Автор: Битарх

OMP is ineffective? Debunking the myth of Boris Boyarshinov and his supporters.

Column Bitarkh

It turns out there is a fairly large “sect” of supporters of Boris Boyarshinov, who denies the danger of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He constantly repeats a “mantra” of sorts about the uselessness of nuclear weapons (NW). His background is in physics, so most of his arguments concern NW specifically, but he sometimes says something similar about viruses (I remember Mikhail Svetov asked Boyarshinov directly about the idea of viral WMD, and Boris answered in roughly the same spirit as he did about NW).

The main point of his theory is that none of the currently existing WMDs are capable of destroying humanity or even a specific geographical region. He claims that the scale of destruction from a nuclear explosion grows as the cube root of the charge’s power (i.e., as the number of “megatons” in a bomb increases, the destruction increases very, very slowly), that nuclear winter is a calculation error and will not happen in reality, and that viruses can be contained by a vaccine and are inconvenient to store in a ready-to-use state.

Now, Boyarshinov and his supporters do not understand the very essence of deterrence theory and confuse doomsday weapons (DDW) with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The latter are sometimes called strategic deterrence weapons.

DDW, in the literal sense, is a device capable of completely destroying all of humanity or making the planet uninhabitable.

WMD is a deterrence weapon that operates on a game-theory model of costs and benefits. None of the supporters of nuclear/viral deterrence ever claim that WMD must kill all of humanity in the literal sense, as is understood in the case of DDW. Even at the peak of the Cold War, when the USSR and USA had tens of thousands of thermonuclear charges, experts spoke of inflicting “unacceptable damage,” but never the total destruction of the planet. The concept of M.A.D. (“Mutual Assured Destruction”) is deceptive in its name—it is not total mutual annihilation, as many think, but merely the infliction of unacceptable damage.

Nevertheless, for deterring an aggressor in the form of a state, WMD is entirely sufficient. The example of North Korea’s Kim demonstrates this perfectly; even the most powerful state in the world—the USA—is afraid to attack him. There is no need to even discuss the destructive power of North Korean missiles—as experts say, in the best case, only 1-2 missiles with a simple nuclear warhead would arrive, which would blow up a few blocks of dense housing in a city like New York. There are opposite examples—Gaddafi and Hussein had no WMD, and we all know perfectly well what happened to them.

From animal ethology, we know how the dominance hierarchy is structured in animal species that form them (the very fact that such a hierarchy forms is an evolutionary error [local extremum] arising from a disruption in the uniform balance of violence potential [in animals, this is a lack of innate weaponry]). In such a hierarchy, the dominant (“alpha”) can apply violence to submissive individuals (“omegas”), and the latter are in no way capable of inflicting retaliatory damage. If they are capable, a dominance hierarchy does not arise.

Generally speaking, all states, in relation to both their own citizens and other, weaker states, are capable of applying violence without the risk of receiving retaliatory damage. In making the decision to attack Hussein, the US government considered the risks of a retaliatory strike and, understanding that the most Saddam Hussein was capable of was killing some soldiers sent there voluntarily and ready for the risk, easily decided on aggression.

The situation with North Korea’s Kim is completely different—taking even a weak bomb to New York is unacceptable damage; voters would not understand this, and the US political system would risk spiraling out of control, which the authorities cannot allow.

Now let’s consider the confrontation between a stationary bandit and an individual. As you think—you can even apply this to yourself personally—would society agree to sit in quarantine for 2 weeks to allow the state to apply violence even to the person most unpleasant to you, such as a pedophile maniac? Want to execute one maniac—welcome to a two-week quarantine! I highly doubt you would agree to that.

A state can coerce through violence only when there is no even minimal retaliatory strike using WMD, otherwise “voters will not understand.” Thus, for deterring a modern state, nuclear weapons or Level 4 danger viruses are even excessive. A weak flu virus is enough, which can literally be multiplied “in a garage” using simple, easily accessible materials such as chicken eggs and an incubator, and the virus sample for multiplication can be easily obtained from any hospital. The main thing is the inevitability of a retaliatory strike using such WMD in the event of “impaling” [brutal repression], which can be implemented as a “dead hand system” or an “assassination market.” After a couple of such episodes, the country will quickly return to a state of separate pre-state societies, where the most that could be done to a criminal was ostracism. On this point, the philosopher Steven Pinker said it well: “Revenge is a risky business because if the enemy is dangerous enough to have harmed you, he is unlikely to accept punishment without resistance.” In matters of coercion to obey the orders (“laws”) of a stationary bandit, it is the same (we talked about this in the video “The Non-violent State”). The possession of even the simplest WMD by a potential victim of the state makes the initiation of violence “political suicide” for the authorities. It will come to the point where society, tired of continuous quarantines and overcrowded hospitals, will pressure the state using its own forces to root out aggressive violence (it may be hard to believe now, but life will force it).

