The friendly channel Anarchy+ is publishing a multi-part longread about how the presence of a radical wing, ready for violent action, affects the course of protests. Five parts have been released so far, and more are coming. The series explores various subtleties, such as how the effects differ when the radical wing is friendly with the moderate one, and when there is no coordination between them—and so on. Two or three more episodes are expected, which will then be collected into a single post, but I preferred not to wait for the end because an interesting practical example has come along.
The most notable protest of last year was, of course, Belarus. In its aftermath, political scientists either gently lamented that a regime relying on a compact, loyal security core remains stable regardless of the dissatisfaction of the rest of the population—as confirmed by two examples, Venezuela and Belarus—or they expressed indignation toward the protesters, arguing that by taking off their slippers before standing on benches, they demonstrate their complete toothlessness to the regime’s dogs and give a carte blanche for repressions, the severity of which is directly proportional to the size of the demonstrations.
And then I am handed a link to an extremely curious channel, which is used to promote specifically violent actions in Belarus, and in an extremely harsh form. Read it carefully; it is quite young, so you can manage its entire content. In short: the channel intends to launch a full-scale guerrilla war against the regime. The tactics proposed make it clear: the authors of the channel, whoever they may be, know very well how courts work under ancap, and they also perfectly understand that very influence of a radical wing on the protest as a whole.
I have attempted to roughly formulate what these anonymous organizers of decentralized violent protest are guided by:
Today, the overwhelming majority of those dissatisfied with the regime are indeed not ready for an open armed rebellion, but many are extremely irritated by the complete lack of concessions from the regime in response to peaceful actions.
The lack of readiness for open rebellion in some is caused by a principled unwillingness to escalate violence, while in others, it is an unwillingness to bear serious costs.
A person is capable of developing habits and skills. Starting small, they get drawn in, and then can gradually train for serious violence.
Violence must not be heroized. Heroes take off their slippers before standing on benches. Terror is carried out by scum. And society has a demand for the appearance of these loathsome characters who will fight the regime out of the lowest motivations.
For a socialist country, the textbook lowest motivation is money. It is best if servants of the regime are killed by other servants of the regime for the sake of money. But any other lumpen will do.
How much to pay for which actions? Who will pay? Let the “market” decide that; the channel’s job is to describe the business model, which anyone wishing to do so can then adopt.
What can we extract from these materials?
Firstly, keeping in mind that Belarus is something of a testing ground for the Russian regime, one can assume that something similar may await us in the RF, so why not keep a closer eye on the underside of the protest as well, trying it on for size in advance.
Secondly, the channel provides a number of practical tips on anonymization that will also be useful for peaceful agorists.
Thirdly, we see vivid confirmation that market relations work perfectly even when fighting the state, which means the market will survive without the state. Not that this is exactly some discovery, but we’ll add this to the pile of evidence.
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).
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.
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!
Towards the end of the year, Libertarian Band finally put out the final video of the cycle on violence. It turned out to be somewhat relaxed and encouraging, just what is needed at the end of December. The idea is that yes, violence is certainly a problem, but it is a problem for many, and many stand to benefit from solving it. And since it looks technically solvable, and since both the goal and the means exist, it will, of course, be solved.
I have two main grievances with the entire cycle. First, it is quite abstract. The problem of violence in general is like the problem of poverty in general. People are more concerned with their personal safety and personal well-being, and discussing macro-parameters significantly reduces engagement. Second, the postulated division between self-defense and revenge is largely artificial. Accordingly, arguing that the former is virtuous while the latter is not will inevitably spark disputes: why exactly is it not, and where is the line? For instance, I am hit, I hit back, and I am told that I am wrong, that revenge is bad, and that I should use non-violent methods. I claim it was self-defense, and I am told that it cannot be self-defense if I have already been hit. Why is a one-second difference in the exchange of blows acceptable, but a one-day difference is not?
Nevertheless, personal safety correlates with the overall level of violence, just as personal well-being correlates with the overall level of poverty, and non-violent methods of conflict resolution are very effective in a vast number of cases. So, for the time being, the adepts of the approach promoted in this cycle remain my allies. Specifically, exactly until the general obsession with this approach reduces my own personal safety, and that is still a long way off.
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!
The team I previously had the honor of representing has released their latest video, partially based on my script, which in turn was based on Bitarch’s article of the same name. On boosty, I posted a whole series of iterations showing how the script evolved. The next video is already terra incognita; my work is not involved there, and I am curious to see what they come up with. If it turns out well, who knows, perhaps I will be able to hand over my main text channel to someone over time.
Readers are wondering why Bitarch’s share on my channel has grown so sharply. It’s quite simple: he purchased a subscription for such publications for 5,000 rubles per month. These terms turned out to be more convenient for me than pondering every time whether or not to post a particular piece of material he suggested for free. Similarly, I guaranteed to answer questions accompanied by donations, while all others will be answered as I can.
By the way, speaking of questions. I want to test a certain model. I have created a separate subscription level on boosty for 50 rubles a month. Subscribers will see all the questions I receive and will be able to mark in the comments which ones they would be interested in seeing answered. In this way, even if a question was not accompanied by a donation, a paid subscriber can promote it (Of course, subscribers of more expensive plans will also have this capability). As we know from economic theory, it is through the pricing structure that real human needs are determined. Let’s see how this works in our case.
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.
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.
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
