Автор: Битарх

Trade unions can be cool – if they are voluntary

Trade unions are usually associated with dreary offices, imposed dues, and dubious characters who are more likely to walk the corridors of power than the shop floors and warehouses. But originally, the idea was completely different! Real trade unions are not a club for bureaucrats, but associations of free people who voluntarily protect one another. Without the state, without violence, without “you owe me, or we’ll get you fired.”

Think this is a utopia? Not at all! History knows many cases where voluntary unions, without any state privileges or coercion, achieved real success. Take, for example, the London Dock Strike of 1889. One hundred thousand people calmly and peacefully stopped working, demanding a pay raise. The authorities, of course, did not help: the workers simply marched through the city with rotten fish on sticks, vividly showing the bosses how they lived. And, unexpectedly, they achieved a pay raise. Without violence, without lobbying for laws, simply based on solidarity and a sense of justice.

Or consider the American grape pickers in the 1960s, led by the legendary Cesar Chavez. Instead of burning or smashing things, the guys simply organized a grape boycott across all of America. Imagine: millions of Americans stopped buying grapes in solidarity with the farmworkers! After a few years, the plantation owners simply could not take it and signed the first collective bargaining agreements in history with the workers. Again—without state aid and violence, through pure voluntary mutual aid.

And what about the Polish “Solidarity” in the 1980s? Workers independently dismantled the communist regime simply by uniting into a giant independent trade union. The state arrested them, banned them, crushed them with tanks, but they went ahead and won—peacefully, persistently, and voluntarily.

Why, then, do trade unions often look so dreary now? The answer is simple: the state loves to “help.” And when bureaucrats “help,” it usually gets worse for everyone except the bureaucrats themselves. The state monopoly on trade unions strips them of competition and motivation, mandatory dues create “reluctant passengers,” and privileges turn union leaders into ordinary officials, far removed from the workers. The stationary bandit provides privileges to certain unions, including mandatory dues from all employees, monopoly representation of all enterprise workers (even those who do not wish to join the union), and exemption from liability for damage caused during strikes. As a result, trade unions begin to look more like bureaucratic organs than independent associations of workers. Paradoxically, it is a fact: the more the state tries to “protect” workers, the fewer real opportunities workers have to protect themselves.

By the way, remember the recent history of Amazon in the USA. Ordinary warehouse workers, who had grown tired of working in harsh conditions, decided to create an independent union. The Amazon company—huge, influential, and most importantly, unwilling to allow a union organization—spent millions of dollars to prevent its creation. But the people simply organized themselves and won the vote. In this way, simple employees without resources or connections were able to prove that the power of voluntary solidarity works today as well.

The solution here is simple and libertarian: return voluntariness and freedom of competition to trade unions. If people do not like a union, they should be able to calmly leave or create another one. If a union protects its members poorly, people will simply leave and choose one that does it better.

History shows that it is precisely voluntary associations of workers, without state-imposed rules, privileges, and bureaucracy, that achieve the most impressive successes. Solidarity and mutual aid do not need a state “roof”—they are always born naturally where there is freedom. And voluntariness and freedom of association are not some kind of luxury, but the only real way to protect the rights of those who work!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The City of Diaspar – how excessive control turns a utopia into stagnation

In Arthur C. Clarke’s novel “The City and the Stars” (1956), the majestic city of Diaspar is described as the last bastion of humanity in the distant future. Its inhabitants live in luxury and safety, with practically eternal lives. But this stability comes at a high price. The city is completely closed off: no one leaves its walls, and nothing truly new ever happens. Diaspar is a “high-tech monument to stagnation,” where millions of years pass without change, and the spirit of adventure and discovery has been lost. It sounds like science fiction. But don’t you think our modern world is moving in the same direction? Let’s analyze how this manifests in different spheres of our society.

