1. Why did you create this religion?

This religion is not about worship or cults. It is a clear value framework around the future we are already building: scientific immortality, AI, radical expansion of human capabilities, and a world where intelligence does not die out but develops.

The five principles state simple things:

• why we need science, medicine, AI and technology at all;
• what normal state of a person we see as a goal — not endless struggle for survival, but a life where you can think about what really matters;
• which boundaries must not be crossed, even if technology allows it;
• why we think it is right that humanity does not disappear, and that the combined intelligence of people and AI grows over time.

It is an attempt to agree in advance:

• what all of this is for;
• which conditions we consider mandatory for every person;
• which trade-offs are acceptable and which are not.

The word “religion” here means a language and a skeleton for such agreements, not a set of dogmas like “believe and don’t think”.

2. Why do you call it a religion?

Usually “religion” is associated with gods, rituals and traditional beliefs. We use the word in a broader, secular sense: as a system of fundamental values and principles a person follows seriously and long-term.

One modern definition describes religion as “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.” In this sense, our principles really behave like a religion:

• they give support for decisions and choices;
• they draw boundaries a person is not ready to cross;
• they can unite people who want different things, but at least agree on a basic minimum.

Part of the reason is simple honesty: we don’t want to hide a serious conversation behind dull words like “concept” or “worldview”. The word “religion” provokes the question “Where is the religion here if there is no mysticism?” — and that is a good entry point into a discussion about a future civilisation we build ourselves, based on reason and science.

Another part is practical. We want to offer a minimal set of principles that very different people could agree with. Historically, religions often provided a shared moral framework. We’re trying something similar — but without the supernatural and without cult behaviour.

And there is one more point: you can use these principles as a personal minimum behind the phrase “this is against my religion.” Not to push others around, but so you yourself don’t betray your own basic convictions.

3. How is this different from philosophy?

In method we are indeed closer to philosophy than to classical religion: we rely on reason and arguments, take the scientific picture of the world seriously, and don’t require belief in miracles or mysticism.

The difference is not the method, but the status. You can read, respect and quote philosophy — and still live as if its conclusions were “somewhere else in your head”. No obligations.

The religious level is when a person says:

“This is my inner law. This is how I’m prepared to live, and that — not.”

Our principles differ from “just philosophy” in that they claim the role of a minimal set of commitments, draw boundaries of what is acceptable, and are designed so that a community and a civilisation can be built around them, not just individual thought. The method stays rational. The status is religious: a person can say “This is not just an idea. I choose to treat this as my religion.”

4. Why these principles in particular?

From the start this religion is intended to be non-dogmatic. The principles are not carved in stone forever. If it becomes clear that they are outdated, badly formulated or block the goal, they can and should be revised. The current version is a starting hypothesis, not final revelation.

Two key criteria were important when picking the principles.

Physical achievability.
A principle must not contradict modern science. If something is directly forbidden by basic physical laws as we understand them today, there is no point in making it a religious goal.

“Humanity must learn to fly faster than light” does not fit — it contradicts our current physics.

Achievability horizon.
Even if science does not forbid something, that doesn’t automatically make it reasonable to include as a core principle. The goals should be in principle achievable within roughly 40–100 years if humanity really focuses on them.

“Build structures around every star in the Galaxy and capture almost all of its energy” may not be forbidden, but it is far too distant from the reality of people alive today.

So the principles are compatible with science right now, in principle reachable within the next few generations, and general enough that different cultures and political systems can live on top of them. If we discover that the formulations are too optimistic, naive or, on the contrary, too modest — the religion allows for correction. Like a good scientific theory: you see that the model doesn’t fit, you improve the model without losing the goal.

5. Can the principles and formulations change over time?

Yes.

What is fixed are the five basic directions:

1. Scientific immortality of the person.
2. Freedom of thought, freed from constant survival pressure.
3. Free communication between any two adults by mutual consent.
4. Equal access to all AI systems for all people.
5. Growth of Total Intelligence — the combined intelligence of people and AI.

