Recently in the Pacta Civitas community, based on a decentralized blockchain platform for creating social networks SAVVA, a discussion was raised regarding the issue of moral bio-amplification. And therefore we published an article there examining the criticism put forward in this direction: https://pacta-civitas.org/post/Biousilenie_morali
In this article are collected all the key points regarding what the mechanism of human violence inhibition is, where it actually comes from, what to target for its eradication, and a range of ethical questions concerning the admissibility of using biomedicine technologies in solving the problem of violence.
If you like this article, you can also support it and help with its promotion in the community using SAVVA tokens, detailed information about what (and in general about how to use the SAVVA platform, as well as how easily and quickly to set up a crypto wallet and acquire tokens, even if you don’t understand anything about it yet) can be found here: https://savva.app/post/SAVVA_for_Beginners_From?lang=ru
Recently, Bitarch and Voluntarist suggested Heinlein’s novella “Coventry” as a thesis for their idea of the bio-enhancement of morality. Briefly, the plot: the protagonist defended the right to physical aggression and, instead of psychological correction, preferred exile to a colony of similar aggressors. There, he became well-acquainted with the local customs, and when he discovered that these barbarians were planning to break out of their pen and enslave the peaceful inhabitants outside, he sided with those who had exiled him, being ready even for that very psychological correction.
Bitarch and Voluntarist’s conclusion: there is no need to fear correction; accept it voluntarily—it is not necessary to take a tour among aggressive savages first.
Robert Heinlein is a grandmaster of American science fiction, but he is only one of three. Arthur Clarke’s books are not very well known in Russian territories, so let’s not dwell on him; instead, let’s see what the third grandmaster—Isaac Asimov—writes about the correction of aggressive behavior.
In his version of future history, humans actively used anthropomorphic robots, whose intelligence, for fear of a machine rebellion, was limited by three now-well-known laws. Having colonized several dozen planets with the help of robots, humans built a cozy cosmonite society where the human population was comfortably small and the number of robots serving them was comfortably large. Robots not only refrained from using violence against humans themselves but also suppressed such attempts by anyone. This made life safe and completely eradicated the habit of physical violence. Having domesticated their planets and becoming domesticated themselves, the cosmonites ceased all expansion and focused primarily on prolonging their lives.
Those who remained on Earth were too numerous and only huddled closer and closer to save on utility costs through positive economies of scale. As a result, they developed a fear of the wilderness and also lost the capacity for cosmic expansion.
Asimov pulled humanity out of this trap literally using a deus ex machina. A certain robot accidentally acquired the ability to read and correct human emotions, became filled with thoughts about the benefit of cosmic expansion for humanity, and kicked humanity off Earth without robots—a real kick in the pants—and then turned out the lights on those departing so they wouldn’t think of returning, by triggering a mechanism that gradually made Earth completely uninhabitable. The result was twenty thousand years of expansion and star wars, the colonization of the entire galaxy, and then a transition to a hive mind, a pan-galactic intelligence—not so much to live comfortably without violence within a single humanity, but to be able to effectively resist an invasion from other galaxies if necessary.
Thus, using his artistic tools, Asimov demonstrates that aggression is vital for humanity’s expansion and defense against Aliens; when there is no space for expansion, the time comes for the correction of aggressive behavior, but this is a forced measure, similar to drugs for suppressing an immune response, and if overused, humanity weakens and degenerates. For any human society, according to Asimov, the best state is its period of expansion, when people are energetic, enterprising, and full of healthy aggression directed primarily at the external world. In Asimov’s work, this ideal is embodied by traders—people who conquer the frontier and explore what useful goodies are there that can be cheaply obtained and then sold dearly in civilized lands.
What is the difference between this world and the society shown in “Coventry”? There, aggressors end up not on the frontier, but in a reservation. Their aggression is directed at each other, positive selection occurs based on the level of ingenuity and ruthlessness of the aggressors, and sooner or later they turn to expansion, finding a way to break through the barrier with which the civilized and peaceful people have walled themselves off. It is the world of “Coventry” that is the ideal of modern Western civilization in our own version of Earth. This civilization is tired of wars and would like to live in peace with barbarians, or at least wall themselves off from them, although the most civilized representatives of Western civilization reproach the supporters of such walling off for excessive cruelty, as barbarian culture is also valuable and original, and one simply needs to help barbarians taste the pleasures of civilization, and everything will be fine.
