The next political struggle: The coming genes manipulation war

Preface

In 3500 BC, a revolution took place in Egypt, the invention of writing. Writing is considered to separate prehistoric time from historic time but it is also to associate with the appearance of statism and large imperial state. From its origin, cultural law has regulated human tribe. Cultural law was a necessity to regulate individual status in the community and to decide efficiently. Cultural law can only be spreaded by debate or direct parent to children education and communication and so have little possibility to spread out of the tribe, village or the cast. The invention of writing changes the logic. You can write it, copy it and so spread it and so spread it to a larger territories. But, it had also a terrible political consequence. It has started the divided the society into two distinct groups:  some individual are the writers, and others the readers. I will concentrate the first part of the book to explain that all our political history can be explained by the struggled between writers class and readers class. In fact, this key division can be taken as the origin of nearly most political problems, which has taken place since the Egyptian. The writers try to hold their position and some of the readers want to enter into the influential group. I do not mean that some writers did not want and try to genius improve the law. I mean since the age of the writing, most of politics is focus on this struggle. It is in very far contrast with the tribal situation under the custom. The custom can change through debate, which usually ends up by a near consensus in favor or against the change. In the oral law political system, every individual need to have a brain at least to have a deep understanding of the law so as to debate it, but in the law writing system, the writer should have a self autonomous brain but the reader might rather need an antenna as trying to understand the law might need to develop an opposing opinion and anti social attitude against the social orders.

I will focus my history of politics not on what we today call politics but religion. The concept of politics political science are democratized itself relatively recently at the end of the middle age.  In fact, politics is in far evolving under the name of religion. And furthermore, most of the political belief of today can be rooted to the religious time:

-         Russian communism to the Byzantine Orthodox Christian empire,

-         French socialism to Catholicism,

-         American liberal capitalism to Protestantism and Calvinism,

-         Chinese and Japanese state managed capitalism (or so called by the Chinese government: market communism!!!!) to Confucianism,

I will demonstrate that most of the dynamic of political evolution is the change in the way to communicate. Each time that there is a technical change, the balance between writers and readers change and the system evolves. Those change are:

-         Manuscript writing,

-         Printing,

-         Radiodiffusing

-         Television

And finally Internet

The Internet revolution will be a radical one and it would end up by the illegalization of the writing law toward the electronic law. The electronic law can offer equal chance to any individuals to debate and change its content.  It is a radical equalitarian perspective, which would bring us to the same level of equity than primitive tribe under the oral law.

The last topic is human genetic manipulation. The coming potential human genetic manipulation will lead to the sharpest political struggle that has even happen and a final clash between the readers and writers. The outcome is far from previsible. It can lead to the appearance of an electronic democracy so as everybody has an equal political right to access to the process to vote the law.  But, the opposite scenario is also possible. The writer class can start to use its access to genetic manipulation in order to change the political behavior of the reader. For example, it can reduce the IQ of the reader member to increase its dependency to the writer and so prevent the coming of the electronic democracy. It would be the complete realization of the brain/body state structure. The writer class will really have big brain and the body, a kind of antenna brain dependant of the television.

This struggle has indeed started. In USA, readers took the initiative to have law forbidding the disclosure of all state genetic experiment and have equal access to use of genetic technology.

In France, it is exactly the opposite. Genetic experimentation is under the control of “wise” men nominated by the president of the republic and submits to state secrecy. Concurrent private research is completely forbidden. France politician announced that research have to reduce genetic anomalies including mental one. China has gone further in declaring favorable to a state program of eugenic policy through genetic manipulation.

(*) From the French mendiant, which means beggar in English, the one who makes its living by talking.

The origin of politics: The birth of beliefs

From the origin of our species, human species has developed ways to act collectively in a common cause. According to Anthropologist, human being have evolved since the proconsul 15 millions year ago in small groups from 10 to 150 individuals. In the African savanna, the average size is around 30 individuals. The number is limited by the amount of food available at a walking distance and so it is dependent of the environment.  But, it has been proving that a human brain is capable to handle up to 150 friend or relatives. In a larger group, it is impossible to know each other well enough to develop a trustable relation. The fact has been verified in religious community or small enterprise. The political process has to be formalized in a different way in order to prevent inefficiency or corruption. But, as a rule, the human mechanisms to decide effectively the admission of a reject of an individual to the group, does not work anymore.