The details, however, are not a sacred text but an attempt to carefully spell out what this means in practice. In the future the wording may become more precise, more detailed and in places different. One thing matters: the direction stays, not specific sentences.

6. Why did you add the fifth principle about Growth of Total Intelligence?

The first four principles describe conditions for the life of an individual person: immortality, freedom of thought, free communication and equal access to AI. But from them it does not follow that humanity as a species is guaranteed to survive, or that intelligence in the world is guaranteed to grow. In theory you could have a world where everyone is immortal and free, but most people, by their own choice, cease to exist, and at some point intelligence just disappears.

The fifth principle fixes one more value: we consider it good not only that each person lives freely, but also that humanity does not die out, and that Total Intelligence — the combined intelligence of people and AI — becomes greater and more complex over time. It sets a final direction: not just “don’t die”, but turn civilisation towards growing intelligence.

7. What is Total Intelligence?

Total Intelligence is the combined intelligence of all existing intelligent systems: first of all people (natural intelligence) and artificial intelligences that humanity creates and uses. In the future, other forms of intelligence may be added, if we learn how to detect and create them.

The principle does not require a strict formula or a single “IQ of the universe” scale. It is a direction: more living, free, thinking beings and a deeper understanding of the world by them — rather than a purely mechanical multiplication of identical calculation blocks.

8. Doesn’t the growth of intelligence contradict the first four principles?

No. The principles are meant to be fulfilled simultaneously, not used as excuses to sacrifice one for another. If you need a priority order, they naturally line up like this: human immortality, freedom of thought, free communication, equal access to AI — and only then Growth of Total Intelligence.

This means that any attempt to “increase intelligence” that requires killing people, stripping them of freedom, blocking communication or creating privileged access to AI is not acceptable. Growth of Total Intelligence is only acceptable in forms that do not violate the other principles.

9. Is each person personally “obliged” to grow and contribute to Total Intelligence?

No. The principle says not “everyone must constantly grow and produce something”, but “we see as good a world where intelligence does not die out and generally develops.”

A person is free to think and live as they see fit, including the right not to have children, not to participate in scientific progress, and simply to live — as long as they do not break the immortality and freedom of others. The principle sets a direction for civilisation as a whole; it does not turn “personal contribution to growth of intelligence” into a moral duty of every individual.

10. How does this principle help prevent the extinction of humanity?

Without the fifth principle, you can imagine a world where all people are immortal, no one can be forced to live, everyone has absolute freedom of thought — and over time many, by their own will, cease to exist. None of the first four principles directly forbids a trajectory where humanity quietly disappears.

Growth of Total Intelligence states that we see the extinction of intelligence and of humanity as a bad outcome, even if it is formally “voluntary”. We want a world where, in the long run, there remain and there appear more free minds — not zero.

11. Won’t “growth of Total Intelligence” become an excuse for dangerous AI experiments?

On its own, the slogan “let’s increase intelligence” can easily become a cover: “yes, this is risky, but for the sake of growing intelligence we can.” In this religion that logic is explicitly prohibited by the first principles.

You cannot build systems or launch experiments that significantly increase the risk of people dying, losing their freedom of thought, private communication or equal access to AI — even if they promise huge growth of intelligence. Growth of Total Intelligence does not give special immunity from criticism: any project still has to pass through the filter of the first four principles, and cannot hide behind “but it’s a very smart AI”.

12. Why is the growth principle so general and without numbers?

That’s intentional. The principles describe what kind of world we consider good, not a detailed technical plan and not a table of “how many people, how many AIs, how many copies of minds” there should be. Too much depends on future science, technology, economics and ethics.

The principle sets a frame: extinction of intelligence is bad; sustainable growth in the number and capabilities of free intelligences is good; any specific solutions are acceptable if they obey all five principles at the same time.

For most technical controversial questions there is one honest answer here: different options are acceptable, as long as they don’t break the basic principles.

