Тег: Violence

Imperfect People and the Social Ideal

In your posts, you often state that under ancap, all people (or most of them) will not be prone to violence (and those who are can be “reprogrammed”), which will allow for the construction of a violence-free society. But hold on! With ideal people, one could build an ideal society based on almost any ideology—even communism in its early idealized conceptions. Any modern social structure, however, is built on the fact that people are almost always imperfect—emotional, foolish, aggressive, greedy, cowardly, and so on—and the social order must neutralize human flaws. How can ancap exist in a society of imperfect people, if even now criminals are stupid enough to steal right under cameras, and in the absence of a universally recognized police force, they will become completely brazen, and their capture/shooting by private security companies will become difficult due to the scale of crime and overloaded courts? Will this not lead to a rapid slide of society into a wild state, where even adequate people are forced to be in a permanent state of war against all?

Anonymous question

You are right; many things can be built from ideal people. That is precisely why Bitarch and Voluntarist—the authors of the posts regularly appearing on this channel about building a non-violent society—do not bother with building specifically ancap; for them, the economic model is secondary, and the absence of a central authority is secondary, while the primary value is non-violence, in its narrow sense of the absence of physical coercion.

The doctrine of anarcho-capitalism assumes that the human inclination toward physical coercion will not undergo serious changes. The only thing required for its triumph is the emergence of a critical mass of technologies that make decentralized production and trade more economically viable than centralized ones—this is if we proceed from a materialist position, where being determines consciousness and the base determines the superstructure. If, on the contrary, we assume that consciousness shapes being, then the triumph of ancap requires a critical mass of people for whom libertarian ideas have significant value. To me, it essentially makes no difference which end of the loaf I bite into; it tastes equally good from both ends.

When decentralized technologies dominate everyday life, it means that an uber-police force will arrive faster and provide service more cheaply and with higher quality than a police squad from the Ministry of Internal Affairs; therefore, the Ministry will lose the economic competition for the client and die off. And if people steal right under cameras, decentralized technologies will more likely provide the ability to issue them a fine right under those same cameras. And if they wave at the camera instead and claim that they are, say, renting this car, then instead of a disproportionately large fine, a modest rental fee will be debited from them in favor of the car owner. Or perhaps I am talking nonsense, and the “market” will decide some other way.

When libertarian ideas dominate society, then even under conditions of technologically driven centralization of a large number of industries, people will still value freelancing or freelance-like relationships relatively higher, and the owner of the production facility will have to adapt to this demand if they wish to secure a workforce. People will join the police, but will still view their patrol crew as an autonomous entrepreneurial unit, with its own permanent clients and obligations to them that mean far more than formal subordination within a police department.

The most terrifying thing for libertarianism is an increase in the efficiency of the centralization of violence. In the middle of the 20th century, such efficiency was at its maximum; humanity fought with armies of millions, and there was not the slightest prospect for building a libertarian society. Now, an army of a hundred thousand is considered large, and one hopes that decentralization will continue at an accelerating pace. Cheap and effective decentralized violence, which scales very poorly as the number of involved persons increases or additional capital is invested—this is exactly what is required so that even in the event of armed conflicts, they quickly fade away without further escalation.

As you can see, it is not at all necessary to indulge in empty dreams about how chipping will make everyone “sweethearts and darlings.” Instead, one can indulge in empty dreams about how total armament with handheld weapons—effectively and as painlessly as possible incapacitating a person, but having low lethality—will make everyone “sweethearts and darlings.” As for my time free from empty dreams, I prefer to build a local libertarian community where all necessary skills of interaction between people are acquired through simple habit—and these habits will strongly conflict with the habits of obeying the state or any other centralized force.

No one needs a Leviathan. Hobbes is sad.

Innate Non-Aggression Morality: Relation to Moral Realism and Ethical Intuitionism

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Not long ago, I considered the question of morality in the context of the concept of the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM)—a cognitive mechanism that inhibits violent behavior in humans. A healthy person who does not suffer from VIM dysfunction is incapable of committing acts of violence against other people. The manifestation of direct brutal violence is successfully inhibited (restrained) in more than 98% of people. The capacity to commit violence is an aberration and a pathology, not the norm of human nature.