Violence and Non-violence: The Revival of Statehood

Voluntarist

Certain forms of violence are often legitimized as a tool necessary for maintaining public order. This is especially true regarding the pursuit of people who have previously committed acts of violence or have simply violated certain agreements through non-violent means, and the forced application of power measures for restitution and punishment. In the first article of this cycle, we already examined how the issue of restitution and the punishment of criminals can be resolved without resorting to force. However, some people, including supporters of a free stateless society, may still consider violence to be a necessary or, at least, permissible tool in certain situations. One of the arguments that can be countered with is that the use of power measures leads to the rebirth of a violent hierarchy of dominance in the form of a state with uncontested and monopolistic power. This is another negative externality of violence.

To implement power measures against people, there must exist bodies or entities that have the ability to apply violence to them without hindrance (or with minimal obstacles). In effect, someone must have the right and the ability to violate the Balance of Violence Potential (BVP) — an important component of a free society, without which its stable and long-term existence is fundamentally impossible.

Insufficient equalization of the BVP in a free society may be caused by the fact that the majority of society’s members do not wish to defend themselves against acts of violence; that is, they are fundamentally unconcerned with the issue of security, are willing to tolerate aggressors, and voluntarily submit to them. In such a case, there is little to be done other than distributing means of self-defense and popularizing the idea of the need to protect oneself. However, if a free society is achieved based on the current state of affairs, such a scenario is unlikely, as equalizing the BVP by these methods is one of the key components of this process. And by achieving a free society through the equalization of the BVP, we will create conditions under which the existence of bodies with the right to the unhindered use of force should not be possible in principle.

However, it is possible to assume that a state of insufficient BVP equalization has nonetheless occurred. For example, we have eliminated violent monopolistic power, but decided not to get rid of the use of power measures, but instead to transfer this function to various independent agents, providing them with certain advantages over everyone else, which would allow them to engage in such activities without hindrance. In this case, I have only one question: what would stop such agents from one moment deciding to stop fulfilling their obligations under agreements and begin applying violence to pursue their own goals, including the establishment of their own coercive and monopolistic power over people and entities who lack the ability to defend themselves?

Obviously, nothing would stop them. Thus, violent and monopolistic political power will be created anew. This is precisely why supporters of a free society cannot be consistent in their views if they adhere to the legitimization and permissibility of certain forms of violence for various purposes, including the pursuit of forceful punishment and the extraction of compensation, since this, again, would require the existence of bodies or entities with a greater potential for violence than everyone else, and thus capable of establishing their own power at any moment.

The Limits of Violence

Bitarch, Voluntarist

Supporters of etatism and the use of force generally divide violence into illegitimate violence—that is, “bad” violence, which must be fought against—and supposedly “legitimate” violence, which is considered beneficial and may be, or even must be, applied. Violence may be declared legitimate for the sake of achieving certain goals which, according to etatists, are worth treating people as nothing more than a soulless resource in the hands of a “wise” government. Violence may be declared legitimate for the sake of revenge and the forceful punishment of those who committed an act of violence in the past, or even those who simply violated some agreement through non-violent means; this is supposedly a necessary measure in the fight against crime, and generally allows for a kind of “social revenge,” letting people blow off steam on those who have done something wrong.

Of course, based on different ethical models and views on social organization, one can attempt to legitimize any form of violence. They can even be legitimized based on certain practical considerations, but only in a very limited sense, by avoiding a full consideration of the final results. However, if one stops engaging in purely subjective theorizing and fully examines the results of violent practices, it becomes evident that violence only leads to catastrophe, regardless of whether it is called legitimate or not.

To understand what the issue is, let us imagine a situation. A specific person has been accused of committing some crime; the court has found them guilty and ordered them to pay compensation or submit to other measures (for example, go to prison). However, they refuse to do so. Of course, a number of non-forceful methods of pressure can be used, especially various reputational and financial tools. But this does not satisfy you, and you want to achieve your goal by force? Then let us see how far you are willing to go, especially considering that we live in a modern high-tech world in which the destructive potential of a single individual grows every day.

1) Using one or another weapon of self-defense, the convicted person destroys the agents who came to their home and are forcing them to comply through threats of violence.

