The Second River. ComputerraOnline Column #1

Well over a year ago, I stopped writing a column for the print edition of *Kompyuterra*—when it ceased publication. I’ve gotten out of the habit of writing columns, though I still feel a certain emptiness. The thing is, a scientific idea can be presented in a specialized article, and a teacher’s train of thought can be woven into a textbook. But sometimes it’s nice to clarify my thoughts in areas that interest me, where I’m not a professional—or not quite a professional. You mull something new over in your head and add a brick to the edifice of your own worldview. Is it possible to do this without a journal? Yes. But it doesn’t work. Without an external stimulus, there’s no reason to refine my ideas to the point where I can share them with others, no reason to make the effort to seek out new ideas. I hesitated for a long time. I tried writing for one website. Alas, they require perfect scientific accuracy. I tried another one. But there, they only publish what the editor agrees with—and, as luck would have it, his mind works differently than mine. I created my own website—both for the lectures I give at the university and for a blog. I started uploading lectures, posted a retrospective on "Kompyuterra" to the blog, and got lost in memories... What’s there to regret—you can’t step into the same river twice! And then I received a letter from the editor of "Kompyuterra." He writes that online readers still remember my columns from the print magazine and suggests I resume writing. Thank you very much; I’m very touched by such thoughtfulness in these frantic times! What should I write about? Probably, for most readers of the online version of "Kompyutera," my interests and style will be foreign. However, for me, it’s more important to focus on those who resonate with this; it’s nice that there are still people like that. Of course, the column will lean toward biology. And it’s not just because that’s my specialty. The main theme that seems truly important to me is a scientific perspective on ourselves, on human nature. Think about how you would analyze any external object—say, hardware or software? You would certainly take into account its history of origin and development (including its purpose), the features of the technology, and the specifics of its use. But what do we do when we try to understand the “wet” (by analogy with “hard” and “soft”)? Alas, time and again we rely on what we’ve grown accustomed to thinking about ourselves and what various ideologies instill in us. We are in control of our bodies and our minds. How do we learn to use ourselves? Public consciousness is barely ready to acknowledge anatomical realities. And often, it’s not just about acknowledging them—it’s ready to reshape the bodies of anyone who wants it: for some, to remove fat; for others, to straighten a nose; for others still, to change their “gender” (external sex-specific characteristics). When it comes to physiology, things are worse. Do you think the diets advertised to us take into account the evolutionary history that shaped our digestive system and our dietary habits? But when it comes to our psyche and social life, the situation is simply out of control, hopelessly detached from any scientific foundation. Have you noticed that when it comes to dog behavior, dog trainers readily refer to programmed forms of behavior, but when it comes to human behavior—they don’t? It’s clear that human programs are more hidden, less stable, largely contradictory, and more heavily modified by conscious control—but they exist! Is it interesting to explore them? For some reason, humanities scholars don’t think so. Why? This requires an understanding of evolutionary biology. Mentioning clichés like “survival of the fittest” or “the male strives for dominance” only makes the situation worse. Read the writings of feminists, nationalists, green “environmentalists,” or, for that matter, enthusiastic supporters of any pedagogical, psychological, religious, political, or economic idea. They aren’t interested in what a person is really like: they know what a person should be. All that’s needed is to impose this on everyone who disagrees, and the true nature of man will vanish like dew in the scorching sun! One regime told us that all human selfishness stems from a flawed social order, and that under the right labor relations, people would become collectivists (according to one version, even regarding communal wives and children). In the end, that regime simply devoured its citizens, and as the population dwindled, the selfish, private-property-oriented nature of people emerged time and again. That regime, fortunately, is gone. Another has come. It claimed that a society of equal opportunity would open up such scope for initiative that the country would immediately flourish. Fellow citizens living off their talents would elect worthy leaders, and those leaders would take care of the few who were weak and elderly. I won’t describe what actually happened. But tell me, do you really believe that all the problems we have the pleasure of observing stem from our post-Soviet backwardness? It’s interesting: isn’t there some pattern as to why untrustworthy people end up “at the top”? Why don’t we see a broad discussion of a simple question: what social relations best correspond to people’s innate behavioral patterns? What kind of business organization? What method of education? What type of urban planning? We’ve gotten ourselves into a real bind by using a model of ourselves created by humanities scholars. We need a different approach that allows us to understand why people are the way they are and to find the best ways to act in the current situation. I see three key areas where our behavior is influenced by innate programs. Sexual relationships, hierarchical relationships, and parent-child relationships. Since I have such an immodest column, I’ll allow myself a self-quote (from an unpublished article posted on my website): "For me, the most symbolic expression of our biological nature is not a greedy miser, not a boss puffed up with arrogance, nor even a seducer flitting from woman to woman. It is best expressed by a baby, enthusiastically adopting the behaviors and modes of communication of adults, and by its parents, who find joy in self-restraint for the sake of the child." Do not think that I am suggesting we surrender to the mercy of our innate programs. We can identify three types of reactions to them: ignoring, capitulation, and modification. Ignoring is fraught with neuroses and inexplicable failures. Surrendering to programs that were developed at a fundamentally different stage of evolution will lead to conflict with modern realities. The optimal solution is to take these programs into account, accept them, and consciously modify our actions in a way that leads to happiness and success. There are quite a few authors on the topic I’ve outlined who are worth reading (Desmond Morris, Victor Dolnik, Anatoly Protopopov, Alexander Markov). I’ll try to encourage readers to think about these issues, at least in this column. No, no, it won’t be just about that. But I would like, while discussing everything else, not to lose sight of the natural scientific, evolutionary-biological approach. Still, I think this will turn out to be the main focus. I’ll try to stay on track. Whether I succeed or not—we’ll see. “You cannot step into the same river twice, for the water is always flowing.” And is it only rivers that flow without stopping?