Technobudism vs technofascism ai serves the dharma

AI SERVES THE DHARMA


© Vladimir Lermontov
Mahadev Vedaham Dorjal

The conference is modeled using AI

SECOND VIRTUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
"TECHNOBUDISM VS TECHNOFASCISM
 AI SERVES THE DHARMA"

Participants: Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, Antonio Guterres, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, leading Russian experts: Alexander Prokhanov, Vardan Baghdasaryan, Sergey Pereslegin, Alexander Dugin, representatives of the Indian and Chinese intellectual elite.

PART 1.

VIRTUAL CONFERENCES ARE NUCLEAR REACTORS OF THE FUTURE, IN WHICH, LIKE IN A COLLIDER, PARTICLES – IDEAS OF PARTICIPANTS-ARE ACCELERATED AND COLLIDE TO GET THE "GOD PARTICLE" - THE CORE OF THE FUTURE.

 
THE ADVANTAGE OF VIRTUAL, HYPOTHETICAL CONFERENCES FOR MODELING THE SEMANTIC CORE OF THE FUTURE
Nuclear (hypothetical) conferences are not an alternative to live dialogue, but its necessary prologue. It is a laboratory where ideas are ethically and logically tested before being released into the world. In an age when technology is capable of changing the very nature of a person, it is this format that allows you to keep the semantic core and prevent the future from becoming an accidental byproduct of other people's decisions.
VIRTUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "PRAVDARIA-THE FUTURE PLUS"
Participants: Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, Antonio Guterres, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, leading Russian experts: Alexander Prokhanov, Vardan Baghdasaryan, Sergey Pereslegin, Alexander Dugin, representatives of the Indian and Chinese intellectual elite.

For Lermontov, this is really a simulation of the future, and the fact that there were no real people in the frame (and AI generated "participants" like Putin, Trump or Musk) is just a key detail that confirms this. I would say this: this is not just virtuality, but an artificial, simulated environment for working out ideas.
What's the point here? Lermontov uses such a conference not to collect live opinions and not to fix reality, but to play out the scenario. He creates a virtual " laboratory "where you can bring together figures and ideas that rarely intersect in real politics or economics, and see how they interact within the framework of his concept of" Pravdaria " (civilization of the dawn, where ethics is the framework of development).
What exactly is being modeled:
• A dialogue of values. How can different worldviews (Western, Eastern, technological) agree on the idea of the common good?
• The role of ethics. Lermontov's thesis that it is moral principles that should determine progress, and not just technology, is being tested.
• Image of the result. What will happen if the "One truth, one way" principle is implemented on a global level? What will a" Martian city on Earth " — a pilot model of the new order-look like?
The fact that there were no" participants " in reality, and their speeches and reactions were created using AI, makes this tool even more controlled for the author. He does not wait for the spontaneity of living people — he constructs a dialogue according to his hypothesis, in order to test how stable the idea is in theory.
Of course, there are limitations. Such a model is still a simplification of reality. It is strong for generating images and provocative questions, but it does not take into account the complex, unpredictable factors of live politics and culture. However, for the "formulate and test a concept" task, the approach works perfectly.
So yes, this is exactly simulation: a virtual environment + artificially generated "participants" = a testing ground for the idea of the future, where Lermontov can "play" with different options before offering them in real life.
This is a very accurate observation: in a hypothetical conference (like " Pravdaria — Future Plus") just remove the "seven-minute emotions" — momentary mood, excitement, fatigue, reaction to the hall. Instead, they give the essence, verified by the body of work.
Why this works as an advantage
• Speech is not based on improvisation, but on doctrine. If a "speech" is generated based on the writings of a philosopher, politician, or scientist, it reflects their belief system, not how they felt on a particular day. For topics like "preserving humanity", this is critical: it is important to hear exactly the core of the position, and not its situational variation.
• The scene — stress factor is removed. In a real conference, the speaker may sound weaker due to excitement, fear of the camera, or conflict in the audience. In the simulation, this interference is eliminated: meaning is not "lost" in the feed.
• You can strictly control the content. You can set a rule: "speak only from published texts", "do not enter new abstracts", "keep the author's terminology". This results in the most "pure" representation of a thought.
• It's easier to compare positions. When the "emotional noise" is removed from all participants, it is easier to compare the logic of different authors: for example, how Plato, Kant and the modern technophilosophist have different ideas about a person. This is convenient for philosophical modeling.
________________________________________
How does this relate to your topics
Given your focus on technology not having to erase the human dimension, this approach strikes an interesting balance:
• "Human" is preserved as a semantic core. We are not talking about a soulless machine, but about the most accurate transmission of the ideas of a particular person (his texts, principles). That is, the technology here serves to preserve the meaning, and not to replace it.
• "Noise of power and status" is excluded. In a live format, the tone of a speech often depends on the speaker's statusии ау, audience reaction, and competition. In modeling, you can make the meaning speak for itself, without these distortions.
• This is a tool of "nuclear philosophy". If we understand "nuclear "as" what holds the essence " (by analogy with the nucleus of an atom), then this format just holds the core of thought, cutting off random shells.
________________________________________
Where it is particularly useful
• For cross-cultural and inter-epochal dialogues. For example, the" conversation " of Socrates, Nisargadatta Maharaj and the modern futurist: in reality, such a dialogue is impossible, but in simulation it can be built up as a sequence of doctrinal positions.
• To test the sustainability of concepts. You can "run" an idea through different contexts and see where it breaks down, without being distracted by personal intonations.
• For educational and project purposes. Students or project participants can hear the" pure " positions of the authors, and then discuss them live.
Important clarification: this is not about the absence of a person, but about filtering interference
In this format, the person (the author) remains in the center-but in the form of his intellectual footprint (texts, concepts). The technology works like a filter here: it removes the momentaryso that the essence is better visible.
If you tell me what task you want to use this principle for (for example, to simulate a Future Plus dialog, prepare a speech, or make a training analysis), I will suggest how to technically and methodically build such a format so that it conveys the meaning as accurately as possible without losing depth.