2) Using explosives previously planted in an apartment building or a crowded place, the convicted person demands to be left alone; otherwise, they will have no choice but to detonate them (or fail to prevent a detonation via a pre-set timer, if they have already been caught and are not being released), thereby killing many people.

3) Using a previously planted container with a non-dangerous virus (for example, flu or coronavirus), the convicted person follows the same scheme to infect several people in the city, thereby forcing the authorities to impose a strict two-week quarantine throughout the city (assume that you personally would be forbidden from leaving your home during this quarantine).

4) Using a previously planted “dirty bomb,” they turn a large city into a second Pripyat; the population is completely evacuated, and many die from cancer. All real estate and some of the movable property of the city’s residents are lost forever (becoming unusable due to radioactive contamination).

5) Using a previously planted container with a very dangerous virus obtained or synthesized earlier (which, with technical progress, will also cease to be a major problem), the convicted person launches a pandemic that leads to a large-scale quarantine across the entire country for a long period, a high number of victims, and the collapse of the economy.

6) Using thermonuclear missiles (the convicted person being wealthy enough to produce them) or ultra-high-capacity energy sources (which, like virus synthesizers, could become quite accessible, even common everyday tools), they turn the entire planet into a scorched desert barely fit for life and destroy civilization in the form it currently exists. A small portion of survivors reverts to the Stone Age.

I think the maximum risk you would be willing to take is what is described in the first point; otherwise, the consequences would be catastrophic. And in the event that the Balance of Violence Potential is achieved (meaning universal armament), this option will inevitably end with the liquidation of enforcement agents, which will make forced coercion fundamentally impossible!

Do you support punishments for victimless “crimes”? Then be consistent!

Column Bitarch

Supporters of state intervention in social life to prohibit certain actions (the sale and use of drugs, speeding, overtaking on a solid line, organizing certain types of businesses like gambling) justify the existence of “victimless crime” laws by the reduction of the risk of significant harm. Their logic is roughly as follows: when you drive at 200 km/h, you are not killing anyone, of course, but you increase the probability of fatal consequences. It is similar with drug prohibitions—etatists believe that prohibitions are necessary to reduce the likelihood of children “getting hooked on the needle,” as they are less likely to try drugs (and harm their own health) if their sale is prohibited.

Unfortunately, etatists lack the intellect and knowledge to understand one simple thing—by threatening violence (which is what any “law”-command from a stationary bandit actually is), you will never reduce the number of deaths or health impairments. The threat of violence only creates a market incentive to create super-destructive deterrence weapons, including doomsday weapons, so that violence against you becomes unprofitable for the aggressor (in this case, the state). The example of North Korea’s Kim demonstrates this perfectly (he would not have created WMDs if the US authorities had not given him the corresponding incentive through the exemplary execution of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi).

Do you think a state ban on the sale of “weed” will save thousands of lives? It might save some, but the ratio of benefits to costs must be calculated. Let’s say the weed dealer is not just some random Joe, but someone well-versed in deterrence theory. He robs the Vector storage facility in Novosibirsk, and when the state tries to “put him on a stake,” he threatens to release the stolen viruses. Suppose that instead of recognizing the inadmissibility of violence in any form (as should be done), the authorities send special forces to put a bullet in his head. But he proved to be prudent, hiding the viruses disguised as drug “stashes” and creating an analogue of the “dead hand” system. After his death, these stashes were automatically put up for sale as ordinary drugs, someone bought them, opened them… and found natural smallpox inside. A few days later, a global pandemic began, resulting in the death of a third of the population. That was the “price” of saving drug addicts’ lives through the threat of state violence!

I suggest that etatists be consistent. Do you want the prohibition of victimless “crimes” through state violence? Fine, just prohibit not only drugs and gambling, but everything that increases the risk of causing harm. First and foremost, this is the creation of market incentives for obtaining WMDs as a means of deterrence. One could even add an article to the criminal code: “Incitement to the development and production of weapons of mass destruction.” I only fear that you personally will be the first defendants in a criminal case under it!

Do you really advocate for the killing of all attackers?

The idea of universal armament and unlimited self-defense is often criticized from the position that it will lead to an increase in the number of unjustified killings. In this matter, the following formulation is often used: “Do you really advocate for the ability to use a weapon against a person and thereby threaten their priceless life simply because they attacked you with their fists, started approaching with threats, or broke into your home? Most likely, the attacker only wishes to simply hit, beat, or rob you. But injuries can almost always be healed, and material values are not even close to being worth it.” Let us examine this issue in more detail.

