Nikolai Fedorov and technological resurrection, revisited
God wants us to use science and technology to resurrect the dead.
Greetings to all readers and subscribers, and special greetings to the paid subscribers!
Please scroll down for the main topic of this newsletter. But first:
I haven’t posted for more than one month! I’ll try to post more frequently, I promise.
The first Terasem Colloquium of 2025 will be held on July 20, via Zoom, from 10am ET to 1pm ET.
This Terasem Colloquium will explore diverse points of view on the topic of space expansion in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). In particular, it will explore answers to the question:
Should we still want to send human astronauts to colonize space? Or should we want to leave space expansion to AI?
Confirmed speakers: Michelle Hanlon, Moti Mizrahi, Frank Tipler, Stefano Vaj, Frank White, Robert Zubrin.
The speakers have diverse points of view and different answers to the question above.
Mark your calendar: you are invited! We will share the Zoom access coordinates before July 20.
When I was 16 or so I wanted to learn Russian and started trying to learn it from a book. I abandoned the project - today’s kids could download learning apps and find native conversation partners online, but that was in the 1970s.
But my younger self must have sensed that the writings of Russian thinkers would be important to his future self. And indeed, I’ve been very strongly influenced by the Russian cosmists. After so many years (actually decades) of reading what others have been saying about the ideas of Nikolai Fedorov, I’m now reading his own words in the French translation “Philosophie de l'oeuvre commune” (Éditions des Syrtes, 2021).
Fedorov was the originator of the concept of technological resurrection. To Fedorov, the resurrection of everyone who ever lived was an engineering project, to be accomplished by future generations with advanced science and technology.
Fedorov’s magnum opus, whose title can be translated as “Philosophy of the Common Task,” was published by his followers after his death. There’s no complete English translation that I know of, but there’s a good French translation: “Philosophie de l'oeuvre commune” (Éditions des Syrtes, 2021).
Fedorov was a 19th century Russian and a Christian Orthodox thinker. Reading his words is an experience that I find sort of frustrating, because the really interesting passages are diluted in a whole that I find difficult to relate to. But the book has a very useful postface by Svetlana Semenova. Semenova, “the most prominent scholar of Russian Cosmism and a devoted follower of Fedorov,” provides a thorough summary with quotes that help find the relevant passages in the main text.
Semenova emphasizes that “resurrecting the dead is the key word, the criterion of everything” (my translation) in Fedorov’s work.
To Fedorov, technological resurrection is part of God’s plan for humanity and the universe. Fedorov elaborates on the essential continuity between Christianity and his own views.
“Fedorovians tend to identify as Orthodox Christians, while interpreting Christianity in very particular ways,” notes Anya Bernstein. Predictably, the Orthodox Church sees Fedorov’s views as “nothing but heretical, since they advocate active human involvement in resurrection.” But I think Fedorov’s views are closer to God than official Christian doctrines.
Fedorov speculated on practical methods of technological resurrection. His speculations based upon the science of his time seem naive to us today, but he realized that technological resurrection is an enormously difficult challenge that “might seem implausible or even impossible from the point of view of contemporary science” (my translation) and is best left to the science and technology of the future. That is, I guess, the science and technology of the very far future. New speculations on how to achieve Fedorov’s technological resurrection have been proposed (see my books).
David Hume famously argued that we can’t derive an ought from an is. I agree, and therefore I tend to be very skeptical of attempts to derive ethical and moral conclusions from science. But we can derive an is from an ought: what is technology, if not the constant, relentless process of turning what ought to be into what actually is? Technological resurrection will be the ultimate realization of what ought to be.
I think the emergence of a new religion or spiritual movement built around these ideas, and/or the assimilation of these ideas by traditional religions, would do a lot of good. The Mormon Transhumanist Association, a group active in an established religion, and Terasem, a new religious movement, are open to Fedorov’s vision of technological resurrection.
I like what you say, Giulio, and hope to attend this event. My personal view, FWIW, is that I think (despite the negative opinions on this that I've seen from scientific or other "mainstream" sources) we will migrate into cyber cities, similar to Robin Hanson's "em cities" only probably not based on Earth, but in solar orbit. There won' be that much incentive or pressure to go farther than the solar system for a very long time, maybe a smattering of space probes and such but closer to home the vast majority I think will find various avenues to very rewarding and fulfilling lifestyles, in virtual worlds of different sorts. (But of course I could be wrong.)
On Fedorov: you say
"'Fedorovians tend to identify as Orthodox Christians, while interpreting Christianity in very particular ways,' notes Anya Bernstein. Predictably, the Orthodox Church sees Fedorov’s views as 'nothing but heretical, since they advocate active human involvement in resurrection.' But I think Fedorov’s views are closer to God than official Christian doctrines."
Here's a thought. Jesus says, "heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons." (Mt.10:8). He doesn't say, "Well, you can't raise the dead yourselves, so don't ever think of trying, but instead you have to depend on God for that -- the other things I mentioned feel free to be very proactive about, however." So you do have plausible ground, I think, to challenge the Orthodox position you refer to.