First, let’s consider the aspect of comfort and technology. In Diaspar, the needs of the residents (food, housing, entertainment) are fully met; access to high-tech entertainment and “virtual worlds” is practically unlimited; people live almost forever thanks to regeneration from “memory banks.” In the developed countries of the modern world, there is also a high level of domestic comfort—stable supplies of food, services, medical care, and housing conditions; the digital environment (social networks, virtual reality, computer games) can “lock” a person within their own informational “bubble” reality; scientists are working on life-extension technologies. Of course, one should strive for high technology and comfort, but it must not be forgotten that the absence of encounters with the challenges of the external environment prevents a person from developing resilience and flexibility.

It is important to pay attention to the fear of change and self-isolation. The residents of Diaspar are convinced that there is nothing beyond the city walls, and if there is, it must be hostile; exploration of the outside world has ceased; at the level of public consciousness, there is a taboo on the very act of leaving the city. In modern society, the fear of the “alien” is also quite common (due to immigration, cultural and political contradictions, terrorism, etc.); in some cases, states or communities erect “informational,” economic, and political barriers, striving to maintain internal stability; sometimes an excessive desire for a safe and “sterile” environment leads to a rejection of openness, flexibility, and dialogue. But when a society begins to perceive the entire external environment as a threat, it closes in on itself and loses the creative impulse for development.

Even more important is the factor of the loss of risk. In Diaspar, practically everything is under control: from the climate to human lives (immortality, regeneration); social and personal “risks” are minimized: any mistake can be “overwritten,” and any danger is excluded in advance. In modern society, more and more spheres are being automated; society increasingly seeks to insure itself against all risks—complex legal frameworks, security measures, censorship of potentially “traumatizing” topics—while the element of challenge and overcoming, which were once an integral part of growth and development, is lost. The common point is this: in striving for “zero risk,” one can miss the very essence of the human experience—the ability to go beyond the boundaries of the known.

The factor of the “bubble” of self-sufficiency and global challenges is also dangerous. Diaspar closed in on itself; people do not even imagine what resources or threats might exist beyond its limits. In the modern world, many people are not concerned with global problems (demographic collapse, environmental degradation) as long as everything is fine in their “local comfort zone.” Thus, by living in a “bubble” of stability, society becomes vulnerable to sudden crises because it stops observing reality in its fullness.

Personal freedom and responsibility are the best remedy for stagnation. If people are given more autonomy, many will act reasonably and creatively. Yes, freedom is a risk, a chaos of possibilities. But development and the energy of life go hand in hand with risk. Diaspar chose absolute security at the cost of stagnation. We, however, can choose freedom and forward movement. The world does not necessarily have to be either comfortable or alive—a balance is possible if we do not forget the value of freedom.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How investment restrictions strengthen the power and wealth of elites

Imagine that you are a talented, smart and, most importantly, hardworking person. Perhaps even financially savvy: you read books about Buffett, follow a few investor bloggers, and even know the difference between a bond and a stock. In short, you’re a winner, ready to take everything life has to offer.

But then the state gently pats you on the shoulder and says: “Hey there, buddy, stop-stop! You’re too poor to invest in interesting things. Why don’t you just put your money in the bank at 4% and don’t make a fuss.” Sound familiar? Welcome to the world of restrictions for “non-qualified investors.”

What is actually happening? In many countries (USA, Russia, EU), a roughly similar scheme is in place: authorities divide investors into two castes — “quals” (those with plenty of money and the right papers) and “non-quals” (everyone else). Quals can invest anywhere: venture startups, hedge funds, IPOs, cryptocurrencies, complex derivatives — in short, any juicy opportunities with the potential for hundreds of percent growth.

But for an ordinary person, even if their IQ is higher than that of many millionaires, the road there is closed. True, in some cases, people have found workarounds through cryptocurrency: thanks to it, one can invest in startups and projects that would otherwise be completely inaccessible due to formal restrictions. The state is protecting us, mere mortals, from risks. Like, just in case — what if we lose our money and become even poorer?

But here is the paradox: casinos and betting shops — please, go ahead. Lotteries — always welcome! Loans at 25% per annum — “dear, come in, we’re glad to see you!”. But a startup by your acquaintance — no way, too risky, you’re not a millionaire to invest in such things! Ironic, isn’t it?