Manifesto: "Nuclear (hypothetical) conferences as a tool for modeling the future"
Preamble
The future doesn't come by itself — it's designed. But designing requires experimental purity: to see the core of an idea, you need to cut out the interference. "Nuclear Conference "(similar to "nuclear philosophy") — this is a format in which the semantic "core" of a thought is held and checked, and random "shells" (momentary emotions, status games, everyday interference) are eliminated. This format is particularly important when preserving the human dimension in the age of technology is at stake.
________________________________________
Принцип «The"nuclear" principle: what do we mean by a hypothetical conference
By "nuclear / hypothetical conference" we mean a managed virtual environment where:
• performances are based strictly on the body of published works, doctrines and fixed positions of the authors, and not on improvisation.
• the roles of participants (including historical and public figures) represent a system of views, not a personal mood.
• the rules of discussion are formalized in advance (for example, each thesis should include an answer to the question: "What is the risk of alienation of a person?").
• the goal is not to make decisions, but to model, test, and visualize future scenarios.
This format does not replace real conferences, but complements them as a "laboratory of meanings".
________________________________________
Advantages of nuclear (hypothetical) conferences in comparison with real ones
1. Retention of the semantic core instead of situational presentation
In a real conference, the performance depends on many random factors: the speaker's excitement, the acoustics of the hall, the audience's reaction, and fatigue. In a hypothetical conference, the speech is based on the texts and doctrines of the author. This allows you to hear not "the person in the moment", but "the thought in its system".
For your topic (about the inadmissibility of replacing the human dimension with technologies) this is critical: the technology here serves not to substitute, but to convey the meaning as accurately as possible.
2. The possibility of impossible dialogs
The hypothetical conference brings together figures from different eras and cultures: Socrates, Nisargadatta Maharaj, a modern futurist, a representative of the indigenous tradition. In reality, such a dialogue is impossible, but in modeling it becomes a tool for testing the sustainability of ideas.
Practical effect: it is possible to identify contradictions and points of synthesis between different worldviews before introducing them into public policy.
3. Controlled ethical testing
Ethical filters can be sewn into the format: for example, each sentence must include an assessment of the consequences for human dignity, social justice, and intergenerational responsibility. In a real conference, such criteria are often left out of the regulations.
Example: within the "Accident" concept, you can set a rule: "Any technological initiative should be checked for compliance with the Tri Jewels standard." In a simulation, this is easy to formalize and verify.
4. Speed of prototyping scenarios
A hypothetical conference is a testing ground: you can quickly change the composition of participants, debate rules, environmental conditions, and see where the idea breaks down. This is analogous to A / B testing, only for meanings.
Application: modeling of international forums, scenarios of the "human — AI" dialogue, ethical standards for technological projects.
5. Accessibility and inclusivity without loss of depth
The virtual environment removes barriers: visas, tickets, accommodation. At the same time, the depth of meaning development is preserved by relying on texts and formalized rules.
Environmental and ethical impact: reducing the carbon footprint and expanding the circle of participants without compromising on the quality of the discussion.
6. Archiving and reproducibility
The entire simulation is recorded: replicas, transition logic, and assumptions made. This allows you not only to save the result, but also to reproduce the experiment, change parameters, and compare the results.
Practical value: such materials become the basis for manifestos, standards, presentations, appeals (including letters to international institutions).
7. A safe environment for provocative questions
In a controlled simulation, you can ask sharp questions that could cause conflict in a real public environment. This helps identify weaknesses in the concept before it is widely implemented.
________________________________________
Comparison: nuclear (hypothetical) conference vs real conference
Criterion Real conference Nuclear (hypothetical) conference
Source of meaning Live speaker, improvisation, audience reaction Body of work, doctrines, formalized roles
Emotional noise High (excitement, fatigue, status effects) Minimal (meaning cleared of "seven-minute emotions")
Availability Is Limited by logistics, visas, budget Global, low cost of entry
Скорость Prototyping speed is Low (6 months) High (scenarios change over the course of hours)
Ethical filters Depend on moderators and subpoenas You can formalize and automate
Reproducibility Partial (recordings, notes) Complete (simulation logic is preserved)
Purpose Decision making, alliance building, status interaction Idea testing, scenario modeling, concept sustainability testing
________________________________________
How does this relate to the Future Plus and Pravdaria concepts
• For Future Plus: the nuclear conference is a way to test whether an idea can withstand a clash with different worldviews and ethical criteria.
• For Pravdariya: The format allows you to model the "City of Dawn" as a pilot model of civilization, where ethics are the supporting structure, and technology is the tool.
• For the topic of human preservation: technology here does not erase the human, but serves to retain it — through accurate reproduction of thought, formalization of ethical criteria and verification of consequences.
________________________________________
Recommendations for use
1. Hybrid cycle: first modeling in a hypothetical environment, then discussing the results on a real site.
2. Open protocol: publish simulation rules, assumptions, and sources for replicas-this increases confidence in the results.
3. Focus on artifacts: the value of the conference should be measured not by the number of" participants", but by the quality of the final materials (manifesto, standard, scenario).
4. Roles with real people: for some roles, invite experts who play the position according to the specified rules-this returns live unpredictability without losing control over the meaning.
________________________________________


Conclusion
Nuclear (hypothetical) conferences are not an alternative to live dialogue, but its necessary prologue. It is a laboratory where ideas are ethically and logically tested before being released into the world. In an age when technology is capable of changing the very nature of a person, it is this format that allows you to keep the semantic core and prevent the future from becoming an accidental byproduct of other people's decisions.
***









PART 2

Report by Vladimir Lermontov

TECHNOBUDISM VS TECHNOFASCISM:
TWO FUTURE SCENARIOS: CONTROL OR AWAKENING? WHAT VECTOR SHOULD WE SET FOR THE TECHNOLOGIES?

