I hope I needn’t discuss synergetics at length in this group of global studies-majoring students.

The progress in biopolitics has also been promoted by recent political phenomena including ethnic conflicts, international terrorism (including bio-terrorism), and the formation of environment-centered and bioethical political movements.

Lecture 3

A number of international organizations and centers (e.g., the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, the Biopolitics International Organization, and the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research) deal with biopolitics or at least some of its subfields. These organizations are listed in this picture:

• The Association for Politics and Life Sciences (APLS) set up in the 1970s. Initially, it reflected the attitude of political scientists (A. Somit, S. Peterson, and R. Masters). At present, it deals with an almost complete spectrum of biopolitical subfields that are on the agenda of annual conferences of the Association. Some Association representatives are also members of other biopolitical organization. The Association publishes the journal entitled Politics and the Life Sciences. The website address is: http://www.hass.us.edu/~apls

• The Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research. Founded in 1981. The headquarters are situated in the USA (Portola Valley, CA), and a branch office is in Germany. Directed by Prof Margaret Gruter and Prof. Roger Masters. The organization chiefly deals with the legal and criminal aspects of biopolitics. Emphasis is placed upon physiological (particularly neurological) factors involved in committing crimes, the practical methods of reducing delinquency, and legal issues related to environmental protection. The website address is: http://www.gruterinstitute.org

• The Institute for Studies of Complex Systems (ISCS) founded in 1994 in the USA (Palo-Alto, CA). Headed by Prof. Peter Corning. In terms of systems theory, attempts have been made to conceptualize human beings and human society as the products of the process of “teleonomic evolution” common to all life forms and to develop “evolutionary/functional approaches to complexity”. The website is http://www. complexsystems.org.

• The Biopolitics International Organization (B.I.O.) whose center is located in Athens (Greece). It was founded in 1985 by Agni Vlavianos-Arvanitis. B.I.O. has enrolled representatives from over one hundred countries including Russia. Under its auspices, the International University for the Bio-Environment (I.U.B.E.) has been established. The organization develops a biocentric approach to the bios (biosphere)-humankind system and focuses upon the practical dimensions of biopolitics (biopolicies) dealing with efforts to protect the manifold of life on the planet, genetic technologies, bioethics, bio-esthetics, and other aspects of HCB. B.I.O. publishes the Bio-News newspaper and distributes it in the electronic form. Its website address is: http://www.biopolitics.gr

The Club of Biopolitics (CB) established at Moscow State University under the guidance of the Moscow Society of Natural Scientists. The goals of the Club include designing and implementing an educational strategy aimed at increasing the awareness in the field of biopolitics of various social groups including politicians, business people, educators, doctors, lawyers, and youth activists); developing a coherent system of biological education and conducting discussions on educational issues; and developing and promoting recommendations and suggestions concerning bio- and social technologies aimed at (i) protecting the environment, (ii) improving the physical and mental health as well as the social situation of Russian citizens, (iii) rehabilitating the victims of stress situations including psycho traumas and somatic diseases, (iv) mitigating conflicts on various level of society; (v) promoting mutual understanding between different ethnic and social groups, and (vi) making good use of biopolitical projects such as the creation of non-hierarchical network structures in society. The websites are http://biopolitila.ru (click: Club of Biopolitics) or http://moipros.ru.

At this point, I’d like to revisit the subject of my previous lecture – the one I gave one week ago – and re-emphasize that a pressing problem presently faced by humankind is that a majority of people around the globe are still ignorant of biology and its socially and politically relevant subfields ranging from ecology to neurology and genetics. This global lack of biological wherewithal exerts a negative influence on the decision-making processes employed by political leaders and political elites. This ignorance of the social and political implications of the present-day life sciences can result in missed opportunities and cause unwanted risks. For instance, politically important issues such as the use of genetically modified food and the cloning of animals (and, prospectively, humans) require sufficient knowledge of genetic engineering, including its social implications. A general understanding of ecology is mandatory for coping with the problems of overpopulation and environmental pollution. The main goal of this book is to help us fill this gap by familiarizing the readers with new biological data and concepts that are of obvious political interest as well as political ideas and practices that deal with biological issues. Taken together, we will use the term biopolitics to refer to these recent biological and political developments.

