SOCIAL EVILS           (popular essay)           Chris MYRSKI, 2004       — — —        Abstract:      Here we will speak about some major scourges of the society, like the: wars, violence, terrorism, corruption, and others, but not to scratch our tongues (as we in Bulgaria like say, and how do the media), but in order to find their causes, and from there to reach the right methods to combat them (which, in many cases, differ from the officially accepted). The problems exist since the human society exists (and will coexist together with it because we can't separate the evil from the good), but it is important to move in the right direction, because now, as they say, "the knife touched the bone" (and it touched it because we became too many people on the earth ball, and very powerful), and if we could not succeed to solve them in a half to one century then there are written bad things for us (in the heaven). Our approach to the matters is philosophical and psychological, but also popular, so that there is nothing inaccessible for the common public (if it decides to show some wish to think about the problems). At the end, by old habit, there is a poetical appendix.         — — —           0. Preliminary remarks      We will surely not "discover America" saying that the main reasons for our sufferings, i.e. of the reparable by us, or those that stay outside of the indifference to us of the world in which we live (where this world some of you, if wishing so, may replace with God), are rooted only in the human shortcomings, called also vices or sins, as well also in the bad social regulations (which are consequences of our shortcomings). This is known by the old Eastern philosophers (from the "morning" countries — Morgenländer —, as the Germans say), but while in the ancient times the man was much weaker than that from today so also the harms inflicted on us by ourselves were lesser, or at least commensurate with those that the nature has caused to us, so that the situation was more or less endurable, but nowadays it is not so. Because we saw (well, some have not seen personally, but surely don't doubt it) that the 20-th century was the most bloody one in the human history, and judging by the beginning of the 21-st there are no reasons to expect something better during it either! Thousands years ago some wise men have come to the conclusion that unless the human beings change we could enter in no paradise, and for that reason (as well as for others) the religions have arisen. So that this psychological change of the humans is necessary, though we will not occupy ourselves here with moral sermons (in relation to which the author has come to the thought for the need of emerging of one atheistic religion, but about this — somewhere else), but will observe some concrete evils and propose (where this is possible) concrete "medicines", not searching for total decision, because the difficulties are part of our life and it is naive to expect (contrary to the media, which are always ready to praise, or else to spit at, each government to which they serve) that we will enter sometime in the paradise. But before this let us make some common remarks, or laws of the living things, of the humans, and of the society, without understanding of which we can only, as we say, "transfuse from empty into hollow" (the nearest idiom in English must be "to trash over old straw"). They are pretty common, maybe also metaphysical, but this isn't scientific treatise, it is popular consideration, so that even intuitive knowledge can do the work.      First of all about the strength, because, will we or not, but we live in a world of the strong — This is a man's world, as it's singing in a song — and in this world even the right is determined by the power. With the Bulgarian pravo-jurisprudence the things are clear because it comes from the right (or pravaya in Russian) hand, but also by the Germans Rechtsanwalt is a lawyer, where its first part is again the recht-right, and the second is derivative from walten, what is to rule (where from is also the Slavonic vladika-bishop and the vladeene-ruling), so that he is the man who enforces with strength the rightness. Such view exists also in the Arabic where the right was 'hag' or 'hak' (from here is the known in Bulgaria from the times of Turkish yoke 'dish hak' what was the bribe required out of Bulgarian hosts from the Turkish officers after eating and drinking at their full by some wealthy person during their visits in the vilayet-region, and this meant "for the eating", for the rubbing of their teeth; and the single quote means that you have to read the word so, maximally near to the pure Latin vowels), but the sounding of the word is like hitting with a cudgel on the head. Well, when the strength decides, it is natural to expect that all living things will resist the effect, but the important law on which we want to stress is that by the living things the reaction is not equal to the action, i.e. the Newton's law here does not apply, or more precisely: to stronger action usually corresponds weaker reaction, and to weaker — stronger! Similar behaviour is observed also by the plants, only that we will not concern us with them but with the animals, and primarily with the people, where such inadequate reaction is wholly justified, because it leads to rejecting of the action when it is weak (stronger rejection), or to saving of power when it is strong enough and we, anyway, can't oppose to it. For example, if we receive a slap we can kill the man for nothing, and it is so also by the laws, where, say, for one stolen hen the fine is as for about ten hens, where for killing of a person, even of many persons, the culprit often remains alive. This is reasonable reaction, but the bad things is that only such reaction is not reasonable enough for the humans (as homo sapience), besides, we, as a rule, try to enhance more and more the reaction (because the action is what makes us happy), and have no feeling to stop it in time, what, obviously, leads to escalation of the violence.      