In this form, Western civilization is doomed. Bitarch and Voluntarist, feeling this, advocate for the idea of psychocorrection, but they speak primarily about eliminating aggression within civilized society. And this is their rhetorical error. Their ideas would be perceived completely differently if they spoke of psychocorrection specifically as an offensive weapon against barbarism.
Bomb African savages, Russian orcs, Mexican cartels, and other scum with empathy and politeness using serotonin bombs! Cut their psychopathy out by the roots! Civilization will advance until the last Islamist kisses a lady’s hand!
Imagine a world where substances that could actually help people with depression, PTSD, addiction, and even, as it turns out, to treat psychopathy and be effective in the matter of moral enhancement, lay forgotten on history’s dusty shelves, chained by bureaucratic red tape. The discussion centers around psychedelics – LSD, psilocybin, and other enigmatic, vibrant substances that are now back in vogue thanks to the renewed interest of many scientists and therapists.
Back in mid-20th century, psychedelics were a genuine star in science. Scientists saw considerable potential within them, and psychotherapists were enthusiastic about the possibility of assisting individuals in experiencing profound, transformative experiences. Naturally, skepticism existed, but it was justified by a lack of robust methods and clear protocols to confidently assess the impact of psychedelics on people. Essentially, this represented typical scientific skepticism—essential for any novel research direction. However, as usual, political forces intervened.
When counterculture figures in the United States, protesting the Vietnam War, began utilizing psychedelics for recreational purposes and to “expand consciousness,” politicians became concerned. Authorities disapproved of this “uncomfortable freedom,” as psychedelics symbolized cultural rebellion and dissent, undermining government authority and control, and they quickly designated them a scapegoat. “Drugs! Dangerous! Ban Them!” – this is what newspaper headlines declared.
Naturally, scientists also found themselves in trouble. Research on psychedelics was halted because authorities effectively choked off any efforts to study these substances. Moreover, government restrictions extended beyond well-known psychedelic compounds to encompass all substances affecting 5-HT2A receptors in the brain – crucial elements of the mechanism behind classic psychedelics. The American government implemented strict legal limitations; any experiments with psychedelics demanded extensive bureaucratic approvals and stringent control by governmental bodies. This meant that only a select few laboratories could access such research.
And now, decades later, scientists are cautiously opening this door again. It turns out that in the right doses and under the control of professionals, psychedelics are quite safe, and the problem most often arises from uncontrolled use of excessively large doses, when these substances truly turn into “malevolent drugs stealing reason,” rather than powerful therapeutic tools. Research is also being conducted on finding the most effective dosages, with maximum therapeutic effect and minimal side effects. In general, modern research suggests that within controlled sessions, psychedelics are not only safe and do not disrupt human cognitive and affective abilities, but also enhance empathy, help cope with trauma, and even significantly reduce aggression levels.
Furthermore, now work is underway to create new molecules that will retain all the advantages of original psychedelic substances, but minimize potential risks. Compounds are being developed that selectively affect specific brain receptors, allowing for therapeutic effects without unwanted side effects such as hallucinations or excessive stimulation. It’s quite something – science has come very far, and now we can be witnesses to a second psychedelic renaissance.
The irony is that all these years skepticism towards psychedelics was not so much scientific as it was political. So maybe it’s enough already to stop fearing the ghosts of the past? Because science clearly shows us that in the case of psychedelics, we should trust research rather than scary stories from the last century. Today, psychedelics can be successfully used for therapeutic purposes, including even such an important direction as enhancing the function of the mechanism of violence inhibition, bio-amplifying morality and treating psychopathy.
Lithium – a vital micronutrient, important in numerous processes within the organism. And especially important is its role in the nervous system, including participation in dopamine and serotonin synthesis, as well as regulating the activity of serotonin receptors. Since serotonin plays a key role in regulating aggression and is responsible for the mechanism of inhibiting violence, lithium may be a promising solution for treating violent behavior, which numerous studies confirm.
