En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

jeudi, 07 janvier 2021

Archeofuturism: A Vitalist Dynamism


Archeofuturism: A Vitalist Dynamism

By Israel Lira,

Director of the Center for Crisolist Studies – Peru

Translated by Zero Schizo

«…the political and societal forms of modernity shatter; the archaic ways remerge in all political dominions, the rebirth of a conquering Islam, is a perfect example. Finally, the future alterations of technoscience –mainly in genetics–, just as the tragic return to reality which the 20th Century is preparing, will demand the return to an archaic mentality. It is modernism the one which is a passing trend. There is no need to go back to classic “traditionalism”, impregnated of folklore and dreaming of a return to the past. Modernity is already obsolete. The future has to be “archaic”, meaning, neither modern nor passing by» (Faye, 1998:15).

Following Faye’s quote, it is pretty clear that he was always diaphanous in establishing the co-substantial principles of his theoretic system, in order to avoid, precisely, that it could be confused with other theories which also have technoscience inside of their considerations. In Faye’s particular case, the universal approach for his proposal is understood under the category of vitalist constructivism[1], meanwhile his specific conceptualization under the form of the neologism archeofuturism[2]. This new doctrine has influenced a wide array of theoretic schools of thinking up to date[3], inside of the framework of anti-globalist, anti-individualist, and anti-liberal proposals, facing a post-modern world which is shown to us under the narrative of Cultural Nihilism, whose main phenomenal expressions are expressed in nihilist secularism, neoliberal globalization, hyper-individualistic narcissism and extreme cultural relativism[4].

The Central Trichotomy of Archeofuturism (TCAf)

Archeofuturism has three main theses from which we must remark, insofar as starting from these, its absolute rejection of technophobic stances (classic traditionalism and conservatism) and acritical technophile stances (technicism and transhumanism), and can be inferred as:

First Thesis (T1): Contemporary civilization which is daughter of the modernity and of egalitarianism is already fulfilling its historic cycle, and thus, «the old belief in the miracles of egalitarianism and the philosophy of progress, which affirmed that it was always possible to obtain more, has died. This angelical ideology has created a world which becomes less viable each day» (Faye, 1998: 2-3)

Second Thesis (T2): Contemporary ideologies that emerge as a symptomatic fact of the return of psycho-bio-social structures to a pre-modern state are characterized by a rejection of individualism and egalitarianism, these last ones as maximum expressions of cultural nihilism. «In order to face the future, one must be recur to an archaic mentality, meaning, pre-modern, un-egalitarian and non-humanist[5], which will restore the ancestral values of order from societies. Now, the discoveries from technoscience, particularly in the topics of biology and informatics, cannot be administered through modern humanist values and mentalities; today the geopolitical and social events are dominated by religious, ethnic, alimentary and epidemic matters. Going back to the main questions. I propose, then, a new notion, Archeofuturism, which allows us to break with the obsolete philosophy of progress and with the egalitarian, humanist and individualist dogmas of modernity, un-adapted to think of the future, and allow ourselves to survive in the century of fire and iron about to come» (Faye, 1998: 4-5).

Third Thesis (T3): The advent of a new type of scenario under a framework which is totally different from the reigning and active egalitarian world, insofar as it is clear to us that, «we have to project and to imagine the post-chaos world, the world after the catastrophe, an archeofuturist world, with radically different criteria from those of the egalitarian modernity» (Faye, 1998: 5-6).

These three central theses conform the solid core of Archeofuturism, configuring its Central Trichotomy (TCAf) as theoretical system, which is expressed as it follows:

Af = <T1, T2, T3>


Af = Archeofuturism as a theoretical proposal

T1= Thesis of the death of the mythoids of progress

T2= Thesis of the eternal return and dark enlightenment[6]

T3= Thesis of the new existential paradigm


To the aforementioned, it is no less important to mention that, a part of Faye’s narrative must be understood inside the literary frameworks which he gives to his work in order to exemplify it and/or elaborate a sort of hypothetical projection, under the genres of utopia and dystopia, something that is seen reflected in his work Archeofuturism 2.0 (2016).