The fact that human species evolved in communities means that the competitive pressure force individual to have differentiated from each other’s. A small group is more capable to succeed in their environment if they have individual with different sensibilities and different talents. Some might have a strong analytic brain, other a strong body and a high speed, and some other high diplomatic and communicative skills. The most basic of genetic differentiation between human is the sexual differentiation. Despite controversial and politics in the 1960, the sexual orientation is completely controlled by genes. Genes also guarantees that male and female abilities are different. Men have to hunt. They need more physical strength. Women have to educate children so they need higher communicative skills.

From this first genetic differentiation, the human nature develops multiple characters with different individual benefits. One of them is the age differentiate. We are genetically programmed to have changed of personalities according to the age. For example, children have a fearing individualist psychologist. In face of dangers, they try to save themselves first. We all know characters that can be qualified of selfishness, which can be attributed to the youngest. The young are always selfish because they have to stay alive and accumulate the maximum potential (or properties) to secure their capacities to have children. For aged and middle aged individuals, the psychologies are completely different. Individuals tend to give away their belongings toward the youngest and are usually ready to sacrifice their life for their children. Another age-oriented attitude is learning programs. Human being likes most living creature is “programmed” to learn different things at different age. Young girl are playing to be a mother at 6 and a nurse at 10. Young boy play to war with their friend in the wood at 6, and to trading game or hunt building at 12. Those ages dependent psychology has one major thing in common is this age is not a constant and varies considerably from an individual to another.   Some individual lose their childish fear or their childish greediness very young. Others will keep it to a very old age and might die before losing it. The age dependent psychological characters are extremely important in order to consider in the variation of personality pool according to the environment. They depend of genes, which are limited number of function so government could consider changing them without risking endangering the health of the newborn. For people who are traveling and live in different continents, we have the tendency to see others childish according to some character and they see us also childish according to other criteria. For example, adult African looks childish toward European due to the directness toward the other sex or high attraction toward physical performance. Adult European looks childish toward an Asian by its tendency to say jokes or sarcasm. Adult Asian looks childish toward European by its tendency to accept the authority of the knowledgeable. Those characters were often believed to be a cultural artifact but in fact, you usually have the culture that our genes can adopt. It will important to consider later why nature are programmed us to resist cultural changes and the also variation between country and continents.

But to come back to our tribe, the problem of converging toward common law between individuals with various personalities and getting consensual agreement is extremely challenging. We all have the same personalities. We will be easier to agree toward a common solution and politics would be reduced to rivalry. Debate is also time consuming and might in many scenarios be impossible to organize. For example, if you start to debate to answer to an attack of another tribe, you are likely to go extinct. So, our tribe had to adopt a convergence strategy. The first solution is to have an individual to decide for the group in face a danger: the leader. The second is to have an oral law supported by beliefs.

The problem of the appearance of an oral law is a complex one. A rule can be understood as a program. And a program is the execution of a series of instruction (if … then… else) and the purpose of the oral law is programming the social behaviors of the community. The oral rule will regulate the process to nominate a leader, marriage, disease and the advantage of programming over debating. The debate is institutionalized and civilized under a framework of laws and so it is speed up. Oral laws will so reduce the time cost of debating and the risk of physical conflict during debates. The next advantage is the capacities to teach a political heritage to the next generation and to improve the law system from one generation to another by assuring a continuous evolution.  Then, how can you easily remember the oral laws and teach it to children. Simply by creating religious belief to explain and defend the legitimacy of the law to children. The beliefs are created during debating session by transforming previous stories or previous experience. Some ancestor of the tribe will being gods, son of gods and further simply messenger of gods in the sense that they had improved the law structures of the tribe.

Now, with that all beliefs are not politically efficient but in a tribal word, tribe competes against each others and most tribe will be destroyed by the one with the most efficient political beliefs. So, the next question is “What is the most efficient political belief?” It also depends the law of competition or I should say the three laws of competition:

-         facist competition,

-         productivist competion,

-         mendiocratic competion.

-         Facist competion is the power of the best killing talent (known as the rule of Jungle),

-         Productivism is the power to most productive,

-         Mendiocracy (*) is the power to best communicating talent (*)

The three laws came from the fact that there is two basic mean to get your food for your family to produce it or to take it from another producer. There is than two way to rob your food by killing or frightening to kill or convince to give. The first way is the facist way and the second way is the mendiocatric way. Now, the reader will notice that productivism and fascism are worded currently used in politics in the current political debate and mendiocracy is a personal invention. Does it mean that mendiocracy does not exist ? Certainly not, all political society gravitates under this three laws of competition and are a combinaison of this three laws. But, the tendancy since the beginning of the writing law, the historical move has been from facism to a mediacry. And in our modern world, the best killer are in jailed and the most commutative gather most of the political power and the wealth. Why did the concept never been invented ? Simply because a concept is invented by politically powerful opponent to the mendiocracy. And as most of the modern society are a kind of mendiocracy, all politically powerful individual are living by what they say ? I will call this individuals: mendiocrate.