Biopolitics is a peculiar “Centaur” with a biological body and a political head. To reiterate, it includes all kinds of interactions between the life sciences and politics, including both the political potential of biology and the biological implications of politics (and this is my definition of biopolitics). This definition implies a bilateral interaction between Biology and Politics, i.e. P ↔ B. It should be noted that a majority of biopoliticians prefer less general definitions of biopolitics. Generally speaking, interpretations of biopolitics suggested in the literature can be subdivided into the two groups discussed below.

Some scholars concentrate on the B↔ P pathway. In their view, one should “use biological concepts, with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory at the center, and biological research techniques to study, explain, predict, and sometimes even to prescribe political behavior” (Somit & Peterson, 2011, p. 3; similar definitions were given in: Somit & Peterson, 1998, p. 559 and Somit & Peterson, 2001, p. 181)”. I hope I needn’t discuss the theory of evolution in detail here. I assume you are to an extent familiar with it, thanks to both high school and the University.

Suffice to say that this branch of biopolitics focuses on universal forms of behavior of human individuals that exist regardless of their culture, ethnicity, and epoch. These include “the capacity for language, attraction between the sexes, the mother-child bond, facial expressions, and male cooperation in warfare” (de Waal, 1996a, p. B1) that involve not only cultural factors but also our evolutionary legacy. We’ll get back to these primal behaviour forms during one of the following lectures.

Let us now turn to P → B biopolitics.

As mentioned during the previous lecture, this type of interpretation was suggested by Michel Foucault and elaborated on by his followers (Agamben, Lazzarato, Negri, Hardt, and others) who emphasized the impact of the political system on the biology of the humans involved. The biopower, or biopolitics, exercised by the political system of a state includes regulatory measures aimed at optimizing the biological characteristics and the work capacity of the population or, at least, maintaining them within the normal limits. “Society’s control over individuals was accomplished not only through consciousness or ideology but also in the body and with the body. For capitalist society, it was biopolitics, the biological, the corporal, that mattered more than anything else” (Foucault, 2000, p. 137).

The role of biopower/biopolitics was further dramatized in Giorgio Agamben’s writings. He distinguished between bare life and political existence (legal status), which correspond to the Greek terms ή and ίς, respectively. The political system deprives some individuals or groups of legal protection, reducing them to bare life. “The original political relation is the ban” (Agamben, 1998, p. 181). This is exemplified by outlaws in the ancient Rome that were called Homo sacer. They were considered worthy of death but banned from legal execution; any citizen could kill them with impunity. As for modern society, Agamben regards a camp (particularly, a concentration camp) as “the hidden paradigm of “its “political space”, i.e., a line drawn by biopower and separating bare life and political existence.

Importantly, the biopower exerts its influence on ordinary citizens like you and me at five different levels:

1. Biobehavioral level using primate-style dominance cues or coalition-forming behavior for political purposes such as gaining support with potential electors

2. Genetic level which implicates modifying the genome of our offspring in order, e.g., to make them more obedient, obese (“chubby”), docile, and law-abiding

3. Neurochemical level such as using chemicals for instigating people to become brave soldiers on ther battle field

4. Microbiological level: putting neuromediator-producing bugs into your guts for the purpose of making you work hard and keep smiling all the time

5. Ecological level: modifying the environment in order to change our behavior: exemplified by spreading heavy metal compounds in the atmosphere, which makes people more aggressive and impulsive

The Foucauldian concepts of biopolitics and biopower were modified by Maurizio Lazzarato, Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, and others. Unlike Foucault, these scholars did not regard these two terms as synonyms. In their opinion, the control exercised by the state political system over the biology of the citizens/subjects—a “form of power that regulates social life from its interior, following it, interpreting it, absorbing it, and rearticulating it”—is to be denoted as biopower (Hardt & Negri, 2000, p. 23). As for biopolitics, it primarily refers to resistance to biopower, a vivid and creative force that biopower tries to harness.