Archeofuturism and Transhumanism: an irreconcilable antagonism

In the antipodes of the TCAf, Transhumanism (H+) is presented, from what it is clearly and explicitly concluded from the works of Max More and Anders Sandberg, and the same declarations of the World Transhumanist Association[7], which reaffirm the systematization done by the quoted authors:

«Transhumanism is a class of philosophies which seek to guide us towards a post-human condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including the respect for reason and science, the compromise with progress and the appreciation of human existence (or transhuman existence) in this life instead of a supernatural “future life”. Transhumanism differs with humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in nature and the possibilities of our lives as the result of diverse sciences and technologies such as neuroscience and neuropharmacology, the extension of life, nanotechnology, artificial ultra-intelligence and space inhabiting, combined with a rational philosophy and a rational system of values» (More, 1990).

In that same vein: «Philosophies of life which search for the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond their actual human form and its human limitations through science and technology, guided by principles and values which promote life» (More in Sandberg, 2001).

From the above it is exposed, clearly, literally and explicitly that, transhumanism is found in the logical narrative of modernity, insofar as it means the continuation and expansion of the philosophy of lineal progress understood as indefinite perfectibility of the human genre which does not admit any recession whatsoever (Canguilhem, 1999:669), it is this neuralgic principle of transhumanism and the one which its entire proposal is built on, quid that the very same history of science has debunked[8] and which is shown to be antagonistic to the Central Trichotomy of Archeofuturism (TCAf).


Very contrary to modernity’s idea of lineal progress, Archeofuturism puts an idea of synergic movement in front of it, which is more integral, a vitalist dynamism, «insofar as Archeofuturism rejects all idea of progress. Because everything that proceeds from the worldview of a people has to be founded over immemorial bases (even though the forms and formulations vary), and because from 50 000 years ago, homo sapiens has changed very little, and also because the archaic and pre-modern models of social organization have given proof of their efficiency. To the false idea of progress, we must oppose the idea of movement» (Faye, 1998:89).

From the exposed above it can be reaffirmed that, Archeofuturism has no flirting nor inclination with the theoretical system of contemporary transhumanism, as Michael O’Meara[9] (2013) sees minimally and in a more explicit way by Roberto Manzooco[10] (2019), and this thought system can’t neither be considered a conservative branch of transhumanism (conservative transhumanism), which is worse. To affirm the latter one can only find an explanation in a totalitarian pretension of international transhumanism in monopolizing any project which would make allusion to the use of technologies for the betterment of the quality of life and of human condition, initiatives that had been present ever since the Industrial Revolution, given that, just as with any theoretical system, the ideas that served for it as its basis the first of these related thoughts can be traced, such as is portrayed in the works of Hughes (2002) and Bostrom (2005). But from there, it cannot be inferred that any idea which advocates on behalf of using technologies for the betterment of the quality of life and the human condition, is per se, transhumanist, such as it is countersigned by, once again, the transhumanists themselves, insofar as – the H+ – has some particularities which differentiate it as a philosophy and as a theoretical proposal, precisely, for example from the futurist thought (artistic and technological) and from the technoscientific utopianism.

The term transhumanism does not appear until 1957 by the hand of the biologist Julian Huxley, such as the term «transhuman» in the year 1966 in the mouth of American futurist F. M. Esfandiary, not being able to properly speak of transhumanism until the systematization established by the World Transhumanist Association (WTA) founded by Nick Bostrom in order to not fall into a semantic and methodological anarchy, otherwise transhumanism would delude itself into imprecision, insofar as «…the affirmation that it is ethical and desirable to employ technoscientific means to fundamentally better the human condition… (…) is just the lowest common denominator of transhumanism and can be adopted, and adapted to its own needs, by the majority of political ideologies, excluding the bio-conservative and neo-ludist ones. (…) The founders of modern transhumanism, conscious of these risks, tried to pin down the Central Axis of Transhumanism (CAT) to concepts like respect of the individual, liberty, tolerance and democracy, remarking that transhumanism’s roots are found in the enlightenment, in humanism and liberalism. The extropians have gone even further, trying to pin down the CAT to concepts such as spontaneous order to the principle of the open society later…» (Estropico, 2009). However, in praxis, it is clear that this pinning down was not completely successful, given that up to date, and as it has been seen, it is not necessary to agree with transhumanism in order to claim that through technoscience the quality of life and human condition can be bettered. This imperative teleological and categorical precision is shared by the WTA to the effects of not falling in, that which they call the racialist and eugenicist futures of fascisms[11] or technoscientific utopianisms of classic socialism.