The last point to considered is “what is the purpose of politics ?. I will define it by taking acting collectively. All the point of politics is to be capable to have a group of invididuals to achieve common goal. And so, you should first consider first how individual achieve something. They can act in following a program and a set of instruction that they have decided in advance or iteratively. When an individual have some ideas of what to do, it will formalize an action plan and react according to it. In this case, it took time to slowly consider each of its acts. But, an unprepared individual can also act without having programmed itself by a spontaneous decision. Preconsider decision has been done with the possibility to search information to take the right decision. But, in front of an unknown event, we have to be spontaneous and we can not rely on a preprogram. The tribe have also this bimode: the possibility to program the behavior of the tribue by the law or to act spontaneously under the direction of a leader. This bimode lead to dilemma. Who should be on the top ? A leader who can even make new law without debating or the law which limites the power of the leader. The first mode makes the society potential to have a fast evolving law. This fast evolution might unfortunately not be kept from one generation to the next. The second one had the problem, have the problem that human society have a lot a trouble to organize efficient and fruitful debate. In fact, most of political debate took place on the form of religious speculation and argumentation. The change of religious belief is usually motivated by a legal inefficiencies and trigger the creation of a new constitution.  In larger communities, most religious beliefs stay the same and so did the law. The possibility to have a democratic religious debate become impossible in a large communities and it creates a situation with a large pool isolated individual with a disagreement with the common law, potentially rebellious anarchisant. Some of those rebels organized in opposing group which eventually in some took the power, establish a monarchy above the law. This pattern will in fact explain the history in term of revolution.  A monarchist revolution succeeds to a revolution toward the law. When human got a king, they want a strong law above the king to protect them from the king. When they got a law, they want a king to change the inefficient of the law.

Pharaon: totalitarian revolution;

Mose decalog and the republic roman: legal revolution

Caesar, Constatin and the “living” law Jesus Christ: totalitarian revolution

French, Suisse, English and American revolution: legal revolution

Communism and fascism: totalitarian revolution

Face of communism and liberalism/democracy: legal revolution

French V republic of General De Gaulle: Kind of elective monarchy called republic parlementaire far less democratic than the III and the IV republic.

The birth of the writing law

The biggest political revolution occurs with the invention of writing which occurs around 3500 BC in Egypt years but its real use of writing in politics occurs around 1800 BC with the code of Hammurabi in Babylon (modern Iraq). The Hammurabi was edicated by a god king and not the supreme creator of the universal. The problem with a god king is that he got a higher god above him: the supreme creator of the universe and so there is an higher code. The idea is not new as most of the tribe believes that the core law has been created by the highest code: the creator. And so, the next political struggle become mainly stuggle between gods. Most of gods create laws, but we should select the right god to have the right laws. And in 1500 BC, Yahwe bornt and its prophet propandandist maybe mythologic but probably historic Moses. In the view of Mose follower, they venerate the creating god and others venerate existing demon who try to spread their law to abuse humanity. It is not yet a question of monotheism: true god against idole. It is a struggle between the creator and demonic gods. The political war becomes a fundamentalism based on the belief that failing to select the right god and right law lead to the extinction of the tribe. And, it is exactly what occurs, Mose follower submit or exterminate rivals follower of rivals law. The struggle is not a single event in history. It has occurs in many part of world. The struggle of Rome against their rival was the struggle of Roman gods and law against the rival laws and the victory of Rome.

But, it describe the fact that the kingdom of writing law creates modern state divided into two class the writing (of the law) class and the reading class. It is so the start of mendiocracy where the writing class that I will know calls the mediatic class dominates the reading class, which I rather call the listening class.