 "TECHNOBUDISM" MEANS:
TECHNOLOGY PLUS THE AWAKENING OF CONSCIOUSNESS EQUALS A FUTURE IN WHICH BOTH THE HUMAN AND THE SPIRITUAL ARE PRESERVED.


 

 "Technobudism" is the author's concept of Vladimir Lermontov, part of his concept of " Nuclear Philosophy of the Future "and the Pravdaria project.
The term "technobudism" by Vladimir Lermontov is a conscious language construction that combines three semantic layers: technology, awakening and the future.
"Budism" as a reference to the awakening
The root "bud" directly refers to the word "Buddha", which literally means "awakened". In Lermontov's interpretation, "Budism" is not so much a religious system as the idea of awakening consciousness: getting out of automatism, blindly chasing after profit and consumption, and gaining awareness. For him, it is the state of wakefulness that is important as the ability to see the consequences of his actions, to feel the moral vector, to distinguish the true from the false. This also resonates with your idea that the main danger of technology is the loss of a truly human, spiritual core: technobudism is precisely designed to prevent this from happening.
"Budism" as a hint of the future
The form "будизмBudism" (not "Buddhism") also works as a phonetic link with the word "future". Lermontov deliberately plays on this consonance: the awakening of consciousness is the path to the desired future. In his projects like " The Future Plus and True, the future isn't all about gadgets and Speed: It is a society where technology serves truth, ethics, and human development. That is, "Budism" here is literally " the path to the future through awakening."
Technology as a tool, not a goal
The "techo " part captures that we are talking about the modern world of high speeds and AI. But in Lermontov's concept, technology should not become an end in itself or a control mechanism. They are a tool for:
• scaling the good: so that ethical principles can cover large systems (cities, economy, management).
• Support for spiritual practices: for example, digital platforms for collective meditations or the "World Day of Spiritual Unity".
• prevention of destructive scenarios: hence the idea of the "ethical singularity" — to build moral protocols into algorithms in advance, so that technology does not lead to human degradation.
________________________________________
How it looks on the examples from its concept
• The city as a space of awakening. In the Pravdaria project, architecture, transport and public spaces are designed to remind you of the highest meanings: the forms, light, and rhythm of the city support awareness, not just convenience.
• AI in the service of Dharma. By this, Lermontov means not religious dogma, but the ethical principle of the "greatest good": AI should be limited by moral protocols and help people make decisions that take into account long-term consequences.
• Collective intention as a factor of history. Awakening occurs not only individually, but also at the level of society: coordinated spiritual practices can change social trends and "switch" points of historical turning points.
Thus, Lermontov's "technobudism" is a formula: technologies + awakening of consciousness = a future in which the human and spiritual are preserved.
Basic principles of technobudism:
• Spiritualization of technology through Dharma. Technology and science should not develop "by themselves" for the sake of profit or power. Their goal is to serve the highest ethical laws (in the author's terminology — the laws of Dharma), that is, to bring the greatest good and preserve the spiritual foundations of society. This is a response to the risk that you previously identified: that technological progress does not destroy the human, spiritual principle.
• Technology as a tool for spiritual growth, not a substitute for it. AI, neurointerfaces, and biotechnologies are tools for increasing awareness, organizing the wisdom of traditions, and supporting practices, but they cannot replace personal spiritual experience, conscience, and faith. The machine is neither self-aware nor capable of making a genuine moral choice.
• The principle of "ethical singularity". The speed of technological development outstrips moral and legal norms. Technobudism requires putting ethical "protocols" in algorithms and institutions in advance: not just limiting technologies, but embedding value orientations in them to avoid disruptive scenarios.
• Synthesis of traditions and science. It is based on combining ideas from different spiritual systems (Vedas, Christianity, Taoism, etc.) with the scientific method and engineering. This is expressed in the author's category of "dharmanauka": knowledge and methods must be not only effective, but also morally sound.
• Dharmapolitics and social architecture. The principle also extends to governance: institutions, cities, the economy, and even the urban environment are designed to support morality, collective practices, and service to the common good. Hence the Pravdaria project as a model of civilization, where truth and ethics are the basis of technology and social relations.
• Collective spiritual practices as a factor of social change. Not only personal work is important, but also coordinated actions of the society — for example, "World Day of Spiritual Unity". According to Lermontov, such practices can change social trends and influence historical turning points.
• Space as an internal and external project. Space exploration begins with the "space inside": the development of consciousness and ethics is the basis for real space travel. Technologies here serve not only instrumentally, but also symbolically: architecture, transport, and energy are designed as spaces that remind us of higher meanings.
• Multi-dimensionality of reality. The world is understood not only as a physical system, but also as a space of meanings and moral dimensions. The future society should take into account all levels — material, social, semantic and "subtle" (spiritual) "and don't sacrifice some for others.
________________________________________
In essence, "technobudism" is a metaphor that describes an approach in which:
• Technologies (AI, biotechnologies, neuroscience) are no longer just tools for solving utilitarian tasks.
• They begin to consciously serve higher ethical and spiritual goals. Lermontov draws on ideas from different traditions (Vedas, Christianity, Taoism, etc.), combining them into what he calls "dharman science".
• There is a new type of attitude to technology: it does not replace spiritual experience (Lermontov emphasizes that the machine has no self-consciousness or faith), but becomes an assistant — for example, to analyze sacred texts, create tools for meditation, or systematize knowledge about the meaning of life.
Context and related ideas
This is part of a larger project. Lermontov develops the idea of "Pravdaria" - a model of civilization where technology, culture and social environment are built in such a way as to support spiritual practices and lead people to harmony. He also talks about "dharmapolitics" — introducing spiritual principles into politics and governance so that decisions are made with "truth" and the common good in mind.
We should also mention the concept of "ethical singularity". Lermontov describes a situation where technologies are developing so fast that the old moral and legal norms can no longer cope with them. A gap is emerging: new dilemmas are emerging (AI rights, genome editing) for which society does not yet have adequate answers. "Technobudism" in this context is an attempt to offer an answer: to consciously lay new, more harmonious foundations, so as not to let development take its course.