Another important moment is that the reasonableness of our actions is something very dubious and we, usually, act reasonable only after we have used all unreasonable ways for reaching of the goal, because the intellect for us is one not yet developed instinct, but even this isn't enough for us and in addition to this appears also one law for suppression of the reason in big groups of people. This is to say that not only the conclusion of the group is worse than that of the most intelligent in it (averaging the stupidity), but is more stupid even than the average, i.e. the stupidity imposes itself, prevails, rules, and the crowds act emotionally, like little children! This, that we don't listen to the wiser ones, has its explanation (because we can't understand them, and there is nobody who could warrant that they, really, are more clever than us), but we could have tried to search for some middle value, but, alas, exactly the middle is what we never look for and prefer the total or extreme decisions. And there is also another nuance: when we increase a given perception or feeling then, because everything in our world is interwoven in various cycles, almost always we go to the other end (but moving in the same direction), what is just an illusion of bettering of the things, for we have again extreme perception, where the reasonable decision would have been to become indifferent in this relation, what is exactly the equilibrium point in one centered modal scale (like, say, a thermometer from -50º to +50º, bent in a circle, but so that it works).      And one more thing, this time about the society as a whole: it is still greatly unorganized, and by analogy with the living things is more or less on the level of the ... amoeba. In sense, that in a multicellular organism each organ "knows" for what purpose it is created and fulfills its obligations, while in no one contemporary society this is so. Earlier there were various attempts for reasonable regulation (castes, aristocracy) but nowadays we denied them too. But wait, will intervene somebody, are not all people, would-be, equal? And was the totalitarian nomenclature not enough for us, that we want now to return to the castes? Well, the point is not about this, but the idea remains, there is no organization, we imitate it by use of force or compulsion (of starvation by the capitalism, for example, instead of the whip of the slave master), but this does not make people work for one another, but one against the other (hoping that in the chaos the things will become organized by themselves). It is clear that in the old methods of organization there are drawbacks, yet they are not in the very predestination, but in the non-connected with concrete person distribution of activities, where the idea as such is reasonable. And by the contemporary capitalism the situation is such, that the more it develops, the more disconnectedly people live; the chaos may be some regulator but in the world of nonliving matter (due to the lack of other methods there), though not in the society, where this leads to nothing good.      So, and after this introductory philosophizing let us look in more details at some of the contemporary scourges or plagues.           1. The wars      Here we will begin with the assertion that the war, despite the fact that the Latins have called it the "last remedy" (ultima ratio), remains almost the first tool for solving of international conflicts, and only after it was conducted for some time the parts may sit at the negotiating table, but from the position of the power. This, obviously, is not solving of the problems, but rather one ... bloodletting, as the cutting of the veins in the past, and with the similar naive explanation by analogy with, hmm, with the man who, when certain his part becomes too hard to feel comfortably, and until he does not let "something" to flow out is not pacified, so also here. It may safely be stated that for each war there are others, and hundreds of times more bloodless, ways, as for example: sports competitions, intellectual combats, economical competition, or then, if we so much want to have victims, then there might be also real fights, but with 1/1,000 of the army staff and of war weapons, or with equal number of people (say, by hundred solders). But the point is that until there are no killed, and so much that the nations become frightened and horrified, the people can't become calm. Generally, for each war there are economical (sometimes also ideological and religious) reasons, what is very well known, but there are also psychological reasons, which are rooted in the human nature, which is such that it likes the power. With the economical causes there is a way out and this is reduced (or not whole) control, in proportion with the invested capitals, what is analogue of a commercial company with units or shares, and blessed be God (and let us hope that this is so), that the wealthy countries at last, after two world wars, have reached to this conclusion. In other words, instead of wars there might be just economical competition; for the stronger countries this is one reasonable decision (rather than to kill themselves mutually), and for the weaker ones — well, it is really silly, if a given country is not strong enough, to begin to fight with the stronger countries, isn't it? And about religious wars we must be ashamed to speak, because each person or nation has the right to deceive himself or themselves with whatever he /they prefer(s); the religion is essentially some moral, and the war, however we look at it, is unmoral.      