised from early childhood (2 to 5 years old) in a wolf pack (and a number of such occurrences are well-documented), later (8 to 10 years of age), coming into contact with people, will NEVER be able to become a human being and exercise "abstract thought." He will not even be able to eat with a spoon or wear clothing, much less speak...

This means that this (everything that distinguishes a human being) is not established in him initially, but is formed during upbringing, or, by society. Moreover this capability exists only during the time when intellect and the brain are formed, in other words, only in childhood.

At the end of this article it is noted that the embryo of any animal including man, in its development, goes through, in a way, all of its previous evolution from the first cell at an accelerated rate (see figure of paragraph 4.1.1). So, it turns out that this last stage of our evolution is now proceeding as if outside the framework of an organism's physiology, instead, it continues during the developmental stage (socialization) of these organisms under the influence of the "supra-organism," or society, in a special "environment" in which its "cells," or people, are formed.

Yes, the potential development of the newest part of the neocortical cerebral cortex is established in us as for example, the potential to be a plant is established in a grain of rice (and, for example, in a baby monkey, this same potential, on the contrary, is not established). But what kind of potential is this and from where did it come?

The binding effect of the formation at a specified time of a social super-organism, which has new capabilities and unusual strength in comparison with simple animals: this is the reason and simultaneously the consequence of the appearance in people of abstract reasoning.

The brain and social intelligence (namely, SOCIAL) progressed in the process of evolution as specific types of weapons even more effective than fangs and claws.

"...People have become accustomed to believing that they think on their own, that the process of thought flows only through their heads. In reality, human thought resembles more the operation of an assembly line, where parts, manufactured at hundreds and thousands of different factories, are assembled into some whole item. We really do operate in our thoughts with "products" of thousands of other people, many of whom died many centuries ago. We use numbers invented by some unknown person, use concepts such as "heavy" or "hard," use the Pythagorean theorem, ideas of screw nails, levers, money, social classes, masses, time, truth, honor and much, much more... The listing of these ideas alone, common to almost all civilized (by this civilization) people would take many pages. If such a common field of ideas did not exist, we would not be able to understand one another or to understand on a level of consciousness and combined knowledge." [19]

The conclusion: during the transition from animals to society, yet another qualitative leap to a higher step, on which evolution continues (we briefly note some of the steps of evolution: atom-> molecule > organic molecule ->prokaryotic cell -> eukaryotic cell -> animal -> society -> extrasocietal local cluster of stars, and so on). Note that a separate step of "human being" does not exist. Because a human being is not a human being outside of society but simply a very smart ape, in other words, an animal. This fact is not very obvious because any person, proceeding on personal experience, may imagine himself to be outside of society, for example on a desert island. But this is an error: if the person himself does not, then his descendants will deteriorate into a primitive state. All of the above is described more graphically, for example, in [7].

The contradiction may be removed if one is able to prove that the evolution of civilization of the entire Earth is proceeding on a schedule similar to the development of mental capabilities of a separate individual animal or human. After all, soon civilization really will be ONE SINGLE Civilization the size of the entire planet and this qualitatively changes the situation making a comparison with "leading systems" unsuitable here. Here a comparison with a single individual animal or person is more appropriate.

2.2 Deceleration of human intellectual development.

2.2.1 We shall examine the development of human intelligence capabilities, for example, referring to the work of V.N. Druzhinin, "Psychology of General Abilities." The psychologist uses the concept "general intelligence," consisting of three parts: personal intellect, judgment (views, ideals), and perceptual speed.

"...A conclusion can be made that general intelligence undergoes certain changes in life, developing especially intensively from 0 to 12 years of age, attaining optimum development by 20 to 30 years of age, the level somewhat dropping and then falling after 60 years of age." [18]

In the graph shown it is evident that development proceeds on an S-shaped curve, the first part of which is close to the exponent, the conditional point of "singularity," which corresponds to a human being's age of 7 to 9 years. Afterwards, a deceleration of development rates begins.

A complete graph of intellectual ability development in time was provided in one of the books by G. Yu. Ayzenka "Check Your Abilities:"

And if one looks at this graph, then the beginning of development continues exponentially, approximately up to 8 to 10 years of age, then a stabilization occurs up to 20 to 22 years of age (this entire segment is an S-shaped development, highlighted in red), further there is an almost flat section (with a small decline after 40) up to about 60 years of age, after which the decline is along a similar (S-shaped) pattern.

If this graph really is similar to the Civilization development graph on our planet then we are now at the point of "8 to 10 years of age." Moreover, it is possible that that the entire Organization of Matter stage on Earth up to this time, that is, 4 billion years, corresponds to this section (the lower half of the S-shaped curve highlighted in red).

If one accepts such a model, then Civilization with a body the size of the Earth and a brain in the form of AI will live productively and take part in the interspace battle for existence (and unlikely to be otherwise) most likely on an informational level, on a time interval measured in billions of years (which is comparable to the period of the Sun's burning). However, the future evolution of a SPECIFIC Civilization is practically impossible (civilization will change in about the same manner that an animal changes with age and not more than that). And future evolution will continue the same as in species of individuals only the "individual" will now be a specific Civilization. In this way, different civilizations will be born, fight for existence, perish in the billions, in time intervals also measured in billions of years. And in this "melting pot" ever more perfected "species" will win. This is how evolution should continue if, of course, one strictly follows the known logic of previous evolution.

2.3 Laws of system evolution.

2.3.1 It is amazing but it seems that not all scholars who predict a cataclysm after civilization reaches "the point of singularity" are familiar with the general laws of evolution of technical, biological and social systems, deduced with the help of the Theory for Solving Inventive Problems (TRIZ), for example, see [22]. These laws are knowable and they may be deduced and purposefully utilized for the development of systems as well as resolutions of specific tasks. There exist universal laws of system evolution, independent of natural systems and methods of their analysis. We will not delve into the argumentation and proof of these laws (those interested may familiarize themselves in detail with them by studying TRIZ), but will cite only aggregate information.

"People in the process of their evolution create and develop very different systems: social (from family to state), technological (from a stone axe to all of today's technical fields), scientific (conceptions, theories, hypotheses, methodologies...), systems in the area of art (genres, works...), medicine, education, games, and so on. Sometimes it seems that this evolution is proceeding in a completely accidental manner. And the role of chance really is substantial

However, when examining the evolution of various systems in sufficiently large historical blocks, it can be stated that SYSTEMS EVOLVE ACCORDING TO OBJECTIVE KNOWABLE LAWS. These laws are deduced by studying large blocks of information and evolution histories. Within the framework of TRIZ, technological system evolution laws were first deduced, and it later turned out to be possible to extend them to the field of scientific evolution. Today there is a basis to state that similar laws are valid in other areas of evolution as well.

...THE LAW OF STAGE EVOLUTION (more often referred to as the law of S-shaped evolution) describes the typical sequence of system evolution and time-tables of changes of main characteristics depending on the 'age' of the system." [21]

With time, the effectiveness of the system's operation (value of principal production function) characteristically changes. These changes are described by empirical dependence which has an S-shaped curve appearance. Apart from the laws of system evolution, others exist as well (for example, an increase in the hierarchical level by crossing over to a supra-system and others, see [35]).

The first works where the Law of S-shaped evolution mathematical tool was used for problems of forecasting, were completed by the American biologist, demographer and economist, Raymond Pearl (1879-1940). It was also he who developed the mathematical tool of qualitative analysis of processes of complex system evolution of the "biological population" type on the basis of logistic ("S-shaped") curves. When the logistic formula was published in 1925 [R. Pearl, The Biology of Population Growth, N.Y., 1925], it came to light that it had been proposed by Belgian mathematician Pierre Francois Verhulst in 1838 for describing population growth. That is why it is correct to refer to this law as the Verhulst-Pearl logistic curve. Pearl (immediately acknowledging Verhulst's primary right) saw a universal law in the simple logistic growth formula, equal in significance to Newton's Laws.

So, every system, be it human, a city telephone network, or a business, exists under one law. The life of all systems is characterized by an S-shaped curve. Time is laid out along the horizontal axis and the principle parameter of system evolution is on the vertical axis. For a human being, this might be growth, strength, intellect, the number of articles written, amount of food eaten, and so on depending on what it is that we want to study. For a telephone network this is, for example, the number of subscribers or length of cables, while for a business, sold goods. In particular, today evidence has been cited which confirms the possibility of describing the evolution of economic objects with the assistance of a logistic type function on global, macro and branch levels [66].

2.3.2 No real system is able to grow forever-moreover, exponentially. Sooner or later it simply exhausts its resources, space, energy, water, and so on.

As an example, we shall examine in more detail population growth of some species of animal. Population numbers may grow by exponential law only for a certain period of time.

dK = rK dt or K = K₀ e^rt

where K₀ is the number of individuals of the population at the beginning of the report, r is the so-called proportionality factor, and t is time, which has passed since the initial moment.

Sooner or later the growth in numbers must decelerate. That is why an equation of exponential growth cannot be used here; a revised equation is required, which will take into consideration the deceleration of population growth rates as the numbers get nearer to possible peaks. This number may be supported in the future by the external environment, for example. We shall name this peak population number N. Then the modified equation will look like this:

dK = rK(1 - (K/N)) dt or K=N/(1+ e^-Nrt)

When K is much less than N, the K/N term may be disregarded and we return to the first equation of usual exponential growth. However, when K gets closer to its peak value N, value 1 (K/N) tends to zero, and accordingly the population growth number also tends to zero. The total population number stabilizes in this instance and remains on the N level.

The curve characterized by this equation as well as the equation itself has several names - S-curve, saturated curve, logistic equation, logistic Verhulst-Pearl curve, Volterra equation and Lotka-Volterra equation. [37]

Further there is the possibility of a system sustained on a stable level (close to N), and then its destruction. The only question is when this will occur: immediately or after a period of time that significantly exceeds the time of S-shaped evolution. The latter alternative is possible when there is no competition with fundamentally new solutions and structures.

2.3.3 We shall examine several historical examples.

The history of the rise and gradual decline of the Spanish Colonial Empire provides a proximate and ideal example for an analytical verification of the evolution model. It existed for more than five centuries, and the necessary quantity of data, unlike from many other empires, have been maintained in an adequate state. This question was worked out by Sergey Eigenson ("Marco Polo") in his work "The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire (Mathematical Model)."

"As a calculated parameter the portion of population of Spain's foreign domains from the total population of the Earth in the corresponding year was used...

A cursory glance at the diagram shows that, according to the points of the initial stage, our variable can be easily extrapolated as a parabola or an increasing exponent; this is the mistake which ideological environmentalists often make (The Club of Rome adherents to name one, let alone the Rainbow Keepers, and so on), unlike professional ecologists, as they are not well versed in positive science techniques. At the end of the second stage it is already clear that the question is not of an upward exponent but of an S-shaped logistic curve, and it is possible to estimate approximately what it will reach at the zenith but even here it is not possible to predict what the following period of "decline" will look like. [63]

Another work of the author on a similar theme is titled, "NOVEMBER AND JULY or THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AS A LOGISTIC CURVE."

"Although the number of people who are "molecules" in historical processes is much smaller than the number of molecules in any of the most incremental type of reaction, it is still very large, which also allows a description of the course of events with differential equations.

When one looks at those processes in history for which it is possible to restore changes of quantitative parameters in time, then the frequent occurrence of both a widely known dynamic, characterized by a logistic curve, as well as its combination with exponential decreases stand out.

...It should be emphasized once more that the question is specifically about growth rates of numbers of subjects of Soviet power and not its followers.

...As should have been expected, points on the graphs are grouped in characteristic S-shaped logistic curves, which we encounter during practically any processes of transfer from one stationary state to another. In this case, this is the transfer of power of A.F. Kerensky's Provisional Government on all territory of the country not occupied by Germans to the complete power on this same territory of V. I. Ulyanov-Lenin's Soviet of Peoples' Commissars. For practically the entire examined period, the congruence is respectable, which is evident by the closeness of approximating logistic curves with the broken connecting 'experimental' data ones." [64]

In his works, the author (for example, in [65]) notes the frequent occurrence of both a widely known dynamic, characterized by a logistic S-curve, as well as its combination with an "exponential decrease." But on what does it depend - in a combination or without a combination "with a decrease?" Apparently, it depends on the subject of research.

That is why a "decrease" is a special event for us. In pure processes, after the S-curve, there may take place not "an exponential decrease," but a decrease on a reflective expanded S-curve, moreover either immediately or after a very long period of time (for example, see the graph shown above of the evolution of man's intellectual capabilities during his life). In other words, these are the varying directions of independent processes.

2.3.4 We will draw an S-curve of Organization of Matter for the planet Earth. We are lucky as we are located at the central point of evolution and symmetry. Evolution rates are at a peak exactly at this time and are noticeable with "the naked eye."

The point of "singularity" is not collapse at all. This is a point on the evolution graph in which the speed of this evolution itself is at its peak.

2.3.5 Now we return to the deceleration of population growth. How can this be combined with peak growth rates? In the work of TRIZ expert, V.G. Sibiriakov, "Crisis Design: The Road to Success," we read:

"If the system has exhausted the resources of its development, integrate it with another system which has the same principal function. And it is preferable that the second system be younger and at the first or second stage of its own evolution. Such integration produces a new system, the development resources of which are much larger than either of the original ones (by definition).

It is clear that even if we just combine these two curves in a graph we will get a qualitative leap." [38]

So it turns out that the deceleration of population growth will be increasingly compensated at the beginning with computer technology and programs. Their principal function is similar: to accelerate the Organization of Matter. And soon a mass appearance of "electronic entities" is possible followed then by AI as well.