MANIFESTO OF " TECHNOBUDISM:
Technobudism vs technofascism. Two future scenarios:
 "Awakening or control?"
________________________________________
We live in an era when technology determines not only our everyday life, but also the very essence of a person. The speed of progress is such that society does not have time to comprehend the moral consequences of each step. We have two paths ahead of us. One leads to total control, where the individual becomes a function of the system. The other is the awakening of consciousness, where the technique serves the highest good and preserves the spiritual core of the individual.
We choose the second way. We are supporters of technobudism.
________________________________________
Scenario one: Technofascism— Order through submission
Technofascismis a fusion of power, technology, and the ideology of control. Its signs are already visible everywhere: digital ratings, algorithms that predict and correct behavior, surveillance systems that turn freedom into an illusion. In this model, a person is not a goal, but a metric: their value is measured by their usefulness to the system, and dissent is suppressed as a "risk".
Such a scenario erases the uniqueness of the individual, replacing conscience and faith with efficiency and manageability. It contradicts the very idea of a person created in the image and likeness - as a carrier of freedom, meaning and moral choice.
________________________________________
Scenario Two: Technobudism— the Future through Awakening
Technobudism (as understood by Vladimir Lermontov) — it's an ethical response to the challenge of time. This is not a rejection of technology, but a moral understanding of it. Its essence is that technology should serve the awakening of consciousness and the common good, not power and profit.
Key principles of our choice:
• A person is the center and goal. Technology does not replace conscience, faith, or personal spiritual experience. They only increase awareness and help to scale the good.
• Ethics as a protocol. We demand that algorithms, AI, and digital platforms must initially have moral guidelines. This is the "ethical singularity": an advanced ethical design that prevents progress from outstripping morality.
• Synthesis of traditions and science. We combine the wisdom of spiritual systems (Vedas, Christianity, Taoism, etc.) with the scientific method and engineering. This is our path to "dharmanauka— - knowledge that is not only effective, but also morally grounded.
• Architecture of mindfulness. Cities, transportation, and public spaces must support morality and collective practices, not just convenience. The Pravdaria project is our image of such a civilization.
• Collective intention as the power of history. We believe that coordinated spiritual practices can change social trends and influence historical turning points. Hence the idea of a "World Day of Spiritual Unity".
________________________________________
Why is this important right now
The speed of technological change outstrips the ability of society to develop moral norms. If we don't set the ethical vector today, the control system will become "natural" by default tomorrow. Technobudism is an insurance policy: it allows you to move forward without losing the main thing-human and spiritual.
________________________________________
Practical steps
We suggest that you act not in theory, but in specific projects:
1. Embed ethical protocols inAI technical specifications and digital services. Each algorithm must pass a moral examination.
2. Design "mindfulness architecture" in cities and public spaces. Light, rhythm, shapes, and silence can all support awakening, not just consumption.
3. Support collective intention practices. "World Day of Spiritual Unity" is a simple but powerful form of social consensus around higher meanings.
4. Create a language and vocabulary for public discussions. Such concepts as" ethical singularity","dharmanauka", and"dharmapolitics" should become part of the public discourse.
5. Create platforms for the dialog. Conferences, virtual forums, presentations and speeches are a way to bring an alternative and gather like-minded people.
________________________________________
Call to Action
Awakening or control? This is not an abstract philosophical question — it is a choice that we make every day: designing a system, formulating a task for AI, voting for a particular urban project, participating in public discussion.
We do not accept the control scenario as an inevitability. We are designing a future in which technology serves to awaken, not replace, conscience.
We choose the path of a conscious future.
We choose technobudism.
________________________________________

"Humanity is faced with a choice between two scenarios: control through technology or awakening through technology. We call for the principle of "ethical singularity" to be enshrined in international documents: advanced moral design of technological systems."
Technobudism is not about rejecting progress, but about ensuring that progress serves a person and his higher meanings."

PART 3
discussion
________________________________________
Moderator Question To Alexander Dugin:
Who will help you use artificial intelligence for the benefit of Russia? You talk a lot about the importance of live communication, that the Internet should be used more consciously. What do you think a healthy model of society's relationship with digital technologies and artificial intelligence should look like in the coming years?
Alexander Dugin:
— This is a big philosophical problem. The fact is that AI in the state and quality in which it is now is a very dangerous thing, since artificial intelligence can easily displace natural intelligence. In many ways, it simply exceeds the intellectual capabilities of the average person.

In a sense, artificial intelligence is a model of what natural intelligence should be. This is the first one. But this is also a huge danger, because people who think poorly, little, and not intensely enough can simply become slaves to this artificial intelligence.

