T E N C Y N I C A L E S S A Y S(POPULAR WORLDVIEW)Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2000— — — — — CONTENTSForeword About the Creation and the created About the woman and the man About the mankind About the intellect About the religion About the democracy About the violence About the justice About the population About the future Addendum: Constitution of Cynicland — — — — — PART FIVEABOUT THE JUSTICEThat this world is cruel and unfair one perceives already in the moment when he emerges in it, going out of the warm and cozy mother womb, and because of this his first business is to let out wild roar of discontent. With his further growth the things become even worse where his single "redemption" comes only then, when he leaves the life and continues to exist just as an idea in the memories of the others. Such is the reality in our world, and as far as nobody has proved that a better one exists we are forced to put up with it and try to like it. Well, this isn′t so hard to do, people learn fast to enjoy the life, but this does not mean that in this way it becomes more just for them or that they cease to try to make it better. The wish of the mankind to make their life more just is the unchanging human ideal, which is really an ideal because it can never be realized in practice, but we can always aspire asymptotically to it. Here we will dwell on some questions connected with the justice. I. Between The Righteousness And The Justice 1. One short linguistic excursion tells us that the right is, in fact, the right of the strong, or of the right hand, because it is so not only in Russian, but also in German, English, et cetera. As if only in Bulgarian we do not make the association of the rightful with the right, i.e. with the strength, but this is intuitively understood by all nations. So that right is this, what is in the interest of the stronger, were it physically, financially, intellectually, or with some inheritance rights fixed by birth. Strictly looking at the things the strong one is not at all right — he is just strong, but when there is no other effective way for establishing who is right and who isn′t, is accepted that the stronger one is right, and this closes the question. In the world of animals, but also by the humans, this is not meaningless, because the strong, if not anything else, can at least impose his right with the use of power (and it is not excluded that he is really right). More than this, from positions of the nature, i.e. of the selection of the best exemplar and kind, this right is fully justified. Therefore, even if we are not from the strong, we are obliged to accept such conception for rightful. The justice, for its part, is complement of the right, or the right of the weak, i.e. of the left individuals after taking out the strong ones (and exactly this says the English word "left", which means both, the opposite of right, and the remainder). From the point of view of the evolution and selection of the best this may not be right thing, but the neglect of justice leads to diminishing of the diversity in nature, what says that the nature also has interest in observing of this right. This is especially actual in the human society, because the diversity of types and characters is the most interesting thing in the life. The strong one looks after his own interests, and they not always coincide with those of the weak, but in many cases it turns out that the wellbeing of the weaker affects in turn that of the stronger, i.e. the ignoring of interests of the weak isn′t in the interest also of the strong! In other words, the things are mutually related and the neglecting of one side shows unfavorable effect over the other one. This has been known from great antiquity, so that the question for the rulers (the stronger in the society) has never been raised as: whether to account for the interests of the weak, but up to what extent to account for them — because the weak, having no other possibility, very often are also evil and unworthy, what is expressed quite clear in the English word "mean" as bad, vicious, but it is old Latin view, for even today in the Italian sinistro means both, left as opposite of right, and harmful, dismal (or take your sinister) —, i.e. all reduces to a compromise of contradictory interests. Because of this the society incessantly has oscillated between the righteousness and the justice. In this relation our people have the saying: "You have a cow, you drink milk, but when you haven′t — just stay and stare!". Whether we shall speak about milk, bread, hard salami, decent car, private plantation, or gas station, or space shuttle, for example, this does not change the essence of the matter — the rightful thing is to use alone this, what you have, but the justice requires that also other people use your property, because in the society all people are done in the same way and are born equal. This, that when some one coming to this world finds for himself some things more than the other one, is not expression of his own personal abilities (strength, in a sense), and if so then there is a reason in the assertion that "he, who hasn′t a cow, must also be allowed to drink milk". Even when someone′s advantages are result of his own abilities, even then can be pleaded for equality in the distribution of the goods, because his very abilities are not, surely, result of some special "craftsmanship" of his father in the moment of his conception, or of his mother during the pregnancy, and even less of precisely him somewhere on the stage of insemination and the creation of zygote (for the development of his organism begins at that moment). All efforts of the individual for achieving of superiority over the others can quietly be regarded as a result of natural resources, which for its part are game of the chance, so that if the goods are to be distributed according to this allegation, then they have to be distributed entirely arbitrary. Well, to such extremities don′t reach neither the right one (the defenders of rightness), nor the left one (the defenders of justice), because this does not agree with anybody′s interests (although, objectively looked at, this is true), and everybody prefers to "pull the rug" to himself. So it turns out that neither the right, nor the left, can jump over their own interests and look objectively at the things, but life develops in the result of contradiction between various interests, which exactly define the current state of the society. Usually both parts are not right (what will say that both parts are right, if we look optimistically at the things)! So, for example, it is right that only who has money to pay for (i.e. his parents) his education, only he to be allowed to receive education, but it is not just, when all people are born equal, some of them not to have the possibility to study. But it is also not right for those, who have not abilities to learn, to pay the education of those who have such abilities but have no means (because the money in these cases is taken from everybody, i.e. also from the not able ones); yet it is also not right if someone is sufficiently "blunt" and can′t pass the exams not to be allowed to study, if can pay for this, for he exactly for that reason wants to study, because wants to become a bit more clever, isn′t it? As you see, the things are quite interwoven and one easily can be lost in them, and for that reason in the contemporary (but also ancient) societies are taken measures in both directions: for one thing is ensured some accessible (not against payment) education for the able and gifted children (because they, after finishing their study, will receive, generally, less than if they do not lose their time in studying, or at least will work more fruitful for the society or the employer, so that they will have the opportunity to return what was given for them initially), but for another thing is allowed (and this is met with pleasure from the educational institutions) to everybody, no matter what are his abilities, to pay for (i.e. to buy) his education. With some nuances (percentages of paid and unpaid education for various levels, types of educational institutes and specialties, different form of returning of the funds, etc.) this is an old strategy, and then, when the society cam allow itself bigger investments in this direction, it always tries to do this, for this brings benefits both, to the ruling (the strong one) and to the masses. Similarly stays the question also with the healthcare and social security nowadays, because a healthy and quiet population is again socially beneficial (i.e. both, for the strong and for the weak); as well also a nation having some elementary knowledges for the world, formed as a consequence of some average education. If in the epochs gone by this has not been realized, this was question mainly of social welfare, or of capabilities, not of non-understanding on the part of the strong. The ideas for socialism (i.e. for social justice) do not interfere with the right defenders of the righteousness, if the question is approached correctly. The denied today communist socialism is not appropriate for the well developed countries due to its extremeness, but this does not mean that it is inappropriate for the weaker countries, or that it was unjustified and unnecessary stage in the development of these countries! These ideas have emerged already in Ancient Greece, in a developed slave society, and they will unavoidable be present in each country, where from their right (here justified) solution depends the wholeness and security in it. From political point of view this requires convergence in the views of the right and left parties, but exactly such non-antagonistic contradiction is observed in each stable country in these days, and also during the past centuries. 