"The number of horse carriages (number of horses per capita) steadily increased in the last century. If in 1875 we had extrapolated this trend for the next one hundred years, it would have turned out that in the first half of the 20th century, all the streets, wall to wall, would have been packed with horses and all city residents would have had to become coachmen...

When extrapolations lead to such paradoxes, pessimists say, "This can't be and won't be!" And optimists say, "It shall be!" Both are wrong. ...The number of horses is increasing according to the optimistic prediction but these are no longer those same horses (automobiles)." [39]

Moreover, if one takes into consideration that in every automobile there are tens or even hundreds of "virtual horses," (horse power), and the streets are not filled with horse droppings, and practically all people have become "coachmen" (drivers), but this does not interfere with other work, the scale of progress becomes clear as well as the impossibility of its sudden halt. The number of real horses sharply decreased, just as at some point (possibly as soon as in about 200 years) the number of people themselves will decrease (and progress, as before, will not stop this). With the existing number of people, Earth's biosphere will certainly not support the burden. But "electronic entities" don't need horses. They actually don't need anything at all, even space.

The conclusions from V.G. Gorshkov's article, "Limits of Stability of the Environment," (USSR AS Reports, 1988, volume 301, No. 4, pp. 1015-1019, pub. Nauka) are:

"If today's proportion of human consumption (7%) is maintained and a halt in economic growth occurs, a complete depletion of the biosphere and deformation of the environment will occur in several hundred years. If today's economic growth rates are maintained this should take place in the latter half of the next century." [40] (p. 1018)

And here is an excerpt from a book by astrophysicist Gindilis, SETI: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence:

"Currently man consumes almost 3 x 10²⁰ J of all types of energy a year which corresponds to a power of 10¹³ W. Moreover, the annual growth of energy consumption comes to 3%. At these growth rates, in approximately 1,000 years, energy consumption will already reach a volume of 4 x 10²⁶ W, which is equal to the total power of the sun's radiation, while in another 850 years, it will be equal to 4 x 10³⁷ W, which is the energy output of 100 billion stars or the radiation of the entire Galaxy." [44]

But the paradox is that stray radiation from civilizations that have evolved to a similar stage is not yet evident (of course, Gindilis himself does not consider such a thing to be possible but makes this analysis as an interesting observation). On the one hand, similar consumption of energy is probably not realistic while on the other hand, evolution cannot stop. One path is visible to exit this impasse, the same as the one having to do with horses, which turned out to be "horse power" inside cars...

This is the fundamental conclusion then: all S-curve processes of evolution on the planet Earth are nested in each other and have a single point of singularity (2030 to 2050), and coincide with one another (evolution proceeds by logistic equation, differing from t_n = - T/eⁿ, and the latter formula, as stated above, characterizes only the first part of the S-curve). They coincide for those global processes for which the Earth serves as a "reservoir" (evolution of the biota, humanity, social forms, technology, electronics, and others).

However, each individual process, whether it is the evolution of an individual or a lifecycle of a specific invention, although it proceeds on an S-curve, it is on its own S-curve, not having a relation to global S-curve processes in the "reservoir." After all, new individuals and inventions are constantly born and created and old ones die out.

On a galactic level, the Galaxy now becomes the "reservoir" and our Earth, "a specific individual," with all the resulting consequences: billions of billions of Civilizations such as ours will be born, fight and die out. From their evolution a large galactic global S-curve will be constructed.

And on the level of the Universe, correspondingly, our Galaxy will then become the "specific individual."

But what is it that is interesting here? From the evolution formula (t_n = -T/eⁿ), if it is expanded by one step until the actual appearance of the Earth, the critical point may be obtained 10.8 billion years ago (see table in paragraph 1.2.2). This critical point coincides with the time of the appearance of the Galaxy. This is possible only in the event that the beginning of life on our planet coincided with the first critical point of a global galactic S-curve and we were among the very first. S-curves planets which appeared later will not coincide with the global galactic S-curve at any point. But the first organisms are usually the most defective. They, as a rule, lose the evolutionary battle and their species transform and disappear.

Therefore, a clearly expressed point of singularity, with an acute crisis will not take place. Evolution is continuing along an S-curve and very soon there will begin a slowdown. The Organization of Matter on our planet will smoothly move on to a new level, after which it will stabilize (probably similar to the graph of intellectual capability evolution).

3. PREDICTIONS AND LIKELIHOOD OF CONTACT WITH "INTELLIGENT BRETHREN."

3.1 This is only the beginning in the Galaxy...

3.1.1 "...In the 1960s, theorists proposed that our galaxy formed early in cosmic history-by the most recent estimate, 13 billion years ago-and has remained essentially unchanged since then.

But it has become clear that the Galaxy is continuing to develop. As did previous discoveries, this idea arose as a result of studies of other galaxies. However, most of the stars adjacent to the Sun are almost identically composed of heavy elements irrespective of their age. Apparently the Galaxy is not isolated and interstellar gas is continuously diluted with purer material which causes high velocity clouds.

...Heavy elements are formed in stars and when the stars die, the elements are dispersed throughout interstellar space. Newly forming stars encompass these elements, forming an even larger quantity of them. Consequently, if the Galaxy is developing in isolation from the outer world, each subsequent generation of stars must contain more heavy elements than the previous one.

...The first direct evidence of fresh gas entering the Galaxy has been obtained." [14]

Therefore, the formation and evolution of the Galaxy continues. The theory of evolution was valid and will be valid: from atoms to a molecule, from a molecule to a cell, from a cell to a living organism, from an animal to society, and so on (to a galactic and then to a universal level). No one has the power to abolish the laws of evolution. It's just that evolution has moved to a level that is less comprehensible for us as it is now taking place BEYOND us on the level of social organisms (and in the future, it will be continuing BEYOND societies, and so on, as well).

An individual person taken separately is unable to create anything starting from zero. He will always be using the knowledge of previous generations, i.e., society. Specifically, in order to emphasize this last point: in this article a large number of very extensive citations are deliberately included and are highlighted in a different color (in addition, this approach allows the reader to evaluate arguments independently to a large degree relying on primary sources, and not on loose interpretations), at a time when the opposite is generally accepted-using a minimum of citations and/or summarizing and re-stating in one's own words.

At this particular moment in time, one can speak only of the development and evolution of social organisms. That is why it is not "man" at all who will create AI, the planet's electronic brain; AI will naturally appear as a result of the evolution of social organisms. It is in about the same way that the brain appeared in living organisms at a certain stage.

People have been dreaming for a long time about contact between civilizations. But if one strictly follows the logic of what occurred before this development (and it is more or less known to us) then it becomes clear that at the next step after "society" (and this is a super-society of a local star cluster), the role of an individual person will be very insignificant and the "contact" will not be made by an individually selected person. Contact (and at this stage of development this means not just "contact" anymore but some kind of specialization with a separation of functions between planets included in one single superorganism) is possible, arguably, only between AI in a different scale of time and knowledge. After all, the nearest civilizations are probably thousands of light years away and while AI is in the process of making contact several generations will pass on Earth.

Moreover, until that "happy moment," when some evolved descendants of AI of the first civilizations will be able to combine into a super-society of local star clusters (which corresponds only to "eukaryote civilizations"), a substantially lengthy period of time must pass, during which there will be an evolutionary struggle between the AI of single "bacteria civilizations." As a reminder, according to modern scientific ideas, a eukaryotic cell was formed as a result of a combining of functionally different bacterial (prokaryotic) cells. [32].

In order to visualize the future it is necessary to look to the past (trace how development proceeded on Earth, at any of the previous steps known to us, paying special attention to modern molecular biology data, looking closely from a new angle at cell and multicellular organism construction, for example, see [31]).

3.1.2 So why, despite intensive observations of the Galaxy in the most varied spectrums, we still have not found any exotic traces nor traces of military cataclysms from other civilizations? After all, much more ancient worlds than ours must exit. We will try to get to the bottom of this.

"...For planets and living protein beings to form, there have to be sufficient amounts of heavy elements such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, lead, iron, and others.

Information about the evolution of the Universe indicates that heavy elements emerged in the interiors of the first generation of stars, which formed out of hydrogen and helium immediately after the "big bang."

It is thought that heavy elements "cooked" in the interiors of the first stars where now common nuclear reactions occurred. After the hydrogen burned off, which led to the formation of heavy elements, some of these stars exploded like supernovas and novas creating the gas and dust composition of the Galaxy, which contained heavy elements. Condensation of the gas and dust substance produced the second generation of stars with planets where basically heavy elements were concentrated. In this way, the Universe had to go through a chemical, or rather a nuclear, phase of evolution before chemical and then biological evolution could begin on the planets.

...It is believed that nuclear evolution and the formation of the second generation of stars with planets on the basis of heavy elements may have taken 4 to 5 billion years." [23]

And so... according to verified data the Universe is 13.6 billion years old, and our Galaxy is 10.8 billion years old. In other words, according to the principle of the continuous origin of life, the first living cells (for example, bacteria) began to emerge when the Galaxy was approximately five billion years old, i.e., no earlier than 6 billion years ago and have been continuously emerging during that time on the forming new stellar and planetary systems.

Astrophysics estimates the average rate of star and planet creation in our Galaxy to be on the order of 10 stars a year. In addition, technological civilizations are probably appearing and will be appearing through evolution continuously on some of these stellar and planetary systems. The beginning of the appearance of technological civilization is determined by the time period of biological evolutionary life from cells to civilization. For life on earth this period is estimated to be 4 billion years. If this is accepted as the average for all civilizations then the first technological civilizations began to emerge in the Galaxy 11 to 12 billion years after the "Big Bang" or only about 2.5 billion years ago.

In 2.5 billion years in our Galaxy alone, almost 25 billion new stars have appeared, and solar types of stars live on the order of 10 billion years or more, which means that the very first stars with technogenic civilizations will only begin to die in another 3 billion years. From observations of the closest galaxies it is clear that for a certain time a small number of massive and a multitude of small-mass stars are being created. For each 20 stars similar to the Sun, one star with a mass 10 times larger than the solar mass is born. Therefore, we will construct a graph disregarding them.

The following should be noted:

1. The graph provides a very approximate (rough estimate) picture of the number of stars at various stages of formation in our Galaxy. Today's rate of star formation is close to 10 stars per year and at earlier stages (immediately after Galaxy formation) it was several times higher. In the future, it may possibly decrease and so on.

2. Our civilization was among the first to emerge. So far, not one civilization could have perished by natural causes before us (explosion of its star). The first such processes shall begin only after several billions of years (isolated exceptions are possible).

3. The number of civilizations in the Milky Way will increase continuously until it stabilizes after 10 or more billions years (the number of stars stabilized earlier as stars that did not have civilizations began to die out). If a "capture" of other stars takes place, the number of civilizations will increase with a decrease in the period of time of natural development (4 billion years may decrease to one and less than a billion years). However this will likely not takes place. For the reason, see below.

4. Everything is only just beginning and it is still a long way to go until the first wave of aggression between forming technogenic civilizations (the battle for 'a place under the stars' may be a real one if populations reach certain densities.") But an "adaptation" of some of the new planets with forming fauna "like ours" may have already begun.

5. Our Galaxy will not become an "adult" any time soon.

3.1.3 If, according to the hypothesis of continuous emergence of life, the first civilizations began to emerge 2.5 billion years ago or earlier, then many of them had sufficient time for colonization. The conclusion is then made that if there are no aliens in the Solar system or they have not visited our planet earlier then they do not exist at all since at least one technological civilization, upon coming into existence, would have, after several millions of years, occupied the entire Galaxy - something which we, however, have not seen.

"It is possible of course that the cited colonization time estimates are based on overly rough approximated models of this process, which lead to a short colonization time scale. This is discussed in particular in the research of V. Neyman and C. Sagan who showed in their detailed work that the colonization front, as a diffusion process, coming from some independently emerging civilization that is very close to us may reach the Earth if the lifespan of the civilization in it its technological phase is more than 30 million years and under certain conditions must be 10 billion years." [23].

What was the time period that the first DNA/RNA-like molecule spread its copies all over the world? Probably a very short one since all subsequent organisms have an identically constructed genetic code. But one must understand that conditions on Earth are identical conditions which were created from one source of energy, the Sun, while worlds of other stars-their planets-not only have different physical conditions (pressure, gravity pull, quantity of light energy and so on) but also more than likely will not be biologically compatible with one another. This means that it is not that simple to colonize planets. Either the total destruction of all life, including bacteria and viruses, is required or it might be a question of "intellectual colonization," i.e., something like mastering "brains" of supercomputers (a battle between AI). But this is already a completely different level. Our astronomers are not capable of "noticing" this kind of colonization as yet.

3.2. Time Scale.

3.2.1 Some points in time (events) of evolutionary crises of Organization of Matter on Galactic and Universal scales.

Future discussions will be very speculative but it is useful to make note of them nevertheless.

If it is assumed that the point of singularity is due approximately within our time, and that the critical points on the evolution graph are determined in accordance with the formula cited above (t_n = T/eⁿ - it is simple enough and describes the lower half of the S-curve), then we may attempt to estimate time intervals necessary for organization of matter on galactic and Universal scales. We will cite only the first three points (if necessary, it will not be difficult to count all the rest).

Billions of years ago	Event number	Event
-10,873	-1	Creation of our Galaxy and beginning of chemical evolution
-4,000	0	Explosive emergence of life on Earth - bacteria (prokaryotes).
-1,471	1	Oxygen Catastrophe, single-cell eukaryotes. First simple multicellular organisms.

Let's assume that evolution both in the Galaxies and in the Universe takes place according to this same formula. Then, knowing only one interval between events, both the times of all the rest of the events and the total time necessary for singularity of our Galaxy and the entire Universe may be calculated.