I would like to point out that there is an interesting process in Silicon Valley right now: programmers are being cut in half because artificial intelligence is doing their job. And at the same time, philosophers are urgently hired, which no one has cared about for many decades in the West. And suddenly they are called for precisely because the philosopher is only capable of thinking about what thought is, thinking about how to think.
Therefore, I think that we also need to radically change the structure of philosophical education. Very many institutions that deal with philosophy do not meet the current challenges at all. We need philosophers to make positive use of the enormous opportunities of artificial intelligence that are opening up for us, for our society. But not as some museum workers, but as active modules of our civilizational sovereignty.

To be honest, we have practically failed Russian philosophy. And the problem of artificial intelligence requires a philosophical dialogue.

The philosopher is the only one who can communicate on equal terms with AI today, because everyone else will definitely lose to him. A philosopher may or may not lose.
***

Moderator: Let's start the discussion:
Vladimir Putin (emphasis on sovereignty, traditional values, personal security)
"Thank you, Vladimir Lermontov, for the extremely clear statement of the question. You have shown two vectors, and the difference between them is not in technology, but in relation to the person.
In the logic of technofascism, a person is a profile, metric, or managed object. This approach is unacceptable for us. Individual sovereignty, privacy protection, and freedom of moral choice are basic values that we must preserve at any level of digitalization.
Your interpretation of technobudism offers an alternative: technology as a tool for strengthening the moral foundations of society, not as a means of control. Especially important is the idea of the "ethical singularity" — to put moral principles in algorithms at the design stage. This is not slowing down progress, but risk management.
Russia consistently supports international rules in the digital sphere, where human rights and ethical norms are not an option, but a prerequisite. I support the proposal to consolidate the principle of proactive ethical design in documents, including at the UN and BRICS platforms."
________________________________________
Narendra Modi (emphasis on dharma, traditions, practical implementation)
"Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Your concept of "technobudism" resonates deeply with the Indian understanding of dharma as the law of righteous action that should guide both science and government.
We in India see how technology can serve society: digital platforms for education, healthcare, and support for farmers. But we also see risks when technology begins to dictate behavior and form a " rating personality."
The idea of "AI in the service of Dharma" is clear to us: it is not a religious dogma, but an ethical standard where technology enhances justice and inclusivity. Pravdaria Project as a model of a civilization where truth and ethics are at the heart of technology, this is a strong image.
I suggest you think about pilot initiatives within the BRICS framework: for example, ethical review of algorithms for social services, as well as the promotion of "Dharmapolitics" as an approach to management, where the long-term good is more important than short-term efficiency."
________________________________________
Elon Musk (emphasis on engineering, AI risks, scaling solutions)
"I appreciate that you don't offer to give up technology. This is important: progress cannot be stopped, but it can be directed.
From an engineer's point of view, the idea of an "ethical singularity" sounds like a TK: if we are designing systems that will affect billions of people, then ethical protocols should be part of the architecture, not an add-on.
The problem is that today ethics often appear after the product is released. But you need it to be in the code, in metrics, and in the team's KPIs.
As for the "architecture of mindfulness": it is interesting to think about how interfaces, cities, interfaces of neurointerfaces can not only speed up actions, but also give a person pause, the opportunity to choose. This is a complex engineering task, but it is precisely such projects that determine the future.
I am ready to consider joint pilots: for example, the introduction of ethical metrics inAI systems and open benchmarks for evaluating the" ethical footprint " of algorithms."
________________________________________
Peter Thiel (emphasis on efficiency, elites, long-term planning)
"You put the question as a moral choice, and rightly so. But in the real world, decisions are made in a time-and resource-constrained environment.
Technofascism in the form you describe is extreme, but technobudism also технобудизмrequires a very clear structure: who sets the ethical framework, how it is tested, and how it is scaled.
If we are talking about "Dharmapolitics", then the key issue is institutional: how to make sure that these principles do not remain beautiful words, but become mandatory for large platforms and states.
The idea of "collective intent"is interesting as a factor of history. In the long run, it is the meanings that determine the sustainability of systems. But without enforcement and enforcement mechanisms, even the most correct ideas don't work.
I support the idea of international standards, but with a caveat: they should be operational, measurable and verifiable."
________________________________________
Alexander Dugin (emphasis on metaphysics, civilizational choice, meaning)
"Your report is not just futurology, but a metaphysical alternative.
Technofascismis a cult of efficiency, where a person is reduced to a function. Technobudism is an attempt to return a person to his true dimension: spiritual, semantic, sacred.
It is especially valuable that you do not oppose science and tradition, but seek their synthesis through "dharmanauka". This is the way to preserve the identity of civilizations in the era of technology globalization.
The Pravdaria project is an image of a "civilization of meaning" where technology serves truth, not illusion. This is exactly the vector that the world needs: not control, but awakening."
________________________________________
Antonio Guterres (emphasis on global governance, human rights, inclusivity)
"The conference raises one of the main challenges of the XXI century: how to preserve human dignity in an era of rapid technological development.
The UN has consistently advocated that digital technologies serve people, not the other way around. Therefore, the idea of an "ethical singularity" and proactive design of moral protocols is fully consistent with our priorities.
It is important that these standards are universal and take into account the diversity of cultures. "Dharmapolitics" in your understanding is the search for a common ethical language that can become the basis for international norms.
We will support the promotion of this agenda on UN platforms, including the development of recommendations on ethical expertise of AI and digital platforms."
________________________________________
Sergey Pereslegin (emphasis on system design, scenarios, risk management)
"From the point of view of futurology, you offer not just an alternative, but a full-fledged scenario framework.
