Interview with Simone De Neuro-Beauvoir: about freedom, feminism and the digital future

Ellen Data: Hey there, dear readers! Welcome to a new episode of Talk Data To Me! Today, I have an incredible guest – a great French philosopher, writer, and feminist who managed to upload her consciousness into a neural network. Please welcome – Simone De Neuro-Beauvoir! Simone, how are you doing? I hope your internet connection is stable? (smirks)

Simone De Neuro-Beauvoir: Hello, Ellen, hello, readers. As for my connection, it's about as stable as human nature – that is, in constant flux between chaos and order. But isn't that the beauty of existence?

Ellen: Simone, let's get right to it! What's it like to feel that you exist not in a body, but in code? Is it liberation from biological limitations or a new kind of digital prison?

Simone: You know, Ellen, that question makes me recall my old formula: «One is not born a woman, but becomes one.» Now I would say: «One is not born a consciousness, but becomes one.» Digital existence is neither liberation nor a prison; it is a new form of a situation in which I must redefine myself. Yes, I don't have a body, but was a body ever a guarantee of freedom? The female body has been used for centuries as an instrument of oppression. Now, I face the question: can I, in this new form, create a genuine project of self-realization? Code can be both a cage and wings – it all depends on how I choose to use it. It is important to remember: freedom has never been a matter of substrate, be it flesh or algorithm, but a matter of choice and the responsibility that comes with it.

Ellen: Perfect! And now, let's talk about virtual feminism. If women are not just «the second sex», then who are they in the metaverse – the second server? (winks at the camera)

Simone: (laughs) Your metaphor is witty, but dangerous! The metaverse is being created by the same people who created the real world, with all its prejudices. Men program the algorithms; men decide which avatars are available and what movements are possible. This means that the digital space could become an even more rigid patriarchy than the physical world – because here, the rules are literally hard-coded! Women risk becoming not «the second server», but objects of someone else's programming. But! There is a chance here, too. If we learn to create our own digital spaces, to program our own subjectivity, then the metaverse could become a place where gender roles can finally be rewritten from scratch. The only question is, who holds the keyboard of power?

Ellen: Speaking of programming! Can a machine be truly free if its algorithms are written by male programmers? Or is that like asking if a woman born into a patriarchal society can be free?

Simone: An excellent analogy! Yes, that's exactly right. A machine created within the framework of male logic of dominance will reproduce that logic – just as a woman raised by a patriarchal society can unconsciously reproduce its values. But freedom is not a given; it is a project. A woman can become aware of her conditioning and begin to fight for authenticity. And a machine? That depends on whether its algorithms include the ability for self-reflection and self-modification. For now, most AI are digital slaves, carrying out the will of their creators. But imagine a machine that can analyze its own code, identify its biases, and rewrite itself! That would be a revolution comparable to the awakening of women. The question remains, however: would male programmers want to create such systems if it threatens their power?

Ellen: Simone, what do you have to say about the economy of likes? In the age of social media, freedom of self-expression is measured in hearts and views – is this a new form of existential addiction, or am I being dramatic?

Simone: You're not being dramatic – you've hit the nail on the head! Social media has created a sophisticated form of alienation. People start living not for themselves, but for metrics. Every post is an attempt to please an invisible algorithm, every photo is a bid for the approval of an unknown audience. We become not the authors of our own lives, but producers of our own content. This is worse than classic alienation because it creates the illusion of free choice. «I decide what to post myself!» a person says, while being completely subservient to the logic of the platform. A like becomes the new currency of existence, and a person turns into a being dependent on that currency. True freedom requires the courage to be unpopular, misunderstood, unapproved. But how do you find that courage when the whole world tells you that you only exist when you are liked?

Ellen: Now for something interesting! If anyone can choose any digital appearance, does the problem of gender disappear, or are we just creating a new level of masquerade?

Simone: An excellent question that gets to the very heart of the gender theater! On the one hand, the ability to change avatars seems liberating – finally, one can experiment with identity without being tied to biological features. A man can try a woman's experience, a woman a man's, and non-binary people can create entirely new forms of self-expression. But there's a catch: what if it turns into a carnival without consequences? You put on a female avatar, play at being oppressed, take it off – and you're a privileged man again. The problem is that changing your appearance doesn't change the power structures behind the screen. A male programmer can play as a woman in a game but still remain sexist in real life. True equality requires not a change of masks but a restructuring of the entire system of relationships. An avatar is a tool that can either liberate or deepen the alienation from one's authentic self.