People who allow themselves to engage in violent behavior, even if it is not lethal, are still aggressors. Violent tendencies are a part of their personality that they should realize as early as possible and make every effort to overcome. But if a person is satisfied with their violence, if they do not intend to do anything about it and refuse any offers of help, then they represent only a greater threat to other people, introducing multiple negative externalities into their lives.

Some might think that according to my logic, one should specifically seek out all people prone to aggressive violence to take preventive measures. However, this is not the case. It is impossible to know for certain if a person is truly a violent offender until they manifest their violence in practice. But even if a person has committed an act of violence previously but is not manifesting it now, they should not be attacked for any purpose (punishment, extorting compensation, forced coercion into psychotherapy). In the end, by attacking them, we ourselves become aggressors wishing to forcibly subject other people to our orders, which would also introduce negative externalities into our lives and the lives of everyone else.

However, if a person decides to attack you here and now, it is an unconditional fact that they are an aggressor and a violent offender threatening your life and the lives of other people. Furthermore, through their violence, they show that they are not averse to using force to impose their own orders, which is already a very dangerous tendency. To destroy them is to get rid of the threat arising from it. Imagine that through their acts of aggression, they can accumulate a potential for violence. Then they will gain power and turn everyone around them into their own slaves. Can you really consider the life of a person valuable who does not consider life valuable themselves and, at the first opportunity, will organize slavery or even genocide for the people around them?

I personally cannot. Of course, I will not attack such a person myself, because by doing so, I would be no better than they are. But if they attack me, I will rid myself of them, thereby making my life and the lives of other people safer. And if all aggressors are destroyed during their attacks, then non-violence in people will be reinforced purely evolutionarily, since only people who do not manifest or who control aggression will be able to continue their lineage both biologically—since aggressive tendencies can be genetically determined—and in terms of upbringing, as good parents have far greater chances of raising good children than aggressor parents.

Voluntarist

Financial freedom and violence are incompatible

Supporters of authoritarian-right (conservative) ideas should consider whether the financial and economic freedom they so praise is even compatible with the persistence of physical violence in society.

Those who believe that free economic relations can be ensured in a society where violent activity is permissible—and where a strong centralized organ of violence exists—are making a fairly significant mistake. Let us correct this error.

Let us first note that the problem is much broader than state violence, meaning that the mere destruction of the “stationary bandit” will not solve it. The problem lies in aggressive violence as such, regardless of its source. The public will only continue to support states in strengthening financial control as long as the threat of financing violent activity, such as terrorism, exists. And even in a stateless society, people, fearing they will become victims of violence, will continue to pressure free and independent financial structures to control the flow of finances as strictly as possible. Moreover, the structures themselves are interested in control, as violence threatens them as well.

Perhaps you have heard of cases where some European banks voluntarily blocked the accounts of cryptocurrency traders due to suspicion of financing terrorism, even though the traders provided all legally required documents within the AML/KYC procedure. The state did not compel the banks to do this, but they nevertheless decided to forego a portion of their profits to reduce potential reputational damage (if the cryptocurrency was indeed obtained for jihadism or contract killings and this later surfaced, clients concerned with their own reputation would not want to do business with these banks, even if the banks had done everything correctly from the perspective of state law).

Also, do not forget that in a society with an unresolved problem of violence, financial control will inevitably grow with scientific and technical progress, as potential violent actors will have more opportunities to cause significant harm—for example, by using high-capacity energy sources, new types of explosives, or even biological threats in the form of intentional viral infection (DNA synthesizers are becoming more accessible every year).

Where will all this lead? To the fact that many market agents, driven by fear, will most thoroughly verify the origin of funds of any subjects entering into transactions with them. After all, who would want to conduct a transaction with a person who earns their money by selling explosives to terrorists, thereby putting their own life at risk?

As a result, transaction costs will only increase, and any inaccuracies or suspicions will lead to the blocking of bank accounts and the seizure of funds from a suspicious person, just to ensure that violence is avoided. Many may be caught in the crossfire for no reason (the problem of “false positives” remains). This will clearly slow down the economy, making it quite inefficient, which will ultimately lead to a sharp decline in people’s well-being and the stagnation of progress. Even the use of uncontrollable financial instruments, such as cryptocurrencies, will not help, as they will be useless if the majority of agents in the economy refuse to accept them, again, fearing a violent origin.

Conservatives may object—that this is exactly why a strong state is needed: to deter violence. They believe that if it is properly organized within constitutional frameworks that limit its growth, it is possible to ensure both economic freedom, so people can earn money and engage in entrepreneurial activity without hindrance, and a low level of violence.