Such restrictions lead to a banal financial apartheid: the rich gain access to the juiciest investments and become even richer, while the middle class and the poor are forced to settle for crumbs — deposits and low-yield bonds. In the USA, for example, only 13% of households fall into the category of accredited investors. And it is they who get access to venture deals that turn 1,000 dollars into a million. Meanwhile, the average John Smith has to sadly watch the success of others, settling for boring S&P 500 ETFs.

Russia has gone even further: “non-quals” are completely forbidden from investing in foreign stocks. Tesla, Apple, Nvidia? Forget it! Your lot is Gazprom shares, a deposit with a yield below inflation, and a state pension. In short, stay quiet and dream of a salary increase at the factory. And Europe? There, regulators have decided that people “do not have a legitimate need” to invest in crypto-derivatives or use high leverage. This is like telling a person: “You do not have a legitimate need to earn more.” Thank you, so very caring!

Who benefits from this? Imagine: if a person earns a lot from investments, they become financially independent. They are no longer afraid of the boss, layoffs, or a crisis. They gain money, time, and the most terrifying thing for the authorities — the ability to think about politics. It is not in the interests of the authorities for the middle class to get rich quickly and stop depending on a salary and the state. After all, as long as you slave away from morning till night at a job you hate, paying off loans and trying to make ends meet, you certainly have no time for rallies and protests. No time to wonder who up there is stealing the budget — you have to feed the family and pay the mortgage! Thus, investment restrictions play into the hands not only of the super-rich (who maintain exclusive investment opportunities) but also of states, for whom it is easier to manage a tired and economically dependent population.

What to do and how to live on? The problem is not that investing is dangerous. The problem is that the state has decided that you are a child, incapable of making a decision about your own money. If a new Apple or Google appears tomorrow, you will be the last to know, when the shares have already hit the exchange and grown dozens of times. Until then, the “quals” will skim the cream. It is time to return the right to take risks!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

RPM

The number of experiments being conducted in society at a given moment, or the conditional “revolutionariness,” has a good analogy with a car engine. In English, even the names coincide—you have surely noticed the RPM abbreviation on the tachometer, which stands for “Revolutions Per Minute.” If the needle is at zero, the car will not move at all; too low an RPM means poor traction and the engine may stall, and if it is in the “red zone,” the engine roars violently and fails very quickly. Only in a narrow range around 2K RPM is stable engine operation ensured, where it simultaneously provides good traction and does not fail too quickly.

Put simply, “revolutionariness” is an indicator of entropy in a system: the higher it is, the faster the development, but also the higher the probability of the system “spiraling out of control” and self-destructing. At a zero “revolutionariness” indicator, development stops, and for any living system, this means death.

A great example is the planned economy of the USSR. A quote from one article reviewing the reasons for its collapse:

“A mobilization economy of the Soviet type implies, suddenly, some task for the sake of which the mobilization is carried out. Previously, these goals were quite obvious—develop an industry like the capitalists, win the Great Patriotic War, create a nuclear bomb. Further it became more difficult: a developing economy requires the search for creative solutions for the further growth of the population’s standard of living/increasing labor productivity/searching for new energy sources and so on. In a market, this issue is solved by each agent individually at their own risk, and out of a thousand failed attempts, a couple or three correct solutions will be found. In a planned economy with a single decision-making center, experimenting is more difficult.”

Here lies the most hypocritical position of many authoritarian conservatives: they oppose any experiments in society, but at the same time, for some reason, they violently criticize the USSR. Although from the outside, it was precisely the Soviet communists with Gosplan who were the embodiment of the ideal world of conservatives, in which any experiments were maximally limited, providing a sense of “order” and a reduction of entropy. And the fact that zero entropy is death was perfectly demonstrated by the USSR in 1991, ceasing its existence. Worse still, the hypocrisy of authoritarians extends across the entire planet: they openly express a desire to ban any experiments globally (here one can recall American conservative organizations like the ADF, which pursues the goal of criminalizing homosexuality not only in the USA but also in other countries), while constantly criticizing modern globalists like Soros and Schwab.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Childhood violence – traumas for a lifetime

Let’s be honest: cruel upbringing is not just a bad idea, but a real crime against a child’s freedom and happiness. Of course, some might claim that “the belt builds character.” But let’s face it—the belt builds psychological trauma, not strength of spirit.