But there remains the psychological reason, that the people simply want to fight, to exercise supremacy — this is the masculine principle in action. In this relation the sole remedy is, it seems, in the masculine sports, and if it is so much necessary then we may return to the ... gladiator fights of ancient Rome, because the gladiators not at all always were forced to fight, in most of the cases this was their view to life, their profession. Even by first possibility we may think (in worldwide scale) about some island (say, Iceland, and in a future also a planet — Mars, for example, when the god of war is called so), where all who want this to be able to form teams, or by countries, or how they want, and to kill one another as much as they want (when the computer games are not enough for some of them). Funny or not, but such isolation is necessary, because there may be many people who want such strong sensations, but at least 3/4 of the population does not want them, and it isn't just for the minority to impose itself.      In any case, the contemporary strategy of threat with force and uniting in ever stronger military blocks is not a decision. The power may subjugate, but it can't convince, and when some time passes then the wars begin again (look at the Balkans, before nearly a century and now, look at the Near East from the creation of Israel, and so on). And the military blocks do not solve the economical problems, they only satisfy the psychological, but kindling here and there new wars, because: what is the purpose of armies if they do not fight? And then, it is very good not to be produced nuclear weapons in the world, but does it happen so? This, what happens, is that the weaker countries do not have nuclear weapons (because the stronger ones do not allow them to have), but those that are stronger they have them, and there are no reasons to expect that they are more unbiased and more moderate, because exactly they use them (at least about the USA, I hope, you won't deny this). And the bigger are the blocks the greater are the disasters in the clashes. If the idea of such enlargement is some time to come to a single big block, which will deny the existence of the blocks, then this is good, but the goal is not at all such. The goal of a military block is, in short, to fight wars, but smaller, local. Only the economical competition (the multinationals and the traders) can straighten the things, regardless the fact that the losers will again be the weaker ones, but there will not be bloodshed.      And one more remark: because here applies the law of inadequate reaction then each country tries to strengthen its reaction, what leads to escalation of the fights, till some country is forced to apply weak reaction (surrendering itself). By virtue of the said in the beginning must be clear that for applying of weak reaction without compulsion, or for indifference, is needed much reason, and in this sense the cold war from the last century between the West and the East was one reasonable solution, and even more reasonable was the reversing of the policy of the "stick" with that of the "carrot" (according to the known English proverb how a donkey — that's better than a horse — can be made to move when it is stubborn). And as was seen, one such intelligent (weaker in magnitude) decision, i.e. to give us hand, proved to be stronger than the cold and the "hot" wars, because in zero time the former Socialist Block collapsed. Well, this happened not without the Gorbachevism, but it became possible after the West already has begun to offer us the "carrot" (or the lump of sugar). So that also without wars the problems, surely, can be solved.           2. The organized crime      There also the usual (nice word, ah?) crime is social evil, but with it we, more or less, cope somehow. It is clear that here is applied the law of inadequate reaction (of the society against the criminality), where most often the compulsion is strong, but sometimes also weak (in cases of murder, as we mentioned it). And because the state is the most powerful (i.e. the prosecution and the police), and the criminals work for themselves, then it is possible to find some solution, though sometimes severe laws are necessary. It is supposedly clear that not the severity of the punishment but its inevitability is the important thing, though due to some psychological moments — one is interested in the big win (respectively loss), and not of the probability for this, and the inevitability of the punishment is something doubtful — it turns that the strength of the punishment is important for the criminal (not for the folks). But here also is worth to turn your attention to the human "habit" to fight with the consequences, not with the causes, for under the totalitarianism, definitely, the criminality was lower, and this not only because the militia does some beating (the police also does this sometimes), but because there were no grounds for financial abuse, by reasons that when somebody began to spend more money this caught the eye and he was taken, but now it isn't so. Or another example: since there appeared cash machines on the streets the stealing of money probably lessened, because there is not much to be stolen, but then are stolen objects.      