However, a strong state cannot exist without financial control; for its existence, it needs enormous funds, which can only be obtained by levying high taxes on people and enterprises, as well as by using monopoly privileges in a significant portion of economic spheres. A strong state is incompatible with a free economy. And even a weak, minimal state is also incompatible, as it always degenerates into a strong state; politicians cannot be stopped from expanding their powers, as we have clearly observed throughout the history of states. Even the most seemingly liberal states, such as Switzerland, strengthen economic control over their citizens every day.

Moreover, politicians have interested groups of people supporting them and many justifications for increasing control—be it the expansion of state social programs, the increase of defense capabilities, or the supposed development of the economy. The latter is the most absurd thing one could imagine—how can the violent extraction of funds from the economy through the taxation of its participants, as well as the strict limitation of their activities in certain economic spheres, help it develop? Nonsense! Yet some interested groups follow even such nonsense.

I think it should now be clear that the fight against violence as a phenomenon in general is critically important for achieving financial freedom and all its accompanying positive aspects. And social models that permit the initiation of violence—whether it be state-monopolized and centralized, or private and independent—clearly contradict financial freedom.

Bitarch

The most underrated danger—the viral destruction of humanity as a result of human violent tendencies

In the modern world, the fight against the phenomenon of violence plays a critically important role, as we could very well face the use of weaponry of an extremely destructive scale. And I am far from talking about nuclear weapons. Even the most powerful nuclear warhead would only be enough to destroy and radioactively contaminate a small city and its surroundings, and even the multiple use of nuclear charges, in the worst case, would only destroy a part of humanity, increase the rate of oncological diseases, lower the quality of life, and temporarily halt technological progress, but many people would survive such an event and would have a chance to deal with the resulting situation.

One should not think that weaponry truly capable of destroying humanity is merely a future prospect that is still far off. Usually, such weaponry is envisioned as a very powerful energy source, such as antimatter, of which even a small amount would be enough to completely destroy the biosphere of an entire planet. Of course, violent tendencies in people should be fought against for the sake of ensuring there are no psychopaths in the future capable of arranging such a thing, although with such advanced technologies, there will likely be no problem with conducting genetic therapy and modifying embryos aimed at combating violent tendencies as a congenital disease, which is impossible at the current level of progress. Nevertheless, this is also necessary against the threat that exists right now.

But what is this threat? A fairly obvious, yet widely underestimated threat: the viral destruction of humanity. Look at what is happening now. Even a relatively weak coronavirus, whose level of infectivity and lethality does not come close to values capable of putting human civilization face-to-face with catastrophic losses, let alone its destruction, was still enough to cause quite a stir and demonstrate people’s inability to deal with a viral threat effectively enough. Furthermore, let us not forget that the production of a vaccine is generally a matter very demanding of time and resources.

However, what do people’s violent tendencies have to do with this? The fact that in modern conditions, arranging an artificial pandemic, even one much more serious than the coronavirus, is not difficult at all. Research laboratories store various samples of viruses, including quite dangerous ones. Additionally, they have the capabilities to create artificial (synthetic) viruses that are more infectious and deadly than those that arose in the natural environment.

Now let us imagine several scenarios capable of leading to an irreparable catastrophe. For example, an employee of one of such laboratories, possessing aggressive tendencies, realizes the power available to them, seizes virus samples, hides them in different places, and threatens to release them if humanity does not make concessions to them. Or, the laboratory could be seized by a group of people who also have an interest in subordinating everyone to their conditions, or, worse, fulfilling some fanatic’s prophetic scenario of an apocalypse. And there is no need to say that this problem will be solved as soon as governments realize the full danger of such scenarios and decide to significantly strengthen the security of such facilities. The mobilization of force would only demonstrate to all interested parties and individuals with aggressive tendencies where they can obtain the power to realize their plans; likewise, strengthening control would increase the level of stress among the population and the facility’s workers, which would only intensify such a risk. Let us also not forget that governments can experience crises, and someone might take advantage of weakened control and the turmoil during one of them. Also, someone might attempt to collect a set of pathogens slowly but surely, in different places and in different convenient situations, storing them for a long time until the necessary quantity is gathered.

From there, the matter is not particularly complicated—a psychopath who has seized virus samples either achieves, effectively, universal slavery before their power and the establishment of totalitarian violent orders, or releases them into the wild. If the pathogens are not particularly dangerous individually, but there are many of them and they are released in different places, people will have to fight all of them simultaneously. Now imagine how difficult this is, given that the struggle against even one coronavirus required numerous efforts and, nonetheless, was not effective enough to get rid of it even to some extent over nearly ten months since the start of the pandemic.