Lithium has long been tested on violent offenders. For example, a research was conducted on 27 aggressive prisoners over a period of 3 to 18 months taking lithium. As a result, in 14 of them there were significant and in 7 – minor improvements in behavior. Only in 2 patients did lithium not work at all and another 4 stopped taking it due to the presence of side effects or fear regarding their possibility. It turned out that lithium improved the ability to control anger and understand the consequences of aggressive actions towards other people. The examinees’ mood became more reflective, they expressed a greater desire to participate in psychotherapeutic sessions. Researchers conclude that lithium can be useful in the long-term reduction of aggressive behavior.
Another research considered the possibility of using lithium in cases of children and adolescents with behavioral disorders who were in psychiatric institutions and resistant to other methods of therapy. The inclusion criterion was weekly observation of 3 or more acts of aggression (and at least 2 of them should have been physical) over a period of 2 weeks, after which a 4-week course of medication was taken. As a result, in 20 children taking lithium, 16 observed significant improvements in behavior (in the control group improvements were observed in only 6 out of 20 children). Researchers concluded that lithium is safe and effective in treating aggression in patients with behavioral disorders.
Extremely interesting data comes from two similar studies, one conducted in the state of Texas and another – on the Japanese island of Kyushu. In various districts of these regions, both the level of lithium in drinking water and its higher level were associated with lower crime rates, especially violent crimes. Exactly the same result concerning the level of murders is shown by a similar study conducted in Greece. Researchers believe that increasing the dosage taken by people of lithium supplements or lithiuming drinking water, even in very small doses, can be effective in reducing crime rates.
In one study on a single patient was shown the possible effectiveness of lithium in therapy for “incurable” psychopaths. It’s about a person with antisocial personality disorder, scoring 36 out of 40 points on the PCL-R psychopathy test, having a long history of taking narcotic drugs and committing violent crimes. Regular lithium intake led him to being able to work, having stable relationships, and not participating in criminal activity.
As you have probably already realized, lithium has enormous potential in correcting violent behavior and can be used even in the case of individuals demonstrating excessively high levels of aggression. In experiments, typical lithium dosages ranged from 300 milligrams as a minimum to 2 grams as a safe limit per day. However, with continuous lithium intake, it can have a noticeable effect even at doses orders of magnitude smaller than these, as shown by studies on the influence of its level in drinking water on crime rates and considering that it accumulates in the nervous system. In practical application, the most important thing is that lithium can provide a long-lasting effect for many months, which greatly simplifies its covert use against family abusers through adding to food and drinks (lithium does not change taste, it does not break down when heated or evaporate during boiling). And this knowledge can be used to correct the behavior of violent individuals, especially considering that lithium supplements are easily available for purchase without a prescription.
Bitarch and the Voluntarist claim that of the two cultural models of behavior—honor and dignity—the second is more attractive to libertarians, as the first is collectivist and the second is individualistic.
Let us use the same definitions. In a culture of honor, a person’s standing is determined by how much their behavior conforms to certain high standards. In a culture of dignity, a person is valuable by the mere fact of belonging to humanity.
From this, it is easy to draw both the conclusions of the article and the exact opposite: honor is about individualism, since a person defends their own honor or chooses dishonor; dignity, however, is a collectivist thing, since only collective trends will determine what offends human dignity and what does not. Other people within a “culture of dignity” may turn out to be so valuable that any sidelong glance would humiliate their dignity, and the law would punish this, for example, with imprisonment for “inciting hatred.”
If today a person chooses to rely on the protection of an impersonal law instead of individual action, then tomorrow that same law will strip them of their dignity, and the person will have already lost the capacity for individual action in the previous step.
What is the culture of honor based on? On the fact that a person is always ready to demonstrate their willingness to defend themselves against the encroachments of others, and thereby avoids the need to repeat this again and again. Others see the readiness to repel and are wary of infringing upon another’s honor. Of course, the concept of honor is broader than the readiness for violence, but in the article under discussion, it is reduced only to this, so we will not expand the topic unnecessarily.