It is clear then, that transhumanism and its marginal currents (extropianism, techno-progressivism, singularitanism, transfigurism, etc), up to today, are configured into the antithesis of the archeofuturist proposal. If there is any similarity between Transhumanism and Archeofuturism it is in that denominator so weak that, as it has been exposed, it is not exclusive of transhumanism and which can be also manifested in pre-cautionist currents[12] which are antagonistic to H+, such as our present case.

The mythoid of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Faye himself is the one who remarks all which is exposed in this article*, in a short essay published in his very same blog on May the 23rd of 2016[13], that shares a lot of similarities to the recent commentaries which Mario Bunge[14] has brought regarding the topic[15], given that it encompasses transhumanism inside of the quadrant of almost-religious reactions product of the faith in the idea of progress and lineal development, as symptomatic fact of a worldwide economic collapse which is soon to come:

«Forced optimism, pretty irrational, about the “new numeric economy”, with big data, blockchain, 3D printing, “transhumanism”, etc. Which preface a “fourth industrial revolution” and a new worldwide economic paradigm (and paradise), shows probably just utopia and self-convincing. And believing in miracles».


In the same manner, Faye judges that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is more a mythoid derived from a magical thought than from rational one[16]:

«The first industrial revolution, from the beginnings of XIX Century, was organized around the vapor machine, the second (by the end of the XIX Century) around electricity, the third around the computer (mid XX Century). The Fourth Industrial Revolution (by the beginning of the XXI Century), result of the last two, the electric and electronic one, would refer to the generalization of Internet and universal digital connections throughout the web. The concept of the “4th Industrial Revolution” was born after the Fair of Hannover in 2011, where the birth of the “connected factory” has been celebrated; the last one, totally “connected to the web” and directly connected to clients, is robotic and employs less workers each time. The abstract expression “Industry 4.0” was born. This is a very void concept: “Industry 5.0” when? The neo-romantic gurus of this “4th Industrial Revolution” is –as it was pointed out previously– professor Klaus Schwab, founder and leader of the Global Economic Forum of Davos… The conference of January of 2016 is dedicated to the 4th Industrial Revolution. In the agenda: artificial intelligence, robotics, linked objects, nanotechnologies, “revolutionary” innovations, why not? What is interesting at the same time but comic all the same, is that the media, without backing down, has taken his word on the conclusions (more ideological than scientific) from this Davos Forum. No one asked what concrete improvements has brought this miraculous digital economy parallel to the detriment of the global situation. The migratory invasion destabilized Europe, augmented the Islamic Jihad, the collapse on oil prices, the global acceleration of every kind of contamination, were not up for discussion. The “digital revolution” is supposed to resolve all problems. It is the belief in miracles, which is more a magic thinking than a rational reflection.


The prophecies about the revolution of digital economy, with its favorite words, cloud, big data, transhumanism, etc, now belong to a Nano-scientific ideology which runs the risk of leading to terrible delusions. Now, this non-stopping techno-scientificism, as that of the end of the XIX Century, coexists, curiously, between itself, and an anti-ecological progressivism. It is so stupid as the theories of decrease: it is the same extremism».

Archeofuturism and Crisolism

Archeofuturism, according to what we have seen, is a balanced stance, which integrates dialectically two categories: Archaism and Futurism. It is a theory critical of modernity, but also of tradition.

The Fayean legacy is the basis of a Peruvian Archeofuturism under the framework of the Crisolist Theory, which foresees a harmony between the traditional vision of diverse ethnicities which conform Peruvianess and the idea of a synergic technoscientific and socio-economic harmonic movement, without affecting the existential spaces of, for example, Andean and Amazonian communities, in the face of the dangers of an ideal of undefined progress portrayed in an instrumentalist vision of nature, which up to date has only left: illegal mining in Madre de Dios, collapse of mining tailings in Ancash, oil spilled in the Amazonas, depredation of ecological reserves such as Chaparrí, increasing the risk of extinction of endangered species, and exacerbated deforestation which determined the loss of 164,662 hectares of the Amazonian rainforest in 2016, which put in danger a healthy and balanced environment.