Though let us come to the topic of organized crime, where only with stronger force we are stuck. And first of all: what is organized crime and why it exists? Because, if we look only at the organization, there were various bands also thousands years ago, but today's bands are not the same, and what makes them more different is that they became as if a state in the state! Contrary to the usual crime the organized one works not so much for itself as for the people, however paradoxical this may sound, or at least for one large part of them. This is logical, at least from the point of view of the bigger scope, because one large-scale enterprise can't exist if there is nobody to buy its goods or services. For example the prostitution — it exists for centuries and almost always was forbidden, but people want it, and that is how some organization comes on the stage. Or the dry law in the USA (even the "wild" Russians have not come to such absurd, not to be allowed to one to buy plane beer or wine, but the Americans "hid them the ball", though here we are not speaking about the drawbacks of the contemporary democracy so that let us not diverge from the point). Because, as our shop (these are citizens around Sofia, they speak in dialect) says: "What is necessary, it wants itself!". So that, however unpleasantly, and to whatever government, it can be to admit this, but the existence of organized crime is proof for the weakness of the state and for its bad ruling (ignorance, or failure to meet the wishes of the masses).      When the people (or some part of them) want something, for what is clear that it isn't good (nor moral) there are two ways for solving the problems: either this becomes forbidden, or is taken under the control of the state. And under "control" here is understood, as much as that the state "stuffs its throat" (say, with the excise duties on tobacco and alcohol, or with the so called patents for prostitution), as also simply strengthening of the control (like registration of the weapons, and the vehicles, if you want, because initially they were not registered, or by selling of opiates for medical purposes). And this control, maybe, is the only one moderate decision of the question, when some want and others don't want, but this that people want is dangerous also for the others. So that in very near future will be introduced also obligatory for everybody taking of fingerprints (not only for criminally registered), as well of genetic secretions, dental photos, and what else turns to be needed — say, everyone may be obliged to carry his or her unique number (EGN in Bulgaria) on a place easy to be seen (at the belt buckle or, ha, ha, even on the forehead, like a tattoo), eventually coded (but to be possible to be read at least by the law enforcement authorities at special lighting). This, obviously, leads us to one police state, even more than this, to police world, but this is the only alternative of the harsh and uncompromising banning! Also, as it was seen already, one can not entirely free spend his money now, because by big sums is asked proof for their origin, so that we must little by little become used to the fact that in a significant extent we are returning to various totalitarian habits, only this time under the dictate of NATO, or the Currency Board, or something of the kind. When we can not realize that the freedom is a double-edged sword, and more freedoms mean also more perils for the society, than everything will have to be registered and monitored. And in addition to this let us not forget that from the freedom wins ... well, the stronger, of course, not the weaker!           3. The terrorism      This also is not a new element in the human societies, though lately it has grown greatly, because, in spite of the strong security measures, it became much easier to shoot from long away and to put different explosives. At a first sight this is a variety of the organized crime (because they are often related), but it isn't so according to the goals, for the terrorism does not add to the ruling of the state but aims at sabotaging or removing of it. Here the strong measures are rather throwing of dust in the eyes of the populace, because: how you will punish one kamikaze? He has already, as we say, put his head in the bag, in the name of his ideals, and the death penalty does not scare him. For him this is a matter of priority of values. The only way to succeed in the fight with the terrorism is by eliminating the causes for it, and they most often are religious or ethnic. Sometimes the causes are social (the poor or oppressed resent the terror of the state) and earlier was spoken about anarchism (not only in Russia, though they had some traditions there), but the idea for provoking of anarchy or terror between the population is not in the statement that the anarchy is the best regulator (the Russian slogan was "The anarchy is mother of the order"), but in this that the terror is the easiest war! It only at first glance is very cruel, because happens in peaceful times, and unexpectedly, but otherwise is significantly less bloody than a civil war, so that if we do not grasp this and do not fight with the causes, we will come to nowhere. This, to what we may come via escalation of the security, is to begin to put guards not only in public places but also in the houses where we life, to surround each living area with trenches, barbed wire, and cordon of police or army, but this will only complicate our life (we will live in peace as under a war), without helping us much.      