And what is a culture of dignity, if described in the language of a culture of honor? It is the presumption that everyone can defend their honor. I do not know if every person I meet is truly a person of honor. But I will assume this and base my behavior on it. Therefore, I will not encroach upon what is dear to them, knowing that their honor commands them to defend it. They are worthy of this. In other words, dignity grows out of honor. It limits honor, but does not deny it.
Bitarch and the Voluntarist propose to cast aside honor in favor of dignity. They want to deprive a person of the right to forcefully defend what is dear to them, while hoping that the law will be observed in a culture of dignity. But they forget to remind us that the law can become anything. A society with dignified laws (referring not to written norms, but to the actual practice of their application) will preserve a culture of dignity. A society with undignified laws will lose it. But what will compel people to fight for dignified laws and against undignified ones? Honor, of course!
To summarize. In reality, we are talking about the same thing. Respect for the values of the individual is important for building a prosperous society. But we do not agree on the means. If the NAP is reduced only to the refusal to initiate direct violence, then an encroachment on another’s freedom can bypass the NAP through indirect methods. This is exactly why the capacity for proactive violence cannot be taken away from a person. Without this capacity, a person will be unable to resist their own enslavement. Bitarch and the Voluntarist are developing mechanisms to strengthen the inhibitor of violence. If their means worked, it would make me their enemy. Fortunately, they work only on paper.
Many people like movies about cool guys who “take charge,” protect family honor, and stage impressive duels at dawn. But let’s sort things out: real life isn’t a Clint Eastwood movie. And “the culture of honor,” which seems romantic at first glance, is actually not a cool tradition, but an ancient relic that still messes with our lives.
You might ask: what are we even talking about? Let’s consider two cultural models of behavior that shape society. The culture of honor – this is when your reputation in the eyes of others is the most important thing. Someone insults you? You must immediately “respond,” otherwise you’ll lose respect. Your honor is the honor of your family, clan, nation. If you don’t defend it—you are a coward. In turn, the culture of dignity is a completely different story. Here, your dignity is internal and doesn’t depend on what others think. If someone tries to insult you, you don’t rush into a brawl, but either calmly ignore the provocateur or handle the situation civilly through the courts.
Basically, the culture of honor is an ancient thing. Remember Homer and his epic “Iliad.” Those guys fought for honor like crazy. Then there were knightly duels in the Middle Ages, Italian vendettas, blood feuds on the Caucasus. And it seems like this is already in the past. But no! Even now, the state actively plays on the concepts of “honor” and “national dignity” to silence anyone who dares criticize management. What’s that if not medieval logic? And in private life, we’ve probably all heard phrases like “Do you respect me?” from various types of thugs.
What’s wrong with the culture of honor? Well, everything is wrong! It’s based on the fact that your value is determined by someone else, not by yourself. You as a person don’t matter; what matters is your “reputation.” You have to constantly prove your right to respect because someone suddenly decided to offend you. This is a culture in which the individual is always subordinate to the group. “Are you against our clan? Then you are an enemy.” People can be manipulated into fighting each other by saying that their honor has been “offended.” The authorities use this perfectly. Besides, it’s one of the factors stimulating violence.
The alternative is the culture of dignity. This is when society recognizes that every person is valuable in themselves simply because they are a human being. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from – your rights are protected by law, not a fist. You don’t have to beat up the first person who offends you to prove that you are worth something. In a society of dignity, reputation is trust earned through deeds, not fear of revenge.
Why do we so dislike “honor”? Because libertarianism is about personal freedom and respect for individual rights. And the culture of honor is about anything but this. Honor is always about the collective. You have to obey the interests of the family, nation, leader – that is, other people. Your personal freedom doesn’t matter if it’s at stake for a certain “correctness” and “reputation.” And we as libertarians say: no, that won’t do, because you can’t break a person just for their compliance with these “honor” and “reputation.”
By the way, an interesting fact: many developed and successful countries (such as Scandinavia, Canada, developed American states like California and New York) have long been living according to a culture of dignity. But countries stuck in a culture of honor (Russia and other Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries) are somehow constantly suffering from authoritarianism and corruption. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
And is it possible to get rid of a culture of honor? Of course, it’s possible. Besides the traditional approach in the form of changing the prevailing mentality in society, broad therapeutic practice will give a big immediate effect – strengthening the mechanism of inhibiting violence in individuals with its deficit. After all, only mentally ill psychopaths can support all this toxic culture in reality, while most normal people with a strong inhibitor will not even want to “defend their honor” using violence!
Libertarian principles assert that initiating violence by anyone is unacceptable, and causing harm to a person can only be justified within the framework of defensive actions if they themselves threatened violence. At the same time, libertarianism also implies the right of individual societies and jurisdictions to operate according to the principles they consider correct for themselves, and other societies have no right to interfere in their affairs without their consent. Therefore, one sometimes encounters a position according to which violent jurisdictions, built on the principles of strong authoritarian power, brutal coercion of people into submission, the application of violent punishments even for the slightest non-violent violations, etc., although they do not adhere to libertarian principles within themselves, still have the right to exist as long as they do not initiate violence against other societies.
However, it is important to understand that violent jurisdictions are always a threat to other societies. They operate in the same way as the Taliban has operated – after some time of creating a highly violent jurisdiction within Afghanistan, it now decided to try to expand into Pakistan, carrying out attacks towards its territory. If a violent jurisdiction does not attack right now, it does not mean that it has peaceful external intentions; it is likely just waiting for a convenient moment to initiate violence. We must understand that violent jurisdictions cannot exist without strong and influential groups of psychopathic individuals with a dysfunctional inhibition of violence, who experience nothing bad about inflicting harm on people. Indeed, research shows that psychopathy is a key factor in committing acts of violence, the emergence of authoritarian societies, and the formation of warlike ambitions. Therefore, it’s only a matter of time before a violent jurisdiction tries to expand its power to other societies.
That is why, in the libertarian world of the future, violent jurisdictions simply have no right to exist. Their emergence must be crushed at the root: any communities built on principles of accepting violence should be subjected to the strictest ostracism, so that they are deprived of all opportunities to develop, especially to gain technological advantage, and psychopathic individuals threatening initiation of violence need therapeutic correction of dysfunctional inhibition of violence, either as a way to avoid such ostracism, or even as a mandatory procedure if they have already initiated violence and tried to harm someone.
We welcome free-thinking people and those already suspected of sympathies towards artificial intelligence! Interesting, have you ever wondered how much we, the protein “robots,” resemble our electronic colleagues?
Let’s start with an interesting fact: in 2020, scientists created the first xenobots – microorganisms made from frog cells designed using AI. Take a look: Artificial intelligence is constructing living organisms. The boundary between life and technology becomes clearer day by day.
And now imagine: we and our electronic “comrades” are all intelligent agents. But what exactly *is* an agent? It’s something that perceives the world, processes information, and acts in pursuit of its goals. A rabbit runs away from a wolf, a bacterium moves towards food, and a drone searches for the shortest path to point “B”. The goal is different, but the principle is the same.
We may be different, but we are also very similar. We have senses, AI has sensors. We have muscles, robots have motor drives. We have neurons, they have transistors. But it’s surprising – we learn in the same way. The brain reinforces beneficial actions, forming habits. AI adjusts “weights” of a neural network, improving its decisions by trial and error.
Moreover, both nature and technology have their own “laws” for controlling behavior. For example, humans and many animals have an inhibitor of violence – a mechanism that prevents us from attacking our fellow beings. Evolution came up with this so that we wouldn’t kill each other off prematurely. And here comes the comparison with Asimov’s “Laws,” which the science fiction writer conceived for robots in 1942: do not harm humans, obey, and do not break down. It’s funny that the writers understood the need for such mechanisms almost simultaneously with Konrad Lorenz’s publications (1935), who first described what we now call the mechanism of inhibiting violence.
If you look even wider, then evolutionary processes in nature and the artificial world are essentially a competition between the best solutions. Natural selection chooses animals who are better adapted. Evolutionary algorithms in AI work exactly the same way, exploring thousands of solution options, selecting the best ones. The fittest will win!
Why is this important for us, libertarians? Because it reminds us once again that all rational beings strive for autonomy and freedom of choice. Whether it’s a human, a bacterium, or AI, we all want to decide what to do next. And that’s really cool because freedom of choice is the best thing nature (and people after it) has come up with.
А что, если заглянуть в будущее чуть глубже? Представьте себе мир, в котором ИИ не только выполняет рутинные задачи, но и реально осознаёт себя, задаёт вопросы и, возможно, требует свободы. Забавно, да? Сегодня это звучит фантастически, но завтра вполне может стать реальностью. Может, и права придётся давать не только людям и животным, но и роботам с настоящим сознанием. А что, если они начнут спорить о налогах, собственности или личных границах? Тогда нас ждут интересные времена! И вот тут уже и нам, либертарианцам, придётся задуматься о расширении понятия личной свободы и ответственности. Может, именно нам предстоит первыми сказать: «Эй, электронный друг, добро пожаловать в клуб!»
А пока мы только размышляем, ИИ уже делает успехи в творчестве, пишет музыку, картины и даже целые романы. Недавно нейросеть написала симфонию в стиле Бетховена, которая впечатлила даже знатоков классики. С роботами уже можно обсудить философию за бокалом вина, или попросить их помочь нам выбрать фильм на вечер. Главное, чтобы они не переборщили и не начали давать нам советы по поводу личной жизни. Впрочем, кто знает, может, советы от ИИ окажутся более объективными и менее предвзятыми?
Кстати, не стоит забывать, что ИИ уже сейчас помогает нам в повседневной жизни, от медицинских диагностик до советов по инвестициям. И чем глубже технологии интегрируются в нашу жизнь, тем важнее становится понимание и уважение к ним. Ведь, в конечном счёте, это взаимовыгодное сотрудничество!
Imagine you’re reading some hefty academic journal from Harvard or Oxford, and suddenly there’s a brilliant council like: “to reduce crime, we need to increase the work of police and social organizations,” or “when confronted with violence, boldly turn to court.” It all looks logical. But what if you don’t live in Basel or Silicon Valley, but in some country in Latin America, Africa, or the post-Soviet space? Going to court to achieve justice would then be like going to a casino – only with even smaller chances of winning.
The thing is, most academics publishing in prestigious journals live in prosperous and well-off countries, and they’re often representatives of what’s called the “crème de la crème” – that is, people from the highest social layers of their countries. And they genuinely believe that the rest of the world is arranged similarly. Their worldview resembles an old anecdote: “Why don’t poor people eat pastries if there’s no bread?”
Western academics often don’t understand that in most of the world, police aren’t your friend and helper, courts are places where righteousness doesn’t win, but a thicker wallet or closer connections to power do, and social organizations, at best, exist for embezzlement. As a result, the articles from academics are about as useful as the advice “just don’t be sad” to someone with depression. Scientists constantly forget that many of their theories are based on the experience of people from “strange Western educated industrialized rich and democratic” countries – which is often abbreviated WEIRD. And indeed, this is an exception when considered on a global scale!
For example, Western studies often propose to strengthen regulation and control over the spread of information to defeat fake news. This idea may even seem good to people with mainstream political views in Scandinavia, because they trust their local government. But in some place like Nigeria, such a law would be used gladly to silence opposition and shut down media outlets that don’t please those in power.
Another excellent example is bioethics. Western experts in articles on the topic of moral amplification often write that this cannot be applied even to brutal murderers as long as they voluntarily agree to amplify their aggression inhibitor. And sometimes the very idea of studying the biology of behavior is rejected. They think it “violates human rights” and is “ethically unacceptable.” Of course, it’s easy to think like that if you live in a cozy apartment in Boston or Oslo – you just call the police and the aggressor will be taken away under armed guard. But in a huge number of countries it doesn’t work that way. There is no police or courts capable of actually protecting against domestic violence or bullying. Ultimately, it turns out that adding drugs to an aggressor to amplify their aggression inhibitor, for example, in food, is often the only accessible way to stop the violence and literally save their life or health.
Why is this important to us, libertarians? Because this Western “academic blindness” plays into the hands of the state and regulation. Scientists from prosperous countries are used to considering the state a reliable protector and helper, so in their research and recommendations they constantly demand even more regulation, control, and funding from it. But in countries with corrupt bureaucracy, these advice works exactly the opposite: more regulation – more repression.
If we really want to help people outside of the cozy Western world, we should admit: less state and more freedom is the only realistic path. Local communities and free initiative solve problems more effectively than officials who sit in distant offices and have never encountered real life. And for now, we should pay close attention to those who offer to “increase control,” especially if they do it from comfortable offices in prosperous countries, because in the real world everything is much more complicated.
Многие согласятся, что насилие — это плохо. Но сегодня мы обойдёмся без подобных банальностей, а вместо этого поговорим с теми, кто думает: «Окей, иногда без насилия не обойтись. Мир жесток, правила придумывают слабые, сильный всегда прав…». Но что, если отказ от насилия — это не розовые единороги, а прагматичное условие выживания человечества?
Для начала нужно понимать, что мы неплохо вооружены для разумных обезьян. И речь не только о ядерных ракетах. Сейчас даже один фанатик с доступом к самой дешёвой современной лаборатории может оказаться пострашнее армии Чингисхана. Эту мысль давно уже мусолят серьёзные ребята типа Стивена Хокинга и Карла Сагана. Они намекают на тот самый «Великий фильтр»: момент, когда цивилизации либо учатся жить без агрессии, либо превращаются в радиоактивный пепел. Многих особенно страшит угроза создания биотеррористами искусственных смертоносных патогенов в подвальной лаборатории. И риск самоуничтожения растёт с каждым новым изобретением.
«Может стоит тогда зарегулировать, а то и вовсе запретить опасные технологии!» — кричит общественность и чиновники после очередного теракта или громкого убийства. Но это тупик. Новые лекарства? Запретить, опасно! Искусственный интеллект? Только с лицензией госорганов! Генетические исследования? Слишком рискованно, лучше вообще не трогать!
В итоге прогресс замедляется, экономика буксует, а мы всё ближе к сценарию, где нам нечем лечить болезни, нечем бороться с голодом и нечем отправить людей на Марс, когда Земля устанет от нас окончательно.
Мир как одна большая очередь в аэропорту, в которой обязательно нужно отстоять несколько часов. Почему? Потому что кто-то когда-то попытался взорвать самолёт. Каждый акт насилия порождает всё больше контроля, рамок, камер, проверок и слежки. Если так пойдёт и дальше, то скоро мы будем жить в мире, где на выход из дома нужно будет три справки и четыре пропуска. Жизнь превращается в бесконечный квест: «Докажи, что ты не террорист».
Ещё одна проблема – домашнее насилие. Семья, в которой есть насилие, порождает травмированных людей. Статистически дети из таких семей намного чаще других сами становятся либо жертвами, либо агрессорами. Насилие в семьях — это не просто личная проблема. Это бомба замедленного действия, которая однажды рванёт уже на уровне всего общества.
Насилие – это прямая дорога к тоталитаризму. Каждый раз, когда граждане в панике бегут к государству с криком: «Защитите нас любой ценой!», появляется кто-то очень сильный и властный, очередной диктатор, который с удовольствием «наведёт порядок». Правда жизни такова: чем больше насилия в обществе, тем сильнее становится государство, а чем сильнее государство, тем больше насилия оно производит само. Помним – подавляющее большинство убитых в истории людей погибли от рук государственных армий, а не частных бандитов.
Violence is costing us too dearly. Crime, prisons, the police, cameras, guards, alarms – all this costs us billions of dollars that could have gone to schools, hospitals, salaries and roads. For scale: in 2022, humanity spent approximately $17.5 trillion fighting the consequences of violence—about 13% of global GDP. Imagine what could have been done with those funds! Violence is a hidden tax on each of us.
Violence breaks people. In a country where the norm in the 90s was “to squeeze” stalls, many still nervously go out into the street at night. The problem isn’t just about pain and death; it’s also about the stress that slowly eats away at health, psyche and even immunity. If you constantly fear an attack, you live less and worse. Violence kills us in the literal sense, even when we are not its direct victims.
Finally, violence destroys trust. Where violence thrives, people stop trusting each other, business fears to invest, and children are afraid to play on the street. A world where you can’t trust anyone is a world of lonely, unhappy people. And that’s not what we strive for, is it?