Archeofuturism then, is not the hidden misanthropy of transhumanism, fed by the idea of undefined progress, that hates the common human being, limited by his biological weaknesses. Archeofuturism is not, and will never be, conservative transhumanism either. Archeofuturism is the reaffirmation of an authentic love to the original human potentiality as such, insofar it is conscious that, the modern idea of progress, such as was denounced by Rousseau (1750), generates materially rich and technically powerful beings, but morally disgusting.


FAYE, Guillaume. (1998). «El Arqueofuturismo». Editorial Libropolis.

FAYE, Guillaume. (1998). «La Colonización de Europa: discurso verdadero sobre la inmigración y el islam». Editorial Libropolis.

ERRIGUEL, Adriano. (2015). «Rusia, Metapolítica del otro mundo». Cuarta Teoría Política en Español. En: https://4tpes.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/rusia-metapolitica...

WOLFHEZE, Alexander. (2018). «The Archaeo-Futurist Revolution». En: https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/archaeo-futurist-re...

FAYE, Guillaume. (2016). «El Arqueofuturismo 2.0». Editorial Libropolis.

PEÑA CABRERA, Antonio. (1994). «Racionalidad y Racionalidades». UNMSM. En: http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bibvirtual/publicaciones/Logos...

BLUMENBERG, Hans. (1979). «Arbeit am Mythos», Frankfurt, p. 14. Cf. también: Christoph Jamme, Einführung in die Philosophie des Mythos, Darmstadt 1991, p. 5.

MORE, Max. (1990). «Transhumanism: Towards a Futurist Philosophy». Extropy, 6, Summer 1990, 6-12.

SANDBERG, Anders. (2001). «Transhuman Terminology Sub-Page».

O’MEARA, Michael. (2013). «Guillaume Faye and the battle of Europe». Editorial Arktos.

MANZOCCO, Roberto. (2019). «Transhumanism: engineering of the human condition. History, Philoshopy and Current Status». Springer.

HUGHES, James. (2002). «The Politics of Transhumanism». Originally Presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science. Cambridge, MA.

BOSTROM, Nick. (2005). «A History of Transhumanist Thought». Journal of Evolution and Technology ‐ Vol. 14 Issue 1 ‐ April.

ESTROPICO. (2009). «The Political Roots of Overhuamanism». Online Transhumanist Resource. http://www.estropico.com/id329.htm

CANGUILHEM, Georges. (1999).«La decadencia de la idea de progreso». En: Rev. Asoc. Esp. Neuropsiq., vol. XIX, n.º 72, pp. 669-683. En: http://documentacion.aen.es/pdf/revista-aen/1999/revista-...

MARCOS, Alfredo. (2018). «Bases filosóficas para una crítica al transhumanismo». En: Revista de estudios de la ciencia y la tecnología eISSN: 1989-3612 Vol. 7, No. 2, 2ª Época, 107-125. Universidad de Salamanca. En: http://revistas.usal.es/index.php/artefactos/article/down...

ROUSSEAU, Jean-Jacques. (1750). «Discurso sobre las ciencias y las artes».


[1]«…que es un cuadro de pensamiento global que alía la concepción orgánica e hipotética de la vida con las visiones del mundo complementarias de la voluntad de poder nietzscheana, del orden romano y de la sabiduría realista helénica. Leitmotiv: “un pensamiento voluntarista concreto, creador de orden» (Faye, 1998:25).