And this pattern of division between two distinct classes has last from the beginning of the use of writing and it will end with the replacement of the writing law by the electronic law. The usage of Internet to make the law offers the possibility a strict equality to change the law whenever he is living and so the move to a perfect democracy. In the past, near perfect democracy could only exist in city-state with a large political assembly because democracy means gathering everybody in the same location to vote to debate the law. In modern country, this was not technically possible so each independent countries got a capital where the law is debated and live the mendiocratic class and provincial city where most of citizens belong to the listening class. In a mainly mendiocratic society,  business people should try to take part to the mendiocracy to be authorized to grow up and so they also rather live in the capital. The worker has rather to move away from the province toward the capital despite high living cost. Country with huge capital are usually a political struggle under the mendiocracy logic (France, England, Japan) and country with a lot a medium size city have a political struggle equilibrate between two logic  mendiocracy and productivism (Switzerland,  USA, Germany,…). The difference is that a productivist (called capitalism or liberal system) logic competitivity is possible if the most mendiocratic competitive culture tolerates it to the point that an individual could socially and politically succeed without relation with the mendiocratic class and so succeed geographically far away from it.  It is still rarely the case. In most country, you have to be a member to the mendiocratic class to succeed and so you should live where the law are debated: the capital to exchange your view and establish relations with the law debaters.

You should notice that writing law did not succeed everywhere. Indian cast are an evolution of the tribal system. Each cast have there own law and their favorites gods. The cast system has the british called it, is in fact a global understanding between all cast to fragment the economical sphere in order to be able to have each cast their own law and the democratic right to debate. I have spent a long time in India to learn meditation with a guru. The first thing I have noticed is the superior argumentating skill of Indians. My Indian Guru Om Prakash teaches me that the art of debating is to create word to fight against word of others. If you let your adversary, creates the words who give him a social advantages. It will move up in the political layer (and not social layer) and so you will go down. Every debaters try to create words to push up their arguments and the first way to debate and  vote equally for each words to use. For example, marxism and now alter mondialism win the ideological war because they impose the world capitalism. Capitalism came from the indo-european 9000 BC year old caput (chelter head). The capitalism system starts in 9000 BC with the agriculture and the creation of a cheptel capital to modern day market finance. So, anti-globalism explains that capitalism is bad by describing the Indian local economy who has usually no currency and bank and is based on barter to explain us that Wallstreet market is bad in showing Indian countryside. Does it means that we have a single economical system called capitalism: not at all. But, if you succeed to dominate the debate by pushing your word capitalism, it end up to be the same in the brain of the listener. To Indian, we have two completely different economical systems: rural India barter economy and wall street. As the things are completely distinct, it is forbidden to argue about Indian barter economy to criticize Wall Street Market economy.

The first rule that Indian teach me if there is no debate about the word to use. There is no debate at all and so no democracy at all. I will so up to now take care to create words that look to me efficient to stress the point of view of the listening class and put it along the the word created by the mendiocratic class to politically equalize the two political classes.

Indian develops meditation technique which are based on empty the brain from “political” concept and give you the capacities to go behind conceptualization and to come back with a police men in the brain which will analyze concept by concepts in order to save you from the political brain washing of the mendiocratic class. If an individual is pushing up his vocabulary, he is winning the debate.

It won’t be a surprise that India is now the largest democracy of the world despite that most culture bible based country dominated by the fundamentalist of the writing law are not. India just move from inter cast fragment micro democracy to a national democracy. It is no also surprised that Indian guru impressed and targeted politically weak european and north Asian, by there superior mastering of philosophical conceptualization. Westerner and north Asian has evolved through 2000 years of political domination under two different politically efficient religion: christianism and confuscianism and so have lost the mental capabilities to debate by lacking its usage.

The Indian approach of democracies is in complete opposition to French approach. The French King Louis XIII has created the French academy around 1620 during the monarchy to control the French language. Today, the French academy francaise controlled the vocabulary used in the French language. Words of English origin like walkman or email are suppressed and replaced by French equivalent: baladeur and couriel. The state controlled linguistic approach is not without influence on the french political debate in the 2000s. The French situation will be however evaluated latter.

A last point is that many culture resists to the oral law. For example despite using writing skills in calendar and accounting, the celts forbid the development of writing law. The choice was done by the Druid to force the transmission by memory from person to person. The idea is that you cannot really sure to really understand if you learn form book. So, it is better to have a teacher teaching directly. The druids acts as judge and priest and meet annually to debate about laws.

The first democracies

Antic city-state gravitates between two centralization principles a man or a law or two competitive logics: mendiocracy against facism. The third one, the productivism seems completely absent of the political struggle. I did not find any individual politically successful due to his personal agricultural or artisanal productivity. Super productive individuals were in fact called slave and live at the bottom of the political scale. They are listener and killed if they do not listen and start to talk too much.

Athenian democracy appears around 500 BC Athena had a strong military force due to its farmer-military-citizen ready to fight for their democratic right. Athena stop two militaries invasion from the Persian empire.