2. Slightly more complicated are the things in the area of managing and the necessary compulsion for performing of socially useful labour, or, put in other words, in the exploitation of the masses, i.e. in taking away everything that they can give, in the "extracting of their souls", because etymologically the word is derived from: ex–, what means extracting, taking away, and the root plua– (or ploi–), what means many. The masses may not like this word, but it is clear that in a society each one must give what he can of himself, and who else is to force him to this if not the strong ones? There isn′t a society without compulsion, and it can′t be (in the ideal case each one must force himself alone), but it can have different character. In the slave society it was physical; in the feudal one — of the ownership of land and the "fables" about the blue blood of the aristocrats, or of the Church as deputy of God; by the capitalism this is the force of the capital (or rather of its absence by the masses). The righteousness requires that the weak must work, but the justice requires that everybody must work. But you know that one must be forced somehow to disturb his dolce far niente ("sweet idleness"). In any case, all can′t be rulers, and this also is a kind of work, so that strong nowadays are not so much these who govern, as those who "pull the strings"! The strong one today, as also all the time, can be recognized by this that he has the possibility to do whatever he likes (well, in some limits), where the weak are forced to do what the strong tell them to. But the strength in the capitalistic society is the power of the capital, and this is what defines the separation between the exploiters and exploited. The official propaganda always shifts the accent of social contradictions and in the current time in the developed countries is much spoken about the so called middle class, but it is just necessary to the strong, for the masses to be able to buy the produced in abundance goods and to fill the pockets of the strong. The absolute wealth of the citizens, though, does not solve the question with the unjust distribution of goods, because relatively the exploited remain again in disadvantage, so that the enhancing of standard of life only helps for reaching of some justice, but does not guarantee it. Only the reason, i.e. the proper understanding of the interests, both of the ruling and the masses, can lead to rightful understanding of the question. When we mix the intellect here it could have been expected that, when it can help for finding of the rightful balance between the righteousness and the justice, then in also must rule the society, i.e. the power to consist in the presence of intellect. Yes but ... no, at least for the moment, because the intellect is one still not well developed instinct and the people are not quite convinced that it must govern them; the masses can much easier accept the fables about God and the Church as His aide on Earth, for example, than this, that the reason, which is slow and unconvincing in the decisions, and contradicts to the instinct for multiplication, and does not tie well with the disorganization and fragmentation of the mankind (see "About the intellect") can be better than the now existing (no matter what) condition. Besides, the intellect has this advantage, which turns here to be disadvantage, that can′t be passed in the generations and one intellectual power will be very unstable substance, for to be able to take once the ruling (or to keep it, if someone succeeds to "puts" it in its hands). It is much more real to assume that some artificial (though created by the humans) intellect will be able to rule us sometime, than to believe in the arising of intellectual oligarchy in the future. Not before the society has found some way for its uniting as a whole organism, if this can be at all effectuated once. But let us with this conclude these reflections and advance to the next point. II. In Searching Of The Escapism When everybody knows that this world is unjust, then every one tries to find some suitable for him way to escape from it in some imagined world of delusion. The human being is weak and can′t live without delusion — were it fairy tales for the children, were it expectations of the "great love" for the adults, were it hope that the truth will triumph (in which case, usually, people don′t have in mind the righteousness, neither the justice, but some purely egoistic interpretation or the reality), were it political, military, or sporting victory, were it the literature or the other arts, or tranquilizers, or the dreams, or the alcohol and the narcotics, or the sexual consolation, or the interests of the clan or mafia, or the faith in his God and in the afterlife or reincarnation, and so on. The animals (and this only for higher mammals) escape from the reality only via the dreams, where the people are personification of escapism. In the foreword we say that in regard of the searching of truth the people can be divided in three groups, namely: such who search the truth, such who search the lie, and such who are not at all interested in the truthfulness of the statements. Those who search the lie are obviously escapists; those who search what they find, no matter whether this is truth or lie, are also escapists because they simply apply some other criterion (their personal pleasure); but even those who search the truth are again escapists, because for them the world of truth is better than the real one, where the truth is much mere difficult to be found and in most of the cases is questionable. But such division builds complete set of events, i.e. exhausts all people, so that from here follows that we all are escapists. This observation surely was intuitively clear to the thinking people since the dawn of civilization, because all its efforts are reduced to offering to the people of one or another form of delusion. So has arisen the religion as opium for the people (see "About the religion"); so is justified the need of aristocracy; so exists and is advertised the market economy, what is an obvious delusion because the market is advantageous only for those who can show influence over it and form it somehow; this is the goal of the fables about the patriotism and self-sacrifice in the name of community (not that this delusion is not necessary for a given community, but to believe that it is nice to die for the homeland is a pure deception); similar is the case also with the moral generally, which implants in the heads of people apparent delusions, with a view of their reasonable for the society behaviour (only not with the help of the reason, but exactly on the way of delusion); on delusion is based also the democratic choice, that contradicts to the common sense and is the best known baby′s pacifier for the people (see "About the democracy"); and other social phenomena. In this regard, it seems, nothing can be done, because the very life, as a result of various arbitrary and non-directed to a goal processes, simply can′t have a purpose, but the people categorically refuse to comply with this view. Admitting meaning for the life we automatically escape from our real world, and searching for its meaning we unavoidably come to an abyss of contradictions and no proofs. The Church usually is satisfied with the assertion that "the ways of God are inscrutable", and each ideology and political platform invents some goals for itself, with which to give reasons for its existence, because when one works with human material there is no go without delusions! Even the sciences, and precisely the exact ones, as the most rational part of the knowledge, use also widely various simplifications, assumptions, hypotheses, and abstractions, in order to know the real world, what, in the essence, is an escaping from the direct reality, to such one, where our assumptions are always valid. We at least take for granted that our world is determined and when we repeat an experiment than the result will also be the same, though even the ancient people were aware that "you can′t enter twice one and the same river", because it (i.e. the time) incessantly flows. But without determinism can work neither our technical appliances and machinery, nor our scientific theories, and without abstraction (a kind of escapism by itself) can evolve no one exact science, especially the mathematics, whose methods are used in all other sciences. Our whole process of knowledge is boycotted incessantly by the problem of decomposition, which is reduced to this, that, in order to study something from the reality, we must take it and detach from it, to cut off some of the ties of the phenomenon with the other matter (for they are infinitely many), but doing this we can never be sure that we have not severed exactly something important. This can be visualized by the ancient fable about the three wise men and the elephant, which men were very wise, but also very old and gone blind long ago, so that they recognized the things by touching. Once, during one of their peregrinations around the world they were led to an elephant (which animal they have not yet met till then) and each of them began to study it using this part of the animal which has grasped. Later they shared their conclusions and the first one said that the elephant is like a big cask, in which must be hidden a kind of spring, and it moves jumping with it (for he fingered its leg); the second protested that this is rubbish, because the elephant is like a big snake as thick as a human thigh, which feeds through sucking and moves blowing the air out of the other end (for he touched its trunk); and the third laughed and said that they know nothing, because this animal is like a big plate of skin and it flies in the air (for he has caught its ear). In many instances our experiments for understanding of a given phenomenon are as comic and contradictory as the given example, because each special science studies only some aspects of the phenomenon. But what are we to do: without decomposition there is no knowledge! But the most unjust characteristic of our world for the man of sciences, but in many cases also for each one of us, is the principal impossibility to prove the rightness of a given thesis, with minor exceptions! It is easy to prove that something is not true in the general case, when we find at least one particular case when it is not true, what is used from ancient times, chiefly in the mathematics, and is called method of assumption of the contrary (reductio ad absurdum) — it is proved that the contrary of a given statement is false, from what follows that the given statement is true. But the reverse, the prove of a right statement (if we can not use the above method, or some form of deduction) is practically doomed to failure, because it most often is related with full search of all possible states, which usually are an infinite number, and that in all possible moments of the time. The scientific intuition often "falls in rage" before the impossibility to prove in the general case something, that in each observed individual case is true. In such situation one may be wrong if accepts the statement for true (because there are no proofs), but he may as well make a mistake if he does not accept it for true (because it, still, seems to be true), so that each takes the preferred for him form of escape from the treacherous reality. This phenomenon have faced the lawyers, but also the common people, long ago, and that is why our people often use the saying: "Go and prove you are not a camel!", when you must convince the others that you have not done some thing (because you have never done such things). The legal proceedings "wash their hands" with the testimonies of the witnesses, but there is no guaranty that they are true, due to what, for example, hundreds of thousands innocent women (mostly) have been burned on the stakes on suspicion that they were witches. And in this cases the inquisition was even with a clear conscience, because it has applied one "reasonable" way for proving of the suspicion: if the accused one, with the help of various demons and spirits, could have succeeded to escape from the stake, then she was really a witch, i.e. has existed possibility for unilateral proof! This, that no woman has saved herself in this way, was not at all logical refutation, taking into account the remarkable naivety of the people in those times, who have believed in everything (as they have seen her, say, to take off from the chimney riding a broom, so also many have seen her soul to fly out the stake embraced by a demon), and there, too, nobody has known what exactly is this a witch (for, if there was some other way for detecting of the essential "witchy" characteristics, then it, probably, would have been applied). This is one flawless Jesuitical logic, and if the accused one could not have succeeded to save herself, how it always has happened, then she was not a witch (only that they have not put on the stake that one, who has convinced her, because the person might have been mistaken somehow — it is human, after all), besides, in this way she has secured for herself a "direct ticket" for the paradise (what for those times was not at all to be neglected). Only don′t think that in our days similar judicial errors don′t happen — the history of legal proceedings is literally "brimming" with such unjust decisions, based on witness testimony. But there is nothing to be done — life is unjust! III. In Affirmation Of The Ego In our world one can′t avoid looking after his interests, or his ego, but inasmuch as each of us is related with the others he must also show some level of reflection taking into account the interests of the others, too, because otherwise it may turn out that he simply "cuts the branch on which he sits". The communist ideology approached this question much restricted (mainly because of the narrow-mindedness of the masses, it seems) dividing people in two categories — in egoists and collectivists — preaching that the egoists were the bad ones. Sometimes is used the term philanthropist (i.e. "loving the people", in Greek) in the sense of collectivist, but we all know to which comical results the thoughtless philanthropy can lead. If you give your seat to a woman in the tram, because she seems to you a bit older, she may decide to take offense on you. If you behave too pleasing to your children and look that they have all the best then this, surely, spoils them (in which case must be cited your proverb that "Sparing the rode spoils the child"); but these "good" parents are also such only to their own children, what is again egoism. The widely spread for centuries charity in many cases does not give good results, because in this way some people come into habit always to beg and to complain; besides, it is pure delusion to think that those who give do this out of love to their neighbours — they do this wishing to soar high: first in their own eyes, and then in those of the other people (because the anonymous charity is not much popular). And many other examples, that show that when one thinks about the others he: either does not think correctly, or deludes himself (because, really, he thinks about himself), or both — because in this egoistic world we just can′t not to think about ourselves. The more correct approach is to speak about individualism, understanding by this the wish for self-expression and dominance above the others, what, however, does not mean that the others cant benefit from this. As strange as this may seem, one very often wants to do good to the others (at least if he can′t dominate over them with something bad), because everybody wants to be liked by his neighbours, where in this sense the highest expression of individualism is its reflection in the positive meaning of the people around for the given individual — only that one does this not because he is good, but because is individualist! The whole subtlety is in this to judge right the wishes of the others and to juxtapose them with ours, i.e. to find the needed intersection of personal and collective interests, without impairing significantly ours. It is well known the sentence: "Don′t do to the other what you don′t want to be done to you!", but this is an example for misunderstood reflection, because it should have been put like: "Don′t do to the other this, what he does not want to be done to him!". A typical example of correct individualism is the sexual contact, where each partner, based on his own interests, tries to satisfy also those of the other. In similar type of "intercourse" one enters also in his everyday and labour activity, where if he looks only about his (or of the others) interests many errors happen. The sexual analogy, it seems, is useful in many life situations, as rightly finds it S.N. Parkinson in the relations between financial companies, because the situation is similar also between boss and subordinated, between children and parents, between colleagues at work, between states in their relations, etc., where each one thinks how to "screw" the other, but if he