As a variety of the terrorism is also the international terrorism, with which we fight in our (or rather state's) foolishness using wars, but this also is not a right solution. If there is a great discontent among the people, even in a police state, and more so in conditions of democracy, always will be found ways for sabotages and terror. This is presumably well known but no country shows it, because we are used with the exercising of power and do it even when this is not good. And we have not yet seen to what may be come in the near future, because till now the terrorists have not begun to use nuclear, bacteriological (or, maybe, some genetical) weapons, but during the 21-th century we may have this possibility! Because now not only the weapons have become more powerful, but the masses much more insensitive, and if there is not some action in reality we do not give thought to anything (and when something similar happens and we begin to think, we invent not what is actually needed.)           4. The drug addiction      This social scourge also is not from yesterday, because narcotics have been cultivated on the East (and the South) for millenniums, but then only the old ones have ignited from time to time a pipe, where now this is priority mainly to the young. At the core of the things here lies the ... escapism, the wish to run away from the reality, what is one purely human feature (the imagination, art, religions, etc.), so that even if we want we can't overcome it, but why has it become now so widely spread, while earlier, and under the totalitarianism, it wasn't so? But this is obvious: one runs from the reality when he does not like it, and this can happen in two cases, either when his life is very hard (but even then this happens more rarely, because the difficulties in life are simply necessary), or when the life is so boring, that one has no purpose in life at all, and such is the case now. Allegedly under the democracy life is more interesting, supposedly one has more opportunities for self expression, but well — the youth does not think so! And then this has to make us think about, because you know very well that now only with marijuana the things are not finished, and is reached to very severe cases.      According to the author there are two moments here, on which must be accented. One is that the narcotics are not for the young, but for the old, by the simple reason that the old man has what to remember, and also has nothing much to do in this life, and, besides, they are not so harmful for him. And the other moment is that the forbidden fruit is sweeter, and one teenager will try only because he knows that this is bad (to see what will happen, to feel himself independent, and so on). But neither the first thing is explained to the youngsters, nor about the second question something is done. And let us here again remind one sentence of the author, that the worst thing of the bad things is that there is something good in them (otherwise they wouldn't have dominated the peoples thoughts)! So that maybe in Scandinavian countries people proceed better (more moderate) allowing selling of ordinary (relatively harmless) narcotics (and surely after a given age); and in addition to this must be performed also good registering of drug addicted persons who use stronger opiates. Otherwise, with only prohibitions, we will come to nowhere, because this is also area of the organized crime. Well, surely also the society in its entirety, despite our population density, must aim to give goals in life, even invented ones (like the "bright communist future"), because the life, by itself, has no meaning (if, somehow, in the name of something, we will not jump over our personality).           5. The corruption      This is a question over which is much speculated at all times, but here, again, is not looked at the root of the things, because the corruption is one ... intention of the system to reach the needed degree of ripeness! You all know that many of the vegetables and fruits are consumed when they ripen well, and such is the case also with the capitalism. Actually, have you ever asked yourself, why the cooked meal becomes ... sour? Well, because it wants the sourness, for to preserve itself! So is it also with the corruption, which oils the system, for to make it to work good, this is a complement to it, what is simply necessary to the masses, otherwise it wouldn't have existed. It is true that it isn't good to bribe state's officers because they become used to do their work only for some compensation (and the same is valid also for the waiters, and in general in the sphere of services), but from this loses ... the state (or the company), not the clients, who would have wished only to know better what is the usual baksheesh (and in some tourist guides it is even given). In other words, here the fight can be only against the big bribes, and with the "normal" such the easiest way is to integrate them in the system (fixing urgent services, which are performed for higher charge, and this is done in mass). When people come to the conclusion that they must work mainly for the pleasure of doing the work and the need for the others form it — and this will happen sometime, on the background of the increasing unemployment — then the corruption will begin to disappear, as well as if there are not provided conditions for spending of unlawfully obtained incomes (to what we also, by the by, are aiming).           