As a critique of Lorenz’s theory, I am often sent images where an enraged bear or lion inflicts fatal injuries on another member of its species. But how can this be, since they are heavily armed species, and Lorenz’s mechanism, which inhibits intraspecific violence, is weakly expressed in them? Does this not mean that in reality, violence does not threaten the survival of any species, and the Lorenz mechanism is merely a fiction? Let us examine this question much more deeply than those who make such claims have done.
In this argument, the second premise—the pressure of natural selection to strengthen the Lorenz mechanism—is always overlooked. This is the impossibility of escaping in the event of an attack, or the inherent inability of certain species to avoid situations that lead to violence. In the case of solitary species, such as bears or jaguars, it is very easy to see where an escape occurs—they basically do not contact other members of their species outside of the mating season or the process of raising offspring. Of course, the presence of an intraspecific violence inhibitor is not that necessary for them, as they very rarely find themselves in a situation that makes the commission of violence possible.
As for lions, one should look at their social life. In natural conditions, male lions, upon reaching a certain age, leave their natal pride in search of a new one or to create their own. There are usually no more than three adult males in one pride. The low concentration of violence-prone individuals within specific social units also reduces the risks of violence, and they become far less threatening; thus, no evolutionary pressure arises to develop a strong version of the Lorenz mechanism. If you show me a lion tearing another apart, then that is exactly the case where the concentration of violence-prone individuals became too high. In artificial parks or enclosures, dozens of adult male lions are often in one society, so the probability of a fatal fight increases significantly.
In addition to this premise, I would also like to recall the argument that animals are sometimes prone to killing and eating the offspring of others, or even their own, in case of food shortages or under stress. Obviously, the activation of the Lorenz mechanism could not have developed here because juvenile individuals do not yet have developed weaponry; therefore, an adult individual committing an act of violence against them does not risk dying and thus never fails to pass on its weak version of the violence-inhibiting mechanism. When there are insufficient resources to support its own offspring, a mother’s decision to kill them in no way affects the survival of the species as a whole. And the inhibition of killing the offspring of others is sufficiently handled by the innate weaponry of their own mothers.
One could try to provide many examples of why the Lorenz mechanism does not work, but if you dig deeper, there will always be an explanation that fits the premises necessary for its development. Simply try to analyze each such case in more detail, and you will see it for yourself.
We have already previously considered the topic of why it is profitable for corporations to fight against violence. In order to produce new products and generate profit from their sales, it is extremely important for them to develop and implement new technologies. However, if violence as a general phenomenon continues to exist, further scientific and technical progress will simply become impossible. New technologies also provide new opportunities for committing acts of violence, including catastrophic ones. Imagine if a smartphone battery became energy-dense enough to cause a large explosion, or if home computers became powerful enough to allow any random person to create and test viruses using artificial intelligence for simulation, which could then be recreated in real life using a DNA/RNA synthesizer that has also become more advanced and accessible. For corporations, this is a collapse; they must participate in solving the problem of violence to preserve and increase their own income. You can find more details on this argument in the material “Corporations Against Violence”.
But one must consider not only the risks of individual acts of violence. If dangerous technologies available to the general masses have not yet been released on the market—meaning corporations have nothing to worry about in that regard for now—then violence on the part of the state threatens them directly already. Recall what recently happened to Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba Group. Due to critical remarks regarding state economic regulation, the Chinese authorities began to pressure him in every way and destroy him as a businessman. In general, China has taken up the harsh subordination of all large technological corporations on its territory.
Such a scenario could happen to any billionaire and any corporation. Well-known figures such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos possess enormous funds and influence in society. But the state can nullify all of this at any moment by applying certain sanctions supported by security forces, who are always ready to forcibly compel obedience if the orders of a stationary bandit are not followed. Using China as an example, we clearly see that rulers like “Comrade Xi” do not care at all about the funds and influence of corporations and their owners; for the sake of their own desires, authoritarians will take all of this by brute force.