overdoes the things he may at the most "screw" himself. In other words, in the process of affirming of his ego the point is not in this not to look after his interests, but to recognize rightly his interests. Recognizing and respecting of the interests of the others, together with one′s own, is the main method to make the society in which we live just and fair. The little children react especially tumultuous when their wish to make good (for it, seems, is inborn in each of us, together with our desire for supremacy) is not met with pleasure from the others, but this happens basically because they don′t know yet how to do this, or think that their egoistical desires are good, or face individuals who have already understood that the world is unjust and behave in the same unjust manner. The only way for building of a social organism, though, goes through the correct understanding of personal interests, and the main impediment on this way is the unreasonable human behavior. For this reason the history is full with innumerable bloodshed and disasters, where we are in certain extent even worse than the animals, which, not endowed with intellect, but with good instincts, succeed better than us to maintain the equilibrium between the species and the harmony in nature. Even in the classical example of the ecosystem hares–wolves is seen that the wolves, eating up the weaker hares, help for their selection and proliferation (because: "Healthy sex — in a healthy body!", so to say), as also the hares, developing their hind-leg muscles, succeed to select and maintain one good population of viable wolves. While the humans (as very clever, maybe?) kill not for to feed themselves, but most often out of malice, hatred, or simply because of not understanding of their interests. Only in 20th century are given more victims in the wars than in all other previous times, chiefly because the stronger countries (with well developed economies) have not succeeded to agree like people how to exploit the left behind countries (like Bulgaria). In the end of 20th century has been marked some progress, with the creating of multinational financial institutions, which reduces each kind of slavery to economical one, and the distribution of "booty" — according to the invested capital. This tactic, as is seen now, gives good results, because both, the developed countries ensure for themselves new markets, cheaper labour force, and fields for investment of capitals, and the left-behind countries receive different subsidies, effective management, and other, new for them, temptations in life. In addition to this, with the equalizing of standards of life (after some time, of course), is postponed the moment of collapse of today′s technical civilization (see "About the future"), what is a phenomenon of mutual interest for all. That is how the individualism in relations between states can turn to be better than the old egoism from the times of "hot" or "cold" wars. IV. About The Happiness And the Moderation 1. The happiness is question of balance between wishes and abilities, and in our unjust world everyone has his rights to pursue it. This definition is suitable with this, that it shows us two ways for reaching of it: either increasing our abilities, or diminishing our wishes (supposing that the wishes are always larger than our abilities). The moderate way of live requires also moderate wishes, and thus easier achieving of the happiness. The more limited people, say, the children, are very often happy, because their wishes does not reach such peaks, as when they grow up and begin to wonder what new desires to imagine (especially if they have in their disposition enough time and means to satisfy them). The term "happiness" has some intersection with the escapism, for it is also a question of some delusion, but as far as it is primarily result of compromise let us not confuse the things. The happiness is state of comfort with the environment, not just escaping from it and depends on our internal condition: when we are very hungry a piece of bread can make us happy, where if we are twenty or so and our "hormones chase us", as is said, we may as well forget about the usual hunger and seek the sexual contact, and when our daily needs are satisfied and we just wonder what new sensations to experience we may try to seek, either the arts, or the opiates and narcotics, or to look for expression of some of our perverse wishes for violence over the others — all according to our tastes. But we may formulate the ways for reaching of happiness also in this way: the happiness consists either in some filling, i.e. of enhancing of our capacity, were it of knowledge, or of nutrients, or of money and other possessions, or of interesting social contacts, etc.; or then in some ... spending, i.e. disbursement of funds when we buy us something, or performing of some activity by way of spending of physical and/or intellectual energy, or difficult victory over some adversary, in result of what our wishes temporarily decrease. The process of filling is slower and tiresome and the happiness from it not always is so strong, as by the spending, where the effect is almost instantaneous, but also fast passing away. The important thing, however, is that the both contradictory processes can bring us happiness — as to spare money, so also to spend it; as to learn, so also to use your knowledge; as to fill his stomach, so also to empty it later; as to build something, so also to destroy it (this destructive instinct is especially developed by the children, for the simple reason that the destruction is the easiest creation!); and in the end also in the sex is exactly so (with this nuance that to the man is denied part of the happiness, or the woman is additionally benefited, because by her the processes of filling and spending coincide in the time, or at least this is her constant striving). The said here may sound cynically, but it seems quite convincing. So that, the injustice of our world, still, is partially compensated by the possibility to find happiness in it. 2. Well, but when the happiness is in the moderation (of the filling and emptying, if you want), then what is the very moderation, and what is so good in it for to force already the Ancient Greek (and even older nations) to raise the slogan: "Nothing in excess!" (with the eventual modification "Hurry slowly!")? OK, it is clear that the moderation, or also the sense of proportion, is the ability to find the middle point between two extremities, in which case is good to imagine that some pellet is tied between two ... elastic strings, i.e. that the dialectics is, in a way, "diaelastics" or "dialactics" (from the lactaids, the milk fibers). This, really, is a great art, i.e. something that is difficult to learn (if it, at all, can be learned), in relation with what is useful to remind you the ancient Eastern pray, made popular on the West (as also by us) mainly via Kurt Vonnegut, namely: "Oh God, give me bravery — to change what I can change, strength — to endure what I can′t change, and wisdom — to distinguish the one thing from the other!". So that: the moderation is wisdom, or the wisdom is moderation, in many cases. (See also by the medicine in the essay "About the mankind".) But then our question sounds more definite, namely: why, when the moderation is a question of wisdom, and everybody knows this (at least have heard it many times), the people, still, very stubbornly resist the moderation (especially the women — see the chapter about the man in the essay "About the woman and the man")? It can be a matter of wisdom to find the precise middle point, but the people, as a rule, don′t try at all to find it, on the contrary: when they start from one extreme pole and stagger straight to the other, like drunkards, and from there, after some time elapses, they return to the first pole, then again rush to the other one, and so on, ad infinitum! Well, this makes the "game" named life to last forever, but it is silly, and also cruel, in most cases, so that some moderation, in addition to this that we usually show, is always necessary — yeah, but we do not want to be moderate and that′s it! So that, why? Ah, because when we are moderate, then we, most often, are also mediocre, but we don′t want to be such, we want to be at the top — and very rightly, because nothing great on this world is ever reached with moderation, only with perseverance and boldness (to "stick" us where we are not wished). In other words, we want to be extreme in everything, and the bad thing is not that we want to be such, but that even in this our wish we apply no sense of proportion, for there are very rare the people, or the cases (say, 2-3%), who can reach the peaks, respectively, by whom peaks can be reached. From the point of view of "dear God" one such "leaping" is a good thing (He wants exactly this, to stay aside and look at the fun), but we are those who suffer; this, somehow, is not just, but we can do nothing (for we don′t want to). With the years one becomes a bit wiser and more moderate, but even this is not true for many of us, because they become such not due to some acquired wisdom but because their abilities are not more such like before. V. About The Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Freedom The freedom is something that we love very much, what can be well seen on the West through the relation between German Liebe as love and French ... libertè as freedom, which words, surely, are from one and the same root. The advantages are clear, they are in the creation of equality between the different individuals, which goal, however, is to prove their inequality (see again "About the woman and the man", the point about the emancipation)! So that from the freedom may gain the nature (or the dear God), or else the stronger individual, because in this situation he can easily prove his superiority, where for the weaker — there is no use of it! In our world of the stronger there is only one way for the weaker to become stronger — when they unite, obviously — but this is what they most often don′t want to do. They prefer to turn a blind eye and to think that they are really equal (not only in equal circumstances), and this is a question with which is much speculated for centuries and millenniums, where about equality can be spoken only in sense that the humans (as also the animals, the living matter generally) are results of equal initial activities for their creation and arbitrary factors forming their differences in equally probable way. Otherwise they are different, just because they are such in practice (as results of the probability, the upbringing, the environment, and the time in which they live). The inequality of the people and the animals, in general the non-identity of reproducing of biological matter (even when the "matrix" and the "spritz-form" are one and the same) is the most interesting characteristic of life, which determines its strong adaptability. So that the freedom is relative notion and also question of balance or compromise in the pursuit of it (an recognized necessity according to the definition of "Mr." Lenin, with this addition that we become aware of it only when have lost it), but the disadvantages of the overdone striving to reach it should have been obvious, because it only weakens us — the well known slogan "Divide and conquer!". But the treacherous moment here is not in this that, due to the interconnection of our world, the freedom for one person reduces to the contrary for another one, or that the freedom in one thing is its restriction in something else, neither in this that the freedom today may lead to some slavery tomorrow, or that very often we can′t judge correctly whether we win or lose from some freedom, and when a time passes it turns out that it wasn′t al all freedom, and similar things. No, the treacherous moment is that most eagerly fight for freedom exactly the weaker, who often lose from it, and the stronger just stay and leave the weaker to "ram their heads"; this is observed in the free market, in the fight for emancipation, in the battles for independence, in the struggle for personal manifestation, and so on. The strong one, to whom the freedom is mostly beneficial, does not pursue it at all costs, because for him this is relatively easy, and even if he is not much free, he is strong, so that he will somehow impose his rights, where the weak one, who almost always only wastes his energy, exactly he wants to waste it, because — who knows, it may happen that he will turn to be stronger, if free. Well, if this is not recognized necessity, it is at least question of reason and intelligence, for you know that we usually consider the dog the most intelligent animal, and it (or rather "he" if you ask me) does not run away in the forest or desert, but wants to serve and obey us, not to be free. So that it unavoidably imposes the conclusion that the human beings, out of too much intellect, have maybe gone to the other side, to the silliness. And so, life is unjust because each individual has interests contradicting to those of the others, and in his activity each one goes out mainly from his own interests. If we begin to search for the roots of the evil we shall come to the conclusion that it is in the differences between individuals. If the humans were like robots from one series they wouldn′t have had reasons for complaints, and wouldn′t have had contradictory interests (for if they have had, as they have also equal capabilities, they would have just mutually destroyed each other). In their contradictory interests each one tries to express himself and to prove that he is not equal to the others, that he is in his own way unique and unrepeatable, but for this purpose he, usually, wants firstly to be provided equality. Due to the mutual entanglement of the things in infinitely many dialectical ties (as if tightened with many elastic strings) and because of their inborn feeling for justice (though from the point of view of their own interests), the humans think that this world is unjust (and that is why they have invented another one, after the death, which is to be just). But each good thing goes hand in hand with something bad (or, as the English say: "You can′t burn the candle at both ends simultaneously!"), so that it becomes necessary for the life, which is, still, at least because of the absence of other choice, something good (or the best of the possible), to be also unjust from the point of view of each subject. As far as, though, it is unjust to each living thing, then this is equal to the statement that it is just, i.e. the notion justice loses its meaning! This is a known thesis in the ancient Eastern philosophies (in contrast to the created by the Christian God world), because earlier the people started from the interests of the whole nature, not only of these of the human beings, less from those of some chosen tribe. The Buddhism, for example, says that our world is a triple negation, or more precisely that in it: nothing is perfect, nothing is constant, and nothing is isolated! Well, that is how "our God" has devised it; you, if you can, devise something better. — — — — — ABOUT THE POPULATIONSpeaking about the population on our globe there are three moments on which we should dwell, namely: is the population of humans on Earth optimal; what must be the approximate number of people; and how to reach this goal in the easiest way. In addition to this is the related with the thesis question about the average life expectancy. Let us look at them in this order. I. The Overpopulation The people on Earth have become too many and this must be obvious now for everybody, because we have broken the existed for millenniums equilibrium with the other animalistic and vegetative species and have begun to hinder ourselves mutually in the everyday activity. In the antiquity one was not forced to care about the environment, because he has not destroyed it, neither even polluted, and has fed himself mainly through hunting and farming, what means that he has fit well in the nature. In the old times when saying "dirty" has been understood something useful and needed, because in order to give birth to something new was necessary for something old to decay and perish as already played his role in the equilibrium of the matters. I have here in mind Bulgarian word "kal" for mud, dirtiness (or also Russian the same kal as ... feces), but it is of Latin origin and is shortened from faeces in plural (faex in singular), what is also Turkish faşkiye (also in jargon use in Bulgaria), but in old Greek from the same root we have καλο (καλον), what means good, well, so that the word faeces (fekalii in Slavonic) must come from something like: tfu /fu (what is your "fie" or "pooh") + "kalo"! (There are similar and piquant relations to be found in your fertilize, what is Latin futuo meaning your, sorry, to f#ck, what is a dirty thing, but also necessary.) Nowadays we use widely the phrase "ecologically pure" products, which, from another point of view, are downright dirty, because they turn to mud (but for the ancient Greeks this was something good), while exactly the ecologically dirty things (glass bottles, plastic cups, metal pieces, etc., which we unwisely throw around) are, in fact, sterile or clean. What has to say that we do not judge like the "dear God", or that we hinder the nature, and therefore also us! The human civilization, aiming at incessantly bettering of living conditions for the people, willy-nilly, leads us to unavoidable increasing of the number of people. We say "unavoidably" because till now this was not avoided, but this tendency must be broken, for (as we mention in the essay "About the Creation") in the nature we can′t move always is one and the same direction, and it has to be some cycle or closing! If we don′t succeed alone (with the help of the civilization) to return back in the number of human population, then the nature