Within this topic, the question of a human’s ability to distinguish between transgressions of a moral and a social (conventional) nature (moral/conventional distinction) is of particular interest. Moral transgressions consist of causing harm to a person, whereas social transgressions consist of violating established norms. A beating, for example, would certainly be a moral transgression, while a student leaving the classroom without the teacher’s permission is merely a transgression of a conventional nature.

When a person encounters experiences that demonstrate moral transgressions, distress signals from their victims, such as a sad facial expression or crying, lead to the activation of the VIM and the emergence of a rejection response. The person develops an association between the moral transgression, the distress signals, and the subsequent rejection; as a result, they become capable of understanding and identifying moral transgressions by analyzing certain actions.

Such an association does not arise in the case of social transgressions, as they do not initially lead to the activation of the VIM in a person. Consequently, people with VIM dysfunction, such as psychopaths, cannot understand the difference between moral and social transgressions, because from a neurophysiological point of view, it truly does not exist for them—they perceive these transgressions identically; more precisely, moral transgressions are perceived by them in the same way as social ones.

The fact that psychopaths and people with violent tendencies are indeed incapable of understanding this distinction is a fact confirmed by a vast amount of evidence and research. Let us also recall the fact that violence is a deviation from the norm of natural human behavior. In fact, the morality of non-aggression is biologically predetermined for humans, which we learned by conducting research into human nature. Thus, this morality can be attributed to moral realism.

But we will not stop there, because it is worth mentioning one more thing—a person with a functioning VIM (which, as previously stated, is the norm of human nature) will become capable of recognizing transgressions of a moral nature, and therefore, a corresponding morality of non-aggression will develop in them absolutely regardless of whether they know anything about their own nature at all. If they are unfamiliar with the concept of the VIM and the notion of a moral transgression, the morality of non-aggression will be perceived by them as something intuitive, self-evident. For the vast majority of people, this intuitive understanding will coincide, and on the issue of violence, they will converge on a single position that committing acts of violence is unacceptable, without conducting any research and without attempting to form any logical conclusions (violent views will originate only from the violent minority). Such a universal intuitive understanding of morality pertains to moral (or ethical) intuitionism.

As we can see, the innate morality of non-aggression is simultaneously an objective fact of human nature, pertaining to moral realism, and an intuitively understood norm, pertaining to ethical intuitionism. Of course, we can see that the latter stems from the former—that is, a person’s intuitive understanding stems from their objective biological nature. Therefore, the innate morality of non-aggression simply unites these approaches to morality, simultaneously corresponding to both of them and deriving one from the other.

Violence and Cultural Influence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Based on the concept we are considering regarding the inhibitor of intraspecific violence (the Lorenz mechanism (LM), as we call it in view of the corresponding theory of Konrad Lorenz, as well as the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM) according to James Blair’s model), we find that a human’s ability to commit violence against another human is a deviation consisting of a malfunction of the innate LM/VIM. Thus, violent offenders are people suffering from a genetic and neurophysiological pathology [1]. This concept can be countered by the argument that the level of violence in human society, from the very emergence of humans to the present day, has decreased at rates completely incomparable to the speed at which traits are fixed in a population as a result of natural biological evolution. Additionally, different levels of violence are observed under different social orders. I will not dispute the validity of such assertions; however, by providing two arguments, I will prove that they do not refute the LM/VIM concept.

The first thing to understand is that a person with a weak or dysfunctional version of the LM/VIM does not necessarily have to commit violence. A good upbringing, the absence of circumstances that provoke violence, and the presence of circumstances that deter it, while not eliminating the risk completely, reduce it to a certain extent. Combine this with the fact that violence is committed by a minority of people. Military evidence shows that only up to 2% of people experience no resistance to killing (and war is a highly provoking circumstance for violence). An analysis of crime in the Russian Federation determined that in the worst possible scenario (and in reality, it may be better), on average, only one new violent offender committing a violent crime no less severe than battery is reported per 695 people per year.

If environmental circumstances change such that, for example, instead of one person per 695 people, two people begin to commit violence per year, then the level of violence in society will increase by at least twofold, and most likely much more, since those who have previously committed violence may begin to do so more frequently. The consequences would be significant. However, violence would still originate from an overwhelming minority of people, so observing such changes does not refute the LM/VIM concept.