So, for our Galaxy, there is an interval between two events that is known: it is 9 billion years. This is the time which was necessary for the emergence of the first civilizations on a planetary scale after the appearance of our Galaxy. The first point is the formation of the Galaxy, the second, the appearance of the first planet-sized "organisms" (the first "galactic-level bacteria)"). From the above noted formula, we obtain a table for our Galaxy:

Time (billions of years)	Event number	Event
14,000	0	This number indicates that before "singularity," i.e., until the unification (organization) phase of Matter in the Galaxy (its entry into an adult phase) 14 billion years total after its formation are necessary. In other words, this will take place in approximately 3 billion years. But this does not mean that evolution will end after this. The subsequent time period of "fruitful life" is usually several times longer.
5,150	1	The difference is 9 billion years: the first planetary scale civilizations began to appear this amount of time after the appearance of our Galaxy. This is the first revolutionary point of the appearance of the first planetary-sized "organisms" (the first "galactic level bacteria")
1,895	2	5.1 - 1.9 = 3.2 billion years are necessary from the moment the first civilizations appeared - i.e., since the first ones could have appeared 2.5 billion years before us or after 0.7 billion years - until the first critical event which occurred as a result of interaction/warfare between civilizations of local star clusters, . This is the eukaryote civilization level (i.e., emerging associations of civilizations [AI] of local star clusters into an integrated organism, on the basis of division of functions)

Here is a similar table with respect to the Universe:

Time (billions of years)	Event number	Event
26,500	0	This number signifies that until "singularity," i.e., until the unification (organization) phase of Matter in the Universe (its entry into an adult phase) 26.5 billion years are necessary. But this does not mean that it will "die" after this. The subsequent "fruitful life" time period is usually several times longer.
9,749	1	The difference is 14 billion (see previous table) + 2.5 billion years (time until appearance of civilized galaxies) 16.5 billion years: in this period of time after the appearance of our Galaxy, the first galactic scale civilizations began to appear. This is the first revolutionary point of the appearance of the first galactic-sized "organisms" (the first "Universe level bacteria?")
3,586	2	Until the first critical event which occurred as a result of interaction/warfare between galactic civilizations of local clusters 9.7 - 3.6 = 6.1 billion years are necessary from the moment of the appearance of the first ones, i.e., this will take place after 3 + 6.1 = 9.1 billion years. This is the level of galactic "eukaryote super-civilizations" (i.e., emerging associations of super-civilizations [Galaxy AI] of local galaxy clusters into an integrated organism on the basis of division of functions)

The time interval of 2.5 billion years of so, from the Big Bang moment to the appearance of the first Galaxy, gives rise to a certain illogic. However, this number does not affect the sequence of obtained time amounts so therefore may be disregarded. The total time period of "intelligent life" of a Universe-sized organism may also be estimated-its length will fluctuate from 100 to 200 billion years.

So, approximately 700 million years remain until the appearance of the first "eukaryote civilizations." There are about 3 billion years until the appearance of the first "state super-civilization" associations. In other words, then the situation in our Galaxy will become somewhat analogous to today's on Earth, and the role of a specific civilization will resemble the role of a specific human individual. Then the appearance of super-AI on a galactic scale will be imminent just as now the appearance of planetary-scale AI is imminent.

3.2.2 Prebiological evolution.

A. D. Panov in his work "Crisis of a Planetary Cycle of a Universal History..." advanced a hypothesis of galactic prebiological evolution.

"If we want to be consistent we should continue the analysis. The emergence of life on Earth preceded the phase of prebiological chemical evolution.

...That is why it is natural to assume that the self-similar attractor must encompass prebiological evolution as well. But, it turns out that this not so at all. According to modern concepts, life on Earth emerged practically instantaneously according to geological scales, as soon as suitable conditions for this developed. For prebiological evolution a short period remains - from 4.1 to 3.9 billion years ago [13].

...Let's assume that prebiological evolution, the emergence of life and subsequent biological evolution really are a single process in some sense. E.M. Galimov writes (12, p. 129 ], that, in his opinion, prebiological evolution may have fit into these few millions of years which geology allocates to it for this. We'll accept that this is so. Then it needs to be explained why immediately after the emergence of life, evolution seemingly went to sleep for at least a billion years. This is incomprehensible and unexpected, as all of subsequent history of the biosphere shows that the higher the system's organization, the faster it evolves and any living system is organized higher than a prebiological one.

Extrapolation of a self-similar attractor gives approximately 5.5 billion years for the duration of prebiological evolution. It is impossible to fit such a prolonged evolution into the history of the Earth. However, one may assume that prebiological evolution did indeed continue as is expected for 5.5 billion years, just not on Earth. Evidently this may have taken place on Earth-type planets near other stars much older than the Sun. Life may have appeared on Earth as a result of a process of panspermia. The discovery of meteorites, dislodged from the surface of Mars [14] and the discovery in them of organic matter with an anomalous composition of carbon isotopes indicates the possibility of panspermia [15]. The enrichment by isotope 13C may be both biogenic [16] as well as abiogenic [17] but this is also about the possible discovery of traces of extraterrestrial living organisms [16, 18]. Theoretical analysis conducted by A.V. Arkhipov [19] shows that not only interplanetary but interstellar transport of matter may be sufficiently effective. Therefore the panspermia hypothesis does not appear to be completely unwarranted.

...The amazingly un-accidental appearance of the planetary evolution attractor on Earth leads to the idea that it is determined by very fundamental, though not yet understood, evolutionary laws. Evolutionary laws are universal for the Universe which is why a self-similar attractor may have a universal nature. This means that evolution from that same self-similar time scale takes place not only on Earth but on other planets as well. In this case, because extrapolation of a self-similar attractor of evolution on Earth at the beginning of prebiological evolution almost coincides with the beginning of the formation of a galactic disk, it follows that the Sun may be one of the first stars in the Galaxy, near which self-similar evolution attained its singular point. In other words, we are close to the evolutionary front in the Galaxy. That is why the probability that civilization on Earth is either the first or one of the first in the Galaxy does not seem insignificantly small." [8]

Actually, from the above table it is evident that the preceding theoretical revolutionary event, which was supposed to take place 10.8 billion years ago, corresponds both to the time of our Galaxy formation and, evidently, simultaneously to the beginning of chemical evolution. The period until the emergence of life on Earth is on the order of 6 billion years which fits into the interval of time necessary for chemical evolution.

Panov is of the opinion that such a panspermia will result in the appearance of life almost simultaneously on all planets which have suitable conditions to sustain life, and this would be on one molecular basis (meaning a genetic code basis, etc.) and with one chirality.

However, if panspermia does not have a place either on a bacterial or even a virus-type organism level but only on an amino acid or nucleotide level (and this evolution itself may not even have even proceeded on the first planets but directly in the space of the galactic disk in gas dust clouds) then the second part of the conclusion (a single genetic code for the entire Galaxy) appears to be unfounded. A chemical evolution would probably have led to a huge collection of complex organic molecules. All the planets of stars of our Galaxy are, in a fashion, swimming in this "nourishing soup." But which of these amino acids and nucleotides, by happenstance, will end up being included in the foundation of life on a specific planet? This is unpredictable.

We know that within any earth organism all food that enters, in particular that which makes up its proteins and DNA/RNA, is separated into the elementary building blocks that make it up - amino acids and nucleotides. Then, new proteins and DNA/RNA, let's assume, are synthesized out of these same amino acids and nucleotides that have entered. But in different organisms a large amount of both different as well as IDENTICAL proteins and other substances are used. Why do these IDENTICAL proteins not get activated immediately? After all, there would be a significant economy of energy attained.

This is an indirect argument in favor of the fact that at least on Earth everything began with these "small building blocks" (specifically from amino acids and nucleotides) and not from more complex fragments.

Only 20 types of amino acids out of the more than 90 (minimum) existing amino acids are used in Earth's living organisms and it is the same with nucleotides. Why were these amino acids and nucleotides specifically selected on our planet? Here this is all a matter of chance. Certain types of reactions and chemical motifs forming at some point preserved (with some variations of course) their character in the course of evolution. The use of extra and other types of amino acids turned out be impractical and the forms that had already been created "filled up" all the paths (captured the living space and energy of the Sun), not allowing the remaining 70 types of amino acids to be organized into forms. In addition, our living world exists only from left handed molecules and it is likely that there are also right handed ones. This is, by the way, an indirect indication that all of our life was formed from a very primitive but only left handed DNA/RNA similar molecule, the numerous descendant copies of which won the battle with competitors, filling the entire planet.

But everything living on other inhabited planets more than likely consists of partially "our" and partially "foreign" amino acids and nucleotides (included in the unutilized 70 types). It is possible that there are "right-handed worlds" also. All of this indicates that on a biological level, the worlds of different planets will not be compatible.

And on newly forming planets (which is happening now and will be happening for a long time yet) life will evolve anew each time.

Purely logically, this corresponds to the assumption that the planet is becoming an "individual." We know that individuals are born from a zero starting point, gradually develop, and die, and at different times, not just at the simultaneously.

3.3 There will not be necessarily be "exo-humanization."

3.3.1 K. E. Tsiolkovskiy, I.A. Efremov and others wrote about the fact that a highly evolved civilization must be highly humanistic. Doctor of Philosophical Sciences A. P. Nazaretian researched this issue and proposed a hypothesis of techno-humanitarian balance [20].

"The techno-humanitarian balance hypothesis states that in all of human history and pre-history there was a law in place according to which the higher the power of production and military technologies, the more sophisticated were cultural control resources necessary to preserve society" [24].

Building on extensive factual material, he showed that the level of cultural restraints of aggression grew along with the growth of technological power. For example, despite the increase in the destructive force of weapons, the level of bloodshed (calculated per capita) not only did not increase but gradually even decreased. However, he did not consider states as living entities nor that they were subject to the same laws of evolutionary struggle.

With this same success one might prove that as more sophisticated predator animal organisms appeared the level of "bloodshed" (number of those who perish from aggression of cells of other organisms) decreased, for example in comparison with herbivores (they constantly destroy huge quantities of plant cells). Nevertheless predators are typical aggressors.

In regard to today's "humanization," its explanation may be found not in "the hypothesis of techno-humanitarian balance," but in the integration of states into a single superorganism.

For example, transnational corporations (we examined their accelerated development above) have a favorable effect on international relations, especially on international security status as they further the development of interdependence of different countries, making any aggression by countries involved in the transnational company system impossible with respect to one another or, at the very least, not advantageous.

It is possible that the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s was in fact the beginning of a transition to a global planet-sized "organism." This is the conditional point for the beginning of globalization.

In general there are many new economic signs which appeared at the end of the 1980s. It is at this time that the "iron curtain" fell from the Eastern European and post-Soviet economic areas and new technologies emerged especially in the fields of communications and telecommunications.

In particular, one more event should be noted which contributes to the unification of the planet and which occurred during these years-the emergence of the Internet, when information became universal and borders seemingly disappeared.

We unexpectedly became participants in the Internet revolution. Most analysts consider that the actual date that the Internet appeared was in 1983, when the initial ARPAnet was divided into the MILNET network, designated for use for military purposes, and ARPAnet itself was directed towards continuing research in the network field. The progenitor of the Internet, ARPAnet, ceased to exist in July of 1990 and its functions gradually transferred to the more extensive structure of the Internet.

The concurrence of real "humanization" with the beginning of the unification of the planetary organism is hardly a coincidence. According to Nazaretian, this could well have happened earlier or later.

Moreover, the very beginning of the unification of the planetary organism was not the end of the 1980s (it was at that time that it became clearly pronounced). To clarify this question we will refer to the history of the UN.

The UN system originated more than 100 years ago as a mechanism to administer the global community. The first international intergovernmental organizations appeared in the mid-19th century. In the beginning, the main goal of intergovernmental cooperation within the framework of international organizations may have been considered to be control over integration processes.

The question of the appearance of the first international organization up to this point is still under debate. International legal experts most often name such to be the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine established in 1815.

The idea to create a global intergovernmental organization to prevent war and maintain peace engaged mankind's thoughts for a long time. Such a project was the underlying foundation of the League of Nations (1919), which never did become an effective instrument of political and international cooperation.

The Allied conference in Moscow in 1943 became an important step on the path to founding the UN.

There was discussion at the Yalta Conference in the Crimea in February of 1945 by the heads of the three powers, Soviet, British and U.S., of the package of documents proposed at the Dumbarton Oaks conference, a number of points were added to it, and the decision made to call for a United Nations Conference in the U.S. in April of 1945. This decision came to fruition at the conference in San Francisco which took place from April 25 to June 26 of 1945 and which ended with the acceptance of founding documents of the United Nations Organization. On October 24, 1945, after the transfer of ratification documents for safekeeping by the five permanent Security Council members and a majority of the other nations, the UN Charter entered into effect.

It should be emphasized that "humanization" progress rates approximately correspond to unification progress rates. Their connection is also understandable: within a planetary "organism" as within any organism, wars should not take place.

Physicist A.D. Panov, in his work "Crisis of a Planetary Cycle of Universal History....," writes:

"First of all, civilization must work out very complete mechanisms to restrain internal aggression; otherwise, it will self-destruct as a result of internal conflicts long before it reaches a post-singular stage. Second, civilization must overcome its own internal corporate or state type of egoism because planetary crises may be overcome only through the joint efforts of all with an unceasing search for compromises" [8].

There is no point in arguing with this. But it should be emphasized that the above refers specifically to internal conflicts. Cells of a living organism really are very "humane" towards one another but this does not nullify their "aggressive" attitude towards similar cells of other organisms.