[2]«Pensar conjuntos, para las sociedades del futuro, los descubrimientos de la tecnociencia y la vuelta a las soluciones tradicionales e inmemoriales. Tal es quizás el nombre verdadero de la posmodernidad, lejos del pasadismo y del culto estúpido de lo “actual”. Reunir, según la lógica del “y”, y no del “o”, la memoria más antigua y el alma faústica, pues pueden combinarse perfectamente. El tradicionalismo inteligente es el futurismo más potente, y a la inversa. Reconciliar Evola y Marinetti. Es el concepto de “modernidad”, nacido de la ideología del Aufklärung, el que debe ser desechado. No se tienen que asociar los Antiguos a los Modernos, sino los Antiguos a los Futuristas» (Faye, 1998:25-26).

[3] «La aportación del neo-eurasismo es precisamente ésa: la de situarse en la reacción mundial frente a la globalización. El neo-eurasismo transforma la especificidad rusa en “un modelo universal de cultura, en una alternativa al globalismo atlantista, en una visión también global del mundo”. El neo-eurasismo retoma así uno de los rasgos más genuinos del pensamiento tradicional ruso: su carácter escatológico y mesiánico. El eurasismo deviene un arqueofuturismo, una “apología de la barbarie” que no duda en afirmar que, ante los estragos del desarrollismo occidental y el futuro postindustrial de nuestras sociedades, el “arcaísmo” de Rusia constituye en realidad una ventaja. Ante los obstáculos insalvables, los bárbaros prefieren siempre cortar el nudo gordiano. Tal vez sea en las estepas de Eurasia donde se resuelva el destino de la modernidad. En el Heartland de los geógrafos, en el corazón de la Isla mundial» (Erriguel, 2015:5). Disponible en: https://4tpes.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/rusia-metapolitica...

[4] «In metapolitical terms, Jorjani’s work represents yet another – very substantial – breach in the dominant Post-Modern ideological discourse of Cultural Nihilism, which is characterized by secular nihilism, globalist neoliberalism, narcissist hyperindividualism and extreme cultural relativism. Metapolitically, Jorjani’s work can be located in the – admittedly rather vague – spectrum of ‘Archaeo-Futurism’, a philosophical school historically related to what is most ironically termed the ‘Dark Enlightenment’. Both terms are essentially misnomers, most frequently applied in a disparaging way by ideological critics of the supposedly ‘anti-democratic’ and ‘reactionary’ thinkers and movements that they are meant to cover – but these terms are nonetheless useful as provisional markers. From a Traditionalist perspective, both movements are – inevitably, given of their Post-Modern subsoil – ideological hybrids. They tend to engage with particular aspects of Modernity (technological achievement, scientific exploration, futurist aesthetics) while rejecting its nihilistic, materialistic and relativistic ideologies and attitudes. It would be more accurate to say that these movements tend to be interested in ‘timeless’, rather than ‘archaic’ alternatives to these ideologies and attitudes. They tend to reject the Enlightenment premises of Modernity precisely because they associate these premises with spiritual and intellectual darkness rather with light. In this regard, Archaeo-Futurism and the Dark Enlightenment share considerable ground with Traditionalist thought, which views the Modern Age as the equivalent of a cosmic Dark Age (the Christian ‘End Times’, the Hindu ‘Kali Yuga’, the Spenglerian ‘Winter Time’). They differ from Traditionalism, however, in as far as their metapolitical discourse tends to be operational: it provides a basis not only for activist consensus-breaking, but also for revolutionary politics. In other words, Archaeo-Futurism and the Dark Enlightenment have the potential to expand into fully operational socio-political ideologies and into effective political programs. This potential is visible in the manifold crossovers from Archaeo-Futurist and Dark Enlightenment thought into the Western identitarian movement». Disponible en: https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/archaeo-futurist-re...

[5] Cuando Faye hace referencia a un rechazo al humanismo, no se refiere a cualquier humanismo, sino específicamente al que surge a fines de la Edad Antigua y el resto de la Edad Moderna, al que diferencia del humanismo clásico helénico con el que si se muestra conforme: «Esta philia helénica se opone evidentemente a los preceptos evangélicos impracticables del “todos los hombres son mis hermanos”. La philia helénica es humanista, porque es inegualitaria, jerarquizada, conforme a la naturaleza. Prefiero mi hermano de sangre al extranjero, pero jamás desearé hacer mal al extranjero pacífico. Y él actuará del mismo modo que yo, en su propia comunidad, en su país. El humanismo inegualitario respeta el orden natural; no miente. El humanitarismo igualitario y utópico miente. Desemboca en la tiranía, en este infierno pavimentado de buenas intenciones» (Faye, 2001).

