Author: ДЮРАН РЕМБРАНТ | DURÁN REMBRANT
acquaintance
My name is Rembrandt Durand, and first of all I want to identify the cultural conflict that we face already because we express our opinions. Could it be that we are participants in a war where the winner is not the one who is right, but the one who is politically correct? Of course, all this is due to the different ideologies prevailing in the place where we work. Or that we take care not to "hurt the feelings" of fools. This is the paradox of tolerance by Karl Popper: "In the name of tolerance, we must gain the right not to tolerate the intolerant." Unlimited tolerance, tolerance for the intolerant, leads to the fact that the intolerant win.
I am not responsible for the suffering of those who are bound by any ideologies, I have made every effort to smooth out their complex and contradictory emotions with the help of fiction.
We are animals, and this is not an insult, we are like that. This does not mean that all human behavior is the result of adaptation to environmental conditions. Rather, a set of important human traits is a great tool for adaptation.
The character is a "homo stupidus" named Tullio, who received the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 2100. What follows can be considered criticism in the form of satire on the hominid "homo habilis", which by 2100 makes a leap that we could call "involution", the opposite of evolution. This is due to forced adaptation as a result of ideological pressure. Readers will decide for themselves whether Tullio is right or not.
WE ARE ANIMALS
You're an animal.
Everyone is an animal, and it's not pejorative.: We're all like that. In fact, it's increasingly surprising to notice how the term "animal" is used to insult someone. It's so ironic, it's just some kind of satire: we use the word "animal" for species discrimination.
I don't get tired of waiting for new Nobel Prizes year after year. I must clarify that my favorite has always been the prize in medicine and physiology. Biology has caused almost exclusively at the historical level a number of conflicts that are constantly called "cultural battles", and this is due to the constant confusion about the purpose of science: supposedly it is not to make people feel good, but to explain things empirically, empirically.
For many personal reasons, I decided to study biology in college — I wanted to sort out my doubts. They've been following me since I can remember. My father is a philosopher, my mother is a sociologist. Nothing they told me as a child about my existential doubts helped resolve them. I don't want beautiful answers, but truthful ones. Never forget: science has no empathy, it is indifferent to us. It only explains reality (and what is reality? A medley of selfishness and evil). Do you remember what Machiavelli said on this topic? Well, I was not mistaken.
Shortly before I defended my doctoral thesis in involution biology, I had a feeling that I could not have chosen a better topic for it. Nothing more or less, but "Interactions and evolutionary patterns between homo habilis and homo stupidus".
I felt that my research would undoubtedly serve to understand the causes of involution, since nothing like this had been observed before throughout the history of mankind. In fact, homo habilis apparently knew how to make and use stone tools. I say "apparently" because at that time there were many species of homo living together. Tools have been found to confirm their existence.
All of this made me constantly wonder what would allow the next hominid species to learn not only about its existence, as it is perhaps very simple because of the giant buildings, but also about the cultural conflicts that influenced homo stupidus. Perhaps some of these conflicts will cause his not-so-distant disappearance.
I studied some of the characteristics that the species homo sapiens has used for about half a century, and identified one very characteristic: feelings. They were unaware of the neurophysiological processes that generate compassion and empathy as a biological response to the adaptation processes necessary to preserve their species. But how can there be a species that collectively depends on others for emotional issues in the struggle for survival? You won't see this in any other animal!
I couldn't imagine homo stupidus being able to even think about living for someone. That would be crazy! Well, one can understand that half a century ago emotions reigned supreme in people's lives. So much so that there was such a thing as ridiculous courtship of females, that is, homo sapiens were animals when it was profitable for them. But if not all, then at least most animals have courtship through dancing, singing, fighting and an endless number of activities for which the male must attract the attention of the female, but for my sociologist mother these would be social constructs.
How can we explain that these differences in the behavior of men and women are similar to those observed in female and male animals? I've always really wanted to know what other term would be coined so as not to hurt the feelings of homo sapiens.