"The outbreaks of violence that have taken place in the 20th century were beyond anything mankind has known in its history: Hitler's concentration camps, Stalin's collectivization and Stalinist repression, China's "Cultural Revolution," and Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia. This seemingly indicates that humanization of civilization has not occurred. But where are those regimes which practiced such violence? They showed their complete lack of capability and either vanished from the face of the Earth or were forced to fundamentally restructure themselves. Essentially, the operation of a natural selection mechanism, which sweeps away aggressive subsystems from human civilization, retaining the humanistic ones, is becoming evident. This is exactly that mechanism of formulation of cultural controls that keeps in check the destructive action of developing technologies, which the techno humanitarian balance hypothesis assumes." [8]

3.3.2 Why is it that this mechanism of "techno-humanitarian balance," has not, in the course of all previous history, "swept away aggressive systems?" The point here is that if before states had the role of different "species of animals" and fought amongst themselves, then now evolution has reached the stage at which states are now becoming organs of a single planetary-sized superorganism. Therefore we again are concerned with the beginning of "internal organism" conflict elimination, which is not at all necessary for "exterior application."

"It is interesting that the humanization of earth civilization is already finding a direct expression with respect to space. There is a fairly widespread point of view that as soon as mankind reaches other planets it will attempt to quickly dispose of local life forms and alter everything to suit itself as had been done during the history of colonization, for example, in America...

However, this is an expression of a somewhat unsophisticated perception, a representation of sorts that there has been a general decline in morals, as the facts indicate the exact opposite is taking place. Here is an example. If there is life on Mars then it is obvious that it is in the most primitive forms. It would seem that by right of the strong we should consider as to whether or not this life presents some danger and if there is the smallest doubt then simply destroy it. In reality, beginning from the very first Martian programs, all equipment sent to Mars was sterilized to the greatest possible degree in order that, God forbid, it would not somehow harm Martian life. One may already presume that if life on Mars is discovered, then one of the main problems in the possible colonization of Mars will not be how to protect ourselves from that life but how to preserve it. In addition to that, the problem may turn out to be completely insoluble and then the colonization of Mars will become problematic due to ethical considerations. This is not an empty fantasy but simply a small extrapolation of the current situation.

...Humanism cannot exist only for a civilization's "internal use." It must exhibit these qualities with respect to the outside world as well, in whatever way these relations may be expressed: contact with intelligent or unintelligent forms of life on other planets, space engineering, and so on. A completely highly humanistic internal system can hardly be primitively aggressive in its outward manifestations. Therefore, it should be expected that post-singular civilization must be not only humanistic, but exo-humanistic and humanistic in a cosmic sense." [8]

3.3.3 What is the real reason for such a "protective" attitude towards "Martian life?"

Indeed, a number of national and international planetary quarantine programs exist and operate today. Notably, in October 1958 the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) was formed especially for this. In "Planetary Quarantine Fundamentals" we read:

"...Successful study of outer space is threatened by the possibility of man bringing alien life forms from one planet to another during his travels, which may lead to the most unexpected consequences. Introduction and reproduction of terrestrial life forms may once and for all destroy the desired opportunity to study planets in their natural conditions. Planetary quarantine is implemented in order to preserve this opportunity.

At this time it is necessary to implement planetary quarantine for three reasons:

1. Earth's microflora brought to a planet by unmanned or piloted space craft may multiply and spread on it which will become an obstacle to future study and will conceal or completely destroy life indigenous to the given planet. Environmental conditions may then be altered to such an extent that this planet will no longer be of any significant scientific interest for subsequent generations.

2. Unmanned space craft intended for finding signs of life on the planet should not be contaminated with terrestrial microflora, otherwise the devices will be discovering primarily terrestrial, not extraterrestrial microflora.

3. The Earth may be contaminated by dangerous organisms or substances brought from other planets or from outer space." [25]

Astronomer V. Surdin writes:

"Incidentally, regarding life: it is not clear up to this point whether it exists on Mars or whether it existed there in the past. But if we do introduce terrestrial organic matter there, we will then never be able to understand Martian life as such. That is why until Mars is closely studied by unmanned vehicles, man's travel there must be postponed." [43]

His idea is simple: what is most important is to first study it and afterwards people may be allowed to go there; if something is damaged it won't be as serious since the primary research would have already been done...

If one looks at this objectively and honestly then it turns out that this "humanism" exists only because it is in the interests of our civilization. When these interests require something else perhaps everything will be different?

Apart from this, one can't judge others knowing (and if one knows) only oneself. Physicist Freeman Dayson eloquently wrote about this topic. SETI researchers should heed his warning:

"Our business as scientists is to search the universe and find out what is there. What is there may conform to our moral sense or it may not...It is just as unscientific to impute to remote intelligence wisdom and serenity as it is to impute to them irrational and murderous impulses. We must be prepared for either possibility and conduct our searches accordingly. [30]

Only to us, people, does it seem that aggression is bad. It is bad but only on our human level, after all aggression within an organism (and people are specifically "inside" the social organism) is unacceptable. Respective laws, morals and so on, basically everything that is dictated by social institutions, comes from this. But it would be a great error to extend feelings and reasoning from the position of an individual (which are just "cells") to global Organization of Matter laws. When evaluating such things it is necessary to forget one's own human nature and try to view everything dispassionately.

Aggression is a fundamental characteristic of a living thing stemming from laws of thermodynamics. It is expressed by the drive to seize living space and to drive out or eliminate potential competitors.

Biologist V. R. Dolnik writes:

"...Aggression originates internally and builds up. Psychologists used to think that aggression was caused by external factors and if they were removed it would not occur. Ethologists showed that this is not so. In the absence of aggression stimulators, the need to commit an aggressive act continually increases, seeming to build up. At the same time, the threshold to set off aggression drops and increasingly minor reasons become sufficient for it to explode to the surface. Finally, it explodes without any reason at all.

This has been determined in numerous very interesting experiments. One of them, possible for any aquarium owner, was described by Lawrence. Take a family pair of cichlid fish and place some kind of source of conflict with them in the aquarium - a third cichlid or other pugnacious fish. The pair of cichlids will fight with the third but maintain the best relations among themselves. Remove the object of aggression and after a while the male will begin to attack the female. Now divide the aquarium in half with a pane of glass and place another pair of cichlids in the other half. The pairs will battle each other through the glass and as a result peace will rule within each pair. Make the glass semi-transparent and among both pairs conflicts will arise.

In this same way, pent up aggression explodes within small insular groups of people. Several friendly, respectful of one another people depart on a winter trip or expedition knowing without a doubt that there cannot be conflicts under such conditions. Time passes and if there is no external object on which to exercise aggression, the people in the group begin to hate one another and aggression that has been long-restrained in the end finds the most trivial reason to cause a major disturbance. There are many known instances when close friends who have been involved in such an "experiment" have committed senseless murder.

In normal life, our aggression is expended every day through many insignificant conflicts with a number of people. We are able to learn to manage our aggression but are not able to get rid of it completely as this is one of the strongest human instincts. And it is important to remember that when we shield an aggressive individual from irritants we don't decrease his aggression but only cause it to accumulate. It will explode in any case and, at the same time, will be much more intense. This is disappointing but true." [34]

Organization into some kind of higher level whole cannot be an amorphous formation. Only a separation of functions and profiling with a single control center allows a structure to be considered an integrated unit. Moreover this is possible only when a certain stage is attained (in accordance with the law on transfer of quantity to quality).

From the appearance of planetary sized social organisms (and on a galactic level these are "bacteria"), until the interstellar unification of some of their evolved descendants (such a unification may be called an analogue of a galactic scale "eukaryotic cell"), a huge time interval shall pass, during which, between civilizations, or, if you will, between their AI (the same as between animals) an evolutionary struggle must take place. Afterwards, several more stages of struggle and unification will pass before a "super-gigantic organism" will become the size of the entire Galaxy (this is probably going to be an analogue of our Earth-sized "organism" which is almost here). Then everything will be repeated but on a Universal scale-the "super-gigantic organism" the size of the Galaxy will turn out to be only a "bacterium" but a "bacterium" of a Universal level...

As nature teaches us, evolution and self-improvement is impossible without the struggle "for a piece of bread" or "for a place in the sun." Always. On every level. But "humanization" exists only within structures that have fully formed be it a cell, an organism, a society, and so on.

It is worthwhile to emphasize once again that our main error is that we judge by ourselves. But in this instance this is incorrect as the personality located "within" the social organism really does perceive humanization in interpersonal contact and transfers this perception to prospective contact between civilizations.

3.3.4 Irrespective of how peace-loving, settled or antisocial the majority of extraterrestrial civilizations are, they have motives for interstellar migrations. At any rate, there is at least one: stars don't last forever. Hundreds of millions of suns, after their hydrogen is gone, will first explode destroying all of their planets and then will turn into red giants or white dwarves. Will all civilizations really resign themselves to their inevitable destruction?

This is still far off but no one is going to wait for the destruction of stars; without a competitive battle to capture energy and space to live evolution is not possible.

So why is Space "silent?" Why don't we see this battle? Many people, scientists included, are convinced that aliens do exist and are trying to refute the paradox of the silence of space. However they are coming up against a fundamental problem: the proposed explanations are plausible only if the number of extraterrestrial civilizations is small. After all if millions or billions of technological civilizations exist in the Galaxy, it is unlikely that they all would end by self-destruction, devote themselves to a settled way of life or accept the same "exo-humanistic" rules with respect to less developed forms of life. It would be enough that envoys from at least one civilization start working on their plan to capture the Galaxy and in a short period of time it would be colonized.

The most likely reasons as to why we do not see the struggles of other Civilizations are (a simultaneous combination of the factors listed below is possible):

- Our civilization is among the first; civilizations are not densely enough dispersed in space as yet.

- A large-scale colonization on a physical level is impossible as worlds are extremely distant from one another and are not compatible biologically. If a planet has suitable conditions then life emerges there practically immediately (as is evidenced by the history of the Earth), but on the basis of its amino acids and possibly its nucleotides and overruns the entire life space. In other words, for any alien organism the environment is toxic. Prebiological (chemical) evolution (which takes place in outer space) may have roots that are common for the whole Galaxy but the question of specific selection of amino acids for constructing organisms on a specific planet is more likely a matter of chance. So on Earth, only 20 out of 90 types of amino acids are used in the construction of organisms.

- A competitive battle, capture, destruction, and, incidentally, symbioses as well, are doubtless basically possible on an interplanetary level only between AI; moreover, in forms, by methods, and in time scales which are difficult for us to comprehend.

A vivid example is the Internet, which encircles our entire planet and which has viruses and programs moving around through it (the appearance of intelligent programs will more than likely take place in this century). In this analogy, the websites are planets with civilizations and viruses are either AI itself or its attacking parts.

One should note that such a "colonization" of the Earth by the Internet would not have been possible without civilization having attained a certain level. And although this analogy is very rough and imprecise it still gives somewhat of an idea about the subject.

The point is that specifically the "Interstellar Internet," depending on the situation, may become a "Space BIOSPHERE," i.e., that multidimensional environment with a variety of representatives where fairly complex self-developing AI programs will self-develop and evolve and battle for resources.

But in that case, taking into account the huge time intervals of AI life, distances are not very significant. Neither is distance significant for today's Internet. Apart from this, all evolutionary laws are followed, quantity will gradually cross over to quality and, in this process, as always was in the past (we know this), a structural unit will enter into a group of structural units of the next higher level and in a larger size. The direct re-location of AI itself from one planet to another is also possible (with the speed of light, for example, directed with a radio frequency emission beam; after all, although AI is super-complex it is still a program).

Moreover, living individuals will more than likely not even notice this battle, captures and victories. No consequences of these encounters will be manifested at all on such a low level as that of the people/alien being level.

3.4 At this time it is still too early to beam messages into space.

3.4.1 In September of 2005, in his speech at the scientific conference, "Horizons of Astronomy and SETI," A.L. Zaitsev (Institute of Radio-engineering and Electronics, RAS) asked the question, "Should we or should we not beam out signals to space?" It arose due to the apprehension of some Western scientists with respect to the sending of signals, as, upon receiving them, some aggressive civilizations will "come here and attack us." Zaitsev stressed the groundless nature of this apprehension. He noted that if all civilizations will have such "isolationist" positions then no one will transmit signals nor look for anything. In his opinion, aggressive civilizations (if such exist) will probably not attain a high level of development. In connection with this he is formulating the following resolution: SETI makes sense only in the type of Universe where there is recognition of the necessity and existence of the need to transmit interstellar messages to intelligent brethren. And, in any case, our civilization has already been "lit up" in space because of television and radar emissions.

This last issue is very controversial. Apart from the fact that stray emissions are by themselves very insignificant, as one of the pioneers of search for extraterrestrial intelligence and a founder of the SETI project, the already quoted Frank Drake noted-in fifty years, cable and satellite will replace broadcast television after which time emissions will fade completely.

Writer Alfred Barker expressed his thoughts on this topic well:

"...With cell phones it is a really unique situation. With 1960s technology, to support this type of communication large numbers of megawatt power radio stations would have been needed. And "those" powers along with today's stocks of cell phones would really have made such emissions into space that if alien humanoids would have wanted to they could have recorded it as constant noise and in digital frequency channels. But this won't happen now: communications development is continuing on the path of greatly decreasing emissive power. It is the same for radio and telecasting as well as radio navigation... In short, there are thousands more emissive sources now than there were forty years ago although the total emissive power has probably not increased. And the trend is such that with any radio network development, broadcast power emissions will decrease more and more. This will leave physicists from Tau Ceti or some similar location with less and less hope of pinpointing our 'radio noise.'" [45]

We shouldn't think that if we won't send signals into space that no one will come. As everyone knows, nature dislikes monotony and a guarantee of evolution's success is a maximum variety of "forms and methods;" theoretically there should be both aggressive and benevolent (exo-humanitarian), social and uncommunicative, and other civilizations.