It would be correct to note that specific governments may not be interested in using force against corporations. But what guarantees eternal power to those specific people in government? Nothing! Sooner or later, power always changes. And if the current government is peaceful enough not to threaten corporations, the next government—regardless of whether it was elected democratically or seized power in an armed coup (although this scenario is more dangerous, as it most often brings deranged dictators to power)—could well declare so-called “nationalization” for corporations and subject the corporation owners to harsh repression. Moreover, such changes can occur even within a single administration—after all, nothing can guarantee its commitment to the same interests over a long period of time.
For these reasons, it is quite profitable for corporations to invest in the fight against violence, and they will do so if initiatives to combat violence become noticeable enough to attract their attention. It is far better to invest a few percent of their profit in balancing the potential for violence or, for technology companies, to participate in the development of gene therapy against violence, rather than constantly risk being destroyed by violence.
The development of biotechnology is bringing us closer to a moment when it will be possible to create gene therapy capable of activating the violence-inhibiting mechanism in humans that Konrad Lorenz wrote about. However, along with this comes the risk of the emergence of a completely opposite gene therapy aimed specifically at eliminating any inhibitors of violence in a person. Therefore, some may consider the idea of creating gene therapy against violence to be useless, since if it can be made, then gene therapy to unleash violent potential can also be made. Demand for it may be found among some psychopaths, maniacs, and people who overly value their violent nature, consider it the meaning of their life, and are unwilling to part with it because of some dart with a drug fired at them during another attack. Additionally, some groups of people (supporters of authoritarian power) may consider it important to achieve certain goals by force, meaning that the security personnel executing these orders must be protected from the risk of losing their capacity for violence.
Of course, the vast majority of scientists are against violence, and it is unlikely that any of them would engage in such developments. But what will happen if there is someone among them who decides to help violent degenerates? Let’s go through it step by step:
1) There is a possibility of the uncontrolled spread of a drug that disables the Lorenz mechanism, and if this happens, the entire world will sink into violence and wars, and the survival of humanity will become impossible (practically repeating a typical scenario from a zombie movie).
2) This risk will lead to the necessity of creating updated gene therapy against violence. It may be capable of preventing the disabling of the Lorenz mechanism by any means; however, if this cannot be guaranteed, the only remaining option will be to ensure that a person dies from an attempt to remove their own restrictions on violent behavior. Allowing the survival of people striving for violence in such a situation is simply impossible; otherwise, the previously mentioned scenario will occur.
3) After this, a fairly rapid equalization of the balance of violent potential will occur, and absolute universal armament will be achieved (it will become clear to every average person that weapons in such a world are the only guarantee of survival). The new status quo will be maintained by the fact that a minority of sadists will be afraid to deactivate the Lorenz mechanism to attack the majority of non-violent people, who are capable of destroying them at the first attempt to initiate violence.
4) The stationary bandit (the state) will survive neither the appearance of gene therapy against violence, as it would then lose the ability to impose its order by force, nor the appearance of a blocker for the violence-inhibiting mechanism, because in that case, the security forces working for it would receive Molotov cocktails, bottles of sulfuric acid, infectious agents, bursts of automatic gunfire, etc., instead of peaceful protests, from the very people who removed their restrictions on violence and will manifest it toward everyone, including them. Zombie movies, although pure fiction, nevertheless quite accurately convey what would happen to the state in such a scenario.
As a result, it turns out that creating a drug to disable violence-inhibiting mechanisms will also lead to the elimination of the stationary bandit, whom supporters of authoritarian power and force-based measures love so much and consider the best mechanism for achieving any goals. They do not understand this, but even worse, they do not understand the catastrophic scenario that the creation of such a drug would lead to if gene therapy against violence is not updated in time according to the parameters in the second point, or at least if the balance of violent potential is not equalized so that all resulting rapists/violent offenders can be liquidated during their attack.
As you know, proponents of voluntarism and ideas of non-violence actively advocate for non-violent measures for damage compensation, as well as punishments for those who violate agreements and criminals, such as ostracism, financial sanctions, deposits, transaction insurance, etc. The use of force is permissible only for the purpose of self-defense against a direct attack; in other cases, violence is absolutely unacceptable. There are many reasons why such a behavioral model is most optimal, which I have already discussed extensively in my previous materials. Now, we will examine one very common argument aimed at discrediting non-violent measures.