What bothered me was the fact that the so-called "humanist" party won the presidential election at that time, what could be more ridiculous? Considering that this current of thought, "humanism", originated in the time of homo sapiens, an extinct species. I've always found it necessary to admit: What distinguishes us from other animals is the same thing that distinguishes each of them from the others. Yes, one day each of us may become just another animal.
Anyway, after five months, I finally managed to defend my doctoral thesis. I was very happy because not only did I pass the exam with a high average score, but I was also selected to participate in a very prestigious research competition. I wasn't sure if I should have submitted my dissertation as it was written, or if I needed to add more data to my research. Well, I decided to work on it for the next three months, so I didn't have any free time. But my life has always been focused on a scientific career.
I had no idea how I would handle this new project. However, I was always worried about how many people would be interested in reading my research, since almost no one is interested in science.
After several days of insomnia, I finally applied to participate in the competition. These few days of work are for the benefit of humanity... What is this unfortunate "good of humanity"? These ridiculous emotions were left behind with the disappearance of homo sapiens, so I devoted myself to waiting for the results — and that's it. Feelings can only cause weakness, they are completely useless. I have always been a proponent of the theory that the extinction of Homo sapiens was caused by emotional factors. But I could only accept the reality that science confirms. Or to look for some ideology that would defend some position that I could feel comfortable in. Even if it turns out to be the stupidest thing anyone has ever heard in their life.
I spent two hellish weeks waiting for a competitive assessment. And you know what? I became a winner. I could hardly contain the storm of emotions from this news.
But I have to be honest, at least with you. Have you noticed the contradiction? I received the award (yes, and bragged about it constantly in the following days). She thrilled me. Despite the fact that its content denies feelings in homo stupidus.
Imagine I got my PhD in involution biology. Could it be that my work is wrong? I couldn't believe it—well, I have a doctorate! Feelings could not exist, these are just terms coined by our ancestors to denote what modern science recognizes as neural processes.
As the days went by, I couldn't decide if I regretted my statements made during my research. That's because my job as a scientist was to experimentally demonstrate that my data did not contradict reality. But at the same time, I was afraid to see that I was wrong. And this may mean that a PhD thesis on involutional biology is practically useless, and even more so in our time of conflict.
Just when I was about to collect reliable data that could confirm whether I was wrong or not, I received an email from the Humanist Party. I did not speak directly with the head of the party, but I met with a delegate whom he trusted. This man told me that he had read some of my publications and that the president was interested in working with me, which would ultimately benefit our country.
When I finally agreed to meet with the president, he told me that my research had convinced him that he should destroy people who retained emotions as an atavism, as a reminder of an ancient hominid called homo sapiens. After all, the president believes that if homo stupidus experiences something like love, he should be diagnosed with mental retardation.
He had many meetings with various members of the legislative assembly to eventually declare the death penalty for homo sapiens. A strange decision, because this species is extinct. But now, for him, homo stupidus with emotions would be classified as a different species. And his rightness could be proved if the involution leap he made occurred when these useless emotions disappeared.
And so it was, they began to disappear from every person at the slightest hint of any feeling. Nevertheless, deep down I knew that I should have disappeared first, but precisely because of my prestige as a scientist, no one could think of identifying me as a person with emotions.
Around 2100, I won the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for defining emotions as a completely meaningless atavism for the involution of homo stupidus. One by one, those human beings who inadvertently and irregularly showed some glimpses of feelings disappeared.
In fact, since the time of the extinct homo sapiens, there has already been a name for those who were not able to experience human feelings — empathy and compassion. There was also a name for beings devoid of empathy: psychopaths. The same thing happened with homo stupidus by 2100: it became clear that the lack of emotions in a person leads him to the last step on the downward escalator of dehumanization.
THE EPILOGUE
Despite the fact that it is necessary to develop scientific knowledge today, we cannot neglect our human side. Let's not forget that science does not regulate affects, culture can take care of this through a collective consensus that can integrally define the global good. All lives should be worth the same: none of them should be more than the other, and that is why "better technology" does not mean "better life". Let's do science without separating it from our human side, because this will undoubtedly lead us to extinction, and by 2100 we will be closer to it than ever.
The original is in the application