Furthermore, a psychopath might release only one virus, but one that is laboratory-developed. Imagine, for instance, a laboratory modification of HIV capable of surviving outside the human body, and thus being transmitted through touch, shared use of items, and airborne droplets. Considering that such a virus, like HIV, would have a fairly long incubation period, a lot of time could pass before it is noticed; however, due to the efficient routes of spread, it would already be too late—almost everyone would already be infected.

One should not rely on the mobilization of resources for the development of a vaccine and effective treatment either. In the case of fighting a large number of viruses simultaneously, one would have to conduct many research and development projects at once using the same resource base, which would greatly reduce the efficiency of each individual study. And a scenario involving a single artificially engineered dangerous virus could be catastrophic due to the very nature of the virus, which is difficult to research and treat. Let us not forget that the nature of HIV itself has made it impossible to invent a vaccine against it for decades, since it attacks the immune cells that, in the case of other viruses, are used to fight them, but cannot resist HIV due to their own infection. The only case of cure occurred during a bone marrow transplant from a person with a congenital mutation that prevents HIV from attaching to immune cells. However, such people are very few, and the material obtained from them cannot be used for mass treatment. Therefore, the scenario from many pandemic movies, in which antibodies developed in the organism of a “patient zero” are used to cure everyone after they are found, will not work either, as, again, the amount of material is very, very limited, while the virus meanwhile kills thousands of infected and is transmitted to thousands and millions more.

In a very rapid and destructive pandemic, the impossibility of resisting it is further caused by the fact that under such conditions, the infrastructure for the production and delivery of necessary means would be severely damaged, or even completely destroyed. Even if the scientists in the laboratory and those guarding them do not scatter in fear and panic, they will have difficulties obtaining the materials necessary for conducting research and development; they might even face a shortage of basic goods, such as food, which would make the further pursuit of their activities impossible.

I think there should be no more doubts about how real and catastrophic the threat of viral destruction of humanity is. If any of the scenarios I have listed occurs, then 99% of people face extinction, and the remaining 1%—those who hid well or have innate protection—will unlikely be able to revive human civilization; even if these people survive, they will have to start their journey from absolute zero, and moreover in a world where remnants of pathogens lie everywhere.

That is precisely why it is necessary to fight violence as a phenomenon in general, the result of which will be the eradication of violent tendencies in all of humanity. It is important to promote the idea of the viral destruction of humanity so that people understand the seriousness of the situation now and can begin to act. Perhaps it will be possible to get rid of violent tendencies with the help of biological technologies, such as the same genetic therapy aimed at eradicating violent tendencies just as vaccination is aimed at protecting against viral infection. However, this method is doubtful due to the insufficient level of technical progress at this moment. Therefore, the most realistic scenario would be the equalization of the Balance of Violence Potential—achieving a state in which different subjects have approximately equal opportunities to inflict unacceptable (including lethal) damage on each other. Under such conditions, people who do not have strong violent tendencies will be able to continue their lives, and they will have fewer incentives to lean toward acts of violence. And those who cannot live without violence will, through their own attacks on other people, run headlong into danger, be liquidated, and leave no offspring. This scenario is based on a scheme derived by ethologist Konrad Lorenz, which you can read about in detail here.

In closing, I will not forget to say that the achievement of freedom from violent tendencies must happen before the idea of using laboratory viruses for one’s own purposes occurs to someone who has access to them or the ability to seize them. Otherwise, catastrophe is inevitable.

“Revenge is a risky business because, if the enemy is dangerous enough to have harmed you, it is unlikely he will accept punishment without resistance.” Steven Pinker.

Bitarch and Voluntarist after consultation with a professional biologist

Corporations Against Violence

Many believe that conducting effective campaigns to eradicate aggressive violence from society is impossible through the activities of volunteers alone. However, the eradication of violence is beneficial not only to those for whom it is a personal interest, but also to high-tech entrepreneurs and corporations. Now, we will examine why they will inevitably invest in such an initiative.

Before answering this question, we should examine the current state of affairs regarding Scientific and Technological Progress (STP). Three subsequent scenarios can be listed:

1) Rejection of STP. In this case, the limited resources of our planet will not be enough to provide for the needs of humanity, even if the population decreases and people consume less. Resources will still run out, just a bit later. Furthermore, Earth’s existence is allotted a limited amount of time. Rejection of STP means the extinction of humanity in any case.