[6] Categoría antitética de la Ilustración antropocéntrica. Si la Ilustración en el siglo XVIII significó el asentamiento de la fe en el progreso infinito y en la razón instrumental como único criterio de aproximación a la realidad, la Ilustración oscura representa el rechazo de la idea del progreso lineal, anteponiendo la idea de movimiento sinérgico y de la visibilización del carácter multívoco del conocimiento humano, en donde su forma racional conceptual es solo una de sus manifestaciones últimas y la más compleja ciertamente, pero no la única, bajo la teoría de la tres grandes racionalidades del filósofo peruano Gustavo Flores Quelopana que sostiene que la racionalidad es universal, como aptitud innata del género humano que trasciende el tiempo y que se ve manifiesto en todas las épocas de la humanidad, a través de 3 grandes manifestaciones, la de carácter empiriocrática(basada en lo sensible), mitocrática (basada en lo mítico) y logocrática (basada en los conceptos). Dado que la racionalidad bajo la forma de logos es solo una de las manifestaciones de la psique humana, es por ello que hasta el día de hoy la racionalidad de sustrato mítico como la racionalidad de sustrato sensible, subsisten y conviven, el logos no ha reemplazado a lo sensible, el mito no ha reemplazado al logos. El hombre en lugar de reducir su racionalidad, solo la ha ampliado y perfeccionado. «Si se buscan los orígenes del mito se descubre siempre sólo etapas de diferentes formas de afirmación racional del ser y de la vida. No hay mito pre-racional arcaico y, en consecuencia, ningún camino que conduzca del mito al Logos: ‘sólo hay -como dice Hans Blumenberg- una racionalidad y simbolización cambiante en el curso del tiempo. Lo que cambia es únicamente la percepción de la realidad a través del hombre’» (Peña Cabrera, 1994). La Ilustración por ello configura un reduccionismo logocrático y antropocéntrico mientras que la Ilustración oscura –semántica reaccionaria al siglo de las luces– propone un holismo gnoseológico más integral y sistémico.

[7] «Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase.

Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades. “Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.” (Max More 1990)

Humanity+ formally defines it based on Max More’s original definition as follows:

(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

(2) The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

Transhumanism can be viewed as an extension of humanism, from which it is partially derived. Humanists believe that humans matter, that individuals matter. We might not be perfect, but we can make things better by promoting rational thinking, freedom, tolerance, democracy, and concern for our fellow human beings. Transhumanists agree with this but also emphasize what we have the potential to become. Just as we use rational means to improve the human condition and the external world, we can also use such means to improve ourselves, the human organism. In doing so, we are not limited to traditional humanistic methods, such as education and cultural development. We can also use technological means that will eventually enable us to move beyond what some would think of as “human”». Disponible en: https://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-faq/

[8] «Pero resulta todavía más irónico que la historia de la ciencia fuese a destruir la imagen lineal del progreso científico mediante el replanteamiento de esa propiedad postulada para la línea recta de no admitir más que una paralela trazada por cualquier punto fuera de ella. Dado que las simulaciones de revolución en geometría euclidiana, ensayadas por Saccheri y Lambert, han sido ignoradas por sus contemporáneos matemáticos, los filósofos del siglo XVIII desconocían la idea, hoy banal, de la fecundidad teórica del No. Todavía más que la geometría no euclidiana, la mecánica no newtoniana ha contribuido a introducir en la historia de las ciencias la idea de rectificación dialéctica. El progreso continuo es un concepto de epistemología conservadora. Quien anuncia el progreso hace del hoy un mañana. Ahora bien, solamente es mañana cuando podremos hablar del día anterior. En cuanto a la crisis de las nociones fundamentales de la geometría y del análisis, a principios del siglo XIX, y la utilización de los números complejos y de las series infinitas, Jean Cavaillès escribió, «los resultados obtenidos gracias a los nuevos instrumentos son los que llevan a transformar todo el sistema matemático: modelos no euclidianos y geometría proyectiva construidos con la ayuda de los números complejos, teorías de las funciones arbitrarias representadas por series trigonométricas…, las matemáticas reales iniciales no son más que un caso particular, situado en el seno de las nuevas matemáticas y explicado por ellas mismas» (Canguilhem, 1999:675).