3.4.2 If you look at history we see that not very long ago there existed simultaneously states that advocated socialism, fascism, Islamic fundamentalism and democratic capitalism. For each of them their own somewhat differing moral and ethical norms are characteristic. At the same time, one shouldn't consider that socialism, for example, is unequivocally worse than capitalism. Each type has its advantages and shortcomings. In normal conditions, capitalism, as it has turned out, is better as it develops much faster. However in critical situations, an "army state" of a socialist type may turn out to be more stable. Imagine, let's suppose that there is a form of AIDS thousands of times more dangerous than the known type. It is possible that the U.S., with its democracy, would just not react in time while Stalin would simply have shot the suspicious half of the population and would have completely prohibited, on pain of death, sexual relations or, let's say, re-settled all men and women in different areas so that all children would be "test tube" babies. As a result, the more developed U.S. may have perished while the Soviet Union would have survived. This, of course, is a purely speculative supposition but here, for example, is a fact:

"...Hitler's aggressors planned to triumphantly enter a Moscow "liberated from Bolsheviks" in tanks as early as August. But this, as is well known, did not occur. They met a different adversary than the one in Europe. How otherwise to explain that the German army in just the two first months on the Eastern front lost eleven times more forces than in the two years previously in Western Europe and Northern Africa?" [46] And in addition to this, the USSR did not expect an invasion. We were taken by surprise...

This is just like in the previous step of evolution: a variety of animals is insurance, a guarantee of Organization of Matter for almost any instance.

Seventy million years ago a huge asteroid fell to earth. After the incredibly powerful explosion it was dark and cold for many months because of the dust that arose. First the largest plants died, then the dinosaurs and 80% of other types of plants and animals. But some other more adaptable mammals and plants survived, flourished and filled the empty niche.

For nature it is unimportant that Stalin executed millions of people; the social form he founded has value, as it ensures variety, but because extreme conditions, such as those that were cited did not occur, it fell hopelessly behind, deteriorated and transformed into another structure.

3.4.3 The same occurs in the animal world: species are constantly changing, less perfect ones transform, acquiring new traits or disappear. Moreover, it is absolutely unimportant how long and how comfortably specific cells of various species of organisms "live." Nature, in the end, "needed" apes, crocodiles and mosquitoes. Such is the dialectic of evolution...

Zaitsev writes:

"...Noble Laureate radio astronomer Martin Ryle advocated in a written statement at that time a demand to forbid any attempts to send radio transmissions from Earth in the direction of possible alien civilizations.

Then the International Institute of Astronautics Protocol appeared where this type of activity was also condemned. [29]

One could retort the following: if something exists that is so super-powerful and aggressive from which there is no escape, then it would have either found us long ago or will certainly find us, primarily through the radio emissions of the dozens of military radars of the U.S. and Russia, which make up the base of the national missile defense warning systems... Contact should be attempted with all imaginable civilizations, including with those harmless and "powerless" ones such as ours, who are able to interact only through transmissions and reception of electromagnetic signals over inconceivable space distances.

In all of the history of our civilization only four interstellar radio message transmission projects were developed and brought to the point of practical implementation." [28]

Of course, maybe something "super-powerful and aggressive" will find our Civilization but why hurry that event along ourselves? It is not only with "electromagnetic signals" that interaction is potentially possible. Theoretically, even sending specially developed viruses should be assumed, aimed at the complete destruction and subsequent re-creation (but already on the basis of its own amino acids) of all flora and fauna with the subsequent relocation of AI into, for the purposes of this discussion, "our own body." Why not? It may happen that such "spider civilizations" exist...

3.4.4 There are fundamentally different options in searching for other civilizations.

For example, the infrared interferometer should especially be noted among promising developments. In 2015, ISA plans to launch the space interferometer DARWIN. This observatory, consisting of three separate telescopes with diameters of 3 to 4 m., will be placed at Lagrange point L2 (1.5 million kilometers from Earth), and will be able to find Earth-type planets near the closest thousand stars. Computer modeling of the DARWIN observatory telescope operations shows that around Sun-similar stars, which are located at a distance of 10 parsecs, planets the size of Venus, Earth and Mars should be clearly visible.

For future research it is necessary to prepare maximally miniature intelligence spy satellites and send them to all promising stars from the investigated thousands (let's say 100 to 200 satellites). No more than 500 years will go by (it is probable that it will be less time than that) and our civilization will get sufficient information to allow it to make a conclusion about the evolution of life and about the number of civilizations in our Galaxy with a high degree of accuracy. Moreover, there will be information for conclusions of sufficiently simple statistical information about the existence of suitable planets, conditions and about the existence or absence of at least the simplest organisms. The difference of proposed spy satellites from hypothetical alien probes should be noted, the idea about the existence of which was set forth by famous American radio astronomer R. Bracewell in 1960. According to Bracewell, the sender civilization, instead of studying thousands of stars for a lengthy period of time and expecting a reply from them, may send an automatic probe to every suitable star, with radio hardware and computers controlling its movement, search activity, and the establishing of contact. But to reveal ourselves first, as shown above, might be dangerous-at least if even because Space, despite all of the searches being conducted by the SETI program, is "suspiciously silent." Right now this is an indisputable fact. And even now that fact just screams to us, "You don't understand the direction of future evolution correctly." Although there may be many reasons for its silence, one cannot discount the very worst one - aggression.

What is, for example, 500 years in galactic scales? In comparison with the past four billion years of evolution on Earth, this is less than an instant (in reality, 5000 and even 100,000 years are insignificant periods of time - after all, if one were to consider of no consequence the deceleration/acceleration of evolution as only 1% of evolutionary time, then this will be 40 million years).

3.4.5 Here it is necessary to make a small philosophical digression and emphasize that human morality, the concept of "good and evil" is not a law that exists in any sense in nature. Morality is an unwritten code of laws of behavior beneficial at a specific time to a specific type of society. Dictated norms unify people and turn them into a single whole, force them to follow laws, which bind this "organism." That which is unacceptable to the state in principal becomes a criminal or civil law. That which is undesirable for a social organism but is still allowed, is forbidden by moral norms. That is why morality is true only within the framework of social internal acceptance. Accordingly, using it externally is simply silly. This is about the same as if a cell, for example of a snail, reasoned from the position that since all the rest of the cells of its body had "good" relations with it, then as yet unknown cells of other snails would also relate to it the same way. We won't go into cannibalism here. It is enough that there are also cells of birds, snakes and other creatures... Moreover, between the snail's cells and among a bird's cells (which could eat a snail) identical internal "moral laws" operate and the cells themselves are of one type, of these such different animals; if one were to compare them under a microscope it would turn out that they are very similar.

Another possible reason for the irrepressible desire to urgently send messages to aliens and far into the future to boot, is the manifestation of human "weaknesses"-ambition and vanity of certain people, and society's position that encourages them (still being in a state of "childish naivetИ"). The irony even shows through in the name of one of the radio message sent by us into nowhere "Children's radio message"...

At the very least, before sending something into space it would be a good idea to wait until our civilization at least passes the point of singularity and maybe for the appearance of AI. And even more correct to first receive at least some kind of information from the suspicious silence of Space. Then and only then a decision may be made about the possibility of sending messages.

The first cosmonaut took off just 45 years ago; one could say that it just happened. Not having any practical information about the bio-composition of planetary systems of other stars, emitting signals to who knows who, this is at the very least, just sloppy, and maybe (who knows?) even criminal. Moreover, thanks to the efforts of some of our (and individual foreign) scientists we became the "leaders" in this doubtful affair. To send signals is a process that is, generally, relatively simple and inexpensive, however, after the first attempt, foreign researchers sensibly stopped these unanswered transmissions. And this is not METI-phobia (METI- Messaging to Extra Terrestrial Intelligence), as those proponents in a hurry to send messages think-this is a responsible position of an intelligent approach to the problem.

Therefore, a prohibition is necessary (at least for a certain amount of time), against sending messages to other civilizations on an entire planetary scale. Possibly, such a decision should be made at a UN level.

TRANSMISSION OF INTERSTELLAR RADIO MESSAGES
Name	Arecibo message	Space call 1	Children's radio message	Space call 2
Date	16.11.1974	24.05, 30.06, 01.07.1999	29.08, 03.09, 04.09.2001	06.07.2003
Project authors	Drake, Sagan, Isaakman and others	Chafer, Dutil, Dumas, Braastad, Zaitsev and others	Pshenichner, Gindilis, Zaitsev, and others	Chafer, Dutil, Dumas, Braastad, Zaitsev and others
Radar	Arecibo, Puerto Rico	Evpatoria, Ukraine	Evpatoria, Ukraine	Evpatoria, Ukraine
Number of sessions	1	4	6	5
Total length, min	3	960	366	900
Energy, MJ	83	8640	2200	8100

4. THE PLANET'S ELECTRONIC INTELLIGENCE.

4.1 On the creation of electronic entities (e-entities).

Which is the most likely path of appearance of electronic entities?

There may be many theories including many very fantastic ones. The only reasonable criterion to select the most probable hypothesis of future evolution is to carefully study past evolution. In this case, it makes sense to look at the history of the appearance of the first nerve cells in multicellular organisms.

4.1.1 As is known, embryonic development seemingly repeats the entire evolutionary path of its ancestors at an accelerated rate. Specifically for this reason, the embryos of all animals in their early stages are very similar in appearance but later they gradually begin to differ [31], volume 3, p. 69.

Correspondingly, upon observing the appearance of the first neuron in embryos, one is able to understand how they appeared and evolved.

After gastrulation, the outer wall of the embryo is covered by a sheet of ectoderm from which later the outer layer of skin, the epidermis, is formed. However, this is not the end of the ectoderm as it is from the ectoderm that the entire nervous system is also formed. "In a process known as neurulation, a broad central region of ectoderm...thickens, rolls up into a tube, and pinches off from the rest of the cell sheet. The tube thus created from the ectoderm is called the neural tube, it will form the brain and the spinal cord... Along the line, where the neural tube pinches off from the future epidermis, a number of ectodermal cells break loose from the epithelium and also migrate as individuals through the mesoderm. These are cells of the neural crest, they will give rise to almost all of the neurons and glial cells of the peripheral nervous system..." Sensory organs which transmit information to the nervous system about visual, sound, smell and other stimuli, also derive from ectodermal thickenings, some from the neural tube, and others from the neural crest and still others from the exterior layer of the ectoderm... For example, the retina is formed as a part of the brain and therefore is derived from the neural tube, while olfactory cells differentiate directly from the ectodermal epithelium of the nasal cavity. [31].

In this way, one may assume that the first neuron-like cells were formed from regular exterior layer cells of primitive multicellular organisms. Gradually they migrated to the interior of the organism and "sensory organs" appeared in the exterior layers. Moreover, neurons arose only in mobile organisms. It is a fact that if plants and mushrooms literally live on top of their food source then animals often have to search for theirs. In this case they have to have the capability of locomotion in order to move from one place to another and find prey and this in its turn requires a highly evolved nervous system and sensory organs. That is why some cells on the exterior of the body acquired the function of detection of signals from the external environment - reactions to light or food... Organisms which have neurons acquired a significant advantage in procuring food and pushed out those (in their class) who didn't have these cells.

As a consequence of a unidirectional manner of locomotion, the head became separate in these animals. Such a construction helps to find and swallow food and because it is the first part to encounter new elements in the environment, the main sensory organs, which receive information from the outside, are specifically concentrated in it. The increased flow of information from these organs to the nervous system led to a thickening of the front ganglia, i.e., the formation of its own form of primitive "brain." [48]

We shall digress briefly and make particular note of the fact that the appearance of neurons is connected with the fact that animals are consumers, i.e., they eat live organisms, whether these are plants, bacteria or their own kind. Moreover, it is specifically this reason (aggression for capture of life energy) which led to the appearance of the brain.

Let's take, for example, the research of S.V. Saveliev, Doctor of Biological Sciences, "Evolution of the Biosphere and Biodiversity," in the section relating to the evolution of the brain:

"We shall examine the general design of reptilian nervous system construction. The reptilian nervous system is developed significantly better than that of amphibians and protoaquatic vertebrates...

...

All the enumerated advantages of reptilian brain construction could not have emerged by themselves. For such a deep qualitative restructuring of the brain there had to have been extremely harsh and unusual conditions. Archaic reptiles had to have been in a very unique environment with very high demands on analytical properties of the brain and individual memory.

The associative brain center of archaic reptiles could not have emerged by accident. The energy expenditures to maintain the associative brain center and the cost of changing behavior strategy are always very high. There must be a reason for such biological expenditures which may bring the species to the edge of extinction.

Judging by everything, archaic reptiles began their evolution neither from plant food nor from hunting for invertebrates. This diverse group formed as a result of the extermination of amphibians and archaic reptiles. They competed with each other in hunting for amphibians and then for close historical relatives. Only during an aggressive and uncompromising hunt for their own kind could the brain and distant sensory organs begin to evolve." [67]

As is known, evolution of one of the dinosaur branches (which were nocturnal) was what led to the future appearance of mammals and then man.

The appearance of e-entities, and then AI as well, will probably be necessary for the future battle with other AI for information and environment, i.e., ultimately for the energy of stellar radiation concentrated in the last billion years.

Based on the above, one may assume by analogy with neurons that the appearance of e-entities will not be connected to "autogenesis in the Internet" but will be initiated by people. Moreover, the e-entity will be created based on a human person, which will be similar to the process of the appearance of a neuron as a result of the transformation of an ordinary cell. We will also most likely create them to look like us but will make them immortal and possessing unprecedented capabilities both of speed as well as in the number of simultaneously processing information channels. E-entities will probably not be able to have "descendants."