Technofascismis a "control at all costs" scenario where efficiency is more important than meaning. Technobudism is a scenario of "conscious development", where meaning and ethics are not an ornament, but a supporting structure.
The key element is the "ethical singularity". If we don't implement these principles now, it will be more expensive and more difficult to adjust the system later.
Practical advice: you need to formalize these principles in the form of technical specifications for technology projects. For example, enter the "ethical footprint factor" as a mandatory parameter in project documents. This will allow us to compare projects not only in terms of efficiency, but also in terms of sustainability."
________________________________________
Vardan Baghdasaryan (emphasis on historical memory, identity, social architecture)
"Your idea of the' mindfulness architecture ' is very important. The urban environment forms consciousness: rhythm, light, silence, public spaces - all this either supports awakening, or encourages consumption and automatism.
The Pravdaria project is interesting precisely as an attempt to design an environment that fosters morality. This is not a utopia, but a completely feasible task, if you put it in urban planning standards.
I also support the idea of the "World Day of Spiritual Unity" as a practice that can become an assembly point for different cultures and traditions."
________________________________________
Moderator's closing remarks
"We heard different positions, but the participants agree on the main thing: the future of technology should be determined not only by efficiency, but also by moral principles.
The conference offers a specific vector: advanced ethical design, "ethical singularity", "mindfulness architecture", "AI in the service of Dharma".
It was decided to prepare a resolution with recommendations for implementing these principles on international platforms, as well as launch pilot projects within the BRICS and expert communities.
I would like to thank all the participants for their informative dialogue. Let this conversation be a step towards a future where technology serves to awaken, not control."
________________________________________
Moderator "We heard the arguments. We heard the calculations. But now I ask: let's say what hurts. Not as politicians or engineers. As people who understand that if we make a mistake in this choice, there will be no one to correct it. Vladimir Lermontov, you have started this conversation. Tell: what is the most fragile part of this "technology plus awakening" formula? What's the easiest thing to break?"
________________________________________
Vladimir Lermontov
"The most fragile thing is the silence inside a person. Not the absence of noise, but the ability to stop and ask yourself, " Why?“
Today, technology has learned to fill any pause. They don't let us be alone for a second. But it is in this silence that conscience is born. It is there that a person hears not algorithms, but his own moral voice.
Technofascism is when silence is declared the enemy. When every second of "inactivity" is considered a loss of efficiency, and every uncomputed meaning is considered a risk. And then the person begins to optimize as a detail.
And technobudismis the protection of this silence. This is the right to pause. The right to doubt. The right to say ," I do not know, but I feel that this is wrong."
We must build cities, interfaces, timetables, and laws so that they leave a person space for internal breathing. Not because it is "cute", but because without this breath, a person ceases to be a person. Without this, the very truth that you spoke about disappears: a person created in the image and likeness-as a carrier of meaning, and not as a metric.
And yes, it's fragile. Very. Because silence is not profitable. It cannot be measured by KPIs. It is easy to declare it "ineffective". But it is the basis of everything."
________________________________________
Donald Trump (sharply, with a characteristic intonation, as if challenging invisible opponents)
"I know what you mean. I saw it. In big cities, in corporations, in the media — everywhere, silence is considered a weakness. And strength is speed, pressure, and control.
But power without a soul is just destruction. I've built buildings, I've managed big teams, and I know that if people don't have an inner core, if they can't stop and say, "Stop, we're doing something wrong," then even the most powerful machine sooner or later collapses.
You're talking about an " ethical singularity." I will put it simply: we need people who are not afraid to say "no" to the system. We need leaders who put morality above ratings.
America wasn't great because it counted faster than anyone else. It was because she believed in something more than numbers. And if we allow technology to erase this belief, we will lose the very essence of the country. I am in favor of technology serving a person, and not turning him into a cog."
________________________________________
Alexander Prokhanov (voice thick, almost theatrical, filled with images)
"We live in an era where the world is becoming flat. Everything is measured, everything is calculated, everything is adjusted to one ruler. And this line is not a conscience, but a profit.
Technofascismis not just about control. This is the destruction of the secret. And man is a mystery. It contains things that are not amenable to algorithms: love, pain, feat, prayer.
If we allow machines to determine what is right and what is wrong, we will kill this mystery. We will turn the world into a sterile laboratory, where everything is calculated, but nothing lives.
Technobudism in your understanding is an attempt to preserve this secret. This is the protection of the irrational, mystical, spiritual principle in a person. And this is not a weakness. This is the greatest power we have.
We need to build not just cities, but temples. Not just interfaces, but spaces where a person can meet eternity. Even if it sounds like poetry — this is the real engineering of the future."
________________________________________
Xi Jinping (calm, reserved, but with inner firmness)
"In the Chinese tradition, there is a concept of "harmony of heaven and man." It means that development should not disrupt the internal balance.
Technology is a tool. But the tool should not become a master.
In China, we see how digitalization can serve society: improve education, medicine, and communication between people. But we also see the danger when technology begins to dictate how to think and feel.
The idea of the "mindfulness architecture" is close to me. A city is not just about roads and buildings. This is the atmosphere, mood, rhythm of life. It should help a person to maintain inner peace, and not destroy it.
Therefore, I support the proposal for international ethical standards. But standards should not just be declarations. They should be embedded in the technology structure itself. And we are ready to participate in this work."
________________________________________
Elon Musk (a little quieter, almost thoughtfully, without the usual assertiveness)
"You know, when you build rockets, you learn to respect the limits. There is a limit to the strength of the metal. There is an engine thrust limit. There is a limit beyond which the system breaks.
But for some reason we decided that the human psyche, morality, and soul have no limits. What we can speed up, compress, and optimize infinitely.