Let us now turn to the evolutionary argument. Under natural conditions, biological evolution is indeed a very slow process. However, it can be accelerated through artificial selection. Cultural influence can also lead to such selection, as it artificially alters the social and physical environment in which genetic selection occurs. This is called dual inheritance or gene-culture coevolution.

A classic example is the development of lactose tolerance, which resulted from the development of dairy farming that occurred only approximately 5,000 years ago. Another example: between 800 and 1700, the culture of the Ashkenazi Jewish ethnic group practiced limiting employment to professions requiring a high level of intelligence, which created selective pressure in favor of people possessing it. Combined with the genetic isolation of the ethnic group, this presumably led to high IQ scores, as well as a number of hereditary genetic diseases among its representatives. Furthermore, as a result of territorial expansion in the second half of the last millennium, mixed races appeared. And even the consequences of urbanization and industrialization, which began 200-300 years ago, are already leading to measurable genetic changes [2].

Similarly, cultural influence can lead to the strengthening of the LM/VIM. The growing cultural unacceptability of violence creates selective pressure in favor of less violent people, while violent offenders are filtered out more and more. Culture does indeed influence the level of violence in society, but this does not contradict, and may even fit into, the LM/VIM concept.

Sources:

  1. https://panarchy.ru/2021/07/12/анализ-внутривидового-насилия-как-яв/;
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210012/.

Those who do not make it in time will be late

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Violence is a major problem leading to many negative externalities (including catastrophic ones), as well as to the maintenance of a violent hierarchy of dominance in society (which only further exacerbates the externalities of violence). That is why the fight against violence will soon become one of the leading directions in the development of society. And whoever solves the problem of violence will have a chance to significantly elevate the reputation and popularity of their cultural and economic agenda.

There are those who do not consider violence a major problem, and if this violence takes the form of state coercive force or serves the achievement of certain goals in general, then in their opinion, it becomes a beneficial and useful tool. Such a position is typically characteristic of conservatives, although it is not limited to them, and concerns in principle all supporters of violence as a tool for achieving goals, including those who support the existence of a monopolistic state power. Often, even classical liberals and supporters of a free market economy have nothing against the use of force.

But no matter how much they deny the negative aspects of violence, it would be foolish not to understand what would happen if someone else took on the task of eradicating it. Suppose that the supporters of such an idea, instead of cooperating with conservatives or marketeers who see no point in it, go to a hypothetical Bill Gates and manage to convince him they are right. By financing this initiative and ultimately eradicating violence, he would gain giant moral support from society, since for most people, violence is the greatest evil. Being a left-liberal and having acquired enormous authority, it would be enough for him to simply voice his opinion for people to listen. If he says that gay people cannot be refused the right to bake cakes, or that business must be socially responsible and donate a significant part of its income for the benefit of society, then it will happen, because the majority will be ready to follow the direction of such an authority.

Many certainly do not like such a scenario, but it is entirely possible. And if someone does not want this scenario to become a reality, they should support the idea of fighting violence by all possible means. The problem of violence will be solved in any case, either with the help of a hypothetical conservative, or without their participation. But in the second case, their socio-economic agenda will lose a significant part of its support in favor of the views of those who participate in solving the problem of violence. So I advise you to hurry in this matter and start promoting the ideas of non-violence now, regardless of who holds what views.

Sexual selection against violence using dating sites

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Recently, some American dating sites came up with an interesting idea regarding how to encourage people to get vaccinated against coronavirus. They decided to add the ability to indicate one’s vaccination status in their profile, while providing certain bonuses to those who do so as early as possible. Accordingly, when searching for a partner on such sites, it is now possible to find out if they are vaccinated, which for many may serve as an indicator of responsibility and an understanding of the danger of the uncontrolled spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This, essentially, will stimulate dating site users to get vaccinated.