So, I am talking about reputational institutions and ostracism, about how a person who violates agreements or has committed an act of violence in the past can be blacklisted and denied future transactions. And do you know what argument often follows? “This looks like the social credit system in China, you are actually inhuman totalitarians! This is the ‘cancel culture’ currently practiced in the West; you just want to cruelly torture people and deprive them of the right to a normal life!”
Now I want to ask a question to those who express such criticism. What alternative do you propose? Let me guess: should everyone who has erred be beaten with clubs, dragged through courts in handcuffs, or perhaps locked behind bars for many years? Nothing else can be proposed; there is only one alternative to our non-violent measures—violent measures. So, how does it work: we, with our ostracism and financial sanctions, are inhuman totalitarians, but your clubs and prisons are humane and extremely civil tools? If anyone believes this, they are simply a complete idiot!
And, by the way, we do not propose a lifelong “cancellation” of the offending person, which some also mention. In fact, it can be avoided entirely: if a person immediately admits their guilt and willingness to compensate for the damage, no ostracism or blacklists threaten them. In the end, everyone benefits if the perpetrator works off the damage they caused at their own pace and in conditions where they can work with maximum productivity. Also, to put a person behind bars, you will need to forcibly take a portion of peaceful people’s funds (i.e., forcibly tax them) to maintain the prison infrastructure and the prisoner himself. Of course, if someone doesn’t mind paying for this—let them pay, and let them offer criminals their own measure for lifting ostracism in the form of voluntary imprisonment. But I do not want to pay for this. What will you do, beat me with a club too? Then you are a violent aggressor, absolutely no better than any other!
Furthermore, one should not say that non-violent measures won’t work because a criminal can bypass them simply by committing further acts of violence and stealing for their own sustenance. Even in such a case, their life would be extremely unpleasant, since a whole range of goods and services cannot simply be taken and stolen, and if a criminal decides to attack, they can be stopped by means of self-defense. Do not forget that we advocate for general armament and have nothing against self-defense during a direct attack!
There is one very effective method for eradicating violence that few people usually think about. It is quite obvious — violence can be eliminated by preventing people with violent tendencies from procreating. The violent tendencies of some people may be genetically determined, so it is obvious that their children are also most likely to inherit this violence. Furthermore, abusers provide very poor upbringing for their children and raise them in an unstable environment, which pushes them to become abusers themselves in the future.
But how can this be achieved? We cannot use force to compel such people not to reproduce, as we would then be no better than them, and by applying violence, we would be introducing negative externalities of our own. However, this can be done by resorting to a series of non-violent measures.
First and foremost, reputational institutions must be used. People who have committed acts of violence should be exposed and ostracized, thereby lowering their well-being. It is also very important to discredit them among their close circle, such as relatives, friends, and neighbors. It is entirely acceptable to exert pressure on people in this circle, for example, by threatening to ostracize those who cooperate with the abuser. In principle, this is logical, as ostracism is not an effective tool if the people cooperating with the criminal are not also declared criminals to whom corresponding sanctions can be applied, because otherwise these people will have fewer incentives not to cooperate with him, meaning ostracism will not be applied sufficiently.
Thus, the abuser’s environment can quite well renounce him or, at the very least, begin to exert pressure on him from their side. And a person with a ruined reputation, a low level of well-being, who poses risks in any relationship, and who is additionally under pressure from those subjects who still cannot give up cooperation with him, has very low chances of finding a partner and starting a family.
In addition to reputational methods, other tools can be used, one of which we will consider now. There are agencies that, for a certain fee, are capable of arranging a series of events that are highly likely to lead to the deterioration of relationships between people, for example, to the divorce of a married couple. In our case, this can be applied against people with violent tendencies who are in relationships or marriages. Funds to pay for the services of such agencies can be collected through donations from concerned people, for example, by announcing a crowdfunding initiative to eradicate violence.