surely will find some way. We have received till now many warnings (and even bloody), beginning with the epidemics in antiquity (which become possible due to the excessive concentration of big human masses in one place), going through the innumerable wars for conquering of new territories (because the old ones become ever smaller), and come to the 20th century when we were befallen by the: genocide, holocaust, pollution of the environment, cancer, AIDS, et cetera. But the dangers of epidemics and wars have not at all disappeared in our times, they have only changed their character, or have mutated, yet remain valid. Two centuries ago in England was published the brochure of Thomas Malthus, known above all with his cardinal conclusions about the difference between the geometric progression, with which people reproduce, and the arithmetic progression, with which the production of food products grows, so that by these circumstances all people on the globe should have been perished to the current date as a swarm of locusts, gnawed to the last millimeter each blade of grass or tiny sprout in their territory. As almost every statement based on extrapolation of some momentary relation, without taking into account the possibility for changing of the tendency (or trend) this also turned out to be erroneous, because thanks to the civilization people learned how to put also in the sphere of production of foodstuffs the geometric progression, as likewise to restrain a little their reproductive abilities using some contraceptives (in the developed countries). But the results, alas, are far from satisfactory, because both, the population continues to grow with furious steps, and we begun to feed mainly on surrogates. So that we have not at all resolved the problem with the density of population, we have just moved it in other area! It is naive to look at the malthusianism in the direct sense of feeding (as it is naive to believe that Brahma has six extremities, or that Holy Spirit looks like a pigeon, as they pictured Him on the icons), but has to be searched for the meaning of the statement, which we mentioned already in the first sentence of this chapter. Even if we can somehow feed ourselves (because in the seas there are enough seaweeds, in the petrol there are a lot of calories, proteins can be got out of whatnot, and, in general, the technologies are "great thing"), it turned out that now arose the information boom, in the result of which our brain began harder and harder to cope with the requirements of the new time, and reached the ceiling of its intellectual capabilities. And together with this the sciences, especially in the 20th century, offered us a heap of revolutions: with the electricity, with the atomic energy, with the wireless transmitting of information, with the achievements of medicine in mass prolongation of human lifespan, with the computers and computer nets, and so on, but each revolution is worse than moderately fast evolution, isn′t it? The people continue to hinder one-another no matter that their "hunting territories" (in figurative meaning, of course, but about what hunting we may speak nowadays?) does not intersect mutually, because intersect their intellectual territories, and now it becomes more and more difficult for them to make career and they wonder, in general, how to live their life and why to live it (especially in the developed countries)! It can definitely be argued about the question, whether the people today are happier than two centuries ago, when their food was real food, their labour — labour (because of the relation between the effort to produce something and the ready product), their sciences and arts — creative activities (not technologies), their games and sports — personal (not only looking at the others), their nature — nature, and, on the whole, their life was meaningful and interesting, not just to pass the time. So that the question isn′t in this, whether we can nourish 100 milliards instead of 10 millions, for example, but in the human happiness and fulfilling life, in the moderate development, allowing to build stereotypes of life in the generations, as also in the equilibrium with the nature, from which we are only a tiny part. II. The Optimal Population The optimal human population on Earth must be about 50 millions of people. The first argument is, that this indicates the human history, because according to approximate, and somewhat controversial, calculations the human population on the whole planet in the 2nd-1st millennium before Christ was 50 mln people, and to the beginning of our era it reaches 100 or so millions. These were times when the civilization was in full swing, and the people have had: healthy food, decent attire and homes, some technique, well developed arts, religion, buildings which up to this day arouse our admiration, sciences, ways for organization and managing which we apply also now, decent laws, spectacles for the masses, notions of honour and valour, cult to the sports, and so on. Many things were not accessible to all but only to some of the rulers, yet they have existed. There were also many wars and epidemics, which accompany the civilization to the present day, so that all important social problems were already set! Then this number till around 1800 still does not exceed one milliard, but in the 20th century we definitely have overdone the things jumping for the moment over the 6 milliards. If 50, 100, or even 200 millions are still comparable numbers, then with over the milliard people the "game", as they say, becomes too rough. If the people in present days lived so disunited as in the times of Roman Empire this, still, could have been tolerated, but there is not a single corner on Earth which is isolated and inaccessible for the world media and the business, where the language barriers (this "curse" which God has sent to the humans, according to the fable about the Babylonian tower), which were intended to divide the people in smaller groups, are also not very limiting, because together with the good translators now exists quite decent, but very fast, computerized translation, and the world languages, in the end, are reduced to 5-6 chief ones. The last touch to the instantaneous world communications added the computer nets, so that the earth globe more and more turns to one state, where the competitive struggle of the people for personal manifestation occurs, and such mastodon country becomes increasingly difficult to manage, and the bloodshed in it — ever greater. One averagely big country (say, like France) has about 50 mln residents, and there, where the countries are bigger, people rarely communicate outside their state or province, and if the countries are smaller (like Bulgaria), then they are usually satellites of one of the bigger, so that the competitive struggle occurs on the (part of the) arena of the "bigger brother". In this way we get the second argument for our optimal number. Now we shall give third argumentation for this optimum, going out of the goal for maintaining of such number of people, that the population to be able to lead fulfilling life under normal competitiveness between the individuals! Such set of the things is entirely logical, for the question is not how much people we can feed, but how much we must feed! We will do the calculations in the widely accepted decimal system of counting, only that will use the logarithmic scale, which is not very accurate (but we don′t need special accuracy) yet it is very convenient and comprehensive. We shall center the digits around the powers of ten, and will understand one interval from 0.5 to 5 times, multiplied by this power, what means that when we say 10 we will understand everything between 5 and 50, when we say 100 —from 50 to 500, and so on. We will begin with this that one maintains normally up to three circles or ranks of contacts with the surrounding him persons, namely: a) of first rank are those, which include people of the order of 10 to the first degree or about 10 persons — nearest relatives and acquaintances, which everyone knows well, can predict their behavior, and is emotionally related with them; b) second rank or 10 to the second, i.e. hundred people or so (in fact from 50 to 500) — acquaintances, colleagues, and relatives, which one knows by name and physiognomy, works or lives near to them, greets them when he meets them, but can′t be said that he knows them well, and does not have special feelings towards them — simply this is the environment in which he lives and tries to express himself or to make career; c) third rank or 10 to the third power (1,000 people) — persons for whom one is heard something or has seen them, but this is almost everything that he knows about them — this includes all known stars in which one is interested (footballers, pop singers, politicians or people from the highlife), as also other casual acquaintances; fourth rank or 10,000 are quite many people to be accessible by a medium-range