This resistance on the political front—biopolitics sensu Hardt & Negri—is exemplified by movements organized by homosexuals, lesbians, blacks' rights activists, and the disabled. In 1976, the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) was established in Great Britain. They denounced rating certain groups of people as “disabled” as a social attitude that implied oppression, as emphasized in Michael Oliver’s work (1990). Biopolitically active disabled people “demanded an end to the discrimination and oppression that disabled people confront by virtue of the fact that their bodies, behaviours, identities, and modes of communication and motility do not conform to prevalent social norms, standards, and ideals” (quoted according to Tremain, 2008, p. 103).

In the three recent books of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri about “the Empire,” biopolitics is construed to comprise anti-capitalist political activities. The human body is considered a weapon in this political struggle, which, “in its most tragic and revolting form,” includes suicidal terrorism (Hardt and Negri, 2005).

Biopolitics is applied to three different levels:

• Social philosophy as related to politics

• Political science (including political philosophy as its subfield)

• Practical policy issues.

To begin with, what are the implications of biopolitics in terms of social philosophy? They basically boil down to the following main points:

• the nature of man (whether man is intrinsically good or evil, altruistic or self-centered, his nature is fixed or malleable, he is born with some innate ideas and concepts concerning the world, human society, ethics, and language—or is just a tabula rasa; whether we are rational or driven by emotions); suffice to say that the famous British philosopher John Locke believed there are no innate concepts concerning ethics and morals at all, in contrast to his more religious and devout contemporary Gottfried Leibnitz from Germany. Locke tried to prove that moral principles considered self-evident in Britain were actually disobeyed elsewhere. For instance, though it seems natural parents should take care of their children, Locke described in his book an island where some young boys were allegedly castrated, fattened up, and eaten by their parents.

• the origin and purposes of politics and the state, starting from precursors of political systems in primitive human societies or even social groups of apes; The primary goal of each political system including an ape group is just survival.

• the nature of political obligation; what law-abiding citizens must or must not do; turning to very recent events in Russia, may citizens express their opinions by organikzing demonstrations or must demonstrations be prohibited and their organizers jailed?

• the problem of creating and maintaining political order. Of relevance is the fact that nonhuman primates form both hierarchical and horizontal (egalitarian) structures; political systems use modified versions of both kinds of structures, and the proportion between them varies depending on the political regime;

• “the vision of the ideal—or best possible—state” (Somit & Peterson, 2001a, p. 189). Is there such a thing at all or is it just a figment of our uncontrollable imagination? Are we doomed to spend our lives with bad political systems and regimes? Are we ourselves responsible for improving the regime?

These perennial issues are addressed not only by biopoliticians, but biopoliticians come up with special answers to these questions, which involve the bio-evolutionary perspective.

The debate concerning these cardinal issues dates back to Plato’s lifetime. Nonetheless, in the second half of the 20^th century, this debate was influenced by important advances in the life sciences. I’d like to reemphasize ethology, which compares animal and human behavior; primatology concentrating on research with our evolutionary relatives, especially the great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans); and theory of evolution retracing the development of behaviors, among other traits, during the history of life on the Earth.

Drawing upon the results of this progress in the life sciences, biopolitics enriches our philosophical vision of human nature and human society with a biological approach to human beings and humankind as a whole. Humankind is regarded as part of the planetary diversity of life, as a product of billions of years of biological evolution. Biopolitics highlights important similarities between humans and other forms of life, particularly in terms of behavior and social structures, although it also pays much attention to the unique place of Homo sapiens in the realm of life. Human society is considered from a general biosocial perspective, as an analog of groups and societies formed by animals (especially primates). This philosophical attitude informs some of the present-day political ideas and is referred to as biological naturalism.

The philosophy of naturalism accentuates the relationship between humankind and nature, whose evolution has given rise to humankind and whose laws still influence its development. Accordingly, naturalism encourages the employment of data, concepts, and methods of natural sciences in the field of the humanities and social sciences. There are different kinds of naturalism depending on the natural science whose ideas and models are predominantly applied to human society and culture. For instance, a distinction between physical (mechanistic) and biological naturalism can be made. In this work, we focus on biological naturalism, which emphasizes the importance of evolutionary biology for understanding human behavior, psychology, and social organization. Thomas Thorson, the author of the first book entitled Biopolitics, contrasted the attitude of biological naturalism with that of physical naturalism: “Does it make more sense to understand man as a biological phenomenon with all that that implies, or to try to fit human behavior to the prediction-generalization model of nineteenth-century physics? When the question is put this way, the proper answer is, I trust, so obvious that it requires no discussion” (Thorson, 1970, p. 96).