6. The poverty      As you all have heard, the poverty is not a vice but it is a nasty thing, especially in the postindustrial society. And the nastiness is even bigger when there are no reasonable motives for this, as it is now in Bulgaria (for we are stuck not because of bad leaders, not due to natural disasters, neither as result of big disorders and civil wars, but just because of our incompetent transition to democracy, consisting in going back to the "green" capitalism). According to Western conceptions the human being is "wanting animal" with the following five levels of wishes, beginning with the most important, namely: food, shelter, continuation of the gender (chiefly sex), self expression and career making, and personal enhancement. It is not so important how we will name them, but it is clear that for each one must be provided the first three as vitally needed, and the difference between people to be performed only by the left two. It isn't important also how will be satisfied the main levels (it may be via rationing system, or there may be some obligatory conscription, or when to everybody is paid as much as to can allow to by the basic things, or with social benefits, or special shops for the poor, and other variants), but the important thing is that this is function of the state! And it should be performed without the humiliation of begging, but just as civil right, what is nowhere yet realized in this way because each one must at least ask for some help. But on the other hand this isn't so difficult to realize automatically, for example based on the taxes, which can be collected centrally, and the income of everybody to be known; this will ensure both, good collecting of taxes, and good assistance when is fallen below the taxable base. The things can be detailed (and the author does this somewhere else), but the tendency of development of the capitalism is such that this is unavoidable (if you like you may call it communism or socialism, but if you don't — then shouldn't), and as far as the money notes as means of exchange are more and more eliminated on the West this can happen also without our discussion here.      But when we speak about civil right (of decent existence, according to the standard at the moment), is not bad to cast a look at the root of the evil, which is in this that money stick to money, or that the wealth increases in size, and if some companies also split then this is for easier governing (for to bring again big profits), so that ... well, it turns that under the capitalism, where the main (or capital) thing is the capital, it is impossible to succeed without it, notwithstanding the efforts or capabilities! This is very important to know, because there are many speculations on the question, and if we assume that the capable can succeed alone (i.e. to get rich, because here moral values do not exist, these are only rude calculations), then there will always turn up some wealthy person who will buy our capable worker, in order to work for him (as it, surely, happens), and this will be profitable both for the wealthy and the capable, so that the capable will be from the very beginning under the wing of the wealthy. This is elementary catch, but because the people neither are self-critical, nor want to think, then they are easily caught on it. Well then, but after the satisfying of the basic needs exactly the capable (in something individual) must be able to succeed, not to sell himself to the wealthy ones and work for other ideas. Under the developed capitalism the people have adjusted themselves, more or less, to this phenomenon (using many ways for sponsoring), but this isn't reasonable solution, for each is born differently rich.      Well, then the unjustness begins already with the birth of everyone, by the simple reason that there exists ... inheritance of the property! If one comes to think about, then there is no such thing by whatever animals, and only those in power are who obstruct the finding of suitable solution of the matters, because one thing is some minimal inheritance of a house, car, and small scale ownership, and entirely different one is when some persons are birth very rich (so that, if they do not throw away their money, they must invest them in something used for exploitation of the others, something that multiplies their money), and others — sufficiently poor. This question also needs more detailed considering, but here we will mention only the most important moments, which are that there must be some established minimum of sufficient wealth for quite decent living even without the need to go to work, but when there are inherited sums or assets above that minimum they must be drastically taxed (say, to be left only 10% of the money) and everything else to go in favor of the state and /or municipality. In addition to this those accumulated funds (shares of companies, land, etc.) must not only be left to the state, but be also distributed periodically and in arbitrary way between all citizens (and also, ha, ha, between those who don't live in cities). This will improve the lottery element of our wold, as it befits in a good society, and will not hinder the busyness, because there goes only about inheriting, not about expropriation when living (and if one so much wants to know to whom his money will go then nobody prevents him of transferring them to whomever he wishes, on the understanding that the receiving part will pay the corresponding tax, if needed).           