intellect, so that we should not take them into account. We can name this human phenomenon "rule of the small numbers", where is obvious that the more profound our contacts are the more restricted is the number of people with whom we maintain them. The next moment is to determine the approximate number of areas of human knowledge and interests, in which we maintain some contacts, but in such manner that these areas will be relatively well balanced, i.e. to have by approximately equal number of people, who can communicate in the given area. The nomenclatures of human professions, as well as the indexes of most large libraries are in the range of several hundreds, and these are all areas of human knowledge. If in some cases one of these areas is detailed in another tens, then such narrow specialization does not change our divisioning, because these subareas are pretty narrow and not well balanced in the range or number of people, who work in them. Similarly exist also very big areas — say of the football fans, which on the globe must amount, maybe, to more than a milliard people, but this is not area in which they communicate in order to compete (such area would have been that of the very football players of national or world class, the participants in which, of course, are several hundreds). In other words, we are interested in such areas, in which the people literally, hinder one another, because this is their "hunting field" and in it they compete with the other "hunters", fight with them, express themselves, or make career. So that, let us assume for easier calculations (because when the information is fuzzy it is proper at least to simplify our calculations) that the areas of human knowledge are thousand, as also the number of people who compete in them is also thousand. In this way we exceed the ceiling of the second rank contacts, as also take one enhanced nomenclature of basic professions. So we get a number of the order of million people. Taking into account, though, that we have understood (although not stressed on this before) such areas in which people create, not only perform necessary for the society activities (like producing of goods, services, healthcare, education, maintaining of order, etc.), we must supplement the society with the "other" people. Usually with creative activities in one society are occupied about 3 to 5% of the people, but in order to be save let us accept that in the future their number may reach even 10% (or1/10 of the population). This will say that we have to multiply the obtained million by 10 and so this gives that the optimal number of people reached 10 millions. Inasmuch as our calculations are with accuracy of order let us take this number for lower limit, what gives that the optimal population on the globe must be between 10 and 100 mln, or, if we want to take some middle point, then these are again 50 million people. III. The Way To The Goal The easiest way for reaching of this goal is slight decrease in the population growth, until it becomes slightly negative. Let us accept that the population begins to decrease each year only by a single percent (something that is reality in many developed countries, only not steady for a long time), and then for each year we must multiply 0.99 by itself in order to receive the final coefficient (as compound interest) by which to multiply the initial population; or if we have scientific calculator then to calculate 0.99^n, for n years, and then to multiply by the initial number. In this case, if we start on reaching of 10 milliards inhabitants (for it is hardly probable that the humanity will engage itself seriously with this task before it begins literally to suffocate due to overpopulation), then after 28 years (after a while you will grasp why exactly so much) we will descend to 7.55 mlrd, after twice so much or 56 years — to 5.7 mlrd, after 112 years — to 3.25 mlrd, after 224 — to 1 mlrd, and so after about 5 centuries (more precisely 530 years) we shall reach the desired 50 millions! On the other hand, one generation in Ancient Rome was about 20 years, but with the aging of population and the prolongation of time for education, this period increases, where now the average length turns to be 28 years (and that is why we have chosen so many years just before). Then in accordance with the above numbers it comes out that for one generation, or 28 years, we will have a coefficient of diminishing of the population equal to 0.755 (i.e. 0.99^28 = 0.75472). This coefficient of changing of the number of population for one generation is called reproduction rate, and if it must be such then let us ask ourselves: how many children we should have in one family, in order to get it? Without the help of statistics it is not easy to answer the question, because there is child mortality, infertility, etc., but according to some statistical data for Russia it turns out that for to have reproduction rate equal to 1.0 (i.e. the population to remain the same) is necessary to have on hundred marriages 265 children. In this way we have a task from the school course, which is solved using the simple rule of three, namely: to 2.65 corresponds 1, to how many will correspond 0.755? The answer is exactly 2 (with precision to the third position after the decimal point), which is interpreted in this way: if in each family will be born on the average exactly two children, then this will give (if the mortality rate and the infertility remain the same) an effective reproduction rate of 0.755, or decreasing with 25% of the population for one generation, which if it were with average duration of 25 years (instead of 28, but let us not formalize so much, because the situation, anyway, is very fuzzy), would have given this one per cent yearly decreasing of the population (or more precisely 0.98999^28 = 0.7545), with which we began our calculations (i.e. we could have started from the two children per family). As you see, nothing drastic or revolutionary is required, just a bit common sense and organization in the whole society (including, and especially, in the third world), for to maintain on the average by two live-born children per family (or by one per parent, for the notion family began by the by to lose its meaning in the contemporary society), which will give each year negative growth of one per cent and after about two centuries will put us before the milliard, when the question can again be taken in focus. If the same tendency will continue, then after five centuries we will live in one worldwide state with about hundred million population, as it was in the times of heyday of the Roman Empire. The whole point is this, what so and so happens in the developed countries, to begin to happen everywhere! Could the civilization not succeed to reach this optimum, then it will ... again reach it, only by some cruel and uncivilized way, because, seriously looking, one decrease of the population to five pеr mil (or 200 times) is not at all a joke and the genocide compared with this goal stays far behind. As far as in these calculations the terms are not small, it is possible that more decisive measures may become necessary, which are to give an yearly decrease of 2-3%, in order to come down the milliard even in the 21st century. IV. Life Expectancy The optimal lifespan for the people must be two and a half generations, or in wider limits — from two to three generations! The proper approach requires to measure the expectancy of life exactly in generations, not in years, because the years are something floating and unstable (as Bulgarian currency in the first years of transition to democracy, for example). In ancient Rome, when the people have lived on the average by 40-45 years, the women have begun to give birth already in age of 13-14, and that is why one generation was there about 20 years, and was ensured the minimum of two generations; today one generation continues for 25 years (rather 28, as we have said it), but by an average continuation of life between 70 and 80 years in different countries it already comes very near to the figure of three generations, though in all cases does not exceed it. One generation means that one can have children, but will not live until they in turn begin to have children, for two generations he/she will see also grandchildren, and for three — grand-grandchildren. As in the antiquity, so also in current days, many people live to see their grandchildren, but there are wide away from many those, who can take pleasure with their great grandchildren. Being now familiar with the notion of ranks of acquaintances we can have one more confirmation for the truthfulness of the ten or so closest relatives under such continuation of live. If each family has by two children (and now they are nearer to three), then after two generations there will be four grandchildren, and after three — eight. If we sum all descendant direct heirs and add also brother or sister and husband /wife, then their number will