We have said before that physical punishment does not work. And these are not just words—they are the results of a massive analysis of 75 studies conducted on 161 thousand children. The result is simple and sad: the belt does not make children obedient; it makes them miserable. Such children later have worse memory, lower IQ, and higher aggression. But if you think this is old news—wait, it gets even more interesting.

A recent study by the University of Michigan, conducted on 6,500 Americans, proves that childhood traumas haunt us for our entire lives. Imagine, even at nearly 80 years old, people continue to experience depression, loneliness, and physical pain due to the violence they suffered in childhood. Such trauma is not a scratch that will heal, but a deep scar that only hurts more over time.

Another striking discovery: it turns out that parental cruelty turns children into “evil geniuses.” A study by the University of Texas on 524 students showed that abusive upbringing develops malicious creativity. Instead of creating peaceful and responsible citizens, parents literally train cunning manipulators, professional liars, and masters of petty mischief, possessing low conscientiousness. And that, to put it mildly, is not what makes society better.

Why does this happen? It’s all about the brain. Research shows that in children who were systematically traumatized by their parents, the development of key brain areas such as the amygdala and hippocampus, which are responsible for emotions and memory, is impaired. Imagine the brain as a computer that constantly crashes and slows down because of viruses introduced by violence. It is also interesting to note that even in monkeys subjected to violence in childhood, disruptions in the serotonin and dopamine systems of the brain were observed. These are very serious disorders affecting happiness and even the will to live.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The long-term consequences of such “upbringing” include an increased likelihood of developing alcohol and drug addiction, difficulties in establishing stable relationships, and even a propensity for crime. After all, a person who grew up in an atmosphere of fear and violence often considers aggression to be the norm of behavior and carries it into their adult life. It is a vicious cycle that can only be broken by a radical change in approaches to upbringing.

There are more effective and far more humane methods of upbringing that do not deprive a child of dignity and freedom. Science confirms that empathy, love, and understanding promote the development of a strong and resilient personality. This is how we can help children become not just successful, but happy people, capable of creation and independence. Children deserve respect, and the recognition of their freedom and autonomy. Parents should be mentors, not overseers, allowing children to make their own choices and take responsibility for them.

Parental cruelty is incompatible with the ideals of individual freedom. We must resolutely reject abusive “upbringing.” Because, in all fairness, you either raise a free person, or it is better not to raise anyone at all. So let us be free not only in words, but in action—starting with respect for the freedom of children!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Can a libertarian society withstand the pressure of hereditary inequality?

Imagine this: one person works hard their entire life, building a business from scratch—while another is born with a “silver spoon” in their mouth and receives millions without lifting a finger. A couple of generations pass—the grandchildren of magnates bask in luxury, while the descendants of laborers barely make ends meet. Unfair? Absolutely. And with each new generation, the gap only grows.

Of course, a person has the right and freedom to dispose of their labor and property. But it’s important to understand those who feel a boiling sense of injustice within. Imagine: you strive, you slog away, and next to you, some privileged kids live off the interest of their grandmother’s capital and look down on everyone else. It hurts, right? And although life never promised to be fair, you still want everyone to have a chance, not just those lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family. It is a serious question: how to ensure the stability of society amidst accumulating inequality—while remaining true to the principles of freedom?

To start, a bit of optimism. It is often said: “the first generation earns, the second squanders, the third begs.” Often, that is exactly what happens: the grandfather built a fortune, the son spent it all—and the grandson has nothing left to inherit. Wealth without effort slips through the fingers, so part of the accumulated inequality dissolves on its own over time.

But relying solely on this is cold comfort. Yes, many “golden children” sooner or later end up with nothing. But there are also families like the Rockefellers, who manage to stay at the top for many generations. They say their secret is simple: they force every new heir to work no less than the previous one. No free rides—if you want to use the family capital, multiply it. Such an approach helps preserve wealth for a long time.