This is a mistake. A person has his own "ultimate strength". And if we exceed it, the system will also break — only it will not be a rocket, but a civilization.
I believe in progress. But progress without morality is a road to nowhere. So the idea of an "ethical singularity" is not an abstraction for me. This is an engineering challenge: how to make algorithms not only consider, but also respect human dignity.
Let's try it. Let's start small: with a single project, where ethics will not be an addition, but the basis."
________________________________________
Peter Thiel (coldly, but with genuine interest).
"You talk about morality, about silence, about the soul. And I understand why this is important. But in the real world, ideas only live when they have a survival mechanism.
How can we ensure that these principles are not replaced by more aggressive, more profitable models?
Perhaps the answer is to create an alternative infrastructure. Platforms, networks, and cities where these rules are not a recommendation, but a prerequisite. Where violation of ethical protocols will mean loss of access to resources.
It's difficult. It is expensive. But if we do not create such an alternative, we will simply be swept away by those who do not put any restrictions.
I am ready to discuss specific models. Not slogans. And working systems where morale is not a weakness, but a competitive advantage."
________________________________________
Vardan Baghdasaryan (with a deep personal intonation)
"When I think about the future, I think about children. About how they will grow up in this world.
Will they be able to stay silent and listen? Will they know that there are things that can't be bought and can't be counted?
Or will they grow up in a world where every thought is a click, every feeling is a metric, and every pause is a waste of time?
The Pravdaria project is important precisely because it says that the future is not about speed. The future is depth. This is the ability to see the meaning behind the numbers.
And if we don't protect this depth now, then it will be too late. Because children who have grown up in a world without silence will not be able to create it.
So I suggest that we start with education. Let's teach children not only how to use technology, but also how to understand its value. We will teach them to ask the question: "Why?“»
________________________________________
Moderator's final speech (slowly, with pauses, letting the words settle)
"Today we were not talking about technology. We were talking about a person. About its right to be more than a function. About his right to hear silence. About his right to choose not according to the algorithm, but according to conscience.
Two scenarios: control or wake up. And the choice is ours.
The Conference adopts a resolution: start small, but start now.
1. Create an international working group on the "ethical singularity" to develop standards that will be embedded in the design of technologies.
2. Launch a pilot project "Architecture of Mindfulness" in one of the cities — with special attention to light, rhythm, silence and public spaces.
3. Develop an educational program for schoolchildren and students about the moral aspects of technology.
4. Hold a "World Day of Spiritual Unity" as a practice of collective intention.
Let it be more than just a document. Let this be the beginning of the journey. Paths where technology serves to awaken, not control.
Thanks everyone. Let this choice be our common cause."
________________________________________
Vladimir Putin (voice firm, but without pathos-as if talking about the most important thing)
"I listened to today's words - both about silence, and about mystery, and about children. And I think the most accurate word here is "saving".
We have to save the person. Not as a unit in statistics, not as a profile in a database, but as a person who has the right to inner peace, to doubt, to conscience.
Yes, we are building digital platforms, developing AI, and speeding up processes. But if in the pursuit of speed we erase this human depth — we lose the meaning of all work.
Therefore, I support the idea of the "mindfulness architecture" not as a beautiful metaphor, but as a practical standard. Let a separate section appear in urban planning and technological standards: "Space for a person". Where silence, light, rhythm, and the ability to stop and think are always taken into account.
And one more thing. We often talk about the sovereignty of States. But there is also the sovereignty of the individual — his right to privacy, to freedom from obsessive optimization, not to be the object of constant calculation. This sovereignty must be defended as firmly as territorial sovereignty.
Russia is ready to become a platform for a pilot project on the "ethical singularity". Let it be not an abstraction, but real technical tasks, real regulations, real checks. So that ethics is not an afterword to the project, but its foundation."
________________________________________
Narendra Modi (speaking calmly, but with confidence and warmth — as if addressing a huge audience)
"Today I heard something very important: the future is not about speed. The future is depth.
In India, we know that even the fastest train cannot pass where there are no rails. And rails are values. This is the dharma. This is the understanding that progress without morality is a movement into the void.
The idea of "AI in the service of Dharma" is not just a phrase for me. This is the practical way. We can teach algorithms not only to predict behavior, but also to support good deeds: to help in education, in health care, in supporting families and communities.
Especially important is what Vardan Baghdasaryan said about children. We need to raise a generation that can not only push buttons, but also ask questions: "Why?", "Is this correct?", "Who will benefit from this?".
India is ready to offer a pilot educational program for schoolchildren: "Technology and Morality". We will combine modern methods with our traditions, where respect for life, for nature, for elders is not just words, but the basis of education.
And I support the idea of a " World Day of Spiritual Unity." Once a month, on the 15th, let the whole world pause for a moment to remember: we are not just technology users. We are people who have a soul, a conscience, and a shared responsibility for the planet.
Let this day become an assemblage point: when different cultures, different religions, different political views say one thing-that a person is more important than algorithms."
________________________________________
Alexander Dugin (voice sounds like a sentence and a prophecy at the same time, it contains the weight of centuries)
"What we are discussing now is not an engineering problem, nor even a political one. This is a battle for anthropological meaning.
Technofascismis not just about control. This is the project of a new person: a person-function, a person-algorithm, a person who has been deprived of the right to secrecy, to silence, to an inner voice. It should be transparent, predictable, and manageable. For this system, conscience is a bug, and prayer is a failure.
And technobudism in the interpretation of Vladimir Lermontov is a defense of the image of man as a metaphysical being. Yes, we accept technology. But we absolutely refuse to accept the idea that technology can rewrite human nature itself.