7. The disunion      This also is not a vice, but can bring a lot of miseries to the people, because the idea of each society is to make people work for one another, not one against the other, as we have already mentioned in the beginning. In principle there is nothing bad in one healthy individualism, but a society built only on contradictions between egoistic interests can't prosper well, so that here also must be looked for a good point of equilibrium. When the country is, on the whole, wealthy this does not hamper the things very significantly, but not at all each country is such and we are not from those that are. But in the wealthy countries people unite in various alliances, clubs, etc. (even more than us, because they can afford it), and the point isn't so much about the obvious alliances, as about the taking into account by our actions of the existence of the others around us, about the love to the neighbour. This is a question of reflexing of the thoughts of the others (say, I think, that he thinks, that ... etc.), which may be on several levels, but at least one or two are necessary, because otherwise the things don't go well. Take for example the prostitution, where people want that there were such possibility, but nobody wishes for his own daughter (or, then, son) to be engaged with this, but in this way the society is divided leastways in good and bad people. Or then now, by medical care to be paid, each physician wishes there to be more ill people and with pleasure will invent different illnesses; or the paid education, what corrupts the educational system. Not that we must give up the competition, but it isn't right also to give up the moral.      And one more thing, because this disunion make we alone, without any reasonable causes for it, just on account of so difficultly manageable by us tolerance. Etymologically in this word for the West exists some burden, which hinders us, but it is high time to learn to endure one another despite the differences (as long as they are not socially dangerous), because nowadays we live pretty dense and it simply can't do otherwise. And the reasonable reaction to an increasing action (as we have spoken in the beginning) is not in the going to the other pole, but in the indifference, what here means accepting of the existence of a given phenomenon by other people (for example of the homosexuality) without approving it for us, and not standing at odds against such things. Here the problems come also from the religions (as guardians of the morality), which very seldom are tolerant, but it is necessary more often to think about the social value of imposing of our views, as well also about the right of the others to have their own truths, or even to deceive themselves with whatever they want. However little may seem this error to us it can boldly be stated that the biggest sin of the contemporary man (apart from the obvious anti-social phenomena) is his intolerance.      Well, there are other social evils, like the excessive pride ("gordynja" in Russian, what differs from the usual gordost-pride), for example, which also looks a small thing but is a big hindrance in the society, but it may be co-opted with the intolerance, and there is also time to finish, so let us do it here.      April 2004       — — —           APPENDIX           Homo Sapience   Homo, Homo, sapience, All you need is happyence, But to live in paradise You have to be just more wise!     Or, to put it like refrain:     Try to show that you have brains! Not to be like, say, Einstein* — That is not what I've in mind —, But it will be simply great, If you'll learn to tolerate.     Or, to put it like refrain:     Try to show that you have brains! Toil to rate the others' wishes — Not like yours, but every species Have the right to ... fool themselves, And to boast, and ring the bells.     Or, to put it like refrain:     Try to show that you have brains! Well, it might be otherwise (But I don't think that is nice), You may live to be ... moron — If you like it, just go on!     Or, to put it like refrain:     You may just have little brains. You may think you are the Lord, What you want you may afford, You have taste and you have style, And you can't be bad or vile.     Or, to put it like refrain:     You may just have little brains. So, my dear Homo sappy, Two ways to the being happy: One is to improve yourself Live with others, make it well,     Or — and this's the last refrain —     Live to show that you've not brains,     Being vulgar, mean cretin**.      April 2004        [ * You have to read "ei" here as the Germans read it, i.e. as 'ay', like in "mine". ]      [ * And here read it French-like, 'kreten'. ]            — — — — —