So what should we, as a society, do? We want to preserve freedom and create more opportunities for everyone. How can this be achieved?

First, fair competition and equal rules for all. If a wealthy heir conducts business poorly, they should go bankrupt like anyone else—no special privileges or state monopolies. Without friendly officials, even a huge inheritance is not insured against bankruptcy. Conversely, a talented and hardworking person, even without connections, will be able to break through if obstacles are not placed in their way. Competition is the best equalizer when it is truly free.

Second, equality of opportunity. A talented child from a poor family should have the opportunity to study and realize their potential, rather than remaining poor forever simply because of the circumstances of their birth. Society, through private foundations, scholarships, and mentoring, can facilitate this. In the end, everyone wins: more talented and productive people will emerge. By the way, many wealthy people understand this and invest in education and startups—investing in the future.

Third, a culture of responsibility. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility. If you were born into wealth, it is not your achievement, but it is also no reason to rest on your laurels. Consider it an advance that must be justified. Many heirs do exactly that: instead of a life of leisure, they start their own business or engage in science—trying to leave their own mark.

Finally, social elevators—the opportunities to rise from the “bottom.” Fortunately, the free market regularly provides chances for the talented and energetic. An example is WhatsApp founder Jan Koum: he arrived in the States as a poor immigrant, and a couple of decades later sold his creation for billions. No titles or special connections were required—only an idea and perseverance. There are many such stories, and they are inspiring: even without any “silver spoon,” it is possible to make it in life.

It turns out that the recipe for stability under freedom is this: ensure that the “playing field” remains fair and open to all. Yes, some have a head start from the beginning of the game—wealthy parents did their part. But the game is not lost as long as others have the opportunity to make their move. The most dangerous thing is if the rules of the game begin to be written for the chosen few. This must not be allowed to happen!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

A hardware problem cannot be solved with software

When a capacitor on your motherboard bulges, you resolder it rather than trying to solve the problem by changing some variable in the Windows registry. When a shock absorber in your car dies, you certainly won’t go in and reprogram the electronic control unit in the hope that the problem can be solved without “dirty work.” But for some reason, when it comes to malfunctions in human “hardware,” many mistakenly believe that these problems can be solved purely “programmatically” (through philosophy, religion, social institutions), without therapeutic intervention in the defective systems of the body.

This misconception is especially noticeable in discussions about the violence inhibitor. But in fact, it is exactly the same kind of hardware system as processor elements like the ALU and registers. If a processor has physical defects or has degraded, no firmware update will help — this sad lesson was well learned by owners of the latest generations of Intel “stones.” Likewise, in the case of a degenerate rapist, no amount of persuasion will help — the problem is purely “hardware,” it is in his “noggin.” It’s time to accept the truth and abandon the illusions: hardware (physical) problems require a corresponding hardware solution (action in the real world)!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Golden cage or contract slavery: why non-compete is inhumane

Imagine this situation: you are a talented engineer at a tech giant. You love your work, you are passionate about your ideas, and you want to push the industry forward. Suddenly, you decide to change jobs to continue growing and keep pace with the times. But then comes a surprise—your contract forbids you from doing what you do best. How is that possible?

Recent news about Google DeepMind employees in the UK, who it turns out are forbidden from working for competitors for a year after leaving, is a great reason to discuss why “non-compete” contracts are, to put it mildly, a very bad idea. And not just bad, but inhumane and contrary to the basic principles of freedom.

What is a non-compete? It is an agreement according to which, upon leaving a company, you pledge not to work for its competitors for a certain period. Moreover, you may continue to receive a salary during this time. Sounds almost dreamy, right? But it’s not that simple. In effect, you are sent to a “golden cage”: you get paid, but professionally you degrade. This is especially true in fast-changing industries like IT and AI, where a year of downtime can cost you your career.

