What then is the law of human progress, the law following which civilization moves forward? [-349-]

This law must be of such a kind that, based on it, it is possible to explain simply and definitely, and not through vague generalizations and superficial analogies, the fact that there are now such significant differences in social development, although humanity probably began its journey everywhere in the same time, and having the same abilities everywhere; so that an account can be given of stopped civilizations and of civilizations that have declined and died; in general phenomena relating to the emergence of civilization and to that petrifying and deadening force that the progress of civilization has developed everywhere until now; so that an account can be given of the backward movement as well as the forward movement; in the differences of a general nature between Asian and European civilizations, in the difference between classical and modern civilization? in the varying speed with which progress occurs, in those explosions, shocks and stops of progress that are as noticeable as less important phenomena. - Thus, this law should clarify the essential conditions of progress and make it possible to distinguish which social orders accelerate progress and which ones slow it down.

It is not difficult to discover such a law. We will only look and we will notice it. I have no claim to express it with scientific precision, but I will try to clarify it somewhat.

The incentives for progress are desires inherent in human nature: the desire to satisfy the needs of the animal nature, the needs of the mental nature and the needs of feeling; the desire to exist, to know and to do, desires that have no limit and which can never be satisfied, since they always grow as they are satisfied.

A person’s intellect is the projectile through which he moves forward and through which his every success is ensured and becomes a stronghold for achieving new successes. And although a person cannot by his own will add one cubit to his height, nevertheless he can, by his will, expand his knowledge of the universe and his power over it and, as far as we can judge, expand it to infinity. The transience of human life allows the individual to travel only a short distance, and what each generation can do is limited to very little; however, by passing on their acquisitions from generation to generation, people can rise higher and higher, just as coral polyps rise from the bottom of the sea, in which one generation also continues the work of the next.

Mental strength, therefore, is the engine of progress, and people strive for improvement to the extent that their mental strength is spent on forward movement - i.e. the extent to which it is devoted to the expansion of knowledge, to the improvement of methods of production and to the improvement of social conditions. [-350-]

But mental power is a constant quantity; that is, there is a limit to the work a man can do with his spirit, just as there is a limit to the work he can do with his body; and therefore the amount of mental power that can be expended on a progressive movement will always be only some part of the total mental power remaining from what will be expended from it on non-progressive applications.

The non-progressive uses which consume mental power may be divided into two classes. To the first we include the maintenance of existence, the preservation of the social state and the successes already achieved; to the second, war and preparation for war and cases of spending mental strength in pursuit of satisfying desires at the expense of others and resisting such encroachment.

Let's compare society to a boat: its movement forward does not depend at all on the work of its crew, but only on the work that goes into getting it into motion. And this work will be reduced by any expenditure of force on bailing out water, on crew quarrels among themselves, and on rowing in different directions.

Since all the powers of man, when he lives separately, are devoted to the maintenance of existence, and mental power becomes free for higher use only when people are united in a society that makes possible the division of labor and all the savings inherent in the joint activity of a large number of persons, it became Perhaps association is the first essential condition for progress. Whenever people unite in a peaceful association, their improvement becomes possible, and the more extensive and closer the association, the greater the likelihood of such improvement. And since the ruinous expenditure of mental power on conflicts between people increases or decreases to the extent that the moral law that gives everyone equal rights is ignored or recognized, then equality (or justice) turns out to be the second essential condition of progress.

And thus association in equality is the law of progress. Association frees mental strength to be spent on improvements, and equality (or justice, or freedom - these words in our case mean the same thing, recognition of the moral law) prevents the dissipation of this force into fruitless struggle.

And so, here is the law of progress, which explains all the differences in civilization, all its successes, all stops in progress and regression. People strive for progress whenever they enter into closer communication with each other and, through joint activity, increase the mental power that can be devoted to improvement; but as soon as a conflict arises between them, or as soon as an association begins to develop an inequality of rights or positions, [-351-] this desire for progress begins to diminish, stop, and is finally replaced by a directly opposite desire.

Given the presence of the same innate ability, social development will proceed faster or slower, stop or go backward, obviously depending on the resistance that it encounters. And various kinds of obstacles to improvement in general can be divided, in relation to society itself, into two classes, external and internal - the former act with greater force at the earlier stages of civilization, the latter acquire more significance during its later development.