It is especially important to prevent those people from procreating who work for a stationary gangster and carry out his instructions to use force, that is, the security forces. They are most often people with violent tendencies, for who else would go to protect a violent power and, on its instructions, commit acts of violence against innocent people—for example, beating them at rallies or breaking into their homes for a “wrong” post on social networks.
And, which is very important for us, they receive a giant bonus to reproduction. Security forces have many benefits; they can count on free housing, discounted public transport, recreation and treatment in health resorts, they have education benefits, an early retirement age, and large pension payments. Thus, security forces receive very favorable conditions for reproduction, at least more favorable than ordinary people. Unfortunately, I have not found statistics on the number of children among security forces, but I venture to suggest that, on average, the fertility level in their families is much higher than in ordinary families. This only increases the number of people prone to violence. This state of affairs must be destroyed as soon as possible; then the problem of violence will begin to be solved even without the physical removal of aggressors from the population.
One of the central ideas of ancap is that all arising problems and disputes should be resolved ex post facto—through a court (assuming that courts under ancap work perfectly fine, no questions there). But real problems are easier to prevent than to “clear the rubble,” and this may require prohibitions. What do you have to say about this? Suing for compensation and a pile of penalties is all well and good, but doesn’t this resemble the famous phrase “come back once they’ve been killed”? Perhaps, if only for the possibility of preventive measures (but not those that infringe upon reasonable rights and freedoms!), it is worth having at least a minimal “protection” state?
Minarchist
The central idea of ancap is more that the problems whose resolution has been usurped by the state today should be solved privately, and only when there is a market demand for their resolution. This means that the same problem may be solved differently at different times, in different places, and in different situations. In one case, a condominium finances the work of police patrols; in another, an insurance company compensates the victim for the costs of an attack; in a third case, people rely on the success of self-defense and do not intend to spend money on insurance or security. Each time, the situation is based on a multitude of individual choices, and generally, it doesn’t matter whether economic calculation, religious prejudices, or ethical preferences were behind them.
There is nothing terrible about a certain community providing solutions to a number of typical tasks for itself using a “protection” state. What is terrible is if this state provides protection forcibly, based on territorial criteria. But as long as state services are provided within the framework of individual contracts that imply free exit from them—then by all means.
Moreover, if someone’s culture implies a number of prohibitions, the observance of which is expected from everyone, including outsiders, then it will be quite natural for the carriers of such a culture to conduct prevention privately. An example is in the image below.
It is another matter that under ancap, the role of prisons differs somewhat, but that is a completely different story
In many cases, when discussing the problem of violence, only the use of force by ordinary citizens on their own initiative is taken as an example of this phenomenon. In the same case, if a forceful measure was applied under orders from above and within the framework of state law, it is as if it is not considered violence at all; this measure is already called a form of law enforcement. From such an absurd formulation usually comes the assumption that the problem of violence can be solved simply by pursuing some “correct” state policy. This point of view is actively promoted by supporters of Steven Pinker’s ideas; in the Russian-speaking space, the most active evangelist of these views is Ekaterina Schulmann. But let us look at why this will never work.
Firstly, the very attempt to divide coercive forceful measures into those that can be considered violence and those that cannot encounters a logical contradiction. The difference in when, to whom, and for what reason a coercive forceful measure was applied does not cancel the fact of its application, the involuntary nature of its character, and the intentional physical restriction of a person’s freedom. All of these are constituent factors of such a phenomenon as violence. It cannot be said that the exact same action at one time, for one reason, and toward one person is violence, while at another time, for another reason, and toward another person, it is no longer so. This is merely a subjective assessment of a specific person.
Precisely because of this, all coercive forceful measures entail the same problems and risks, no matter how they are justified. Looking from the point of view of practical results, there is no difference whether violence was applied by a police officer or an ordinary citizen, whether it was applied to a simple passerby or a gangster who has committed many crimes in the past; one can always encounter resistance, especially if the victim of the forceful measure is placed in a hopeless position. And in today’s world with rapidly developing technologies, this threatens the use of very dangerous and destructive means as tools of defense or weapons of revenge, up to weapons of mass destruction, the most accessible of which are viruses. Therefore, from a practical point of view, the use of forceful measures can be justified only in the case of immediate self-defense, since in such a case an act of violence is already being committed and it must be stopped to avoid the subsequent negative externalities. In all other cases, the only optimal strategy of behavior will be the application of methods of influence to the violator that differ from physical violence, such as reputation lowering and ostracism.