Why is this unacceptable from a libertarian perspective? The core value of libertarian philosophy is personal freedom and the right of self-ownership. When an employer restricts your freedom to pursue your favorite activity, they are infringing upon your fundamental right to dispose of your own labor and talents. Furthermore, such contracts contradict universal human rights. They go against basic humanistic principles by restricting freedom and forcing talented people to either “sit on the bench” or move into another field, losing their skills and motivation.

The good news is that not all courts support such agreements. For example, in the US, the California Supreme Court long ago recognized most non-compete agreements as illegal because they “unfairly restrict a citizen’s ability to earn a living.” In 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to recognize non-competes for restaurant workers, ruling that there were no fair grounds to prohibit waiters from moving to competing establishments.

Other examples of inhumane contracts:

– In 2017, a British court ruled a contract illegal that prohibited nurses from leaving a public hospital to move to private clinics—the court considered this an infringement on the freedom of labor.
– An American court overturned agreements under which Amazon employees were required to reimburse the company for training costs if they resigned early—this was recognized as a form of debt bondage.
– In 2019, a German court overturned a football club’s contract that prohibited a player from playing for competing clubs in the same league upon leaving. The judge argued: “A human is not a commodity.”

Why is this important now? The world is changing rapidly. Artificial intelligence, blockchain, biotechnology—these industries are evolving so quickly that losing even a few months can result in complete professional obsolescence. Are we really ready to allow corporations to control not only our present but also our future, dictating where and as whom we can work tomorrow?

The libertarian view is broader: freedom of contract is good, but freedom should not turn into chains. After all, freedom of contract ends where the restriction of fundamental human rights begins. One cannot sell or buy the right to someone’s future! And the authoritarians who disagree and are ready to forcibly impose such an order on others must understand that the rejection of universal human rights will inevitably work against them as well—for example, through the rejection of non-interference in their nervous system without consent, which is currently perceived as a given, but is actually someone’s goodwill and desire to observe conventions, rather than the laws of physics.

Let us remember: people are not resources. Talent is not company property. And a person’s freedom to dispose of their own life and career is sacred.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Myth of Eternal War: How Did Hobbes Deceive Us?

Once, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes confidently stated that the natural state of humanity is an endless “war of all against all.” Sounds familiar, right? This concept has become so ingrained that we sometimes forget to check its truthfulness. But in reality, it turns out that people are not as bloodthirsty by nature as we are led to believe.

Take, for example, the well-known story of anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who claimed that killers among the Yanomami tribe were more successful in reproducing. The idea is clear and frightening: kill more, and you will have three times as many children! It sounds too harsh to be true, and indeed, it later turned out that Chagnon “stretched the truth” a bit—he was comparing elderly killers with young non-killers. And independent research showed that killers in tribal societies do not reproduce faster than others; in fact, to be honest, fewer of their children survive.

And in general, who said that wars are the norm? A famous myth from Steven Pinker goes like this: 15% of the prehistoric population constantly perished in wars until states emerged and brought order. Great advertising for the state, isn’t it? Except that archaeology shows something completely different: violent deaths in pre-cultural societies were no more than 2%. Moreover, the emergence of states did not reduce the level of violence at all. On the contrary, the first large structures often fueled conflicts and increased the percentage of killings to about 5%.

It is worth noting that anthropologists may unconsciously reinforce the notion of the inevitability of war. For example, researchers “record” groups as warlike that actually hardly ever fought, simply because of the presence of weapon images in rock paintings. But these images do not necessarily evidence actual aggression: weapons could have been used for hunting or symbolic ceremonies. As a result, a false impression is created that ancient people were constantly at war.

Data on so-called “simple” hunter-gatherer societies is also quite telling. Despite being depicted in many works as brutal and always ready to fight, in reality, they are the ones characterized by extremely low levels of aggression and violence. Real war is a rarity for them, not the norm. Conversely, societies with a complex social structure and a more developed hierarchy more often become participants in conflicts and wars. Interesting, isn’t it? It turns out that the more complex a society is, the more conflict and aggression it generates.