The Athenian democracy is remarkable by the size 30000 of the 300000 Athenian had the right to debate laws. Usually, 6000 citizens effectively took place in the debate, which means that entrepreneurial, commercial, artisanal and possible farmer had the capacities to take part in the debate.

Athenian remains in the history by their high achievement in term of conceptualization. In fact, most of the concepts used in the antic world and the modern world came from the Athenian. They creates the concept of history, physics, atom, democracy, philosophy, … they innovate massively in mathematics and in medicine. This high level of conceptual capabilities is the sign of a highly engaged and debating society. Concepts are created by individuals and spread through debate before becoming politically active. Then, concepts make the debated more efficient and increase the capacity of city-state to innovate and to decide about the launch of national projects.

But in 404 BC, the Athenian democracy has been however destroyed by a city not also without interest Sparta in order to study facism political tendency and introduce the most successfully politic state of the western antic world: the Roman republic. Sparta has two elected kings for 1 year and so there are not really king and equilibrate each other. The Spartan laws were oral laws and debate special policy maker, the gerousia, a council consisting of 28 elders over the age of 60, elected for life and usually part of the royal households. High state policy decisions were discussed by this council who could then propose action alternatives to the Damos, the collective body of Spartan citizenry, who would select one of the alternatives by voting. The Demos comprised the citizizens with military training most of the Spartian male. The spartian society did not produce anything and were so a pure facist society. Sparta had a small population of 10000 military males. Sparta submits in its vicinity a far larger population of 200 000 helots which assures the agricole activity. The helots has to provide 50 % of their output to the Spartian state but keep the property of their land. Spartian had a tradition to make a yearly campagn against Helots to preserve their submission. The Spartiate is a pure facisted in a sens that they were unproductive. The fact that the products was robbed from the Helots make its easier to make the more egalitarian state in term of redistribution of the output. Political initiatives should have rather been of limited: war or not. It should so have been relativily easy to converge. Military efficiency means that Spartan were unified under the feeling of solidary and the shame of fear. Despite its very small size, the Spartian state was the military power of greece. It is the only state were 100 % of the population has the same jobs: military. As Spartan did not need to have any productive incentive, egalitarism redistribution was the most beneficial and natural social system. Sparta  last a long time till its avoid war, and just show its strength but in 430 BC. Sparta starts war against Athena and ultimately submit it.  However, its military population reduces and Sparta did not have the demographic base to quickly restore its strength. If you have 100000 citizens including 10000 military.  Losing 4000 military in war was not a big deal at a population growing 2 % a year, you will go back to 10 000 years in around 2 years. But from its initial base is 10 000 reduced to a base of 6000, it will take log(10000/6000) / 2 % =  25 years.

The roman republic appears 509 BC by an overdrown of the Monarchy and it by far the the successful political structure of the ancient world. It ultimately end up by the facism competitive logic to start to move the competitive logic with the emergence christianism towards mediacratic competive logic. The roman republic was cimented by the hatred of monarchy and so the exitive was under the hands of two consules elected like in Sparta for one years. The roman citizen were divided into two classes the wealthy patrician who held the place in the senate and debated the law and the plebeian who elected representive to defend their interest named tribunes. In 287, the plebein obtain the right to vote laws by plebiscites. The eager of roman farmer/legionary citizen to protect their freedom against Monarchies, was the base of the military strength of Roma. The roman republic conquiert all Italy and develop a western empire after its victory of the carthage in 146 BC. The roman republic starts to conquiert an empire mainly to protect its freedom and then to rob and reduce to slavery other people population. One of the caracteristic of Roman fascime is an explosion of the institution of slavery. Despite Sparta, Rome successful accessimilate population in the italian surrounding by giving them special political. The roman army becomes composed of legionary of non roman stocks more attach to the their general than the republican institution. This lead to several overthrough of the republican institution by Sulla in 80 BC, Julius Caesar in 49 BC and finally Octave Augustus which establishes the imperial instition in 27 BC. The law were replaced by emperial orders and ratified by the senate. Octave Augustus develop a network of governors to administrate the province and a large bureaucracy. Those governers where from modest origines and so reliable to the emperor. The victory of the roman republic leads an end of the fascism competitive over a large territories and so the mendiocratic competive logic develop. The emperor was the source of power on the political power develop in the vicinity of the emperor. On constrast, the emperor has difficulties to know what exactly go on in his empire and had to rely on his governors to get inform.