[9]«What are the problems in Faye’s vision? From my admittedly parochial perspective (‘I should be dissatisfied in Heaven’), there are four major ones. The first has to do with his understanding of archeofuturism, which tends to emphasize the futuristic at the expense of the archaic. Dismissing (at time disdaining) Traditionalist and Heideggerian reservations about technology, Faye favors numerous techno-scientific tendencies he thinks necessary to European survival Foremost of these are nuclear power, genetic engineering, and a more general inclination to what is called ‘transhumanism’. This ‘ism’ favors transforming the human condition by developing technologies that enhance human capacities and overcome human limitations. I find this ‘transhumanism’ potentially nihilistic, not only from the perspective of a ‘Christian-European rationality’, which distrusts man’s ability to improve on nature (for ‘the sleep of reason brings forth monsters’), but also from a metahistorical perspective that sees the techno-scientific basis of our sensate culture as having fixated on theories of truth that grasp only a narrow aspect of human reality and consequently dismiss the most important things» (O´meara, 2013: 18).

[10]«We have said before that Transhumanism can be mixed with any kind of ideology that accepts its principles; this applies, above all, to progressive ideologies, but not excusively. This is the case, for example, of Italian “Superhumanists”, who refer to the Nouvelle droite by Alain De Benoist , to the thought of Giorgio Locchi and to the Archeofuturism of Guillaume Faye- essentially to the radical right» (Manzocco, 2019:45).


Any and all doctrines of racial or ethnic supremacy/inferiority are incompatible with the fundamental tolerance and humanist roots of transhumanism. Organizations advocating such doctrines or beliefs are not transhumanist, and are unwelcome as affiliates of the WTA. (adopted 02/25/2002)».

[12] «la política futura se estructurará en función de la actitud de cada cual hacia las antropotecnias. Los ejes tradicionales, izquierda-derecha, o conservadores-liberales, quedarán obsoletos y serán sustituidos por el eje precaucionistas-proaccionistas (precautionaries-proactionaries) (Fuller y Lipinska, 2014), valgan los neologismos. Los unos defenderán un uso restringido o nulo de las antropotecnias, mientras que los otros abogarán por la implantación irrestricta, o casi, de las mismas. Y el TH ya ha tomado posición en el debate: lidera las propuestas más favorables a las antropotecnias, es decir, a la intervención técnica profunda sobre el propio ser humano. El objetivo declarado de esta intervención consiste en lograr la llamada mejora humana (human enhancement)» (Marcos, 2018:109).

[13] «L’optimisme forcé, assez irrationnel, sur la ”nouvelle économie numérique”, avec le big data, la blockchain, l’impression 3D, le ”transhumanisme”, etc. qui préfigureraient une “quatrième révolution industrielle” et un nouveau paradigme (et paradis) économique mondial, relève probablement de l’utopie et de l’auto persuasion.  Et de la croyance aux miracles» (Faye, 2016). Disponible en: http://www.gfaye.com/vers-un-crash-economique-mondial/

[14] Físico, epistemólogo y filósofo de la ciencia argentino. Sus obras son internacionalmente reconocidas en el mundo de la ciencia. Sentó las bases de su propio sistema teorético bajo el nombre de hylerrealismo o realismo científico, también ha sido uno de los principales propulsores de la lucha contra las modas intelectuales, dentro de estas últimas el transhumanismo.

[15] «El transhumanismo es un cuento, y tal vez una religión solapada» (Bunge, 2019).

[16] «Le mythe de la ”quatrième révolution industrielle”.

