TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL MODEL OF HUMANITY IN THE DIGITAL SPACE

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26565/2226-0994-2026-74-8

Keywords:

high technology, bioethics, anthropological limit, digital corporeality, Homo virtual, transhumanism, virtualization, deterritorialization

Abstract

The article considers the problem of human anthropological limits in the context of the development of high technologies and digital reality. The phenomenon of Homo virtual is analyzed as a new model of human subjectivity, which is formed at the intersection of biological, technological and virtual environments. The space environment is significantly different from the conditions of the Earth; microgravity, cosmic radiation and isolation affect the physiological state of human. The spectrum of possibilities for adapting the human organism to outer space is clarified, from biotechnological modifications and the use of artificial intelligence to support life to the creation of closed biospheres and cosmic corporeality, which becomes a new form of anthropological adaptation. The philosophical and social challenges associated with the modification of the human body, the use of artificial intelligence and the adaptation of human to the virtual environment are investigated. Convergent NBIC technologies manifest the entire spectrum of development of modern science, where all components are interdependent and give a general cumulative effect aimed at expanding the anthropological limits of human and forming human-sized environments. In this context, human transformations have now expanded enormously thanks to plastic surgery and transplantations. Urbanized technogenic civilization leads to the removal of restrictions on the existence of human corporeality and the expansion of the possibilities of genetic engineering in matters of fertility, increasing life expectancy, cloning, etc. and mediates a different moral, legal and religious nature of human existence. The significance of bioethical aspects of the transformation of human corporeality in the digital and technological space is substantiated. Bioethics in this context is called upon to form the principles of responsible use of technologies and determine the moral limits of their application. It is shown that the anthropological limits of human are not static, throughout history they have changed along with the development of culture, science and technology, but in the era of high technology they have become even more dynamic, and there has been a threat of their negative impact on human existence as a whole.

Author Biographies

  • Mykhailo Beilin, Kharkiv State Academy of Physical Culture

    Beilin Mykhailo V.

    D.Sc.in Philosophy, PhD in Technical Sciences, Professor

    Department of Humanities

    Kharkiv State Academy of Physical Culture

    99 Klochkivska str., Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine

  • Oleksandr Zheltoborodov, Kharkiv State Academy of Physical Culture

    Zheltoborodov Oleksandr M.

    PhD in Historical Sciences, Associate Professor

    Department of Humanities

    Kharkiv State Academy of Physical Culture

    99 Klochkivska str., Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine

References

Beilin, M.V., Zheltoborodov, O.M. (2022). Human in the conditions of cognitive-technological anthroposphere. Actual Problems in Philosophy and Sociology, (39), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.32782/apfs.v039.2022.1. (In Ukrainian)

Beilin, M.V. (2015). Nanotechnologies in the context of post-nonclassical science: formation of philosophical foundations: dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Kharkiv. (In Ukrainian)

Gazniuk, L., Beilin, M. (2020). Transformation of desire in a “post-consumption” society. Bulletin of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series “Philosophy. Philosophical Peripetias”, (63), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.26565/2226-0994-2020-63-7. (In Ukrainian)

Krymsky, S. B. (2010). On Sophianism, Truth, and the Meanings of Human Being. Kyiv: G. S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. (In Ukrainian)

Beilin, M., Soina, I., Horbenko, O., Zheltoborodov, O. (2023). Ontology of Natural Landscapes and Human Global Environmental Consciousness. Dialogue and Universalism, 33 (2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.5840/du202333215.

Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Habermas, J. (2001). Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp.

Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age: Ideas to Keep People First. (2026). OpenAI, April 2026. https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440601/Industrial%20Policy%20for%20the%20Intelligence%20Age.pdf.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of Perception / translated by D. A. Landes. London : Routledge.

Morin, E. (1990). Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.

Morin, E., Kern, A.-B. (1993). Terre-Patrie. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.

Žižek, S. (2020). Hegel in a Wired Brain. London : Bloomsbury Academic.

Žižek, S. (2003). The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity. Cambridge, Massachusetts : MIT Press

Published

2026-05-25

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL MODEL OF HUMANITY IN THE DIGITAL SPACE. (2026). The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Series Philosophy. Philosophical Peripeteias, 74, 78-88. https://doi.org/10.26565/2226-0994-2026-74-8

Most read articles by the same author(s)