2) Promotion of STP without the eradication of violence. But STP is inevitably linked to an increase in energy consumption and the creation of potentially dangerous technologies. It can be expected that in the future, this will lead to the mass proliferation of very high-capacity but dangerous energy sources and carriers, such as atomic batteries, or even antimatter. Obviously, in such a case, any person could cause a local, or even global, catastrophe.

3) The promotion of STP is inextricably linked with the eradication of violence. Dangerous and energy-intensive technologies no longer threaten people; on the contrary, they serve their development and the survival of humanity as a whole.

Obviously, only the third scenario can be acceptable. But what do entrepreneurs and corporations have to do with this? It’s simple. This scenario is also the most profitable for them, even in purely monetary terms. A very large fortune can be made from the sale of products based on dangerous technologies. Imagine for yourself how much profit the sale of flying cars with built-in nuclear reactors, DNA synthesizers (although this technology does not threaten a big explosion, it can be used to create some deadly virus), or private transport for space travel would bring?

Of course, some will say that such technologies are still far off. But it does not matter whether we are close to this or far. The moment when only one step remains toward such inventions will come sooner or later, and perhaps it has already arrived. Government regulations, and overall the fear of catastrophic consequences of introducing new technologies into operation, will become barriers to further progress. STP, which is critically important for the survival of humanity, will cease.

But what is also important, within the framework of the topic we are considering, is the loss of profit for entrepreneurs and corporations. They will not be able to sell what cannot be sold due to bans or fears. But they will not be able to give up potential profit. That is why we can confidently expect that the initiative to eradicate violence will find support among them; they will certainly invest a lot of funds into such a cause, because in the end, it will all pay off handsomely!

By the way, for the reasons listed above, it is not profitable for corporations to become violent agents themselves (for example, states), because this will inevitably lead to the use of dangerous technologies, which, in turn, will destroy their entire business.

Bitarch

Balance of Violence Potential

Balance of Violence Potential (BVP), or more accurately, the uniform distribution of violence potential, is a certain state in society where any person is capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on another in a local clash. For simplicity, BVP can be viewed as maximum universal armament in society, where absolutely every resident of a given territory possesses a weapon for personal self-defense, for example, a pistol or even such ersatz weaponry as a blinding laser or a poison dart, preferably several units, so that it would be impossible to disarm anyone. It is assumed that residents of this territory have the opportunity (or rather an obligation in the form of a cultural norm) to possess weapons based on their physiological capabilities without any legal barriers (for example, age, citizenship, “criminal records” for activities undesirable from the state’s point of view) and financial need (volunteers and high-tech corporations will help the poor obtain weapons for free, just as vaccination is currently helped in poor countries, since this is profitable for them as well).

Why is BVP needed? To eradicate physical violence from society. This will allow for a significant increase in the quality of life and welfare of the population, eliminate tyranny of both the stationary bandit (the state) and the criminal mafia and touring bandits, and allow scientific and technical progress to develop peacefully, without fearing a global catastrophe.

By what means will BVP reduce/eradicate violence? In a multitude of different ways:

1) Classical deterrence doctrine (“deterrence by punishment”) against rational aggressors. Knowing that the victim of violence can inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor, including even killing them, the aggressor will think carefully and decide that the benefit from violence will be less than the costs and will ultimately renounce violence.

There is a good example of such a model in the wild — porcupines. Cheetahs also frequently live in porcupine habitats, and they are hundreds of times superior in physical strength. But here is the surprising part: a cheetah can theoretically maul and eat a porcupine, but practically never does. There are occasional stupid individuals who decide to do so, but as a result, they either die or sustain such injuries that they never dare to try again.

2) Deterrence through denial (“deterrence by denial”) against invader states. The authorities of such a state set a specific goal — to conquer a territory and subjugate its residents. An aggressor can, of course, drop a nuclear bomb, but radioactive land without residents is worth absolutely nothing. As for the political elite of the aggressor, this is the end, because their own population will tear them to pieces for such an act. It would also create a dangerous precedent for the permissibility of using WMDs against civilians and legitimize the creation of strategic deterrent weapons by everyone capable of doing so (even now, a biohacker student is capable of multiplying a deadly virus and does not do so only for moral reasons).

3) The impossibility of creating and maintaining a violently hierarchical structure in a society with BVP. In such a society, the use of violence locally between people becomes unprofitable; accordingly, it is impossible to create and maintain a larger hierarchy of dominance (for example, a state) through the sequential accumulation of resources in the format of a “military hegemon.”

