The critical error of dystopias about a non-violent society: there is no need to cut anything out of a human

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In a number of works demonstrating a non-violent society or the results of eradicating violent behavior in a specific person, the essence boils down to the alleged existence of some aggressive stimulus, which is precisely why a person becomes capable of hitting or killing someone, committing brutal crimes, or even starting wars. Having named it the cause of violence, the authors then describe societies in which, to eradicate it, they decided to suppress or literally cut this stimulus out of the person. The results of such a process turn out to be extremely discouraging – we get “castrated” people and a society deprived of all its creative potential.

Let’s start with Stanislaw Lem’s “Return from the Stars,” where people undergo a procedure called “betrization” – the neutralization of aggressive stimuli in the brain and the strengthening of the self-preservation instinct. According to Lem, in a peaceful society, people would become lackadaisical, unable to perform complex tasks, and would stop experiencing strong emotions. Let’s also recall Anthony Burgess’s “A Clockwork Orange,” where the main character undergoes a complete brainwashing. Being a devout Catholic, Burgess is inclined to believe that man is driven to violence by original sin, however, he possesses free will and the choice of whether to commit violence, and eradicating this freedom would be sinful. One could also briefly mention the anime series “Psycho-Pass,” in whose society certain works of art were even banned for inducing aggression in people, and in one scene, people who did see violence turned out to be absolutely indifferent and emotionless toward the victim’s suffering. There is one more work in which art was also banned for the same reason, but it will be appropriate to mention it a bit later.

All these works make the same critical mistake. In reality, it is not the presence, but precisely the lack of certain stimuli that makes a person capable of violence. As research demonstrates, aggression is often not the result of a loss of self-control, but may even require self-control for the intentional commission of acts of violence. Furthermore, improving self-control in aggressive people does not always help them, and may even do the opposite – it can make them even more effective aggressors. And psychopathic individuals, who commit the vast majority of violent crimes, often experience enhanced development of self-control from adolescence.

The same position can be derived from the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism – the ability of some individuals to cause harm to other people stems from their inability to experience internal repulsion and resistance toward it. They also have reduced empathy and guilt. Moreover, the effect of the most promising means for treating aggressive behavior (agonists of certain serotonin receptors) consists in stimulating and restoring full nervous activity, rather than in suppressing and eradicating anything.

A world in which they decided to fight violence and other evil by cutting something out of a person is most realistically demonstrated in the film “Equilibrium.” Its events take place after a “Third World” war, and human emotions were named as its main cause, which they now decided to suppress using a specific drug. Only, if you look closely at the people in this work, they have become not peaceful and ideal, but unfeeling psychopaths. This is especially evident in the “clerics” – soldiers whose task is to detect people who have shown emotions, destroy works of art, and kill all those who resist the regime.

Violent people need not fewer, but more emotions. They need not suppression, but on the contrary – stimulation of nervous activity. In order not to commit violence, one must feel more strongly, not more weakly. And Lem’s “betrization” in the real world would more likely lead to total psychopathy, rather than to some peaceful but passive society. The nature of violence described in dystopian works has little in common with real violence.

The bleak future is cancelled — why a genetically-fixed division into omnipotent “elites” and feeble “serfs” is impossible

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Previously, we have already examined the topic of why it is profitable for corporations to fight violence. In short, they make their money by selling products that must be constantly improved technologically. In effect, new technologies are the source of their profit. However, as technologies develop, they become increasingly dangerous. In the future, it can be expected that, for example, even typical consumer electronics will require ultra-high-capacity energy sources due to the rapid expansion of functionality, which could then be used for violent purposes, including terrorist acts. Or someone could use widely available DNA/RNA synthesizers to begin creating dangerous viruses. As a result, violence hinders further progress, which is critically important for the survival of humanity as a whole, and also becomes a barrier to profit for private companies. This is precisely why it is in their interest to fight violence.

Of course, one might hear the argument that large corporations and elites are only interested in fighting violence among ordinary people, so that they cannot balance the potential for violence in their own favor and threaten them. In this view, technology is in the background and means nothing. I do not dispute that this was relevant in the past, and even in the 20th century, since dangerous technologies (such as nuclear weapons) were held only by major governments. However, now the issue of dangerous technologies is becoming more relevant than it has ever been before.

Alright, let’s assume the elites decide to strip ordinary people of their capacity for violence, for example, through gene therapy implemented “from above,” so that they can safely use dangerous technologies and not even think about committing acts of violence. At the same time, they would reserve violence for themselves, in order to permanently secure an endless potential for violence and maintain the ability to continue a violent policy toward the population, promoting their interests through government security forces.

But let us not forget—the elites themselves mean absolutely nothing without the security agents who serve them. We have already discussed this in the material titled “Our Goal is the Elimination of the Violence of the Pawns”. If gene therapy against violence becomes common knowledge, it could be used against security agents in direct clashes, for example, by firing a dart containing the corresponding vaccine at them. But suppose that gene therapy is implemented from the top down and ordinary people do not yet have the opportunity to obtain or recreate this technology. Even then, this state of affairs would change nothing.

The point is that the security agents working for such elites are also ordinary people, part of the rest of the population. Protecting the elite is just their job; outside of work, they lead ordinary lives, including using new technological gadgets. Consequently, the elites face the following problem: if they want to maintain their security functions, they must leave the violent tendencies in the agents who work for them. But these agents could also, at any moment, use dangerous technologies for violent purposes—for example, if someone among them is no longer satisfied with the policy imposed from above, or simply due to an unrestrained desire to commit violence. This, in turn, forces the elites either to slow down technological progress—which would result in loss of profit, the futile consumption of limited resources, and a decrease in humanity’s chances of survival—or to implement gene therapy against violence for everyone, including the agents working for them. I believe that when the moment comes to choose, they will find the second option more acceptable, as they all want to continue living and improving their living conditions, even if it means losing the ability to conduct a policy of force.