Secondly, and this is the most important point—the attempt to get rid of private violence with the help of state violence actually only deters it, but does not eradicate it. A vivid example of this can be the USSR. The intentions regarding private violence among the ideologues of authoritarian communism were very noble; by the method of the “iron fist,” they intended to eradicate interethnic and domestic conflicts. Obviously, parents will not beat a child, and an Azerbaijani will not attack an Armenian, if someone stands over all of them with a club. But no power is eternal. As soon as changes occur within it, all problems come to the surface. The conflict is reborn, and with new strength, given the stressful condition people are in due to years of forceful control over them. We were lucky that after the collapse of the USSR, those same Armenians and Azerbaijanis ended up with only assault rifles and tanks in their hands, rather than nuclear missiles and viruses. However, over time, they, and others as well, may acquire very dangerous means. Then we will face a catastrophic threat endangering the existence of all humanity, due to the problem of violence left unresolved by the “iron fist” method.
People who consider Konrad Lorenz’s conclusions regarding the nature of violence and his concerns about the risks it entails to be unfounded often refer to or use arguments from a piece titled “The Lorenzian Theory of Aggression and Peace Research: A Critique“. To avoid any misconceptions about the phenomenon of violence, let us examine what is wrong with this critique.
At the very beginning, an argument is made that Lorenz defines aggression as a combat instinct implemented toward members of one’s own species and is genetically innate, inherited from biological ancestors. However, according to the critics, this definition strips the term aggression of its meaning. In general, when discussing aggression and violence, the question of what we actually mean by “aggression” and “violence” almost always arises. In this context, it is reasonable to reduce these terms specifically to innate tendencies toward intraspecific violence in the form of inflicting physical harm (or the threat of inflicting it), as this is the object of study. Everything else, for example, the fact that aggression is subjectively defined differently by different people (for some, even an impolite greeting would be aggression), we do not take into account.
Based on the critique, such an understanding of aggression does not correlate with activities manifested not directly, but through social institutions developed by humans. Firstly, all institutions that apply coercive measures always work through coercive agents. You might say that if a person becomes a politician, they can sit in an office and issue inhumane orders, thereby committing acts of violence without actually performing any corresponding physical activity. However, these orders are worthless without the coercive agents who execute them directly; therefore, one must look specifically at them and their propensity for violence. Secondly, other social aspects, such as wealth, status, and skills (which were mentioned in the critique), do not provide such an opportunity on their own without methods of directly inflicting physical harm on a person, for example, using the same security forces. We cannot speak of violence where there has been no such direct impact. Of course, a person may attempt to harm another person through indirect influence via a chain of many instances; however, this chain will sooner or later encounter the need to apply a coercive measure. For example, some might say that a monopolist in the market can turn people into slaves using purely economic methods and even drive them to starve to death by unilaterally setting the cost of labor and products. However, to be a monopolist, one must have coercive agents (one’s own, or an agreement with the agents of an existing monopoly, such as the state) ready to destroy all competitors in the market through direct violence, especially those who refuse to make concessions and negotiate peacefully.
After this, Lorenz is criticized for mixing the behavioral models of quite different animal species and humans, arguing that the justification of a common origin of species is insufficient for this. However, it should not be forgotten that the unbreakable basis of the behavioral model of any living creature is always the biological processes occurring in its organism. It would be foolish to believe, for example, that by mere desire, due to some social factors or with the help of some supernatural forces, a highly developed primate, including a human, could ignore the action of hormones and receptors of the nervous system. And biological processes, in turn, are determined by genetics. Of course, one should not forget the gene-environment link—certain genes are activated in a certain environment. But this fact only confirms our correctness, if we consider two factors: humans share a large part of the genome with animals due to the same common origin, and Lorenz observed the same behavioral mechanisms regarding the manifestation of violent behavior in very different animal species. According to the critique, it is wrong to extrapolate observations of animals to humans, even if these observations coincide for a very wide range of species. Of course, I agree that Lorenz’s works may lack observations of specifically human behavior; however, based on the two factors described above (common genetic heritage and the observation of identical behavioral patterns in different species), it can be boldly presumed that his conclusions regarding the nature of violence are very likely true for humans as well. And referring to the social sciences, psychology, etc., which was also mentioned in the critique, makes no sense, as we are considering the biological and genetic component, which is more fundamental—these sciences cannot contradict biology or make changes to it. In the end, if someone still continues to deny these conclusions, it would be better to criticize them with observations of human behavior, corresponding systematization, and comparison with Lorenz’s conclusions, rather than simply pointing to the incorrectness of the fact of extrapolation.