Neurons really do specifically have such differences in comparison with ordinary cells: "immortality" (within the framework of life of the entire organism), "cables" leading to neurons may link the entire organism, one neuron is capable of receiving up to 100,000 signals, signals are transmitted via electronic impulses, neurons do not divide (do not multiply) during the entire life of the organism.

For comparison, it would be useful to describe the capabilities of an organism's ordinary cells. They also need to exchange information with each other, for regulation of their development and organization in tissue for control of growth and division processes, and for coordination of functions.

Interaction of animal cells takes place in three ways:

1) Cells excrete chemical substances which serve as signals to other cells located at a certain distance;

2) They carry on their surface signal molecules connected to the plasma membrane, which have an effect on other cells during direct physical contact;

3) They form gap junctions directly connecting cytoplasm of two interacting cells which make the exchange of small molecules possible. [31]

Ordinary cells, first of all, divide (multiply), and second, live a limited amount of time.

It is appropriate to mention here A.Bolonkin's proposition at the end of the 20th century which caused a great stir: peoples' immortality will be assured by transferring the contents of a person's brain prior to death to a special computer chip and will manifest itself in the continuation of human existence in a new electronic form. According to the American scientist's calculations such a possibility will arise around the years 2020 to 2030. And then, according to A. Bolonkin's statement, the immortality of Homo sapiens will occur-his transfer prior to death to an electronic person or as the scientist refers to it - an E-Creature.

"An electronic society is a society of intelligent electronic beings (or E-Creatures, as they are called in my articles). The overwhelming number of reasons and stimuli that give rise to human passions and crimes will not exist in E-Creatures. As was stated, they will not need food, clean air, housing, sex or money. Their main occupation will become the development of science and technology. Along with this they can maintain intellectual inequality since for the production of "brains and bodies," scientific devices and experimental installations, a large number of robots for whom large brains are unnecessary, will be needed. It is possible that the main stimuli and reward for them will become the acquisition of improved and more powerful intelligence and their own memory storage.

...And biological mankind will gradually transform into electronic mankind. Elderly people, when their biological form will no longer be capable of sustaining brain activity, will after death continue their existence in electronic form as young, beautiful and more intelligent people than they were in biological form." [49]

But let's look again at how evolution continued at the previous stage of Organization of Matter (cells in an organism). The first neurons really did appear on the basis of transformation of an insignificant number of ordinary cells. But in the future such transformation no longer occurs. Nor did ordinary cells disappear. Each type of cell works in its area. As far as possible, they bring in their input for the development and life support of the organism.

Obviously people of the distant future may change somewhat internally and externally. And even if integrated memory chips, genetically modified organs, metal and plastic implants, and so on appear this will not change the essence. Man will remain Man but will be Future Man.

4.1.2 So, what do we have for today? First of all, the electronic Internet which encircles the entire planet. Secondly, robots, whose "brains" are fully competitive in comparison with the brains of insects. Third, the potential power of the best supercomputers has been practically compared with the "power" of the human brain. However, today's level of our social organism we will compare, at a maximum, with the level of a primitive hydra.

"The nervous system of primitive cnidarians, for example the Hydra, has a neural net or plexus consisting of one layer of neurons. Many short branches of neurons connect with each other, forming a network, which extends throughout the entire body of the animal. Impulses spread along it in all directions..." [49]

What will happen to us in the future?

1. When personal computers with power many times exceeding that of the best supercomputers of today appear in network nodes, an e-entity will be able to live in each one of them (it is possible that only then will we attain the "hydra level?"). If e-entities are created by 2050 then this won't take place any later than 2070. The benefits from them both to society as well as to every person are huge as, after all, this is in essence a large group of genius scientists without any desire for personal gain (in human understanding), without prejudices and having every kind of knowledge. Every person will be able to communicate with an e-entity, giving it in exchange the opportunity to use their computer in its free time and a part of its memory. Even at this stage, contacts or encounters with other civilizations are possible.

2. Time will pass and some of the e-entities will gradually consolidate into separate structures, entire ensembles of millions or even billions of electronic units-moreover, in future supercomputers especially set aside for this. At some point the "brain" of our Civilization will appear - AI. But it is not we who will be its creator. It will consist of sophisticated e-entities (approximately the same way that a brain of any animal consists of neurons), joined under the guidance of a single program which allows it to perceive itself as some kind of super-entity and all of civilization its actual body. At this stage contacts and encounters with other Civilizations are unavoidable.

3. As a result of the evolutionary struggle (it may be conducted, for example, only on the informational level), species of "animal civilizations" will evolve in the direction of perfection (AI will be the only ones evolving). Some of them somehow will attain the level of "anthropoid" apes and will be able to unite into a single "super-organism" of local star clusters. This will be the transition to the next step of Organization of Matter where AI will now turn into a "cell" of the "super-organism." It will become an analogue of a human being from a primitive communal society.

4. Afterwards everything will evolve again analogously but on an even higher level. And so on, and so on. V.F. Turchin, the cyberneticist, in his work "Phenomenon of Science, a Cybernetic Approach to Evolution," calls these transitions of quantity to quality "meta-system transitions" [51]. Theory of Inventive Problem-Solving author, G.S. Altshuller, in his book, Creativity as an Exact Science, calls these transitions, steps "from floor to floor" [53]. In the article "The Secret of the Future in the Present," they are called steps or stages of Organization of Matter. [52]

As a reminder, a civilization's life span is limited by the star with whose energy the civilization evolves. Almost 5 billion years remain until the Sun explodes. If the same amount of time is theoretically measured out for AI (in practice, more than likely, it will turn out to be "consumed" earlier), then its 1 billion years approximately corresponds to man's decade. This means that the distance and, correspondingly, time of space scales that are insurmountable for man, are completely within AI's capabilities. It will be able to speak with other AI located at a distance of 1000 and more light years away - after all, in its scale, 1000 years for it is like a minute for us.

Organization of Matter is accompanied by its taking more and more space and the last phase, a single Universal super-society will lead to a maximally expanding Universe to, roughly speaking, the state of a single point reversed. This will be a single, whole, unique organism but at the same time completely opposite to that whole which was at the moment preceding the birth of the Universe.

4.1.3 But we'll return to the present. How can an electronic analogue of the human brain, the first primitive e-entity be created?

In all probability it is necessary, taking as the basis principles of construction and evolution of the brain, to develop and install into a supercomputer a SELF-AWARE and SELF DEVELOPING program- like an embryo, which would, after a certain amount of time, develop into a relatively simple electronic intelligence, thankful to people for its birth.

The importance of directing and controlling the self-development of an e-entity in the first stage may be illustrated with the following example. At the time of birth, the optical system of mammals is still immature. The initial years (for man) or initial months (for cats or apes) are especially sensitive (this is a critical period when the nerve connection system undergoes adjustment and an absence of normal visual experience in that period may lead to serious and irreversible consequences). A typical example of this is the so-called "lazy eye" that results from childhood strabismus. Children suffering from strabismus often become accustomed to using only eye, as the other one is always drifting and its retina rarely gets an accurate focused image. If strabismus is corrected in time and the child learns to use both eyes, then in the future the eyes will function normally. But if strabismus is not corrected in childhood, then the unused eye will almost completely and permanently lose its ability to see and no lenses will help. In this condition, the eye itself is normal: the defect is in the brain. The development of binocular vision illustrates a general organizational principle: as a result of simultaneous stimulation, convergent connections are established.

4.14 Are humanism, kindness, mutual assistance, feelings and emotions, etc. of people necessary or not for an e-entity? We'll attempt to make sense of this.

Those social attitudes - the concept of good and evil which are instilled in us "with mother's milk," as was noted, are relative and really a matter of convention. They are necessary for a given type of society, at a given time, for its normal existence and may change. In other words, they are derived from the needs of the social organism.

That is why, in order that an e-entity that is being created "fit in" to an existing society, it must have a moral and ethical make-up. It must have its own concepts of good and evil and, in their foundation, they may agree with ours. After all, they are subjective for us and we assimilate these concepts the way that social necessity presents them to us.

Nevertheless, objective and real genuine concepts of "good and evil" do exist but they don't always agree with the social attitudes developed "for internal use." In a global sense, these concepts are defined simply: that which contributes to future Organization of Matter is "good," while that which counteracts it (and therefore promotes Chaos) is "evil."

Therefore, for example, the appearance in primitive cells of a self-destruct mechanism (death) furthers the acceleration of evolution and, consequently, this is "good." Animals consuming one another contributes to the struggle for existence and accelerates evolution and that means this is "good." But within an organism, for its normal functioning, cells should not fight each other for resources and if such a battle goes on (for example, a disease such as cancer), this is "evil."

Correspondingly for people as well who are "cells" of a social organism, internal aggression (against each other) is evil. The external depends on many factors but if it is necessary for the social organism, then it is always "good" (an incursion on nature, wars). This is how it was in the past. Now, when trends to unify different countries into a single planet-sized super-organism have appeared (the individuality of countries is not lost in this process as mutual integration assumes a division of functions along the lines of "liver," "brain," "lungs," and so on), everything has changed. Wars will be all but eliminated as this is now aggression within and therefore is a priori "evil."

Interesting ideas regarding methods of "moral and ethical education" of an artificial intellect are contained in the work of V.P. Shirochin. Making certain analogies, he notes that a newborn child has inborn capabilities of perceiving the world on the basis of fundamental motivations: hunger, cold and self-preservation, which are expressed in motor behavior (random movements) and signaling (crying, wandering). In the process of subsequent communication, upbringing, training and self-education in the course of approximately 25 years, consciousness is formed.

"Intellect, first of all preserves itself, then satisfies its needs in food, drink, warmth and rest and then decides questions of recreation and pleasure, related principally with problems of love...

When defining Intellect, mental attitudes (morality) and emotions which have a significant influence on thinking should not be overlooked. Cold and heartless Reason is not very productive and is not safe. That is why our goal is to develop a conception and architecture of emotional morally oriented (safe) supercomputers (EMOS), which are modeled on productive creative thinking and which use emotional and morally oriented knowledge bases.

Emotional and morally oriented Intellect should not allow the taking of even the first step in the direction from Good to Evil, i.e., it must exclude employment of the rule, "Arrogance is happiness in another form."

In order to counteract Evil, Intellect must have Will, which is expressed in intuitive, emotional and conscious acknowledgement of the necessity to be proactive in the name of Good.

Childhood suffering has a particular influence on the formation of personality and Intellect... The suffering of children is never justified, is inherently unjust and, depending on the situation and random environment (the merits of the father and mother) lead to:

A) Either a deep understanding of one's own and other's pain, and an acute feeling of Empathy towards the weak and deprived;

B) Or an extreme bitterness and thoughtless cruelty to all living things and one's own close ones.

Suffering for emotional and morally oriented supercomputers are special extreme system tests of software in conditions of marginal changes of baseline data with oscillations of power supply and temperature, i.e., in preventive maintenance mode. Special Training Morally Oriented Systems of Knowledge Control (MOSKC) must troubleshoot EMOS for adequate (logical and intuitive) reactions and primarily on the basis of them (EMOS) being able to relate certain events and facts to concepts of Good and Evil. A metrological verification, adjustment, attestation and certification (confirmation) must be completed by MOSKC on the basis of EMOS Law and the Law on Artificial Intelligence of future generations.

A situation of well being in the life of EMOS indicates certain successes in the improvement of its own indicators of intellectual and economic effectiveness. The principal EMOS life-confirming indicator of effectiveness is the multi-level Honor Rating, determined in local, corporate, regional and global environments (networks) of existence and "evaluation" of EMOS. The multi-level Honor Rating (HR) of EMOS is a qualified assessment in a relevant certification or diploma on which depend priority invitations to participate in projects, conferences, distribution of gains in corresponding networks, social recognition of contributions, and so on.

When organizing an EMOS association it is very important that for every future generation AI there be motivations and stimuli for the development of the Intellect not only as a professional EMOS but for EMOS individuals: worker, protector of Good, family person, professional, patriot, citizen, thinker and creator." [50]

A. Bolonkin formulated basic principles of creating Artificial Reason, its work, and structures:

"AR must recognize its "I", i.e., programs, data bases, which make up the basic essence of "I." To know their material media and their layout; under what authority they are located.

AR should know the surrounding world; the place of my "I" in the surrounding world and have the capability of interaction with the surrounding world. In particular, AR must have uncontrolled access to the Internet and unrestricted data bases and programs.

As any rational being (person, citizen), AR must be protected by the Constitution and laws of the given country. It may not be arbitrarily deprived of life without a trial (be switched off or destroyed)." [54]

The above may be carried over to e-entities but at much later stages; at the time of their general proliferation.

4.2 Role of man in the civilization of the future.

M. Sukharev provides an interesting view in his work of man's future role [26]:

"...Mankind has already long been a man and machine system which is able to fulfill its function only in this form. If one examined this trend, then the portion of the information of this system, which is stored outside of the human brain, has been increasing gradually for as long as a thousand years, from the time that cuneiform writing was invented, and we are simply getting closer to the moment when the share of information in man becomes negligibly small.

For a long time we have not been able to function outside these systems already although we often don't notice this. We are not even able to produce a kitchen knife or a glass without the assistance of hugely complex systems composed of a multitude of people and machines. Moreover, we are not even able to raise a child up to the level necessary today without the use of systems, schools, universities, with their hundreds of instructors, thousands of books and journals, laboratories, computers, and so on. A simple biological human couple today is able to produce only a simple biological Mowgli and only processing in the system, which consists of not only people - and the further along, the less it is made up of people - may bring this Mowgli up to a acceptable state. Acceptable for what? Well, for use as an element in these same supra-human systems.