Man by nature is a social animal. It does not need to be caught and tamed in order to force it to live with its fellows. The extreme helplessness with which he enters the world, and the long period required for the development of his powers, necessitate the family union, which, as we can observe, embraces larger groups and has greater strength among ruder than among more cultured peoples. The first societies are families that grow into tribes, still recognizing consanguinity and preserving the memory of a common origin even when they become great nations.

Suppose that beings of this kind are placed on a planet as different in its surface and climate as ours, and it will become obvious to you that even with equal abilities and the same starting point, their social development will proceed very differently. They will encounter the first restrictions or obstacles to association in the conditions of the surrounding nature, and since these conditions vary very much, depending on the area, corresponding differences will be found in social progress. The growth of population, and the nearness with which men can stick together as population increases, in that rude state of knowledge in which the means of subsistence are chiefly the voluntary gifts of nature, depend in a very wide measure on climate, soil, and physical structure. Where much animal food and warm clothing are required, where the earth has a poor and stingy appearance, where the luxurious life of the tropical forests mocks the feeble efforts of the wild man to dominate it, where mountains, deserts or seas separate and seclude men, there is association and capacity for improvement, which it creates can only develop very weakly at first. Whereas on the fertile plains of warm countries, where food requires less strength and less land, people can stick together more closely, and the mental power that can be devoted from the very beginning to improvement is much greater. That is why civilization naturally first arises in the vast valleys and plateaus, where its earliest monuments are found.

But these differences in natural conditions influence progress, not only [-352-] directly causing differences in social development, but also influencing it, and at the same time causing in man himself some obstacle, or rather some active resistance to improvement. When families or tribes are separated from each other, the social feeling between them ceases to operate, and differences arise in language, in customs, in traditions, in religion, in short, in all that social fabric that every society, no matter what it may be, constantly weaves big or small. And along with these differences, prejudices grow, enmity flares up, contact easily produces discord, a challenge is answered with a challenge, and resentment arouses revenge *59. And thus, between the separated social aggregates, the feeling of Ishmael and the spirit of Cain develops, war becomes a constant and, apparently, natural phenomenon, and the forces of people begin to be spent on attack and defense, on mutual beating, and the destruction of wealth or on military preparations. And how long this hostility lasts is shown by the protective tariffs and standing armies of the modern civilized world; How difficult it is to get rid of the idea that stealing from a foreigner is not theft is shown by the difficulty of achieving international literary property rights. Can we be surprised at the constant enmity of ancient tribes and clans? Can we be surprised that at a time when each society was secluded from others and, being outside the influence of others, developed for itself a separate fabric of social conditions, from which no individual could escape, war was the rule and peace the exception? "And they were the same as us."

And war is the negation of association. And therefore, the division of people into different tribes, increasing the number of wars, thereby delays progress; and in areas where a significant increase in population is possible without significant disunity of the population, civilization already has the advantage that inter-tribal war is excluded, even if society as a whole continues to wage wars outside its borders. Thus, where there are least obstacles to the close association of people from nature [-353-] and resistance to progress from wars, at first at least, is least noticeable, and on the fertile plains, where civilization usually first arises, people can rise to its highest levels, while scattered and divided tribes will still remain in a barbaric state. In the same way, where small, divided societies are in a state of constant war, which does not admit of improvement, the first step towards civilization is the appearance of some conquering tribe or people, which unites these smaller societies into one larger one, and secures among them inner world. And the moment this pacifying association is upset, either as a result of external attacks or as a result of internal strife, progress also ceases, being replaced by a regressive movement.

But it is not conquest alone that promotes the association of men and, by freeing mental power from military applications, advances civilization. It is also facilitated by differences in climate, soil and the contours of the earth's surface; True, at first they have a dividing influence on people, but then they influence in the sense of patronizing exchange. And trade, which is itself some form of association or co-operation, promotes the spread of civilization not only directly, but also indirectly, by arousing interests against war, and dispelling ignorance, that great source of prejudice and enmity.

Also religion. Although the forms it took and the hostility it aroused often divided people and led to wars, nevertheless, at other times religion was also a factor promoting the spread of association. As an example, let us point to the Greeks, whose community of worship often softened wars and provided the basis for alliances, and to our own civilization, which arose thanks to the triumph of Christianity over the barbarians of Europe. If the Christian Church had not existed at the time when the Roman Empire fell into pieces, then Europe, deprived of all associative connections, might have fallen into a state little higher than that in which the North American Indians find themselves, or would have adopted a civilization with an Asiatic imprint from the victorious swords surging hordes, which were united into a powerful force, also by a religion that arose in the deserts of Arabia and united separated tribes, and united from time immemorial in its further spread, into an association on the basis of a common faith, a significant part of humanity.