La première révolution industrielle – début du XIXe siècle– s’organisait autour de la machine à vapeur, la deuxième (fin du XIXe) autour de l’électricité, la troisième autour de l’informatique (milieu XXe). La quatrième révolution (début XXIe), issue des deux dernières, l’électrique et l’électronique, concernerait la généralisation d’Internet et des connections universelles numériques par le web. Le concept de « 4e révolution industrielle » est né après la foire de Hanovre en 2011, où l’on a célébré la naissance de l’ ”usine connectée” ; cette dernière, entièrement ”webisée” et branchée directement sur les clients, est robotisée et emploie de moins en moins de salariés. On a créé l’expression abstraite d’ ” industrie 4.0”. C’est un concept assez creux : à quand, l’ ”industrie 5.0” ?

Un des gourous néo-romantiques de cette « 4e révolution industrielle » est – comme indiqué plus haut – le Pr. Klaus Schwab, fondateur et animateur du forum économique mondial de Davos. Le colloque de janvier 2016 a été consacré à la 4e révolution industrielle. Au programme : l’intelligence artificielle, la robotique, les objets connectés, les nanotechnologies, des innovations « révolutionnaires ». Pourquoi pas ? Ce qui est à la fois intéressant mais par ailleurs comique, c’est que tous les médias, sans aucun recul, ont cru sur parole les conclusions (idéologiques plus que scientifiques) de ce forum de Davos. Personne ne s’est posé la question de savoir quelles améliorations concrètes apportait cette miraculeuse économie numérique qui est pourtant parallèle d’une dégradation de la situation mondiale. L’invasion migratoire qui déstabilise l’Europe, la montée du djihad islamique, l’effondrement des cours du pétrole, l’accélération planétaire de tous les types de pollution ne furent pas des sujets abordés. La ”révolution numérique” est censée résoudre tous les problèmes. C’est la croyance aux miracles, qui relève plus de la pensée magique que de la réflexion rationnelle.

Le néo–scientisme et l’écologisme

Les prophéties sur la révolution de l’économie numérique, avec ses mots fétiches, cloud,big data, transhumanisme, etc, appartiennent à une idéologie néo–scientiste qui risque de déboucher sur des désillusions terribles. Or, ce néo-scientisme sans prise de recul, comme celui de la fin du XIXe siècle, cohabite curieusement, chez les mêmes, avec un anti–progressisme écologiste. Il est aussi stupide que les théories de la ”décroissance : il relève du même extrémisme.

Ce romantisme néo-scientiste est l’exact pendant de celui de la fin du XIXe siècle – relisez Jules Vernes et Victor Hugo – où l’on s’imaginait l’avenir en rose sous l’influence du concept magique et au fond peu rationnel de ”Progrès”. À la fin de son poème La légende des siècles, Victor Hugo brossait une vision idyllique du XXe siècle.

Les erreurs des pronostics technologiques sont une habitude. Jules Vernes prévoyait qu’en 1960, les habitants des villes se déplaceraient en engins volants individuels. Mais il n’avait pas prévu l’automobile. Et, dans les années 60, on pronostiquait des bases humaines nombreuses sur la Lune et sur Mars, astronomiques et d’extraction minière, la généralisation des transports aériens supersoniques et hypersoniques stratosphériques ainsi que la diffusion de l’énergie de fusion nucléaire. Bien des pronostics sur le futur de la ”révolution numérique” relèvent probablement des mêmes erreurs utopiques de jugement.

L’utilité marginale déclinante de l’économie numérique

Le téléphone, l’électrification, le chemin de fer et l’automobile, l’aviation comme la radio et la télévision, la pénicilline, l’anesthésie, etc. ont été des bonds technologiques énormes, de par leurs conséquences, bien plus qu’Internet ou l’économie numérique. Le binôme numérique/ informatique offre moins de facilités qu’on ne croit ; parce qu’il complique les processus autant qu’il ne les simplifie. Les innovations technologiques de la ”révolution numérique” ne répondent pas dans la pratique quotidienne, à leurs promesses. Elles sont inférieures en terme d’avantages marginaux aux innovations des précédentes mutations techno–industrielles» (Faye, 2016). Disponible en: http://www.gfaye.com/revolution-numerique-miracle-ou-impo...


Translator’s Note:

*This short essay is also available in his book “Why We Fight” (Arktos, 201), see Chapter 2: Preliminary Elements, The Imposture of the ‘New Economy’.




Also available at:



Les commentaires sont fermés.