The critique also addresses Lorenz’s instinctive-hydraulic model. It explains the phenomenon of instinctive reactions triggering in the absence of a specific stimulus by the accumulation over time of a certain specific potential, which lowers the threshold necessary to trigger the reaction; this also explains spontaneous acts of aggression. This model is criticized due to the lack of neurophysiological evidence for its correctness. However, firstly, it has not been refuted, and secondly, Lorenz himself acknowledged the limitations of this model and the fact that it possesses a number of flaws; that is, in fact, he did not propose it as an absolutely correct and final solution.
Next, the influence of intraspecific aggression on the survival of species is criticized, especially in the case of humans. Statistics are provided as an example, showing that wars between different groups of people (including modern wars starting from the 19th century) have had a very insignificant effect on the survival of humanity. I will not argue that this conclusion is correct at the moment. However, here, Lorenz’s fears regarding the threat of violence to the survival of humanity should be linked to scientific and technical progress. After all, humans have become the most heavily armed species on the planet; they have already faced nuclear threats more than once, and every day the threats become more serious, as dangerous means become increasingly accessible for acquisition and reproduction by small groups of people and even individual individuals. In fact, the destructive potential of small groups and individual individuals is increasing every day. For example, viruses are a very accessible means of mass destruction, although other things could be devised. It is hard to argue with Lorenz’s fears here!
Another point in the critique caught my attention because it only confirms Lorenz’s theory rather than refuting it. But first, we need to remember something. As we know, Lorenz’s observations show that species with strong innate weaponry do not use it in intraspecific clashes. This primarily concerns hedgehogs, porcupines, venomous snakes, and insects; Lorenz also mentioned wolves, which do not bite their fellows in vulnerable places such as the belly or neck, and ravens, which in fights do not even try to peck out each other’s eyes with their very sharp beaks. The emergence of such mechanisms during evolution is quite logical; otherwise, representatives of these species would simply exterminate each other. As for poorly armed species, this mechanism manifests to a lesser extent, since either their representatives are unable to inflict serious harm on their fellows, or the latter can escape from the attack—meaning violence does not threaten them as much. For example, when Lorenz put two turtle doves—seemingly peaceful birds of the pigeon family—in one cage, the dislike of one bird for the other led to it severely maiming and almost killing the other during Lorenz’s absence. All because there was nowhere to run in this case.
In the case of humans, this mechanism also does not manifest very strongly, as their natural weaponry is quite weak. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that humans have inherited this mechanism to a certain extent; moreover, we can confirm this with observations regarding war, which the critique itself refers to, again, to prove the insignificance of the influence of violence on the survival of humanity. In many armies, more than half of the soldiers who were supposed to shoot simply could not pull the trigger. There is also mention of a refusal by one of the US army brigades to obey orders during the Vietnam War. Cases such as the mass killing in My Lai are a great exception and an abnormality for modern wars. In general, most soldiers considered the Vietnam War meaningless, and throughout its duration, a typical soldier spent only a few hours in combat. Also, a social study conducted by the information and education department of the US Department of Defense shows that during World War II, most soldiers actually tried to pretend they were busy with something rather than actually engaging in military affairs.
Based on this, it can be concluded that humans possess Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism. Although it is expressed in a weaker form than in heavily armed species, it nonetheless provides the prerequisites for solving the problem of violence, which concerned Lorenz so deeply and, in principle, is a cause for concern for any sane person. And, by the way, in the material we are considering, an attempt to criticize this specific theory is not even undertaken.