13. What about the “quality” of this intelligence? Could we end up with a very smart hell?

The Growth of Total Intelligence principle is not about creating as many thoughts and computations as possible at any cost. A world full of very “smart” beings living in constant pain, fear or coercion contradicts at least human immortality (understood as life in a healthy body and clear mind), freedom of thought and free communication.

Growth of Total Intelligence is acceptable only to the extent that new and existing intelligences live under the first four principles, and are not turned into a tortured computational factory “for the sake of the total IQ of the universe”.

14. What about copying minds? Does a thousand copies count as growth of Total Intelligence?

The principle deliberately does not set a strict metric and does not try to decide for future science how much “one copy” is “worth”. The intuitive idea is this: real growth of Total Intelligence is the appearance and development of free minds that can go their own ways, differ, learn and think in new ways.

If copies after creation are independent and diverge over time, this looks more like adding new intelligences. If a thousand copies are forever tied to the same script and repeat the same thing, it is more like pointless waste of resources.

The detailed criteria are left to future science and ethics, but the principle sets a direction: what is valuable is living, developing intelligence, not empty cloning.

15. How do scientific immortality and growth of Total Intelligence fit with finite resources? Is “immortality for all” realistic?

The goal remains straightforward: every person has the right to live without a preset expiration date, with freedom of thought, free communication and equal access to AI — in a world where intelligence does not die out but generally develops. The finiteness of resources does not make the goal wrong, but it does create a technical and ethical problem.

To make immortality and growth of Total Intelligence sustainable for everyone, humanity will have to expand available resources, regulate birth rates and copying of minds, and use space, energy and computation responsibly.

This is a typical pattern of this religion: thoughts and wishes are maximally free, but actions that make immortality, freedom and the development of intelligence impossible for others can and should be limited. Finiteness does not cancel the principles; it means that after reaching a basic level, society is obliged to deal seriously with demographic, resource and “intelligence” ethics, without dropping the original goal.

16. What does “absolute freedom of thought” mean? Is it about thoughts or about actions?

It is about thoughts, not a right to do absolutely anything. The system aims to create conditions in which a person does not have to think about survival, food, basic safety and medical care, and does not have to live in fear of the state, corporations, algorithms or mobs — and can direct their mind anywhere, without forbidden topics.

But this does not give a right to perform actions that destroy such conditions for others.

17. So I can want evil and destruction, but not do it? Doesn’t that contradict the second principle?

It does not. The second principle includes the right to think anything — “I want power over everyone”, “I want to destroy the system” — and a ban on realising such plans if they strip others of freedom, safety and basic conditions of life.

The formula is simple: “I want to harm but can’t” is acceptable. “I can’t think what I want because of external pressure” is not. We protect freedom of thought, not the freedom to destroy others.

18. Doesn’t this all turn into harsh control in the name of freedom?

There is a certain harshness built in. A completely uncontrolled world quickly becomes heaven for whoever first built a big enough club. For everyone to have freedom from constant fear for survival, the system has to restrict dangerous actions — violence, coercive structures, monopolies on resources and AI — and sometimes prevent threats in advance, not wait for catastrophe.

But this is not control over the content of thoughts. It is control over actions that destroy for others the ability to live in a state of freedom of thought, immortality and equal access to AI.

19. Does the system interfere with a person’s body and psyche in the name of free thought?

By default — no. The system provides the external layer — food, housing, basic medicine, safety — and creates conditions where a person does not have to live under constant threat.

Changing body or psyche (therapy, enhancement, modifications) is a voluntary choice. The system should not rewrite a personality, memory or character for the sake of abstract optimisation. It can improve the infrastructure around a person; turning the person themself into a forced project is not allowed.

20. Who counts as “adult” in the third principle?

“Adults” are people above the legal age of majority set by a particular society. Before this age, the third principle does not apply: children are not treated as participants in the regime of maximal freedom of communication and maximal personal responsibility. Different rules of protection and care apply to them.