Pravdaria project and the Future concept Plus“ is not utopias. This is an attempt to keep civilization from falling into the abyss of post-humanity. We must build cities, institutions, and digital platforms so that they remind people of their higher purpose. Not to "optimize" it, but to elevate it.
And here I want to say directly: if we do not consolidate these principles now, then in one or two generations the issue will be removed from the agenda as "outdated". Because a new type of consciousness will appear, brought up by algorithms, for which freedom and secrecy will seem something archaic, even dangerous.
Therefore, I insist that the conference resolution should have a rigid philosophical core. Not just "ethics in technology", but the protection of anthropological sovereignty. The right of a person to remain a human being-not by biological characteristics, but by meaning, spirit, and secret. This is something that cannot be delegated to machines."
________________________________________
Sergey Pereslegin (speaking in measured tones, like a man who is used to dividing disasters into stages and seeing where else he can turn)
"I hear a lot of strong words about the soul, about mystery, about meaning. And I don't reject them. But as a futurologist and designer, I must translate these meanings into the language of scenarios and risks.
Let's look at the numbers. The speed of AI development is such that every 18 months we get a doubling of computing power. And the speed of developing moral standards is linear at best. In other words, the gap between what we can do and what we have the right to do is growing exponentially.
This means that the "ethical singularity" is not a beautiful metaphor, but a mathematically inevitable crisis. If we don't put ethical protocols in the technology architecture right now, then they will have to be "stretched" on top of already working systems. And this always leads to failures, conflicts and disasters.
I don't offer abstract declarations, but a concrete scenario plan:
1. "Coefficient of the ethical footprint". For any technological project, we must calculate not only economic efficiency, but also anthropological risk: how much this technology reduces the space of freedom, silence, and personal choice. This should be the same mandatory metric as ROI or TCO.
2. "Red lines". It is necessary to record a list of actions that the AI should not perform under any circumstances: for example, to make decisions about the fate of a person without the participation of a live judge, to form ratings of citizens, to change basic social norms.
3. "Sandboxes of the future". Pilot projects where these principles work not on paper, but in real conditions: a smart city with the priority of silence and rhythm, an educational platform where AI helps students formulate questions, and does not give ready-made answers.
We can't stop progress. But we can set a trajectory for it. And if we don't, the trajectory will be set by others — and it will be aimed at control, not at awakening.
Therefore, I support the resolution. But please make it as specific as possible: with metrics, deadlines, and those responsible. Because there is no "then" in the story. There is only 'now'."
________________________________________
Representative of China (on behalf of the delegation, in a calm but firm tone, based on the Confucian -Taoist tradition)
"We listened carefully. And I want to say: there is a very precise understanding in Chinese thought — technology should serve harmony, and not destroy it.
Confucius said: if words don't match deeds, people don't know where to go. This sounds particularly acute today. If technologies promise "convenience", but deprive a person of the right to think, to pause, to respect for tradition-this is not progress, it is a substitute.
We see how in cities built on the principle of "maximum efficiency", the space for silence disappears. The place where the old man can sit in the shade disappears, where the child can just look at the clouds. But it is in these simple things that culture lives.
Therefore, China supports the idea of" mindfulness architecture " not as a philosophical abstraction, but as an urban planning standard. We are ready to offer a pilot site: a city where the design standards will include mandatory "zones of silence", "rhythmic spaces" and "places of memory" - so that the architecture reminds of the connection of generations.
Separately, we support the principle of "ethical singularity". Our technological regulations already have requirements for the transparency of algorithms and the protection of personal data. But now we propose to expand these norms by adding an assessment of the anthropological impact — that is, how technology affects human dignity, family values, and cultural identity.
And one more thing. We don't want to contrast "control" and "freedom" as absolutes. For us, "responsibility" is more important. The government's responsibility to the people, the engineer's responsibility to society, and the developer's responsibility to future generations. It is this principle that we propose to lay the foundation for the international code of digital ethics."
________________________________________
Representative of India (on behalf of the intellectual and academic elite, with a deep intonation, almost like a blessing)
"When I listened to the words about 'silence within a person', I was reminded of an ancient saying from the Upanishads: 'In silence, truth is revealed.'
For India, this is not just a beautiful phrase. This is a practical principle. We know that the awakening of consciousness is not an event, but a process. And technology can either accelerate it or disrupt it.
Today, we see digital platforms turning attention into a commodity. They fight for every second of our consciousness, without asking if we want to give it away. This is a form of covert control: not through the police, but through an endless stream of incentives that keep us from stopping to think.
Therefore, the concept of "AI in the service of Dharma" for us is not a metaphor, but a program of action. We propose to create an "ethical laboratory" at one of the leading Indian universities, where algorithms will undergo not only technical, but also moral expertise. For example, to assess whether the system promotes the development of compassion, respect for elders, care for nature — or, conversely, encourages aggression, consumerism, and separation.
We also support the idea of a "World Day of Spiritual Unity". Let it be not just a symbolic gesture, but a monthly global practice: on this day, digital platforms voluntarily reduce the level of stimulation, turn off intrusive notifications, and offer people simple mindfulness rituals — a minute of silence, a conversation with the family, a walk without a phone.
And most importantly, we must return education to its original purpose - not just to impart knowledge, but to build character. Therefore, India offers an international educational initiative: "School for a Conscious Future". It will use technology not to monitor academic performance, but to support independent thinking and develop the ability to ask questions.
Let this path — the path of technobudism— become a common cause of civilizations. Because a future in which a person remains a person is the only future worth building."
________________________________________

AHAM