Starting from the 1960s and 1970s, some scholars in the humanities and social sciences paid considerable attention to naturalism. In particular, a number of prominent political scientists took an interest in biology that had made sensational discoveries such as deciphering the DNA code by the early 1960s. It should be re-emphasized that political scientists were among the founders of biopolitics. In the words of Jürgen Habermas (2008, p. 1), naturalism is one of the “two countervailing trends that mark the intellectual tenor of our age,” the other one being religious views.

Some enthusiasts claim that biology is almost omnipotent with respect to the social sciences/humanities in general and political science in particular. One of the founders of sociobiology Edward Wilson (1975) argued in his famous book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis that biologists delved into the social sciences with “the credentials of the natural sciences.” Of relevance are also the views held by Steven Pinker who assumed that “history and culture [...] can be grounded in psychology, which can be grounded in computation, neuroscience, genetics and evolution” (Pinker, 2002, p. 69). Attempts to straightforwardly “explain political phenomena in biological terms” (Wilson, 1975, p. 50) were criticized in the literature as reductionism, i.e., neglecting the difference between the two types of systems compared (biological systems and human society).

Such attitudes are based upon the philosophy of hard naturalism. This philosophical paradigm existed long before the emergence of biopolitics and before the publishing of the first book on this subject by Morley Roberts in 1938. A notorious example was Social Darwinism promoted at the turn of the 20^th century (see subsection 1.3). Hard naturalism of this kind actually equated humans and animals, considering them all ruthless competitors, “red in tooth and claw” in Thomas Huxley’s words.

Social Darwinism as a version of hard naturalism became unpopular by the mid-20^th century. Nevertheless, attempts to revive hard naturalism were repeatedly made over the course of the second half of the 20^th century, exemplified by the popular books of the 1960s published by K. Lorenz (Aggression), R. Adrey (Territorial Imperative), and D. Morris (Human Zoo, The Naked Ape). “The Naked Ape” (Homo sapiens) was straightforwardly compared to other primates, the work done by civilized humans, to the collective hunting of primate males, and the wages to the “spoils” (to be shared with the female).

The other extreme attitude was based upon the assumption that biological species (“the organic”) are principally incomparable to human beings (whose culture was regarded as “superorganic” by A. Kroeber). The predominant trend in the humanities and social sciences in the 20^th century was to consider the human being just “a disembodied mind.” “The humanities and social sciences in western society developed a Weltanschauung, in which humans were completely isolated from the rest of nature and all psychological traits beyond our sensory abilities and a small number of basic, general-purpose rules guiding homeostatic behaviors were considered the product of socially constructed learning, socialization processes, and conscious reasoning” (Kappeler et al., 2010, p. 7).

In contrast to both hard naturalism and the opposite purely social attitude toward the human being, most biopoliticians prefer the middle-ground position based upon soft naturalism. Although a product of biological evolution that has undoubtedly left its marks on his behavior, Homo sapiens also possesses unique features that distinguish him from all other creatures including other higher primates (“The Big Apes”). These features were characteristic of the hominid lineage that included direct human ancestors as well as the modern human species, whose representatives, living several tens of thousands years ago, are known as the Cro-Magnon. In the first place, the uniquely human innovations such as reason, advanced culture and technology, and verbal language, were based on the exceptionally big and complex brain that was considerably improved in comparison to the structurally similar chimpanzee brain.