Of course, this idea may seem contradictory to some. Firstly, it could be argued that this is merely an attempt to control people, restrict their freedom, and apply a slave label. But specifically in the case of coronavirus, saying so would be an exaggeration—this is a temporary problem, and once it is solved and society begins to treat covid exactly like seasonal flu, such a status will cease to be relevant and there will be no demand for it. Secondly, the effectiveness of such an initiative itself can be questioned—there is no reason to believe that many people take coronavirus vaccination seriously, meaning they are indifferent to it. Moreover, some view it negatively.

But this idea could be used in the fight against violence by combining it with the concept of sexual selection. Fighting violence would become quite easy if people prone to it were denied relationships and, as a consequence, the ability to procreate. If such an idea gains public popularity, the number of rapists and the level of violence will be drastically reduced in the next generation. Along with the promotion of eradicating violence, a status indicating a propensity for violence could be used.

For example, a person could take certain tests that confirm their non-violent nature (more precisely, the presence of a strong version of the violence-inhibiting Lorenz mechanism) and use the results to establish a corresponding status in their profile. And if gene therapy against violence emerges, it would be possible to create a status with the same meaning as the coronavirus vaccination status on American dating sites. This would be especially useful for people who exhibited violent behavior in the past, as confirmation that they will never return to violence again.

There is certainly no reason to doubt the necessity and utility of such an initiative, as it is another way to fight violence, which leads to various negative consequences, including catastrophic ones. The effectiveness of this method should also be high, as most people will not want to deal with (and even less so have close relationships with) someone if they know in advance that this person is definitely prone to violence or likely to be prone to it, because they did not bother to confirm their non-violence while others did. Thus, everyone who wants to start a relationship, a family, and have children will have an incentive to confirm their non-violence or fight their own violent tendencies. And those people who have such tendencies but do not consider them a problem will lose this opportunity and will not be able to pass on a violent legacy.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/covid-19-vaccinations-are-sparking-14-more-matches-on-okcupid/

Gene therapy for the brain is no longer science fiction

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Based on Konrad Lorenz’s theory of the inhibitor of intraspecific violence (Lorenz mechanism or LM), James Blair’s model of the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM), as well as a multitude of supporting evidence, including neurophysiological and genetic data, it can be confidently stated that the ability of some people to commit violence against other people is the result of a pathological impairment in the functioning of the innate violence inhibitor (LM/VIM). And since this is a pathology, it must be combated, as with any other pathology, namely through its treatment [1].

Since the impairment in the functioning of the LM/VIM is of genetic origin, treatment requires gene therapy intervention. At the neurophysiological level, specific areas of the brain are responsible for the functioning of this mechanism, which means we need to perform gene therapy on brain cells. However, the possibility of conducting such gene therapy is questioned. There is also an opinion that gene therapy cannot correct neurophysiological impairments. However, all these doubts can be easily dispelled, which I will now do.

In the past, gene therapy on brain cells was impossible because the viral vector with genetic material could not cross the blood-brain barrier—the protective filter between the circulatory and nervous systems. However, in 2003, a group of researchers found a solution to this problem, which involves using a vector small enough to be able to cross this barrier [2]. Later, a wide variety of tools for performing gene therapy on brain cells appeared, using different types of vectors and the genetic material they transport [3].

Fine, gene therapy can be performed on brain cells. But can it cure neurophysiological impairments? Let’s look at a practical example. There is a hereditary genetic disease called “Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency,” the symptoms of which include: mental retardation, inability to fully control the body, decreased muscle tone, seizures, and many others. It is caused by a mutation of the DDC gene, leading to a deficiency of key neurotransmitters (dopamine and serotonin).

However, quite recently (the corresponding study was published on July 12, 2021), specialists developed a gene therapy to treat this disease. A drug with a viral vector carrying the corrected version of the gene is injected directly into the patient’s midbrain, where it distributes through the tissues, and they gradually become capable of producing the missing proteins. This gene therapy has proven its safety and efficacy. Seven patients aged four to nine years, within 18 months after the injection, were freed from seizures, began trying to speak and smile, and two were even able to walk with assistance, which was considered fundamentally impossible for such a diagnosis [4].

Of course, at the moment, gene therapy is a complex and expensive technology that requires further development. However, there are absolutely no reasons to believe that the treatment of neurophysiological impairments and the restoration of nervous system functions (including the brain) is a fundamentally unsolvable task. Current research, on the contrary, proves the possibility of this. This means that the argument about the impossibility of treating LM/VIM dysfunction, based on such a claim, is incorrect.