For example, an aggressor Vasya, having only a pistol, attacks Petya to use his resources to buy a Kalashnikov assault rifle. With it, he can attack Sasha with doubled force, buying a tank with the resources taken from him. Using this tank, he can attack billionaire Vanya with tripled force, who can even afford serious security, and use the obtained resources to hire a large army to conquer the entire country. But in the case of universal armament (uniform BVP), Vasya would be destroyed at the very beginning of his bloody path.

Imagine what would have happened if “little aliens” in the 1960s had arranged a “rain of pistols” over St. Petersburg? A teenager Pynya, who was prone to violence from birth, would with a probability close to 100% have died in a clash the next day, and the question of how to deal with him now would simply not be on the agenda.

4) Forcing natural selection that removes those prone to violence from the population. Analyzing many different species, biologist Konrad Lorenz found an interesting pattern — in animal species with strong innate armament (for example, hedgehogs, poisonous snakes, and insects) that allows them to very effectively inflict unacceptable damage on any opponent in a clash, an innate intra-species morality of non-aggression developed (more precisely — an instinct of aversion to initiating physical violence against a member of their own species), because otherwise the survival of the species would be under threat. This happened as a result of the most violence-prone individuals being destroyed during acts of aggression and thus failing to produce offspring. In humans, such a morality of non-aggression did not develop because humans are not a naturally heavily armed species; the mortality of fights with bare fists without the use of any additional means is very low, therefore there was no pressure from natural selection to develop this trait. More precisely, such a neurobiological mechanism also exists in the species homo sapiens, but in a very weak form. But if BVP is leveled in society, the pressure of natural selection will strengthen it in homo sapiens to the level of heavily armed species, since carriers of gene variants that cause less aversion to the initiation of violence in humans will be removed from the population before they even have a chance to pass them to the next generation.

Bitarch

If you vote, be responsible!

Perhaps you have read the latest book by the famous philosopher Nassim Taleb, “Skin in the Game“. If not, let me remind you of its main idea: in order for a person to have the motivation to carefully consider their action and its consequences before acting, they must not only benefit from the action but also risk something valuable (be prepared to face negative consequences).

The most famous example is the difference between a business owner and a hired manager. If the owner makes an important decision, they can either make a good profit or bankrupt the company, leaving themselves without means of subsistence. A manager is a completely different story: if they make a profitable decision, they will receive a substantial reward from the owner, but if they make a mistake, the company will go bankrupt, while they personally will lose, at most, their job and will most likely quickly find employment at a new company. Understanding this asymmetry of risks, business owners often offer managers stock options so that they are more invested in the fate of the company, “risking their own skin” by losing money if they screw up.

The same idea from Taleb’s book applies to politics. Every time you vote in elections or referendums, you are exercising violent coercion against all peaceful people in society while risking nothing. Suppose you believe that casinos should be banned in the country. If you were acting independently, you would have to go to every casino in the country and force their owners to close. Obviously, you wouldn’t do that—the very first casino owner you approached would simply shoot you. But it is a completely different matter when you, like some vile, cold-blooded pedophile, take advantage of the uneven balance of the potential for violence (BPV) between a casino owner and a stationary bandit (the state). You anonymously vote in a referendum to ban all casinos, pay a vanishingly small portion of your own income in the form of taxes (the enforcement of a specific ban that benefits you personally costs 0.01% of the total taxes you pay), and meanwhile risk nothing personally (you don’t have to go to each casino owner personally and risk being killed; the security forces will do it for you).

It is clear that such behavior leads to the degeneration of society. It is like giving maniacs free rein to rape children without risking meeting resistance. This must not continue… and it won’t! Participating in voting is not like receiving a billion bucks in your bank account; it is just a small moral satisfaction from the possibility of trying to coerce your neighbor for free. Since the satisfaction is small, the negative stimulus needed to deter participation in voting needs only to be tiny.

A fairly simple scheme emerges for how to raise the costs of complicity in initiating violence against one’s neighbor by participating in some vote. Did you find out that Vasyan from the next entrance voted for “United Russia” in yesterday’s elections? Pay 100 rubles to local hooligans and they will write “A maniac lives here” on his apartment door or post a flyer with his photo in the entrance saying “This person from your building rapes children.” The photos end up on social networks, and in the next elections, members of the election commissions sit in proud solitude. Coercing one’s neighbor has become “too expensive,” so one has to learn how to negotiate with them.

For the mass application of the described scheme, it is possible to create a crowdfunding service analogous to the previously described service for the deanonymization of officials and security forces. Harassing Vasyans will be a thousand times cheaper than harassing a well-guarded official, so one can count on mass appeal.

Bitarch