Therefore, equating humans and animals as well as reducing human society with its political system to animal communities should be considered unjustifiable. Presently, biopolitics adopts the idea that the human being is a multilevel system. Despite the indisputably important biological (biobehavioral) level that produces an effect on human psyche and social behavior, this multilevel system also includes a whole complex of social/cultural levels. They exert a strong influence on social behavior and political activities, as well as on the biological level itself (this is the P → B variant of biopolitics described in Foucault’s writings and in recent works on genetic engineering as applied to the human genome). Taking into account the multilevel organization of the human being, biologists should work in collaboration with social scientists to adequately interpret political phenomena. Biopoliticians advocating soft naturalism acknowledge the unique status of the human being that is endowed with reason, articulate speech and symbolic language, culture, and technology. They do not believe in Social Darwinism and reject hard naturalism. However, they assume that human nature includes a biological component. The present-day life sciences provide us with important information concerning the role of this component of human nature in terms of human social behavior, basic needs, and political activities. “We have an innate behavioral repertoire that can be used to qualify human beings as social animals” (Masters, 1989, p. 68). This point is elaborated in Chapters 2 and 3 of this work.

The essence of the biopolitical approach to man in political science is succinctly expressed in the first item of what R. H. Blank and S. M. Hines (2001, p. 20) called the Credo of Biopolitics: “The study of politics must reflect that man is an outcome of evolution. Our past is meaningful for the present and is a result of biological and cultural processes…” Behavior is envisaged by scholars in the field of biopolitics (sensu B → P) as a mixed product of “the interaction of the genotype with the environment” (Ibid.), i.e., the role played by nature (genes) as well as by nurture (environmental factors) “in shaping our social and political behavior” is acknowledged (Somit & Peterson, 2001a, p. 181).

“Homo sapiens’ social and political behavior is thus a function of the interplay between nature and nurture. For this reason, an explanation cast in purely evolutionary terms would be as seriously mistaken as the tabula rasa perspective, which looks solely at social conditions, a perspective that dominated the social and behavioral sciences for most of the twentieth century” (Somit & Peterson, 1997, p. 104). Hence, the human being is to be interpreted as a multilevel system.

Naturally, “this insistence runs directly counter… to the long-accepted” views of many mainstream political scientists “that human political behavior is learned and that possible genetically transmitted proclivities can and should be ignored” (Somit & Peterson, 2001a, pp.181-182, or Somit & Peterson, 2011, p. 6).

The applications of biopolitics at the political-science and at the practical-policy level are ultimately based upon its social-philosophy level. Naturalism that provides the philosophical foundations for biopolitics is closely linked to two practically important attitudes—a positive and a negative—towards the biological element/level of human nature. Though apparently diametrically opposite, these attitudes are actually complementary to one another and should be reasonably combined in practice:

Attitude 1. Knowledge concerning evolutionarily conserved (primitive, primate-specific) behavioral trends in humans can be creatively used to develop effective social technologies, exemplified by the network structures-promoting project (see subsection 3.2.3 below). The biological element of human nature holds, therefore, much potential practical value. A highly debatable point is to what extent it is justifiable to consider ethical/moral norms of human society from the evolutionary perspective and to envisage them (norms) as concordant with evolution-shaped behavior tendencies aimed at securing the survival of the biological species Homo sapiens.

Attitude 2. Biopolitical data regarding human behavior enables us to overcome primitive behavioral trends that can cause negative consequences or result in immoral actions unless put under control. This attitude is considered in works by some leading biopoliticians including A. Somit and S. Peterson. In their study on nonverbal communication involving primate-specific dominance and submission signals (see 2.2.3), R. Masters and B. Way (1996, p. 89) emphasize that “it is experimental research in biopolitics that shows us most clearly the danger that human language and reason will be overshadowed by feelings elicited by nonverbal cues we share with nonhuman primates.” Hence, the biological element is potentially dangerous.

Forasmuch as biopoliticians take the dual attitude toward the biological level of the multilevel human nature, they cannot be reproached with the serious sin of naturalistic fallacy, or “attempts to derive ‘ought’ statements from ‘it’ statements” (Losco, 2001, p. 164). Biopoliticians do not claim that ethically/morally right behavior should be in conformity with the behavior(s) biologists observe in nature. Depending on the situation, they either call for resisting the biobehavioral element of human nature or for using it as a kind of raw material to be creatively employed in social/political technologies including those that promote certain moral norms. Those who “seek to derive ethical and moral guidelines for political decisions from evolutionary theory” (Somit & Peterson, 2001a, p. 182) can be justified only if they do it in an indirect and cautious way.