Sources:

  1. Voluntarist (2021). Analysis of intraspecific violence as a phenomenon of human nature: norm or deviation?
  2. Ananthaswamy, A. (2003). Undercover genes slip into the brain;
  3. Ingusci, S. et al (2019). Gene Therapy Tools for Brain Diseases;
  4. Pearson, T. S. et al (2021). Gene therapy for aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency by MR-guided direct delivery of AAV2-AADC to midbrain dopaminergic neurons.

Suppressing supporters of violence using the methods that successfully crushed homophobes in the West

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of people are actually capable of committing brutal violence, politically, supporters of non-violence ideas are currently in the minority. The majority, at least passively, consider the use of force justified in the implementation of state coercion, and some people even actively resort to using this tool of force in the pursuit of their goals. And how can the ideas of non-violence be promoted in such a position?

To do this, let us consider how some other ideas that were very unpopular in society were promoted, for example, the ideas of the LGBT movement (it does not matter how you personally feel about this; moreover, if you believe that movements of this kind must be stopped by resorting to violent measures, then you are simply a violent person—realize this fact and reconsider your outlook on life). Of course, there are relatively few representatives of this movement in society, which means they simply would not have had the chance to defeat all their enemies at once. But that is not necessary; it is not essential to deal with everyone at once, it is enough to choose one goal. Suppose a specific business began to implement a policy of discrimination against LGBT representatives, or some person spoke about them in an extremely negative key. By gathering together, the representatives of the movement have enough strength to organize a campaign of harassment against a single subject. Of course, this subject, faced with strong condemnation, will begin to lose their reputation; if it is a business, its income will be jeopardized. Seeing this, other opponents of the ideas of this movement will not want to risk their money and reputation, and therefore will make certain concessions. This is how the LGBT movement managed to promote its cultural agenda and achieve recognition in many countries—in fact, in most developed countries, where half a century ago homosexuals were afraid to even walk down the street holding hands.

A similar strategy could be used in the promotion of the ideas of non-violence. All supporters of violence cannot be defeated at once, especially considering that a significant part of society, albeit passively, is still on their side (moreover, they themselves are biologically incapable of initiating violence, as most of the population have a strong version of the violence-inhibiting mechanism, but this does not prevent them from having certain views and morally supporting other people who are more prone to violence). But, again, there is no need to fight everyone all at once. It is enough to choose one subject who advocates for violence and organize a campaign of harassment against them, as a result of which they will suffer certain losses. Other subjects, seeing this, will make concessions to us.

One of the concrete implementations of this strategy could be the conclusion of non-violence contracts. For example, deciding to do business with a certain organization or person, one can demand the inclusion of a clause in the contract stating that in the event of disputed situations, the parties cannot resort to violent measures of influence, i.e., cannot turn to state judicial and law enforcement structures. Instead, the resolution of the conflict must be carried out exclusively within the framework of non-violent reputational and financial influence. If the other party agrees to such a condition, it will create a positive precedent that will greatly help in the further popularization of non-violence ideas. If they refuse, then they can be condemned as a supporter of violence according to the model described above.

Thus, even with a small number of active supporters of non-violence ideas, it is possible to effectively deal with a certain number of supporters of violence. And those remaining will simply decide to make concessions in order not to lose their business or avoid ending up in social isolation. Over time, the agenda of non-violence will become recognized and generally accepted, which is what we strive for!

If you invest in the business, invest in the fight against violence as well

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Doing business and any financial activity are always associated with certain risks. Many will first think of risks leading to the loss of invested funds, however, that is not the issue we are interested in. We will consider the risk that violence, up to and including liquidation, may be applied to a person engaged in such activity. I think you have heard stories about how some businessmen were “taken to the forest” by their more violent and gangster-like competitors in the market. Frequently, a government may eliminate a person for “unacceptable” economic activity. An illustrative example is the recent story of the death of John McAfee, who had some problems with paying taxes and activities related to cryptocurrency operations, and who, as he claimed before his death, was threatened by representatives of the US authorities.

