Opium of Progress

  1. Lemma
  2. Опиум прогресса
  3. Russian
  4. Asliturk, Miriam
  5. Orthodox view on technology and engineering - Modes of interaction > Conflict
  6. 19-08-2018
  7. Худиев, Сергей [Author]. Опиум прогресса
  8. Православие.Ru
  9. technological development - new technologies - modernity - Russian history - scientifc progress
  10. Click Here
    1. <p>Худиев, Сергей (2014). Опиум прогресса. <em>Православие.Ru</em>. Retrieved from: <a href="http://www.pravoslavie.ru/74543.html">http://www.pravoslavie.ru/74543.html</a> </p>
    1. The author claims that there are people who want another revolution in Russia and that this idea is destructive to the country. He sees the roots of this problem in how history is viewed, especially popular in Eastern Europe, as a linear process of never-ending progress of morals and ethics accompanied by technical progress.

      Soviet science fiction writers represented extraterrestrial civilizations as morally advanced and aliens as “progress-bringers” who would boost progress on Earth. According to this paradigm, in order to bring about revolution, people should support the “progress-bringers” – avatars of a Hegelian world spirit, and not the local authorities. This view gives people a false feeling of security and false positioning in the historical process because they do not take into account the problem of primordial sin.

      This implies that along side technological progress there have always been traces of moral corruption, from the time of prophet Jeremiah and Christ. According to the author, the understanding of the consequences of primordial sin helps people see what can and what cannot happen in history. This means that during and after the revolution other countries will not provide help to other nations for free; violence will not bring better people on top of the society; and destruction of the social order cannot bring prosperity.

      The author believes that there may be people or non-governmental organizations that personify and promote high morals and mutual help but ultimately countries stand only for their own interests. Today people who believe in progress say we live in modernity, and that previous eras were backward. The author warns against a purely linear understanding of progress. He also believes that those who demand a revolution are not the incarnation of the world spirit but mere power seekers. Moreover, he states that these people are backed by foreign countries that pursue their own national interest that contradict those of Russia.