Many primitive forms of human behavior are envisaged in terms of evolutionary psychology (see 2.1.5 below), a field related to biopolitics, as adaptations to the environmental conditions of the Pleistocene period. These behaviors may be maladaptive in the present-day civilized world. An additional reason why equating “is” with “ought” is hardly possible is that our evolutionary legacy is ambivalent and, to an extent, self-contradictory. Evolution has endowed us with potentially conflicting behavioral predispositions whose reasonable, situation-dependent, balance is vital for the species’ survival, a point emphasized below. It is not surprising that the list of our “twenty natural desires” includes “friendship” and “war,” “bonding” and “social ranking,” etc. (Arnhart, 1994). Which of the two natural tendencies, e.g., to aggression or to reconciliation, to competition or to cooperation, to establishing hierarchies or to destroying them, should be considered “morally right” and under what conditions?

Biological naturalism emphasizing the philosophical, social, and political implications of biological evolution is in conformity with the worldview and the value system that is based upon biocentrism (Greek: ίς, life; έcenter). From the biocentric viewpoint, humankind is to be considered part of life (bios) as a coherent global entity. Biocentrism is opposed to anthropocentrism (Greek: ΄άς, human). Anthropocentrism has been characteristic of the European mentality, starting from the Middle Ages. Originally, it took the form of religious (theological) anthropocentrism that was partly replaced by secular anthropocentrism during the Modern Age (see 1.4.1 for more details). Anthropocentrists believe in the supremacy of humankind on the planet and grant exclusive privileges and rights to humans. All other life forms on the Earth are regarded as resources to be exploited by humans.

Agni Vlavianos-Arvanitis and other representatives of the Greece-based Biopolitics International Organization, the “Christian biopolitician” Kenneth Cauthen, Lynton Caldwell, and Michael Gusev emphasized in their works (Vlavianos-Arvanitis, 1985, 1991, 2003; Vlavianos-Arvanitis & Oleskin, 1992; Cauthen, 1971, 1997: Caldwell, 1983, 1999; Gusev, 2009) that ethical norms and legal regulations that are used in human society were to be extended to humankind’s behavior towards nonhuman life forms and the whole biosphere.

Importantly, the philosophy of naturalism is currently facing a conceptual crisis. In the early works of biopoliticians and representatives of other related fields, it was taken for granted that the terms “biological” and “natural” were synonyms. Presently, humans are capable of intentionally modifying the operation of the human genome, the brain, and the whole organism in terms of modern anthropotechnologies. Therefore, the biological level of the human being is becoming partly artificial and not necessarily natural.

On the political-science¹ level, philosophical ideas of naturalism concerning the similarity/relationship between human beings and other biological species are applied to human behavior in concrete political situations. For example, the questions are raised whether biological evolution has predisposed humans to aggressive behavior or to cooperation with conspecifics, whether scholars dealing with international relations should prefer the competitive or cooperative scenario of interactions among the political actors involved, or whether a rigid hierarchical political system or a democratic or even egalitarian political regime is in conformity with human nature influenced by our evolutionary legacy. Biopolitics brings to bear modern life-science research in an attempt to take a scientifically sound attitude in the age-old argument concerning human nature as it manifests itself in political behavior. In political science, “perspectives on human nature vary widely with this literature. On one end of the spectrum we find humans as hierarchical, competitive, and with a tendency toward aggression, whereas on the other, we find humans as inherently cooperative” (Meyer-Emerich, 2007, p. 694).

Biopolitics compares human society with collective systems (biosocial structures) of other species. Likewise, ancient philosophers drew comparisons between human and animal sociality. In contrast, a large number of Modern Age scholars emphasized the difference between humans and other creatures, between instinct based animal societies—and human society composed of reasonable and selfish individuals (according to Thomas Hobbes).

A large number of political processes in the present-day world explicitly involve biological phenomena. A case in point is environmental protection. The publication of books like Silent Spring (Carson, 1962) in the 1960s, gave rise to the first wave of the "environmental movement.”

The main message given by biopolitics is that life is a global coherent entity, despite the diversity of biological species. Life is based on the unity-in-diversity principle. The biosphere as a global system is capable of regulating the Earth’s characteristics including its temperature, albedo, and atmosphere composition, in the interest of biological evolution and the flourishing of the whole gamut of living beings on the Earth. This is the central idea of the sufficiently well-grounded Gaia theory suggested by John Lovelock (1979, 1983).