Of course, some will say that problems can be avoided by strictly playing by the rules of the state power and stronger market agents. But these rules are established unilaterally and can be changed at any moment to destroy your activity or make its conduct impossible. The mere fact of conducting some activity may be unacceptable to those capable of committing violence against you. In the best case, your business will be stopped due to the threat of violence from ordinary or stationary (“state”) gangsters, resulting in large financial losses. In the worst case, you will simply become another person who “committed suicide.”

Anyone engaged in any economic activity, especially if it involves running a business or investing in certain assets, finds it beneficial and necessary to invest in the fight against violence. Only by eradicating violence in human society can its risks be eliminated and one can finally peacefully attend to their affairs without fearing tomorrow. Investing in the fight against violence is clearly worth it to simultaneously preserve both your activity and your life!

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.

Do you not want gene therapy against violence to ever be developed at all? It is not at all necessary for our success. Only I fear these scenarios will personally be very displeasing to you!

Bitarch in response to article Ancap-tyan

Some people say they are ready to personally hinder the development of gene therapy against violence (to strengthen Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism, also known as VIM in English-language research). Well, that is their right. We will not remind them that they are unlikely to succeed in hindering development in the real world, as most scientists ideologically oppose violence. But let us imagine that they did succeed, or that the development of this gene therapy proved too complex for the current technological level and, within our lifetime, gene therapy against violence was never created.

First, let us note that the absence of gene therapy in no way denies the fact of the existence of ML/VIM in the species Homo sapiens and its varying strength in different people. This has already been proven by authoritative scientists and will undoubtedly become a generally recognized fact sooner or later. As will the path by which ML/VIM is strengthened under the pressure of natural selection. Consequently, without the development of corrective gene therapy, the fate of people prone to violence will be extremely dismal. They will find themselves in a situation where they will literally pray to God for this gene therapy to appear as soon as possible!

1) The mildest, libertarian scenario. When the understanding of ML/VIM enters the mainstream and begins to be covered in the media, activists will immediately appear who will intentionally provoke everyone with words, clothing, and gestures, and immediately destroy those who succumb to provocation within the framework of self-defense. In essence, they will repeat the “Masquerade,” which, without even knowing the theory of Lorenz on which we base ourselves, was successfully conducted by Marshal Zhukov in post-war Odessa to “eradicate crime.” Why is this approach libertarian? Because according to the non-aggression principle (NAP), “one can offend, but one cannot be offended,” i.e., provocation is entirely permissible, as is self-defense, but the use of physical violence in response to provocation is a violation of the NAP. As a result, natural selection pressure is created to strengthen ML/VIM. If you, as a specific opponent of gene therapy, are prone to violence in deed rather than just in words, you will inevitably be removed from the population.

2) The moderately statist scenario. This is very likely in developed countries where the level of violence is already low, and humanism and human rights are more or less recognized as values. The propensity for violence is recognized as a socially dangerous pathology, like, for example, incurable infectious diseases. Even a hundred years ago, even in the USA, it was the norm to send carriers of dangerous infections such as leprosy and typhus into lifelong quarantine. Similarly, it will be with violent people — a reservation will be created on an island or in some remote wilderness, where all those prone to violence will be exiled as socially dangerous elements. Inside, they will live quite freely, roughly as they do now in some places of deprivation of liberty in Norway for not very dangerous criminals. But they will never be able to leave this reservation (at least until the creation of gene therapy or another method of strengthening ML/VIM).

3) The authoritarian scenario. Unlikely in developed countries, but who knows where the stars will turn… It is as simple as can be — mass genetic testing and forced euthanasia or sterilization followed by the exile of all carriers of weak ML/VIM variants (i.e., those prone to violence). Personally, as a libertarian/voluntarist, I naturally do not approve of this scenario, but I would like to warn opponents of gene therapy that society can turn toward totalitarianism at any moment and you personally will be subject to destruction. There have been enough examples in history!

So remember this well — when the existence of a violence-inhibiting mechanism in the species Homo sapiens and the variability of its strength in different people becomes a well-known fact, violence will be eradicated regardless of the successes in developing gene therapy. Only the methods by which this happens will now depend personally on you!


Until quite recently, the forced sterilization of the “unfit” was a reality even in the seemingly “free” USA