Furthermore, many proponents of the Hobbesian perspective fully acknowledge this fact, but they try not to emphasize it, seriously studying only cases of “complex” societies, as, for example, Lawrence Keeley did in the work “War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage.” Alternatively, they may simply categorize “complex” societies as “simple,” subsequently labeling the latter as warlike.

In general, peaceful coexistence is the norm for many peoples. Thus, a study of 590 cultures from around the world showed an absence of wars in as many as 64% of them. Of course, they might have defended themselves against attacks, but initiating attacks is something only a minority of cultures engage in.

So why do we continue to believe in the myth of a human nature doomed to eternal war? Perhaps the problem here is habit—this belief was passed from generation to generation without critical reflection. Or perhaps someone intentionally maintains this myth to justify the existence of a strong and powerful state “saving” us from ourselves.

Let’s admit it to ourselves: the idea that people are by nature inclined toward peace and cooperation sounds much more realistic, optimistic, and attractive. Perhaps it is time for us to stop considering peace a utopia and start seeing it as a natural part of human life. After all, as history and research show, peaceful communities are not the exception, but rather the rule. So is it worth continuing to cling to gloomy Hobbesian imagery? Probably not. It is time to stop allowing fears to dictate our view of humanity and start trusting each other a bit more!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Biohacking and the freedom to conduct experiments on oneself

Throughout history, people have experimented and performed various procedures on themselves. They tried different foods and medical remedies, underwent diverse rituals, and so on. In some cases, such experimentation even had significant scientific value. For example, one article cites 465 instances where researchers tested disease pathogens, tried new drugs, or performed other procedures on themselves. And although 8 of these cases ended in death, indicating a certain level of risk in such experiments, the vast majority (89%) led to positive results—confirmation of previously proposed hypotheses or the acquisition of valuable data.

Of course, today there is a negative attitude toward such experimentation, and toward independent intervention in the human body and health in general. State regulation has played a huge role in this, imposing strict restrictions on what a person can and cannot do, often insisting and deciding on behalf of ordinary people that this is allegedly safer. The state has done everything to ensure that biomedical experiments and procedures do not take place outside of approved institutions.

However, none of this has prevented the existence of biohacking. First of all, it should be noted that many means for its implementation are very common and not regulated at all, being simply bioactive supplements. No one can forbid you, based on current research or biohacking books, from purchasing certain vitamins or nootropics and taking them in the specified dosages and manner, let alone modifying your lifestyle or diet based on experimental data or even hypothetical assumptions. By the way, a good collection of useful tools and practices can be found in Daria Babkina’s book “Brain Biohacking: How to Manage Neurochemistry, Emotions, and Intelligence,” which was released this year.

But the matter doesn’t end there. Modern technologies make it possible to organize entire genetic laboratories at home, and there are already ready-made solutions for this. For example, for just 3,000 dollars, you can purchase a home laboratory with all the additions for bioengineering from “The Odin” (and educational kits for simple experiments cost only hundreds of dollars). You don’t have to go far for instructions on what exactly to do with such a laboratory—you can simply replicate step-by-step what has been done in various studies. This is exactly what one biohacker did—whose video you can see here—to correct his lactose intolerance; he simply recreated a gene therapy drug from an experiment on mice and tested it on himself. The result was excellent—a single pill allows for the free consumption of dairy products for over a year without experiencing any negative consequences whatsoever.

Considering how deeply modern science is stuck in countless regulations and the need to wait for state approval, sometimes even for decades, biohacking can give a boost to progress in the field of biotechnology, especially if we are talking about solutions that people need here and now to treat their diseases and various conditions that cause discomfort but do not yet have a sufficiently effective solution among those approved and allowed on the market by the state regulator.

Is there a danger in this? Naturally, among those engaged in biohacking, undesirable outcomes will sometimes occur. But people have every right to voluntarily assume such a risk, and an attempt to introduce a total ban on self-experimentation would not be justified, and to a large extent, would not even be feasible. Even now, there are fully approved activities that carry huge risks, such as extreme sports. And if a person can choose to do base jumping, rock climbing, or motocross, then why can’t they choose to control the biochemical processes of their own body, or even edit their genome?

Voluntarist, Bitarch