Will the evolution of a man continue? The majority of scientists have a negative answer[1]. Why do they think so? The answer to this question is closely connected with the cultural evolution and the humanism as its essence.

But humanism here is turning from the consequence into the reason. That’s why they believe that the cultural evolution, with humanism and migration being its essence, are doing a serious work.

Physically imperfect people, which would have died in their childhood, are now surviving and siring, handing down their defects to other generations. Not a single population group on Earth has been living in isolation for the time enough to change into the new species. The lifetime of the majority of animals’ species is less than 3 million years. The human race as the most rational of all the species can require all its ingenuity to hold out for at least half of this period. But this point of view is based on the fact that a human being is still an animal, though rational. It is hard to agree with that.

The other part of scientists, including the author, answer this question positively, on account of the same reasons. We think that the cultural evolution is supplemented with the co evolution. The latest executes natural selection basing on cultural aspect and choosing more intelligent, educated, decent, efficient and culturally stronger individuals. These more cultured people are now surviving more than before and are also siring, handing down their cultural and genetic increment to other generations. Migration also contributes to the continuation of evolution, transferring inevitably into globalization.

Globalization changes the world into an open system that unlike the previous isolation makes the human race live to measure of the best groups. (Under the best groups we understand the ones that decide, even unconsciously, the main philosophical question of correlation of existence and non-existence, transposing it to the question of correlation of life and death in the direction of life, but not death, stabilization. As long as the main criterion, including the questions of good and evil, which everyone of a sound mind will agree with, is that “good is everything that serves life and evil is everything that serves death” [2]. No one can evade this criterion – an orientation to the life or to the death, no matter in which form this is made and whether it is done deliberately or unconsciously, unless he is being sophistical).

Globalization puts an end to the degradation of humanity which made the human race live to measure of less developed groups under the condition of a group isolation. style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  This point of view bases on a different understanding of a human essence - on the neoclassical one. style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  In accordance with it, each individual in his essence is not an animal (even the so-called rational, political, social, intellectual, producing instruments of labour etc.), but above natural, initially cultural creature, the subject and the object of culture. This conclusion is proved mainly by the fact that each one of us is ultimately determined not by the instincts or the environment but by the experience of the meaning of his existence. When an animal has had everything, a human being just starts his life. Here it is important not to mix the “nature” (the origins) and the “essence” (substantiveness) of a man [3].

There is one more viewpoint which is explicated while analyzing the problem of anthropogenesis. It insists that the human race is eternal in the universe: on the scale of the universe eternity (but not the relative finiteness of the Earth) a man as a species does not have its origins as he exists, has existed and will always exist. The main argument of this point of view is the modern synergetic evidence of the universe eternity. In the eternity of the universe everything changes its state while staying in the eternally self-regulating condition. The “anthropic principle” [4] comes into force. Though in order to realize it on our planet the mankind has to solve the problem of vitality (to survive), to build a human “house of existence” which has just started to be built. The solution of this problem is again connected with the problem of humanism, but in its modern neoclassical understanding as the previous one is already exhausted and became in itself one of the greatest global problems. Humanism will be possible when there is another dominant among those who populate the Earth, that is “a culture as the III-d house of existence” [5] or a “spiritual revolution”. We have to change ourselves.

Nowadays cynical attacks on humanism has strengthened, especially from the part of post-modernism which even tells about its “apparent death”. There is no doubt that a man experiences certain suffering, including both existential and social feeling. In fact the second axial age which a mankind is going through, is a painful experience accompanied by the tide of necrophilia including its extreme form - the terrorism. However humanism has not died and it cannot die because it is not someone’s desire but an ontological fact and an objective attribute of a human existence. Although its understanding and putting in action depend on a man. There is no prospect of a mankind without humanism. But humanism as an idea and practice has a development, therefore it historically corrects its contents without changing its primary essence. Humanism can be classical, non-classical and neoclassical.

Modern neoclassical humanism which is painfully forming now is connected with co evolution, with the conversion of a mankind to the “proper culture” stage (from the “barbarism” stage to the “civilization” stage and from the “civilization” stage to the “culture” stage) [6]. Those that are not able to change inevitably die. We need to change and will necessarily have to change. A mankind today does not have three roads as an epic hero at the cross-roads, but the two ones – to the culture stage or to the self-destruction. Standing still without making any headway (possessing final weapons of mass destruction) for centuries is no longer possible. It’s better to turn to the culture. People miss “the beautiful” again.

Scientists mark that in the modern society “another tendency is observed. If the prevalence of a mass culture conduces to the decay of culture and degeneracy of civilization, another tendency is standing against these processes. It is connected with the rise of a new post-economic civilization, which determines the appearance of a new elite based on possessing of knowledge and creative type of labour developing its personal, human potential” [7]. Even “deconstructors of existence” are saying that “we have to finally learn how to live” [8]. Approaching “science intensive economy gives us a chance to fracture the backbone of global poverty” [9], while cultural identity and morality are “put in the forefront”.

Literature:

1. Porus V.N. At the edge of a culture (philosophic studies). - М., 2008.

2. Fromm E. Anatomy of human disruptiveness . - М.,994. – P.316.

3. Menchikov G.P. The basis of anthropology: traditions and innovations. -Kazan, 2006.- P.228.

4. Menchikov G.P. “Anthropic principle”: correlation with “anthropocentrism” and “anthropological approach”//New methods in solving of fundamental problems of the social philosophy: synergic anthropology. - kazan,2009. – P.100-103.

5. Menchikov G.P. New world view and humanism: classical, non-classical and neoclassical // World outlook paradigm in philosophy: humanism – from apologetics to falsification. – Nizhniy Novgorod, 2007.- P.13-22.

6. Menchikov G.P. The logics of the mankind development stages //Philosophy and the future of civilization. IV Russian Philosophic Congress. - М., 2005. V.3. – P.93-94.

7. Kiselyov G.S. The world of a man: the blind branch of evolution?// Philosophic questions. 2007. №4.– P.20.

8. Derrida J. Finally to learn how to live// Philosophic questions.2005.№4. - P.145.

9. Toffler A. Revolutionary wealth. - М., 2008. - P.407.