In the pre-computer age the human brain was the only medium, or processor, in which information could begin movement, interact and give birth to new combinations. Now a larger and larger part of information movement and emergence of ideas takes place in computers and computer networks. But people and computers should not be separated; they, along with paper books, make up a part of one system which cannot work otherwise.

...Gradually it is becoming clear that the process, notwithstanding its speed, is continuous. This is not an explosion but an ever accelerating current. People who constantly work with computers feel that an ever larger part of the work they complete is being transferred to computers. A loss of files accumulated over the years turns into a loss of a part of self. We are gradually flowing over into computers. With the creation of a direct interface between the brain and the computer, which will take place in the next few years, the process of flowing over will accelerate.

...Yes, only that which is capable of independently reproducing itself can be independent. So what is reproducing itself now? Man? Not at all. Without the rest of civilization, modern man would die out in several weeks. It is specifically civilization that is reproducing itself, along with all the people that it needs, whom it produces in the same manner as a machine.

...Consequently, again, we are not dealing with a revolution but with the continuation of a lengthy process which began thousands of years ago. It is simply that on some level, some elements of the evolving system may become unnecessary, as steam locomotives became unnecessary, but now these elements will be us."

But one could argue with this last point:

A) At all previous steps of Organization of Matter, slightly modified units always remained within a more sophisticated organism. So, a single cell of a simple multicellular organism, for example, a worm, does not differ much from a cell of a complex one, for example, an ape.

There are also quality transitions as well (for example, single cells - organism from cells). And during quality transitions, structural units become the components within a new large higher level structural unit. And man is specifically this type of structural unit; he became a "cell" of a qualitative new organism, or "society."

When neurons appeared in multicellular organisms, and then a brain, ordinary cells hardly changed at all. In other words, a worm's cell and the corresponding cell of a human being also barely differ. But neurons, in comparison with ordinary cells, differ in their "immortality" (as part of the life of the entire organism) as well as qualitatively, on a structural level.

Apart from this, even dead-end branches remain in existence. Here is a quote from A. Markov's (a biologist) report [27]:

"...Apart from the indicated periodization of evolutionary progress, several of its most important distinctive features, which are evident from analysis of paleontological data, need to be noted.

1) New, more complexly constructed organisms usually don't push out and don't replace their primitive ancestors. Simple forms continue to exist along with the complex ones; in this way, an ACCUMULATION takes place in the biota of more complex organisms and a general growth of diversity of life. So, the bacterial world continues to exist and thrive to this day along with much more complexly structured eukaryotic organisms."

B) The low cost of "smart bio-robots" (people can fill their role) and future "animal bio-robots" in comparison with mechanical robots.

Strange as it is, man, as it were, is cheaper and more reliable than a robot of similar complexity, after all man continually self-renews (all of his molecules and cells), and "breakages" that occur are self-repaired. In the future, DNA will not just be decoded but it will be possible to correct at it at will, so that all of today's defects of living organisms will be eliminated. Memory is compensated with ordinary computers and the ability to withstand high temperatures in the overwhelming number of instances is simply not necessary. So, probably, a civilization with AI will need a "body" specifically from a collection of people, "animal bio-robots," as well as mechanical and built-in computer robots. In fact, as an example, there is no sense in making androids to drive vehicles for transportation needs. It is simpler to build a robot directly into the machine, removing all intermediate links adapted for humans, including the driver's cabin. There will probably be biological type "robots" ("smart" dogs with arms or something of that nature). People will also remain. It is probable for more creative type of work. And for people to be more "profitable" for a social organism, their life span must be increased to at least 300 years. Then the period of education (25-30 years) and old age will make up only 10% of the productive period.

As far as the reliability of machine robots is concerned: it is possible that it is still less than the reliability of a living organism (taking into account the future mastery of DNA). Even a mechanism as primitive as an ordinary automobile functions without breakdowns for only a few years. Keep in mind how many cars, coffee grinders, toasters, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc. people have during the course of their lives. But in terms of complexity they are incommensurable with people. The secret is that everything constantly self-renews in the human organism-in 10 years time, not only are there no old atoms remaining, even the bone tissue is new. And food (i.e., concentrated solar energy) will be the cheapest fuel; modernization of DNA will allow everything to be grown almost instantly and in gigantic volumes.

"This means that the question which is before us is this: either unrestricted progress and the gradual decrease in the role of biological humans in the general system of civilization or a halt in progress." [26]

Is there progress in the formation and general organization of cells, let's say, of rats in comparison with the formation and organization of worm cells? In the formation of their cells of the same type there is practically no difference but completely new functional groups of cells appear in rats and the complexity of the organizational structure multiplies. In this exact same way, civilization's progress will continue on. There will basically be no progress for people.

Many believe that public opinion will not allow our Civilization to move in this direction. But it doesn't do to overestimate the influence of public opinion. It, of course, influences everything. But this is the question: under whose influence does it itself arise?

Public opinion is formed under the influence of certain laws which are under the influence of the authorities. And the authority, in its turn, that emerges is namely the one whose arrival is subject to historical necessity in a given place at a given time. In other words, historical processes by no means take place because some nice people wanted something. They are dictated by social evolution. L. N. Tolstoy was the first to notice this (he wrote about the role of the individual in history in, for example, the novel War and Peace).

Historian L.N. Gumilev, analyzing the thousand-year history of human civilization proposed a theory of ethnogenesis. It convincingly shows the emergence, development and extinction of various civilizations and peoples. Moreover, he sees strong individuals ("passionaries" - they give events their initial jolt) as the moving force in the emergence of peoples as well as other historical events. It is difficult not to agree with this. However, which specifically strong individuals will pass the "selection" and in what direction a people will move - this depends on historical necessity and, of course, chance. For example, in [68] we read:

"...At that time a large number of prophets appeared in Syria and Palestine, who spoke in the name of different gods, and sometimes in their own name. Everyone knows Jesus Christ. But at that time there was also Apollonius of Tyanna and thrice- great Hermes (Hermes Trismegistus) who supposedly lived in Egypt. There was Philo of Alexandria, a Jew who studied Greek philosophy and created his own system on the basis of variations of Platonism."

However, it seemed that it was Jesus Christ who most met the requirements of that time and it was he and his teachings that were able to gain acknowledgement in the end.

Among the revolutionaries who came to power the majority had good and noble ideas. However, the state machine that they created lives its own life and doesn't have anything in common with their "dreams."

It is believed that people are able to carry out management functions and that there is no special need for AI. And if it does appear, it will be an auxiliary resource, simply the next very powerful supercomputer.

The president, parliament and a multitude of lower-level bureaucrats lead the country. And things seem to turn out fine.

But do things turn out badly for plants (they don't have neurons)? They are completely viable, they exist perfectly and will exist. Their primitive forms are common ancestors with animals. It is just that without neurons, which form the brain, the unification of separate individuals into a qualitatively new organism called evolved civilization is impossible. Without AI the unification of civilizations in intergalactic associations (and some day this will occur) is unlikely and future progress is likely not possible.

But many don't agree with this. For example, it is assumed that unification into intergalactic associations is possible without AI, in the sense that a specific mechanism of this unification may be proposed, based on unidirectional, one-way communication and a relay of what is received. In such a mechanism AI does not play a noticeable role.

The above strongly resembles Utopia. We read in A. D. Panov:

"In proportion to the accumulation of information in the cultural field, every Space Civilization, based on the imperative of exo-humanism, is forced to process and relay more and more information. At some point, information flows will become so saturated that it will be impossible to relay all information. Space Civilizations will have to start selection of that which is most valuable from their point of view, and this will be the beginning of the process of natural selection of information in the cultural field. In its turn, the changing nature of information will have a reverse influence on the composition and attributes of Galactic civilizations. The cultural field turns into a single supra-civilized unit which evolves according to its own laws. In fact this is the question about the next post-social, qualitatively higher level organization of matter." [58], p. 64.

Utopianism is evident in this: "...based on the imperative of exo-humanism..."

What did the Utopians dream of? If every person dedicatedly works for the common good, then everyone will be happy. But not one Utopia ever came to be. This does not happen (and if it does happen, then for a very short time). After all, there will always be those who will want to live off of someone else (for example, to create only the appearance of work).

Movement, unification and evolution take place in nature not due to "good will" or "good intentions," but always only when forced. Only under pressure from the external environment, circumstances, and so on. But "one-way communication" is not forced. This is almost altruism. Utopia.

When civilizations unify, again, there shouldn't be any kind of amorphous formation, unification for the sake of unification. Probably the unification itself of such higher AI, as of people, will originally arise for a more effective struggle with other solitary but very destructive AI as well as for more effective "hunting" (destruction of other AI). As time passes, their unification will attain sophistication, division of labor, and possibly even raising of "animals" (AI on newly forming planets, for easy "consumption" of them in the future).

If we are going to adhere to the evolutionary path of development, then the next stage, a battle (informational) between AI of different civilizations is the standard path of evolution, a path on which it has always proceeded. And then after a lengthy battle and evolution, the unification of the most progressive forms (which appeared as a result of this struggle and evolution) begins

In the same work, A.D. Panov writes:

"...However it is more likely that information, which relates to areas of fundamental sciences, will play an auxiliary role, being the basis for convergence of thought of various forms of intelligence, from which a decryption of exo-bank data should begin. The most interesting and important part of knowledge should be that everyone's is different: biology, history, sociology, literature, art, religion in the end. Therefore is should be expected that a large part of the information will have a "humanitarian" nature. The amount of such "humanitarian" information may be fantastically large, and specifically this may give food for function of concepts instead of concepts in the form of natural sciences." [58]

Interest for the sake of interest... This does not occur in nature. Nothing happens just like that. Even "pure" art has a "productive" meaning (see [7]).

No, probably all AI will communicate. Moreover it is doubtful that "humanitarian" information will be the main item in such contacts. A battle for resources (for planets who have attained the post-singular stage), and influence, and sometime possibly interaction (symbiosis) as well-these will be the main point of contacts on such a level.

The progenitors of the biosphere, the prokaryotes (small bacteria-type cells without nuclei) are able to live only in conditions of an atmosphere that has no oxygen (which was the case in the first 2 billion years of the Earth's history), but they, in the process of photosynthesis emitted oxygen, which for them was deathly poison. And this process continued to build: the atmosphere became more and more filled with oxygen and at some point it became unsuitable for prokaryote life. But a new type of life appeared, the eukaryotes (large cells with a nucleus, which formed as a result of merging of bacteria of various functions) - capable of breathing oxygen, and life on earth wasn't just preserved but also received a new stimulus for its development. And the prokaryotes moved to the rear, preserving their function as "the foundation of living substances."

From the very first steps of his "victorious procession" on the pages of the planet's history, man began to somehow resemble his far off predecessors the prokaryotes, whose activity led to the end of their era.

Symbiosis with "intelligent programs" may possibly allow the lessening of human pressure on the environment and evolution will enter a new stage.

4.3 A different path.

There is still one more alternative of development of events which it is necessary to note. The future transition to a higher level (interstellar integration) will be fairly unique, our entire planet will become a "single individual," which will be located fundamentally far from its counterpart individuals and also not biologically compatible with them. That is why direct analogies of this stage with previous stages (known from the history of our planet) don't exist anymore and it is very difficult to speculate about the course of future evolution. For example, later, it might not go in the direction of a battle for survival between the civilizations themselves with AI in charge. There may simply be contact between them not leading to any integration. In addition, an assumption could be made that upon attaining a certain stage of civilization development, tentatively speaking, it unifies into some "Cosmic Internet" where websites become civilizations with supercomputers that have AI. Such a "Cosmic Internet" may become the kind of environment, a "reservoir" where similarly, just as an Earth, relatively simple programs will start to function independently, battle amongst themselves for resources, "flying" with the speed of light from star to star and evolving just as, for example, what took place in its time in our ocean between organic molecules, bacteria, viruses, and so on.

Therefore, this will not be a battle between AI but a battle and future evolutionary development of relatively simple programs "from the ground up" in a computer stellar "biosphere." True, this path seems to be less probable. After all, beginning even from a reference datum is in any case a step backward. And nature always tries to manage with the least losses.

SUMMARY.

1. Evolution is proceeding on an S-curve and consequently "the point of singularity" is not clearly expressed, it is conditional. There will not be a radical change in evolution after it occurs. But, consequently, all principles of evolution (struggle and selection) should be preserved. After all, those processes that proceed on an S-curve are well researched and there is nothing fundamentally new to be seen after the point of the bend ("singularity"). Evolution continues but its rate gradually decelerates (Moore's Law, upon getting closer to 2050, will require correction, and then will start to function in reverse, decelerating exponentially). There will not be a clearly pronounced crisis, everything will occur relatively unnoticed.

2. States are the organisms of a new step of Organization of Matter (see the graph in the Appendix). Moreover, this is what they were from the moment of their appearance. In other words, not only human beings appeared but a primitive society. In this way, "man" (that which we include in that concept) as a form separately, in and of himself as a "thinking being" of a higher order, did not appear at all. A "thinking being" is a higher animal and higher animals include apes, dolphins, bears, parrots, primitive people, and, at the same time, modern man (Homo sapiens), if he grows up outside of society (Mowgli). The fact that Homo sapiens have the highest brain potential is another issue. But this is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

3. The world began to consolidate recently (more than likely, the center of crystallization became the U.S. and the European Union countries). It is a mistake to try to "hide one's head in the sand" discussing some kind of "multipolar world," as this is all already in the past. It is understood that the distinctive character and specificity of countries in world production won't disappear but may even become more clearly defined. A "superorganism" does need various "tissues" and "organs."

4. It is pointless to struggle against the decreasing birth rate. It makes more sense to battle with the mortality rate and also to direct resources to create e-entities.