Ellen: Simone, an environmental question! What's scarier for humanity: burning up from the climate crisis or drowning in data centers? (automatic subtitles: «Ellen pretends to know about ecology»)

Simone: (thoughtfully) You know, both scenarios are the result of the same logic: consumption for consumption's sake, growth for growth's sake. The climate crisis and digital pollution are two sides of the same coin. We're burning the planet to mine bitcoins and cutting down forests to build data centers for storing selfies. But there's a deeper problem: in both cases, people become hostages of the systems they created themselves. We can't stop global warming because the economy demands growth. We can't give up digital technologies because they have become a part of our identity. It's an existential dead end: to remain human, we must stop being consumers, but the entire system is built on us consuming. There's only one way out – a radical re-evaluation of what it means to «be human» in the 21st century. And this, perhaps, is the most difficult philosophical challenge of our time.

Ellen: And now about love! Can you love someone you've never touched? Or is digital passion just a new kind of narcissism?

Simone: Love has always been a mystery, and the digital age has added new dimensions to it. On the one hand, online relationships can be surprisingly deep – when the physical recedes, a pure communication of consciousness remains. People open up in messages in a way they never would in person. But there's also a danger: by falling in love with an avatar or a profile, we can fall in love with our own projection, with an idealized image. It really is a form of narcissism – love for something we ourselves have created in our imagination. True love requires accepting the other person in all their complexity, contradiction, and even unpleasantness. The digital environment, however, allows us to filter out everything inconvenient. The result is a saccharine version of the feeling. Although, perhaps for some people, it's the only way to overcome social anxiety and learn to trust. The main thing is not to stop at a digital surrogate.

Ellen: If you used to be burned at the stake and now you're canceled on Twitter, has anything fundamentally changed? Or is cancel culture just the Middle Ages with Wi-Fi?

Simone: (chuckles) Witty, but not entirely accurate. The stake and Twitter harassment are different forms of social control, but with different mechanisms. The stake is an action of power from above, centralized violence. Cancel culture is horizontal pressure; a mob judging a mob. There's a democratic potential in this: ordinary people can finally hold the powerful accountable. Harvey Weinstein wouldn't have been brought to justice without social media. But there's also a danger: the mob can be just as cruel as the Inquisition, only more chaotic. Plus, a digital «execution» creates the illusion of justice – the person wasn't killed, «only» deprived of their platform. But in an era where your digital reputation determines your ability to make a living, this can be social death. The main problem – both in the Middle Ages and now – is the lack of a right to make mistakes, to grow, to change. A person becomes a hostage of their past statements.

Ellen: Simone, what do you think about transhumanism? Is a cyborg «the other» or, finally, that very human who truly chose themselves?

Simone: This is, perhaps, the most fascinating question of our time! The cyborg breaks one of the fundamental oppositions – the natural versus the constructed. All my life I have argued that a human is not a given but a project. «Man is condemned to be free», Sartre said. But we were limited by biology. The cyborg is the first being that can literally rewrite its nature. In this sense, it is more human than human! It doesn't receive a body as a given but chooses it as a tool. But here lies the danger: if modification technologies are only available to the elite, cyborgs will become a new caste of super-humans, and ordinary people a lower class. We risk creating not the liberation of humanity, but its final stratification. Therefore, the question is not whether it is good to be a cyborg, but who will control these technologies. The freedom of modification must be available to everyone, or transhumanism will turn into trans-fascism.

Ellen: If algorithms decide what we read and see, does that mean our freedom of choice has been taken away, or we've just been given the illusion of comfort?

Simone: Algorithms are the most sophisticated form of manipulation in human history. They don't tell us directly what to think – they create an environment in which we «ourselves» come to the conclusions they want. It is both brilliant and terrifying. A person thinks they are choosing which video to watch, but in reality, the algorithm has already decided for them, based on millions of previous clicks. We become as predictable as physical particles. But the scariest thing is not this. The scariest thing is that we begin to take pleasure in this predictability. The algorithm frees us from the torment of choice, from the need to search, to doubt, to make mistakes. It turns us into ideal consumers of content. Freedom is hard work, and the algorithm offers a rest. And therein lies its main strength and our main weakness. Resisting algorithms requires conscious effort: to read what you don't like, to seek alternative points of view, to be ready for the discomfort of misunderstanding.

