Introduction
This article analyzes the impact of cybertechnology and biological progress on the fundamental categories of truth, inequality, and longevity. True progress is not measured by processor efficiency, but by the extension of rigorous evidentiary procedures into new areas of social life. Readers will learn how AI redefines criteria for credibility, why medical success may destabilize pension systems, and what conditions must be met for technology to serve emancipation rather than a new barbarism.
Procedural Unity and the Cyber-Technological Redefinition of Truth
The foundation of science is the procedural unity of justification—a norm stating that no claim should be accepted on faith. In the age of cybertechnology, the structure of truth claims is shifting: it is no longer merely a relationship between fact and statement, but between output and algorithmic model architecture. We live in an information surplus economy, which paradoxically deepens the deficit of meta-competencies necessary to distinguish truth from its imitation.
Technological progress without parallel epistemological progress leads to situations where advanced tools serve irrationality. Within corporations, AI exacerbates power asymmetry: decision-makers armed with predictive models gain an advantage over employees, who remain epistemically defenseless against the logic of algorithmic decisions, often aimed at workforce reduction.
Three Imaginaries of Progress and the Asymmetry of Algorithmic Power
The modern world offers three distinct answers to the question of truth's status in the digital age. In the sovereign model (Arab nations), technology is a tool for state efficiency and decisionism. In the market model (North America), truth is regulated by profit and productivity, making AI an instrument for cost optimization at the expense of job stability. Europe represents a third pole, where innovation must pass through a filter of ethical norms and law.
These differences demonstrate that technology is not neutral. If progress is to be ethical, it must account for probability functions and biases embedded in data. Without transparency in AI models, technology becomes an "oracle" that, instead of empowering individual agency, serves to maintain a monopoly of economic power over social problem-solving mechanisms.
Biological Engineering and Global Models of Longevity
Molecular biology has moved beyond describing aging to treating it as a system error subject to engineering. Mechanisms such as genomic instability, mitochondrial dysfunction, and senescence (cellular aging) are becoming targets for precise interventions, such as senolytic therapies or RNA interference. However, scientific success promising life up to 120 years generates an epistemology of risk: we must distinguish clinical evidence from social evidence—the readiness of institutions for such a shift.
Longevity changes the anthropological structure of time—investing in human capital after fifty becomes a rational strategy. Yet, global contrasts are striking: from luxury clinics in the US to solidarity-based systems in Europe. If scientific success is not met with the adaptation of pension systems, whose actuarial models may collapse, biological progress will become a source of deep intergenerational conflict.
Humanizing Technology and Democratizing Biotechnology
To avoid ontological shock, longevity must be recognized as a public project rather than an elite privilege. A prerequisite for social order stability is universal access to the fruits of biotechnology and a radical redesign of social safety nets. We must move away from a rigid retirement age toward functional indicators.
Ultimately, longevity should be a means to expand human freedom and creativity. We face a choice: will we use science to build a society based on solidarity, or will we allow lifespan to become the ultimate tool of class segregation? True progress requires us to treat knowledge as a common good, not a commodity for the few.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF