Throughout history, people have experimented and performed various procedures on themselves. They tried different foods and medical remedies, underwent diverse rituals, and so on. In some cases, such experimentation even had significant scientific value. For example, one article cites 465 instances where researchers tested disease pathogens, tried new drugs, or performed other procedures on themselves. And although 8 of these cases ended in death, indicating a certain level of risk in such experiments, the vast majority (89%) led to positive results—confirmation of previously proposed hypotheses or the acquisition of valuable data.
Of course, today there is a negative attitude toward such experimentation, and toward independent intervention in the human body and health in general. State regulation has played a huge role in this, imposing strict restrictions on what a person can and cannot do, often insisting and deciding on behalf of ordinary people that this is allegedly safer. The state has done everything to ensure that biomedical experiments and procedures do not take place outside of approved institutions.
However, none of this has prevented the existence of biohacking. First of all, it should be noted that many means for its implementation are very common and not regulated at all, being simply bioactive supplements. No one can forbid you, based on current research or biohacking books, from purchasing certain vitamins or nootropics and taking them in the specified dosages and manner, let alone modifying your lifestyle or diet based on experimental data or even hypothetical assumptions. By the way, a good collection of useful tools and practices can be found in Daria Babkina’s book “Brain Biohacking: How to Manage Neurochemistry, Emotions, and Intelligence,” which was released this year.
But the matter doesn’t end there. Modern technologies make it possible to organize entire genetic laboratories at home, and there are already ready-made solutions for this. For example, for just 3,000 dollars, you can purchase a home laboratory with all the additions for bioengineering from “The Odin” (and educational kits for simple experiments cost only hundreds of dollars). You don’t have to go far for instructions on what exactly to do with such a laboratory—you can simply replicate step-by-step what has been done in various studies. This is exactly what one biohacker did—whose video you can see here—to correct his lactose intolerance; he simply recreated a gene therapy drug from an experiment on mice and tested it on himself. The result was excellent—a single pill allows for the free consumption of dairy products for over a year without experiencing any negative consequences whatsoever.
Considering how deeply modern science is stuck in countless regulations and the need to wait for state approval, sometimes even for decades, biohacking can give a boost to progress in the field of biotechnology, especially if we are talking about solutions that people need here and now to treat their diseases and various conditions that cause discomfort but do not yet have a sufficiently effective solution among those approved and allowed on the market by the state regulator.
Is there a danger in this? Naturally, among those engaged in biohacking, undesirable outcomes will sometimes occur. But people have every right to voluntarily assume such a risk, and an attempt to introduce a total ban on self-experimentation would not be justified, and to a large extent, would not even be feasible. Even now, there are fully approved activities that carry huge risks, such as extreme sports. And if a person can choose to do base jumping, rock climbing, or motocross, then why can’t they choose to control the biochemical processes of their own body, or even edit their genome?
Recently, some American dating sites came up with an interesting idea regarding how to encourage people to get vaccinated against coronavirus. They decided to add the ability to indicate one’s vaccination status in their profile, while providing certain bonuses to those who do so as early as possible. Accordingly, when searching for a partner on such sites, it is now possible to find out if they are vaccinated, which for many may serve as an indicator of responsibility and an understanding of the danger of the uncontrolled spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This, essentially, will stimulate dating site users to get vaccinated.
Of course, this idea may seem contradictory to some. Firstly, it could be argued that this is merely an attempt to control people, restrict their freedom, and apply a slave label. But specifically in the case of coronavirus, saying so would be an exaggeration—this is a temporary problem, and once it is solved and society begins to treat covid exactly like seasonal flu, such a status will cease to be relevant and there will be no demand for it. Secondly, the effectiveness of such an initiative itself can be questioned—there is no reason to believe that many people take coronavirus vaccination seriously, meaning they are indifferent to it. Moreover, some view it negatively.
But this idea could be used in the fight against violence by combining it with the concept of sexual selection. Fighting violence would become quite easy if people prone to it were denied relationships and, as a consequence, the ability to procreate. If such an idea gains public popularity, the number of rapists and the level of violence will be drastically reduced in the next generation. Along with the promotion of eradicating violence, a status indicating a propensity for violence could be used.
For example, a person could take certain tests that confirm their non-violent nature (more precisely, the presence of a strong version of the violence-inhibiting Lorenz mechanism) and use the results to establish a corresponding status in their profile. And if gene therapy against violence emerges, it would be possible to create a status with the same meaning as the coronavirus vaccination status on American dating sites. This would be especially useful for people who exhibited violent behavior in the past, as confirmation that they will never return to violence again.
There is certainly no reason to doubt the necessity and utility of such an initiative, as it is another way to fight violence, which leads to various negative consequences, including catastrophic ones. The effectiveness of this method should also be high, as most people will not want to deal with (and even less so have close relationships with) someone if they know in advance that this person is definitely prone to violence or likely to be prone to it, because they did not bother to confirm their non-violence while others did. Thus, everyone who wants to start a relationship, a family, and have children will have an incentive to confirm their non-violence or fight their own violent tendencies. And those people who have such tendencies but do not consider them a problem will lose this opportunity and will not be able to pass on a violent legacy.
Based on Konrad Lorenz’s theory of the inhibitor of intraspecific violence (Lorenz mechanism or LM), James Blair’s model of the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM), as well as a multitude of supporting evidence, including neurophysiological and genetic data, it can be confidently stated that the ability of some people to commit violence against other people is the result of a pathological impairment in the functioning of the innate violence inhibitor (LM/VIM). And since this is a pathology, it must be combated, as with any other pathology, namely through its treatment [1].
Since the impairment in the functioning of the LM/VIM is of genetic origin, treatment requires gene therapy intervention. At the neurophysiological level, specific areas of the brain are responsible for the functioning of this mechanism, which means we need to perform gene therapy on brain cells. However, the possibility of conducting such gene therapy is questioned. There is also an opinion that gene therapy cannot correct neurophysiological impairments. However, all these doubts can be easily dispelled, which I will now do.
In the past, gene therapy on brain cells was impossible because the viral vector with genetic material could not cross the blood-brain barrier—the protective filter between the circulatory and nervous systems. However, in 2003, a group of researchers found a solution to this problem, which involves using a vector small enough to be able to cross this barrier [2]. Later, a wide variety of tools for performing gene therapy on brain cells appeared, using different types of vectors and the genetic material they transport [3].
Fine, gene therapy can be performed on brain cells. But can it cure neurophysiological impairments? Let’s look at a practical example. There is a hereditary genetic disease called “Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency,” the symptoms of which include: mental retardation, inability to fully control the body, decreased muscle tone, seizures, and many others. It is caused by a mutation of the DDC gene, leading to a deficiency of key neurotransmitters (dopamine and serotonin).
However, quite recently (the corresponding study was published on July 12, 2021), specialists developed a gene therapy to treat this disease. A drug with a viral vector carrying the corrected version of the gene is injected directly into the patient’s midbrain, where it distributes through the tissues, and they gradually become capable of producing the missing proteins. This gene therapy has proven its safety and efficacy. Seven patients aged four to nine years, within 18 months after the injection, were freed from seizures, began trying to speak and smile, and two were even able to walk with assistance, which was considered fundamentally impossible for such a diagnosis [4].
Of course, at the moment, gene therapy is a complex and expensive technology that requires further development. However, there are absolutely no reasons to believe that the treatment of neurophysiological impairments and the restoration of nervous system functions (including the brain) is a fundamentally unsolvable task. Current research, on the contrary, proves the possibility of this. This means that the argument about the impossibility of treating LM/VIM dysfunction, based on such a claim, is incorrect.
Previously, we have already examined the topic of why it is profitable for corporations to fight violence. In short, they make their money by selling products that must be constantly improved technologically. In effect, new technologies are the source of their profit. However, as technologies develop, they become increasingly dangerous. In the future, it can be expected that, for example, even typical consumer electronics will require ultra-high-capacity energy sources due to the rapid expansion of functionality, which could then be used for violent purposes, including terrorist acts. Or someone could use widely available DNA/RNA synthesizers to begin creating dangerous viruses. As a result, violence hinders further progress, which is critically important for the survival of humanity as a whole, and also becomes a barrier to profit for private companies. This is precisely why it is in their interest to fight violence.
Of course, one might hear the argument that large corporations and elites are only interested in fighting violence among ordinary people, so that they cannot balance the potential for violence in their own favor and threaten them. In this view, technology is in the background and means nothing. I do not dispute that this was relevant in the past, and even in the 20th century, since dangerous technologies (such as nuclear weapons) were held only by major governments. However, now the issue of dangerous technologies is becoming more relevant than it has ever been before.
Alright, let’s assume the elites decide to strip ordinary people of their capacity for violence, for example, through gene therapy implemented “from above,” so that they can safely use dangerous technologies and not even think about committing acts of violence. At the same time, they would reserve violence for themselves, in order to permanently secure an endless potential for violence and maintain the ability to continue a violent policy toward the population, promoting their interests through government security forces.
But let us not forget—the elites themselves mean absolutely nothing without the security agents who serve them. We have already discussed this in the material titled “Our Goal is the Elimination of the Violence of the Pawns”. If gene therapy against violence becomes common knowledge, it could be used against security agents in direct clashes, for example, by firing a dart containing the corresponding vaccine at them. But suppose that gene therapy is implemented from the top down and ordinary people do not yet have the opportunity to obtain or recreate this technology. Even then, this state of affairs would change nothing.
The point is that the security agents working for such elites are also ordinary people, part of the rest of the population. Protecting the elite is just their job; outside of work, they lead ordinary lives, including using new technological gadgets. Consequently, the elites face the following problem: if they want to maintain their security functions, they must leave the violent tendencies in the agents who work for them. But these agents could also, at any moment, use dangerous technologies for violent purposes—for example, if someone among them is no longer satisfied with the policy imposed from above, or simply due to an unrestrained desire to commit violence. This, in turn, forces the elites either to slow down technological progress—which would result in loss of profit, the futile consumption of limited resources, and a decrease in humanity’s chances of survival—or to implement gene therapy against violence for everyone, including the agents working for them. I believe that when the moment comes to choose, they will find the second option more acceptable, as they all want to continue living and improving their living conditions, even if it means losing the ability to conduct a policy of force.
Some people say they are ready to personally hinder the development of gene therapy against violence (to strengthen Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism, also known as VIM in English-language research). Well, that is their right. We will not remind them that they are unlikely to succeed in hindering development in the real world, as most scientists ideologically oppose violence. But let us imagine that they did succeed, or that the development of this gene therapy proved too complex for the current technological level and, within our lifetime, gene therapy against violence was never created.
First, let us note that the absence of gene therapy in no way denies the fact of the existence of ML/VIM in the species Homo sapiens and its varying strength in different people. This has already been proven by authoritative scientists and will undoubtedly become a generally recognized fact sooner or later. As will the path by which ML/VIM is strengthened under the pressure of natural selection. Consequently, without the development of corrective gene therapy, the fate of people prone to violence will be extremely dismal. They will find themselves in a situation where they will literally pray to God for this gene therapy to appear as soon as possible!
1) The mildest, libertarian scenario. When the understanding of ML/VIM enters the mainstream and begins to be covered in the media, activists will immediately appear who will intentionally provoke everyone with words, clothing, and gestures, and immediately destroy those who succumb to provocation within the framework of self-defense. In essence, they will repeat the “Masquerade,” which, without even knowing the theory of Lorenz on which we base ourselves, was successfully conducted by Marshal Zhukov in post-war Odessa to “eradicate crime.” Why is this approach libertarian? Because according to the non-aggression principle (NAP), “one can offend, but one cannot be offended,” i.e., provocation is entirely permissible, as is self-defense, but the use of physical violence in response to provocation is a violation of the NAP. As a result, natural selection pressure is created to strengthen ML/VIM. If you, as a specific opponent of gene therapy, are prone to violence in deed rather than just in words, you will inevitably be removed from the population.
2) The moderately statist scenario. This is very likely in developed countries where the level of violence is already low, and humanism and human rights are more or less recognized as values. The propensity for violence is recognized as a socially dangerous pathology, like, for example, incurable infectious diseases. Even a hundred years ago, even in the USA, it was the norm to send carriers of dangerous infections such as leprosy and typhus into lifelong quarantine. Similarly, it will be with violent people — a reservation will be created on an island or in some remote wilderness, where all those prone to violence will be exiled as socially dangerous elements. Inside, they will live quite freely, roughly as they do now in some places of deprivation of liberty in Norway for not very dangerous criminals. But they will never be able to leave this reservation (at least until the creation of gene therapy or another method of strengthening ML/VIM).
3) The authoritarian scenario. Unlikely in developed countries, but who knows where the stars will turn… It is as simple as can be — mass genetic testing and forced euthanasia or sterilization followed by the exile of all carriers of weak ML/VIM variants (i.e., those prone to violence). Personally, as a libertarian/voluntarist, I naturally do not approve of this scenario, but I would like to warn opponents of gene therapy that society can turn toward totalitarianism at any moment and you personally will be subject to destruction. There have been enough examples in history!
So remember this well — when the existence of a violence-inhibiting mechanism in the species Homo sapiens and the variability of its strength in different people becomes a well-known fact, violence will be eradicated regardless of the successes in developing gene therapy. Only the methods by which this happens will now depend personally on you!
Until quite recently, the forced sterilization of the “unfit” was a reality even in the seemingly “free” USA
The development of biotechnology brings us closer to the moment when it will be possible to create a gene therapy capable of activating the violence-inhibiting mechanism in humans that Konrad Lorenz wrote about. However, along with this, there arises the risk of the appearance of a completely opposite gene therapy aimed precisely at eliminating any inhibitors of violence in a person. Therefore, some may consider the idea of creating gene therapy against violence to be useless, as if it can be made, then gene therapy to unleash violent potential can also be made. Demand for it could be found among certain psychotics, maniacs, and people who overly prize their aggressiveness, 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 forces 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 happens if there is someone among them who decides to help violent degenerates? Let’s go through this step by step:
1) There is a probability of the uncontrolled spread of a drug that disables the Lorenz mechanism, and if this happens, the whole world will be mired in 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 an updated gene therapy against violence. It may be capable of preventing the disabling of the Lorenz mechanism by any means whatsoever; however, if this cannot be guaranteed, the only remaining option will be to make it so 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; absolute universal armament will be achieved (it will become clearly apparent to every average Joe that weapons in such a world are the only guarantee of survival). The new status quo will be maintained because 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 very first attempt to initiate violence.
4) The stationary bandit (the state) will not survive either the appearance of gene therapy against violence, since it would then lose the ability to impose its order by force, nor the appearance of a blocker of the violence-inhibiting mechanism, because in that case, the security forces working for it will 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 fantasy, nevertheless quite accurately convey what will happen to the state in such a scenario.
As a result, it turns out that the creation of a drug to disable violence-inhibiting mechanisms will also lead to the elimination of the stationary bandit, whom supporters of authoritarian power and forceful 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 and violent criminals can be liquidated during their attacks.
Between different jurisdictions, there has always been the question of maintaining strategic parity—that is, an equality of chances of emerging victorious in the event of a military conflict. Without this, it is impossible to either deter a potential aggressive attack or repel it should it occur. But what strategic parity can there be in the case of an excessive difference in power potential? And the problem here consists not only in the quantitative and qualitative difference in weaponry, but also in the difference in violent tendencies among people. However, a solution exists even for absolutely pacifist societies, which we will now discuss.
Imagine Scandinavia, where although violence has not been completely eradicated, certain social factors have clearly reinforced low violent tendencies in the vast majority of the population over time. Even among state security agents, violent tendencies there are relatively low; at the very least, they are not even close to the violent tendencies of similar agents from other countries, such as Russia. If we assume that a military conflict arises between the Scandinavian states and Russia, the latter would be able to seize them almost without a fight. Even weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons or a class 4 pathogenic virus, would not help if they suddenly came into the possession of the Scandinavians, for because of their pacifism, they would hardly dare to actually use them. And given a similarly pacifist army and the lack of a balance of violence potential (general armament of the population), for security forces highly prone to violence—those who previously toured actively in Donbas and Syria—it would be no problem at all to march across the entire territory of Scandinavia and easily deal with any possible resistance in their path.
This same problem can be transferred to a potential free stateless society in which different contractual jurisdictions exist. Imagine that in such a society there is a jurisdiction of pacifists, in which violence is completely eradicated, and any offenses are punished by non-violent methods (ostracism or financial sanctions). But alongside this, there exists a violent jurisdiction, in which all problems are solved by brute force and cruel physical punishments (such a jurisdiction might be created, for example, by some conservatives). Obviously, there is no strategic parity here either; the order of the second society will lead to the reinforcement of violent tendencies in its participants, whereas in the case of the first society, these tendencies will be maximally suppressed (reinforcing a strong version of Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism). I think it is easy to understand who would win in the event of a direct military conflict.
An excellent solution to the problem of maintaining strategic parity on the part of more pacifist jurisdictions and societies is the creation of gene therapy against violence. It could be implemented in the form of a drug delivered to attacking agents via a fired dart. In an extreme case, implementation as a pandemic virus is possible (we do not approve of this option). Of course, the latter faces many risks, including the fact that bystanders would be affected, some of whom might die (even with the highest quality vaccination, not everyone tolerates it). However, such a “non-violence virus” is not a traditional weapon of mass destruction in terms of the physical destruction of the attackers; it is intended only for the forced eradication of violence in the aggressor’s army and is therefore the best possible solution within the framework of the classical MAD doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction) that can be imagined if there is no chance of stopping the aggressor through immediate resistance.
Both darts with the drug and a pandemic “non-violence virus” (personally, I do not approve of this option, but the opinions of others regarding the admissibility of such a “weapon” may differ) could be used even by fierce pacifists, given that such a “weapon” does not initiate violence in the biological sense, and even a person with a strong version of the Lorenz mechanism would be able to apply it. They would allow for the deterrence of potential aggressors, as they would fear losing their violent tendencies as a result of attacking pacifists. But if someone still decides to attack, then we will arrive at the following scenarios:
1) Security agents sent to the front by the aggressor will come under fire from darts with gene therapy. And these darts will reach their target far more often than bullets do now, because soldiers, for the most part, are not rapists or violent criminals; they most often try to simulate activity at the front, avoid shooting, and if they do shoot, it is not at people on the other side of the front, but into the air, again, merely to create the illusion of performing some activity. There are quite few actual violent criminals in war, and this is confirmed by research, which you can find here. But anyone can fire a dart. And if the darts accurately hit the soldiers on the other side of the front, including those actually prone to violence, then the aggressor will soon find themselves completely without people capable of pushing the war further.
2) It is impossible to stop the attack; even darts with gene therapy are not enough to deter the overwhelming forces of the aggressor. In such a case, a pandemic “non-violence virus” is deployed across the front. After this, a few weeks may be enough for the aggressor’s forces to be completely disorganized and the soldiers to turn into pacifists incapable of attack. The war ends quite quickly.
Do you see now what an effective means of deterrence and ending war gene therapy against violence is? In principle, this is the only possible salvation for peaceful and non-violent societies from attack by violent aggressors. Moreover, compared to the weapons of mass destruction that are currently suggested as means of deterring aggressive attacks, this solution is extremely humane.
By the way, this solution is an excellent answer to the question of how a free society can protect itself from aggression by surrounding states in the event of a local rather than global achievement. It is also very useful in the very process of achieving a free society—the same darts with gene therapy can be successfully launched at security agents who beat and arrest peaceful protesters. Ensuring a balance of violence potential (general armament of the population) to achieve a state of affairs where any aggressor can be eliminated upon immediate attack can be a quite difficult task, but it is not necessary to provide everyone with darts with gene therapy—a small number of activists ready to fire them upon seeing another security officer in case of need will suffice (this is especially effective if security officers are deanonymized, as is currently done in Belarus; then they can be caught even in everyday life). And activists will be able to do this even while being less violent people than the security officers, or even absolute pacifists, because, again, this is not a means of inflicting physical harm or killing another person, but merely a means of depriving them of their violent tendencies.
As we can see, for the sake of maintaining strategic parity on the part of pacifist societies and for the sake of ensuring an effective struggle of peaceful protesters against the security agents of the state, it is very advantageous to develop gene therapy against violence. What is very important for us is that this is advantageous even to many modern governments, for example, in Scandinavia, and it is quite likely that they will want to help us. This would be the best and most humane solution to these problems that could possibly be imagined.
In conversations about how to achieve a state of non-violent coexistence, an argument is often put forward that without the forceful implementation of the principles of non-violence, nothing will work anyway, as there will remain people who will not accept non-violence voluntarily. Sometimes the completely mistaken opinion may arise that proponents of non-violence allegedly want to eradicate violence precisely through force—that is, violence on their own part—thereby presenting themselves as contradictory aggressors infringing upon the freedom of the people around them. Of course, this does not correspond to reality. But how, then, can a state of non-violence be achieved without forceful implementation? To address this, it is necessary to consider two approaches.
The first approach consists of leveling the Balance of Violence Potential, and it in itself presupposes the impossibility of forceful coercion (for example, in the form of a state), since absolutely every subject can repel an attack and inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor. Aggressive violence as a phenomenon itself can be eradicated by two methods. When using a softer method, it is sufficient for the victim of an attack to be able to provide the aggressor with unpleasant and painful sensations using non-lethal means of self-defense, thereby reducing their desire to exhibit violent behavior in the future (such an approach is seen as most effective if a soft BVP is implemented from childhood). This should be quite enough to prevent the formation and reproduction of hierarchies of dominance (let’s be honest—one variation of such a hierarchy in human society is the stationary bandit). A harsher method involves self-defense using lethal means, and thus the liquidation of everyone capable of committing an act of attack, which would fix non-violent behavior in people through evolutionary means.
Another approach involves the use of biotechnological methods to develop and apply gene therapy to reproduce the result of natural selection found in armed species (hedgehogs, porcupines, some venomous snakes and insects, which are incapable of initiating intraspecific violence) without the direct removal of aggressors from the population, but by introducing the necessary gene variants into their DNA via a viral vector that causes a human to feel aversion to initiating violence. It can be promoted in the same way as any other vaccine against dangerous diseases (and violence is certainly much more dangerous than them).
But how can it be ensured that such gene therapy is accepted by everyone without forceful implementation? Even if many can be convinced to accept it voluntarily, there will still be those who do not wish to do so. However, there is a solution to this problem as well.
Firstly, people who have decided to accept the gene therapy can use non-violent methods of pressure (such as ostracism or financial sanctions) on those who have not yet done so and exhibit violent tendencies. For example, a married couple decided not to be vaccinated themselves and not to vaccinate their children, while they have many recorded instances of aggressive behavior. In a society where support for the idea of non-violence is widespread, it will be very difficult for them to find a school for their children, as under such conditions few would want to risk accepting potential bullies who torment other students. Or, for example, a person may be denied banking services because there is a risk that, having a pathological tendency toward aggressive violence, they may begin to finance terrorist or any other violent activity, which would affect the reputation of the bank itself and possibly lead to casualties among its staff and executives.
Secondly, darts containing gene therapy can be used as a means of self-defense. An attack on a person armed with such darts would mean successful vaccination for the aggressor and liberation from violent tendencies. Even if a person uses hired agents for the attack, they can be vaccinated, and without them, the person will no longer pose any threat.
As a result, we see that a state of non-violence can be achieved through various non-forceful methods, in full accordance with the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). This is not an idea that requires implementation from above or has no chance of being achieved in reality. And considering the benefits gained from eradicating violent tendencies in society, it would be reasonable to support the implementation of one of the previously listed approaches (or even all of them at once).