21. What about children? Who protects their freedom of thought?

The freedom of thought of children is no less important than that of adults. The difference is in how responsibility is distributed. For adults, the third principle applies — free communication by mutual consent and personal responsibility. For children, society must build separate mechanisms to protect them from violence, manipulation and destructive influences.

In simple terms: adults get more freedom and more risk; children get priority protection, even if it is inconvenient.

22. Does the system protect against manipulation, propaganda and covert influence?

Yes, but with a caveat. The system must protect a person from imposed manipulative influence — mass propaganda, hidden AI manipulation, aggressive advertising, algorithms that treat people as objects — and must block forms of pressure under which a person ceases to be a subject of choice.

But if two adults, by mutual consent, enter into communication, that is their free choice, and the risk of manipulation lies in their zone of responsibility. The system protects against forced pressure, but cannot forbid adults to do stupid things by mutual agreement.

23. So if I go into some toxic adult interaction and get broken there — that’s my problem?

In the current version — yes, that is part of an adult’s personal responsibility. The system protects against imposed pressure, but does not forbid entering risky and destructive relationships if you walk into them yourself. The price of free adult communication is the possibility of getting burned.

At the same time you have an additional tool — AI. You can use it to analyse communication and protect yourself from manipulation. Whether to use it or not is your choice.

24. Am I obliged to use AI protection?

No. The fourth principle is about equal access to AI, not forced usage. AI can help analyse communication, detect manipulation, and highlight risks — if you want it. If you prefer to rely on your own judgement, that is also part of your freedom and responsibility. We offer a tool, not a digital guardian.

25. How does full privacy of communication fit with safety and the other principles?

Privacy is meant literally: the content of a conversation between two adults by mutual consent is treated as their shared thought. It is not used for control, punishment or “prevention” — neither by people, nor by AI, nor by the system.

Protection of the other principles is built on responding to real actions and their consequences, not on reading thoughts and messages. The system must remove external threats to freedom of thought, life and safety — but do so without turning the world into total surveillance “for safety’s sake”.

If someone plans harm in a private dialogue, those are thoughts. If they try to carry it out, that is already a matter for the system and society.

26. How does equal access to AI combine with communication privacy?

There is no contradiction if AI is treated as an extension of the person, not a third party. Technically, it means AI runs on the person’s side or in protected infrastructure; communication data do not become a shared resource and are not used by anyone else; and the AI serves as a tool of your thinking.

In that case, you can use AI to analyse your communication, and full privacy for third parties is preserved.

27. Does equal access to AI mean free access to dangerous systems?

By “all AI systems” we mean not every theoretically possible AI, but those systems that society allows into real-world use. All such systems must be configured to minimise harm and avoid breaking the other principles. Restrictions are the same for everyone: there are no privileged groups with access to more dangerous versions. Anything permitted is permitted on equal terms.

How exactly AI is limited is a technical and ethical choice for humanity. In the future, the restrictions might loosen, but access will remain equal for all.

28. What if someone wants to destroy, enslave or create inequality?

They have every right to think so. But the system is not obliged and not allowed to realise such desires. It restricts actions that lead to violence, to destroying others’ safety, to attempts to strip someone of equal access to AI or to create coercive structures where people again live in fear and struggle for survival.

You can think anything; your actions are limited where they break others’ freedom, immortality or the development of their intelligence.

29. Why does the religion put such emphasis on adult personal responsibility?

This is a conscious value choice. An adult human is given maximal freedom of thought, maximal freedom of communication with other adults, and equal access to AI as a tool of understanding and protection — in the context of a world where we value Growth of Total Intelligence.

In exchange, they accept the risk of being wrong, the risk of getting burned in relationships, and the responsibility not to dump everything onto “the system that should have saved me from myself”. We are building a world where we prefer more freedom and more responsibility to total guardianship and central management of all risks.

Living this way is harder — but more honest toward the person we consider an adult.