The diversity of ethnicities, nations, religions should be regarded as an analog of the planet’s biodiversity that does not downplay—and rather highlights—the importance of the unity of bios and the interdependence of all living beings on the Earth. Biopolitics persuades political scientists to regard the ethnic, religious, and regional diversity of humankind as its advantage, rather than merely a source of political conflict. Different ethnicities/regions are to be viewed as different “organs,” each performing a specific function within the whole system. This biopolitical attitude can help us overcome both the Scylla of ethnocentrism (nationalism, racism, and regionalism) and the Charybdis of disregard for the merits of one’s own ethnicity/region.

Peter Corning emphasizes in his works that politics is ultimately aimed at securing human society’s survival despite various challenges caused by its turbulent political life. This implies keeping up “law and order,” which ultimately is one of the main goals of a political system. Therefore, as stressed by Blank and Hines (2001, p. 22), “political leaders seek solutions to the problem of maintaining order and survival through institutional structures and political processes that are adaptations to particular ecological niches.” This point is illustrated by the dependence of the stability of some present-day political regimes on the availability of exploitable oilfields in their countries.

Evolutionary biology, a conceptual cornerstone of biopolitics, has a number of potential attractions for all those involved in reforming political systems. It emphasizes change rather than constancy, thus encouraging important social changes. It also enhances the importance of individual initiative and enterprise as an evolutionary force and a catalyst of miracle-oriented economic and political developments. Modern evolutionary theory emphasizes cooperation and mutual support, and these types of interpersonal and intergroup relations are essential for overcoming the current global crisis without waiting for the governments to take action. Biopolitics encourages political regimes to pay special attention to “respect for human individuality and cultural difference; the duties of virtue entailed by social obligation; and the concern for human justice” (Masters, 1989, p. 230).

A special research direction in biopolitics addresses the issue of the evolution of political systems and states in human society. It seeks to understand “why the state arises in the course of human history after so long a period without the need of such an institution” (Blank & Hines, 2001, p. 27). Despite different biopolitical theories, most leading biopoliticians (P. Corning, R. Masters, and others) agree that political institutions and, in particular, “the state… emerges in response to historical and ecological conditions that serve as a stimulus to create and pursue alternative strategies for survival and for the attainment of other values and goals as reflected in human nature” (Ibid, p. 42).

It should also be noted that R. Pettman (1975, 1981), T. Wiegele (1979, 1982, 1994), S.A. Peterson (1990, 1991), and other biopoliticians stressed the potential impact of biopolitics on research on international and world politics. This biopolitics-international/world politics interface includes several focal points: (i) political leaders’ and elites’ behaviors in decision-making in relation to the more general biopolitical phenomena of dominance and submission; (ii) human behavioral repertoire (ethogram, biogrammar) and international conflict, and (iii) biopolitical issues (biopolicy) concerning environmental, biotechnological, and health issues.

The history of biopolitics in the 20^th and the 21^st century was preceded by the long period of the development of the science dealing with life. The term biology was coined by Lamarck in France and independently by Treviranus in Germany at the beginning of the 19^th century. In philosophical terms, the central issue of biopolitics (as well as other subfields of the bio-humanities) was dealt with by biology over the whole course of its historical development. This issue is concerned with humankind’s place in the biosphere and includes two main aspects:

1. The comparability of humans and other forms of life, primarily in terms of behavior, communication, and social organization as related to politics

2. The attitude toward planetary life that manifests itself in practical policies concerning the biosphere as well as human biology. The question to ask is whether people should protect the biosphere, show “reverence for life” (according to Albert Schweitzer), or exploit it—or even destroy some of its parts—in the interest of humankind.

The second aspect can be subdivided into two parts, depending on whether we have in mind (2a) the actual and (2b) the desirable attitude and policy of humankind concerning life including both the species Homo sapiens and the whole biodiversity of the planet.

Human attitudes to life varied depending on the world outlook characteristic of a given historical period, i.e., on the adopted paradigms, to quote the term originally applied by Thomas Kuhn to history of science.