be defined by the formula 2n+1, where n is the number of generation, what for two generations gives eight, and for three — 16. For the moment we speak only about downward heirs, but by two children the calculations are the same also for the upward relatives (because the parents, obviously, are two), so that in the beginning and in the end of his life one has the above-given number of direct relatives, and somewhere in the middle it comes out nearly the same (by three generations, one 50 years old man or woman, for example, will have two downward and one upward generations, or: one husband /wife, one brother /sister, two children, four grandchildren, also father and mother, or a total of 10 persons). But these are lower limits, for there are two corrections, namely: firstly, these are only the direct relatives, and there remain also various cousins, aunts, nephews, relatives of the husband /wife, etc., what increases this number nearly twice; and secondly, at the moment the number of children is more than two, so that we have one more increasing. Put in two word: by average life expectancy of two generations the number of direct relatives and acquaintances is 10-15 persons, by three generations — becomes 20-30, and by four — 50-70 people, what already exceeds the limit of the first rank acquaintances. If we decide to express this in years it is quite real to imagine one average duration of life of one century (in Russian the world " chelovek", what is a human, according to one vernacular etymology, meant for each chelo-forehead one vek-century), but this under the length of a generation of 35-40 years and on the average two children per family (or one per parent). If we wish to live, say, by 300 years, then we should be satisfied to see our first child only when we exceed the hundred years, for there is no other way! But we can′t imagine a society in which the people will live, say, 120-140 years, having by three children, and the average continuation of one generation to be 25 years (what otherwise is entirely justified from physiological point of view), because then the formula for direct relatives will be 3n+1, for n=5, and this gives 729, or much more than a thousand relatives together with the cousins and those of the marriage partner. This is the proper way to look at the things, not out of positions of the medicine, which, judging by the rates of the 20th century, leave nothing impossible even before the end of the 21st to reach an average lifespan of 120-150 years at least in the developed countries. Then will happen that, together with the efforts for prolongation of human life, we will be forced to search suitable ways for its termination, when it, by one reason or other, is not more so great pleasure and/or hinders the social development. When some home appliance wears enough, were it physically, were it or morally (becomes obsolescent), we throw it away and change with another one, but the situation with the human beings is similar, if we do not judge partially, so that our society will be forced to free itself from various social prejudices (imposed chiefly by the Christian morality). Here it goes about the so called euthanasia, or painless death. In this regard the contemporary society has returned much back from the customs existed in Ancient Greece, because there everyone has had the moral right alone to decide at what time to leave this world, and when he has found some sufficiently important for him reason (most often severe and incurable decease), he has simply written his testament or has passed it orally, has collected around him his relatives to take leave with them, has drunk up the cup with cicuta or some other poison, and quietly has moved to the "otherworld". The ancient Romans for their part have preferred to cut their veins in a tub with warm water (maybe because of their cult to the water?). But so or otherwise this has been accepted with understanding by everybody and was entirely in the order of things, where nowadays, regardless of the thousands painless ways for taking of the life, similar behaviour is condemned by the people. The humanity is ready to accept as proper needful to nobody existence, sometimes for many years, of incurably ill, mostly old people, but can′t take the responsibility to offer them final deliverance from their sufferings, neither they alone have enough powers to oppose the social norms. The suicide is one of the undeniable rights of the individual, and, besides, the meaning of opposition to it is to prohibit similar acts between the young, who will from that point onward live their lives, not between such, who feel themselves as burden for the others. The necessity for reaching of correct understanding on this question is felt already in the present days, and in the near future may be expected elaboration of special procedures for untimely painless termination of the human life: were it obligatory (by reaching of the "approved" age); were it with some element of hazard (as it happens in reality), when after a given age each one is subjected to some periodic "tests" with possible lethal outcome; were it forbidding the application of powerful medical (rejuvenating) tools after reaching of hundred years, say; or in some other way. The current situation, though, can′t be named civilized, and the society will have to find some new (i.e. old) socially beneficial understanding of the question. The important thing is to understand that the emphasis here is set above all on the psychological relation between people, not on their physical or health condition. The contemporary society suffocates chiefly because of reaching of the ceiling of permissible lifespan of three generations, not because of the very number of people, for when in Japan there are nearly 300 persons on square kilometer, in Bulgaria they are 78, and in USA — about 25, but the problems everywhere are almost the same. The average duration of active career for most of the people is about one generation, because when the new generation comes to the working places it begins then to hinder the old one. But by length of life of three generations is early to send on pension people, who have to live nearly one whole generation, and they alone don′t want to leave the work, because all pensioners only wonder what to do for to fill their time and search for some work just not to "die of boredom". The conflict between the generations occurred in 20th century not because 80 years of life are who knows how much for the human organism, but because more than two and a half generations life on the average becomes a bit too much, and three is already the ceiling. Well, such is the situation: the population on the globe must be so big, how big is one average state, and the lifespan must be two and a half generations. This is the reasonable decision and we have to try to reach it, because if we do not behave reasonable then the nature (or God, if that is how you like it better) will find some way for maintaining of the equilibrium on Earth, like for example: mass infertility, by which will be born very nice and intelligent children, who having grown enough will do their sex much more scientifically than their predecessors from the beginning of our era, but will have no need of contraceptives, for will be able to conceive only in one case to hundred pairs, maybe; or will be changed the ratio of newborn boys to girls from 18 to 17, how it is now, to, say, 21 to 4, what will mean that the boys will be five times more than the girls; or the birth rate will be entirely normal, only that in each next generation the children will have ... by a finger more than their parents, and when the fingers become more than a dozen this will cause serious problems with the pressing of buttons and in this way will hinder the general abundance; or the drug addicts will become about 70% of the population and will declare all the left for abnormal and subjects to compulsory narcotizing; or the percent of suiciders will soon exceed 1/3 of population, and this in the so called productive age; or the marriages between homosexuals will exceed the half of the marriages; and other similar variants. In any case, will be found some way that will bring the possibility for restricting of competitive individuals to the accessible for the human beings level of contacts of second rank, or to several hundred persons, as also the direct relatives to the level of contacts of first rank, or some tens of people. This is so, because nobody wants to have so much relatives that to be unable to recognize them when meets them, neither to live under such circumstances, where in order to express himself somehow one has to study nearly half a century, for to narrow the field for competition as much as can, and even in this case to have just one chance between tens of thousands, not to draw the top winning ticket, but to find at all some decent place under the Sun. — — — — — |
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/