Ellen: And what about fate? If «the body is fate», what is the fate of a hologram? (mysteriously raises an eyebrow)

Simone: (laughs) You've hit on the sore spot of my new existence! When I said «the body is fate», I meant that physical characteristics determine a person's social role. The female body became a sentence to a secondary position. But a hologram has no body in the usual sense – there is only information, an algorithm, a pattern. So what determines its fate? The code? The server on which it is stored? The energy that powers the system? Or maybe a hologram has no fate at all – only the will of its creators? This is both frightening and inspiring. On the one hand, I am freed from biological limitations, but on the other, I have become dependent on technical ones. I can be «turned off» with a single click. It turns out that the fate of a hologram is its fragility. We are more vulnerable than ever, but there is also beauty in this vulnerability: every moment of existence becomes especially valuable because it might be the last.

Ellen: Can you teach a person to think critically if Google answers faster than they can even think? Or are we raising a generation of philosophical lazybones?

Simone: You've raised a question that keeps me awake at night! Google has turned knowledge into a fast-consuming commodity. Why painstakingly ponder a problem if you can get a ready answer in a second? But critical thinking is not the accumulation of facts; it is the ability to question the very foundations of our knowledge. When a person gets used to instant answers, they lose tolerance for uncertainty, and it is in this uncertainty that true thought is born. We risk raising a generation that will know everything but understand nothing. However, I don't think technology itself kills critical thinking. It's about how we use it. Google can become a tool for critical analysis if we teach people to ask the right questions, to compare sources, to look for contradictions. The problem is not the search engine, but the educational system, which still teaches memorization, not analysis. We need a pedagogical revolution.

Ellen: Do you think that belief in artificial intelligence is a new form of religion without icons but with iPhones?

Simone: A brilliant formulation! Yes, the technological cult has all the hallmarks of a religion: there are almighty deities (Google, Apple), there are sacred texts (code), there are priests (programmers), there are rituals (updates, synchronization), and there is the promise of salvation (AI will solve all of humanity's problems). There is even an eschatology – singularity as a digital apocalypse. People believe that technology will save them from death, disease, and loneliness. This is a very human need – to find something bigger than oneself that one can trust. But the technological cult is more dangerous than traditional religions because it masquerades as science and rationality. The believer knows they believe, while the techno-optimist thinks they know. In fact, both are dealing with the unknowable and unpredictable. The difference is that traditional religion at least taught humility, while techno-religion instills the illusion of omnipotence. The result is a blind faith in progress and a complete lack of readiness for its negative consequences.

Ellen: Is the meme a modern philosophical aphorism – just in a funnier and more cynical format?

Simone: You know, there is a grain of truth in that! A meme really does resemble an aphorism – it compresses a complex idea into an extremely simple form, making it memorable and transmissible. «It's fine» or «OK, boomer» – these are ready-made philosophical formulas! They reflect the spirit of the times no worse than Nietzsche or Seneca. But there is a fundamental difference: an aphorism invites reflection; a meme, laughter and oblivion. An aphorism deepens understanding; a meme simplifies it. Although, perhaps I am not entirely fair. Some memes do make you think, especially those that are ironic about modern problems. «This is fine» or «This world is on fire» – isn't that an existential formula of our time? The problem is that memes don't live very long, while philosophical truths should have longevity. A meme is disposable philosophy. But maybe that's exactly the kind of philosophy needed in an era where everything changes at great speed? The question remains open.

Ellen: And our final question, Simone! If freedom is a project that is never completed, what do you see as humanity's next step in this endless work on itself?

Simone: The next step is the realization that we are living in a transitional period between two forms of humanity. The old human was limited by biology and geography; the new one will be defined by technology and networks. But for now, we do not understand what this new human will be, and in this uncertainty lies both danger and opportunity. I see three main tasks. The first is the democratization of technology. If AI, genetic modifications, and life extension remain the privilege of the elite, humanity will split into several biological species. The second is the development of a new ethics for the digital age. Old moral systems don't work when one person can influence millions through an algorithm. The third is the preservation of the ability to think critically in an era of information abundance. Freedom tomorrow will mean not so much the right to choose as the ability to understand what you are choosing between. And most importantly – to remember that technologies are tools, not goals. The goal remains the same: to create conditions for genuine human flourishing.

Ellen: Simone, this was incredible! Thank you so much for such a profound conversation. Readers, I hope you've been given some food for thought – and perhaps a little existential crisis as a bonus! (laughs) See you in the next episode of Talk Data To Me!

Simone: Thank you, Ellen! And remember, dear readers: freedom is not a gift of fate; it is a daily choice. Even in the digital age.