When viruses are considered weapons of mass destruction, many say that this is merely a hypothetical threat, impossible to implement in practice at the moment, unlikely to be implementable in the near future, and certainly never available for recreation by small organizations and ordinary people in home conditions. And since other possible weapons of mass destruction are even more inaccessible for recreation, there is no need to fear such a phenomenon as violence and try to eradicate it completely.
First of all, we need to look at the trends in the development of biotechnology. A great example is provided by an operation such as sequencing (in simpler terms, decoding) the genome. Just 20 years ago, sequencing one full human genome cost 100 million dollars, about 10 years ago – 1 million dollars, and now – 1 thousand dollars. Also, there are already quite cheap DNA/RNA synthesizers; some models can be bought for several tens of thousands of dollars, and it is quite expected that over time and with the development of technology, they will only become cheaper and more accessible. Furthermore, research has recently appeared regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence in solving quantum chemistry equations [1][2]. In the future, this will make it possible to determine the chemical and physical properties of molecules without conducting real tests, but only by virtually modeling their structure. I think it is obvious that this will greatly simplify the design of artificial viruses. And finally, let us not forget that modern vaccination and targeted treatment are based precisely on the introduction of artificial viral agents into humans, which deliver specific genetic material to the required cells and embed it into them. Factually, this is gene therapy, the reality of the technological implementation of which many for some reason also view skeptically and do not see prospects for its development and application in the near future. But do you still believe that the creation of dangerous artificial viruses is merely a hypothetical threat? Well, let’s look at real cases of this.
In 2011, virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka conducted experiments to create a flu vaccine. He tried to recreate the strain of the virus that preceded the 2009-2010 epidemic to see how the virus had changed over 4 years. As a result, he modified it so that it became resistant to human immunity [3]. Naturally, his work began to be criticized, as humanity would have been powerless if this virus had left the laboratory walls. Additionally, the US government imposed a ban on the continuation of this research in 2014 (however, it was lifted in 2019). Moreover, Yoshihiro Kawaoka had previously managed to create a laboratory analog of the well-known Spanish flu, which killed up to 100 million people according to various estimates.
Also in 2018, a group of Canadian researchers published a scientific paper on recreating the causative agent of the horsepox virus – a close relative of smallpox (variola), one of the deadliest diseases in human history [4]. The cost of this project is estimated at approximately 100 thousand dollars. In doing so, the researchers sought to create a new, even safer vaccine against smallpox. However, a significant portion of the scientific community viewed this research critically and began to express indignation as to why the scientific journal PLOS One allowed the publication of such work at all, as this could help terrorists in creating biological weapons.
Along with all this, we should consider cases where viruses accidentally left laboratory walls and what consequences this led to, in order to understand what we will face if someone wants to release a dangerous virus into the wild intentionally. Moreover, this could already be done by some laboratory assistant at any research center that stores and studies samples of such viruses. We have simply been very lucky that none of these lab assistants had violent tendencies, or if they did, something held them back or they did not realize what dangerous weapon was in their hands. We will list 5 such cases [5]:
– In 1977, the H1N1 flu strain managed to escape from a Chinese institution and spread across the world. Fortunately, it caused only a mild illness and led to only a few fatal cases.
– From 1963 to 1978, three escapes of the smallpox virus occurred in the UK from two different laboratories. They were linked to low standards and poorly conducted laboratory practice. The smallpox outbreaks led to at least 80 fatal cases.
– In 1995, 10,000 people in Venezuela and 75,000 people in Colombia fell ill with a VEE strain that escaped from a laboratory. As a result of the outbreak, 311 people died, and neurological complications were found in 3,000 people.
– Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 led to a global epidemic that infected 8,000 people and caused 774 deaths in 29 countries. Since the original epidemic, six escapes of the virus from laboratories have occurred – four in Beijing and one each in Singapore and Taiwan.