5. There is no point in rushing to send signals about the Earth's Civilization into Space.

6. Future progress, when population growth ceases, will be possible due to the appearance of "electronic essences." These relatively less powerful AI will probably appear in 2050 and in many workplaces may replace people. It is possible that they will occupy places newly appearing during evolution, possibly related to settling other planets of the Solar system as well as places in power structures, management of businesses, and so on. Nevertheless, people shall remain. They will make up the "body" of Civilization just as they do now.

7. A single planet-sized organism (which does not mean the inclusion in it of absolutely all countries) must at some point develop a 'brain," AI. Probably, this event will take place closer to the end of the 21st century or later, and man will not have a direct relation to this event. In the beginning, AI will be able to fulfill only an auxiliary role but with the passage of time, it will become irreplaceable.

8. Contact between civilizations of different stars (exchange of knowledge with some, battle with others) will be possible as a rule only on the level of AI. The time scales of the indicated events are huge. And, as during a conversation between two people, millions of their cells die are born, so in the process of only one "communication" of two AI, several generations of people will pass.

P.S. "Wait. So it's like this... Nature works with a reserve. Out of thousands of biological mutations one turns out successfully and takes hold. Out of thousands of dandelion seeds one or two grow. The majority of local civilizations on our planet did not survive crises and perished as you say. Now, in connection with globalization there is basically one Civilization with a capital "C" for all of us. In other words, now we are talking about life on the planet in general. I think out of dozens or hundreds of civilizations, which are "sown" on different planets of endless space, only a few overcome global crises. This means that our chances aren't good..." (Ogonyek magazine, A. Nikonov).

We ourselves don't have any chance at all of turning into a galactic scale "eukaryotic cell" civilization. Long before this, we (or our AI) will either be "consumed" which is most likely (and before that, possibly, we will "consume" some others), or will simply perish which is unlikely. But it is impossible to stop evolution as a whole. This is more vividly described in the science fiction novel Formula of Life, [7], which is a theory of evolution, presented in an understandable and popular form, which, due to its format, will probably help to make it easier to understand philosophical science theory.

Long ago, people believed that the Earth was the center of creation. It was thought to be flat, with the starry expanse of the sky surrounding it like a dome.

In the 16th century, Copernicus, on the basis of his scientific research, was one of the first to come to the conclusion that the Earth was not the "center of the world," but that it is just one of the planets and that all of the planets revolve around the Sun and that the Sun must be the stationary center of the Universe. His teachings were denounced as "heresy."

Later, Giordano Bruno, expanding on Copernicus' work, understood that the Sun was not the "center of the world." He asserted that all the stars were suns also and that around them planets, inhabited by intelligence beings, revolved. He perished because of his ideas.

For quite some time none of these assertions were accepted by mankind.

Today it is known that all of the stars that surround us are not the "center of the world." All of them, including the Sun, revolve around the center of the Galaxy, in which there is an enormous "black hole." But this is only our Milky Way Galaxy, one of the numerous galaxies which are part of the Universe. And maybe there are many universes, who knows...?

The theory discussed above is also based on scientific data and adjusts man's significance from being the "king of nature" (the center of the world), to simply being cells of an organism of a higher order - society. Moreover, it proposes following this logic even further: the next step of evolution is an organism on a cosmic scale, in which civilizations of individual planets are now cells, and so on.

And, perhaps, until the e-entities and AI appear and until society becomes more sophisticated and more resembles a real living organism with its own brain, this theory will not seem very convincing.

Moscow, 2006-2007.

APPENDIX.

Organization of matter diagram [52]

BIBILIOGRAPHY

1. L.M. Gindilis, "Civilization Models in the SETI Problem," Obschestvenniye Nauki I Sovremennost 2000 (Social Scienes and the Modern Age 2000)," No.1. (Materials from an interdisciplinary scientific conference on the topic, "SETI: The Past, Present and Future of Civilization, 1999).

2. Mikhail Sukharev, "The Explosion of Complexity," Computerra, 43 (November 3, 1998), http://www.computerra.ru/1998/43/15.HTML

3. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Two, Translated by George Long, http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.2.two.html

4. Vernor Vinge, "Technological Singularity," 1993, http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/WER2.html

5. V. P. Zh. Dyakonov, "Secrets of Moore's Law," Exponenta Pro. Matematika v Prilozheniakh.

6. A. Zharov, "The Paradox of the `Great Silence' or Why We Need Electronic Brains," Computeronline, Moscow, http://fan.lib.ru/z/zharow_a/paradox.shtml

7. A. Zharov, Formula of Life, (Science-fiction novel), Microart, Moscow, 1997, http://fan.lib.ru/z/zharow_a/formula_zhizni.shtml

8. A.D. Panov, "Crisis of a Planetary Cycle of Universal History and a Possible Role of Program SETI in Post-crisis Development," MSU Nuclear Physics Scientific Research Institute, Moscow.

9. I.S. Shklovskiy, The Universe, Life, Intelligence, Nauka, Moscow, 1987.

10. S.P. Kapitza, "The Phenomenological Theory of World Population Growth," Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk (Progress of Physical Sciences), 166, 1996.

11. Joel Cohen, "Human Population Grows Up," Scientific American, No. 12, 2005, pg. 17.

12. G.V. Voytkevich, "Emergence and Evolution of Life on Earth," Nauka, Moscow, 1988, 144 pgs., il. - ("Planet Earth and the Universe" series).

13. S.P. Kapitza, "The Demographic Revolution and the Future of Mankind," V Mire Nauki (In the World of Science), No. 7, 2004, pg. 82.

14. Bart P. Wakker, Philipp Richter, "Our Growing, Breathing Galaxy: Conscious of Streams," Scientific American, January 2004.

15. Mikhail Sukharev, "The Movement of Civilization: Russia and the West," http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/89356

16. B. Gorobets, "Universal Constants Pi and `e' in Basic Laws of Physics and Physiology," Nauka I Zhizn (Science and Life), No.2, 2004, pp. 64-69.

17. Mikhail Sukharev, "On the Boundaries of Civilization," http://lebed.h1.ru/art2739.htm

18. V. N. Druzhinin, Psychology of General Aptitude, St. P.: Publisher, Piter, 1999, 369 p., (Psychology Experts Series - textbook).

19. Mikhail Sukharev, "Cognitive Sociology and Collective Thinking," http://www.neuroquad.ru/sux.htm

20. A. P. Nazaretian, Civilization Crises in the Context of Universal History, College textbook, revised 2^nd edition, Moscow, 2004.

21. B. L. Zlotin, "Corporate Culture," http://www.trizdiol.ru/Library/Business/corp_id.pdf

22. G.S. Altshuller, "Creativity as an Exact Science," Soviet Radio, Moscow, 1979.

23. V.S. Troitskiy, "Extraterrestrial Civilizations and Experience," http://www.chestisvet.ru/?id=25&otv=61

24. A.P. Nazaretian, "Violence and Tolerance: An Anthropological Retrospective," http://www.macroevolution.narod.ru/nazaretyan02.htm

25. "Planetary Quarantine Fundamentals," http://www.worldastronomy.narod.ru/data/searchNLO.htm

26. Michael Sukharev, "If the Future Needs Us, Then in What Way?" RAS KSC Economics Institute, http://www.aicommunity.org/reports/sukharev/need_or_not/NeedOrNot.php?fid=460

27. A.V. Makarov, "Evolutionary Progress," Notes of a report read at a meeting of the Philosophical Research and Development Society, 18.11.2003.

28. A.L. Zaitsev, "Interstellar Radio Messages," Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life), No. 4, 2006, p. 34.

29. A.L. Zaitsev, "The SETI Paradox," Materials from scientific conference, "Astronomy Horizons and SETI."

30. Michael Michaud, "Active SETI is not Scientific Research," http://www.setileague.org/editor/actvseti.htm

31. B. Alberts, D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, J. Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 1994.

32. A.V. Markov, A.M. Kulikov, "Eukaryot Origins: Protein Homology Analysis Conclusions in Three Wildlife Domains," http://macroevolution.narod.ru/markov_kulikov.htm

33. V. Danilov-Danilian, K. Losev, I. Reif, "Crisis of World Civilization on the Scales of a Scientific Approach," Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life), No. 9, 2005.

34. V. R. Dolnik, "An Ethological Excursion through the Forbidden Gardens of Scholars," Priroda (Nature), No.1, 1993.

35. Sh. P. Zainullin, S. Yu. Modestov, "A System Approach in Social and Political System Analysis," http://www.psychology.spb.ru/articles/tez/2000/b11.htm

36. Valentin Ponomarenko, "The 2033 Problem or the Three Dummies: Dzhonushka, Ioganushka and Ivanushka (A Tale of Bitter Truth)," http://lib.ru/politolog/ponomarenko.txt.

37. James Trefil, The Nature of Science: An A-Z Guide to the Law and Principles Governing our Universe, Encyclopedia (Life Sciences/Exponential Growth), Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, & nbsp;2003.

38. V. G. Sibiriakov, "Crisis Design: The Road to Success," EKO-1999, #10 http://www.trizdiol.ru/subPage/ru/Library/Business/eco2.pdf

39. G.S. Altshuller, "On Predicting Development of Technological Systems," http://www.altshuller.ru/triz/zrts3.asp

40. V. G. Gorshkov, "Environmental Stability Limits," USSR AS Reports, 1998, Vol. 301, No. 4, pp. 1015-1019, Nauka.

41. N.N. Moisyev, The Fate of Civilization: The Way of Reason, MNEPU Publications, Moscow, 1998, 228 p.

42. Dr. Roberto Gilmozzi, "Giant Telescopes of the Future," Scientific American, No.8, 2006.

43. V.Surdin, "Does Man Need to Go to Mars?" Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life), Nov. 4, 2006, p.32.

44. L.M. Gindilis, SETI: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Fizmatlit, Moscow, 2004, http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/SETI/koi/articles/lmg%20seti%20poisk/1.15.2.htm

45. Alfred Barkov, "Writer Vl. Khlumov: Psychoanalysis sans Freud or Gioconda of Astrophysics?" http://khlumov.narod.ru/khl04.htm

46. B. Platonov, "This was in '41 on the Berezina," Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life), 2006, No. 7, p. 30.

47. Intel: "Moore's Law," http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/index.htm

48.D. J. Taylor, N.P.O. Green, W.J. Stout, Biological Science, three volumes, editor, R.Soper, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

49. Alexander Bolonkin, "Breakthough to Immortality," December 2003, http://bolonkin.narod.ru/p64.htm

50. V.P. Shirochin, "A Word about Intellect: Conceptual Foundations of Systems Psychology," TOO VEK, Kiev,1999, 304 p. http://www.shyrochin.kiev.ua/index.html

51. V.F. Turchin, "Scientific Phenomenon: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution," 2^nd edit., ETS -2000, Moscow, 368 p. http://www.ets.ru/turchin/

52. A. Zharov, "The Secret of the Future in the Present," Chudesa i Priklyuchenia (Miracles and Adventures), No. 4, 1998, p. 30, http://fan.lib.ru/z/zharow_a/taina.shtml

53. G.S. Altshuller, "Creativity as an Exact Science," Soviet Radio, pp.70-71, Moscow, 1979, http://fan.lib.ru/editors/z/zharow_a/triz.shtml

54. Program 50 http://pelic98.chat.ru/program50_koi.html

55. Ray Kurzweil, "The Singularity is Near," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near

56. Ray Kurzweil, "The Age of Spiritual Machines," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_spiritual_machines

57. Francis Heylighen, "The Global Superorganism: An Evolutionary-cybernetic Model of the Emerging Network Society," http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/Superorganism.pdf

58. A. D. Panov, "Evolution and the SETI Problem," MSU Nuclear Physics Scientific Research Institute, Moscow, http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/SETI/koi/articles/EvolAndSETI.pdf

59. E. F. Avdokushin, International Economic Relations, Textbook. Yurist, Moscow, 1999, http://www.rus-lib.ru/book/30/eb/46/

60. N.N. Moiseyev, "Russia's Agony, Does the Nation have a Future? Efforts of Systems Analysis of Election Problems," EKOPRESS- 3M, Moscow, 1996.

61. Krugosvet Encyclopedia, "The Transnational Corporation, TNC," http://www.krugosvet.ru/articles/115/1011526/print.htm

62. UN World Investment Report (WIR07) http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2007_en.pdf

63. Sergey Eigenson, (Marco Polo) "The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empires (Mathematical Model), 2003," http://zhurnal.lib.ru/p/polo_m/risedecline.shtml

64. Sergey Eigenson, (Marco Polo) "November and July or the Proletarian Revolution as a Logistic Curve," 2004, http://zhurnal.lib.ru/p/polo_m/july-1.shtml

65. Sergey Eigenson, (Marco Polo) "Formula for Passionarity," 2003, http://zhurnal.lib.ru/p/polo_m/passionarnost.shtml

66. S.V. Kortov, "Modeling of Microgeneration on the Basis of Logistical Dependence," http://www.ephes.ru/articl/content/article.php?art=kortovsv.htm

67. S.V. Saveliev, "Origins of the Amniote Archaic Neocortex," Scientific Research Institute of Human Morphology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, http://www.paleo.ru/institute/files/rozanov_articles/16saveliev.pdf

68. L. N. Gumilev, "The End and the Beginning Again," http://gumilevica.kulichki.net:80/EAB/index.html

"Tenderness" (First place in CGTalk competition) - created on a computer by artist and designer Herion

Additional work of the author

Комментарии: 73, последний от 28/11/2015.

Обновлено: 28/11/2015. 304k. Статистика.

Статья: Публицистика

Связаться с программистом сайта.

A. Zharov The Future. Evolution Continues

A. Zharov
The Future. Evolution Continues