– In 2007, 278 animals in the UK were infected with foot-and-mouth disease after the virus escaped from a high-biosafety laboratory. Due to the outbreak, 1,578 animals had to be destroyed. This outbreak undermined agricultural production and exports in the UK and cost approximately 200 million pounds sterling.
Let’s also look at the current viral situation. In 2020-21, we had to deal with the coronavirus (by the way, this is one of the strains of the same SARS that left laboratory walls in 2003). Compared to other viruses, SARS-CoV-2 is not excessively contagious or deadly; to date, about 103 million people have had it, which is 1.3% of the planet’s population; about 2.2 million people died – 2.1% of all infected. Nevertheless, the pandemic led to a large number of social and economic problems.
We should also look at other modern viral threats besides the coronavirus. One such example could be the “Nipah” virus. The disease can be asymptomatic (in which case the person simply becomes a spreader of the infection) or cause serious respiratory problems, encephalitis, cerebral edema, and mortality ranging from 40% to 75%. Furthermore, Dutch researchers claim that a Nipah outbreak could happen at any moment [6]. And what could happen if a sample of such a virus fell into the hands of a person with violent inclinations?
Besides all this, the topic of the viral threat is already being raised by some well-known and authoritative figures, for example, entrepreneur and billionaire Bill Gates [7]. Back in 2015, he predicted a pandemic and warned that the world was not ready for it. He explains this lack of readiness by the fact that large pandemics occur quite rarely, people forget about them and prefer to concentrate their attention on fighting more frequent disasters. A pandemic generally always seems like something that definitely will not happen in the next few years, therefore its threat is ignored. Bill Gates also expressed concern that viruses could be used for violent purposes and estimated the probability of an artificial pandemic to be higher than that of a natural one. Now let’s imagine such a scenario – someone intentionally releases a very contagious and deadly virus into the wild, and humanity is not ready for it at all?
I think there should be no more doubts that the creation of artificial viruses is a real task, which over time is becoming less expensive and more accessible for implementation. It may even not be necessary to create new viruses – it is enough to seize and use samples of already existing ones. Therefore, it is critically important for us to get rid of violence before the moment when someone, in an attempt to protect themselves from attacks, or some terrorist in pursuit of their violent goals, releases a very contagious and deadly virus into the wild, thereby bringing humanity to catastrophe.
Very foolish is the conservative who implements their dreams of ethnic purity and a traditional order of life through state violence in a mandatory manner toward the entire society. But a progressivist who uses this same method to promote a multicultural and LGBT agenda will be equally foolish. This is because, regardless of which ideas are promoted by this method, one must constantly use and maintain the instruments of violence in a state of “combat readiness.”
But power is never eternal. There is no method to leave power in the hands of one interest group forever, simply because different groups always exist within society. And when one of these groups gains enough strength and popularity to remove the previous group from power, the previous interests are removed along with them.
To make this clearer, let’s ask a question as an example, considering the current state of affairs in the Western world. European and American conservatives are extremely dissatisfied that their children are forced to study multiculturalism in schools and are taught tolerance toward LGBT. Sometimes it even goes as far as conservative parents having their children taken away by social services if they decide to shield them from such education. They are also dissatisfied that their funds are taken through taxation to provide aid and additional privileges to minorities and immigrants.
But who is to blame for this? The progressivists? Perhaps, as they are using the tools of force. But the conservatives themselves are also to blame. This is because they supported and nurtured the instrument of violence. And why be surprised that this instrument simply passed into the hands of other interest groups over time? What should conservatives be surprised about after they had previously killed, imprisoned, or forcibly treated those very same LGBT representatives, and then their children began to be mandatorily taught tolerance toward values of this kind? If conservatives had gotten rid of the instrument of violence, not used it to pursue their goals, then no one would have been able to to impose their orders upon them. Yes, the proponents of multiculturalism and LGBT representatives, whom they hate so strongly, would still exist. But they would not be able to force them how to live.
The moral of this story can be expressed by a single parable: you reap what you sow! If you sow violence, you yourself will become its victim; it is inevitable. Never count on the instrument of violence being yours and only yours. It is better not to facilitate the development of such an instrument—then no one will be able to use it against you.