Turning to what we know from the history of the world, we notice everywhere that civilization arises as soon as people come together in an association, and necessarily disappears as soon as their association disintegrates. Thus the Roman civilization, spreading throughout Europe thanks to the [-354-] conquests that ensured internal peace, was overthrown by the raids of the northern peoples, who again broke society into incoherent parts; and the progress of modern civilization began as soon as the feudal system again began to gather people into larger groups, and the spiritual supremacy of Rome began to unite these groups in the same way as the Roman legions previously united them. As feudal unions grew into national autonomies, and Christianity exercised a softening influence on morals, disseminated knowledge which during troubled times it had concealed, prepared a peaceful union by its comprehensive organization, and taught associations in its religious orders, greater progress became possible, the faster the closer the communication and cooperation of people became.

But we could never understand the course of civilization and the various phenomena which its history presents, without considering what I would like to call the internal resistances or oppositions to progress arising in the midst of a progressing society, which alone can explain why civilization, having properly begun , can either come to a stop by itself, or die from the barbarians.

Mental power, that engine of social progress, is liberated by the association of men, or rather by their integration. Society with this integration becomes more complex; its individuals are more dependent on each other. The occupations and assignments of its members are specialized. Instead of nomadic, the population becomes sedentary. Instead of the previous order, when each person had to personally satisfy all his desires, different trades and crafts are distinguished, and one person becomes skilled in one thing, another in another. Knowledge, the circle of which constantly strives to expand beyond what one person can grasp, is also broken down into separate parts that are studied and developed by different individuals. The exercise of religious rites also tends to pass into the hands of people who specially devote themselves to this matter, and the preservation of order, the administration of justice, the appointment of public duties and the execution of sentences, the conduct of war, etc. affairs tend to become special functions of organized government. In short, to use the expression of Herbert Spencer, his definition of the evolution of the development of society is, in relation to its constituent individuals, a transition from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity. The lower the level of social development, the more society resembles those lower animals, without organs and members, from which a part can be cut off and it will still live. The higher the social development, the more society resembles those higher organisms whose functions and abilities are already specialized, and [-355-] each member of which is vitally dependent on other members.

And this process of integration, specialization of functions and abilities, among human society, has always been accompanied, due to one of the deepest laws of human nature, apparently, by a constant tendency towards inequality. I do not want to say that inequality is a necessary consequence of social growth, but I only want to say that social growth always tends towards it, since it is not accompanied by changes in social institutions that ensure equality under the new conditions created by the growth of society. Society, so to speak, tends to grow out of the fabric of laws, customs and political institutions that it develops for itself - it becomes too narrow for it. A person, when he improves, goes through a kind of labyrinth, where he will certainly lose his way if he goes straight, and where only reason and justice can keep him on the true path all the time.

And thus, although the integration that accompanies the growth of society tends in itself to liberate mental power for the work of improvement, nevertheless, with the increase of population and with the complication of social organization, the opposite tendency always arises, the opposite tendency, a state of inequality sets in, which leads to a waste of mental strength and, with further development, to a halt in progress.

To give the most general expression to the law according to which the force that stops progress thus grows along with progress would mean, it seems to me, to come close to solving a question more complex than the question of the origin of the material world, to solving the question of the origin of evil. I will be content only with outlining the way in which, during the development of society, aspirations arise that stop its development.

There are two features inherent in human nature that it will be useful for our purposes to first recall. Firstly, the force of habit - the desire to continue everything as before; secondly, the possibility of mental and moral degeneration. Due to the first feature, with the development of society, habits, customs, laws and methods continue long after they have already lost their original usefulness; due to the second, the growth of social institutions and concepts becomes possible, from which the normal sense of man instinctively turns away.

Further, the growth and development of society not only makes everyone more and more dependent on everyone else, and not only reduces the power of the individual even over his own conditions in comparison with the power of society, but also calls into action a certain collective force, distinct from the sum of the individual forces. The phenomenon is similar, [-356-] and perhaps even identical to what can be observed everywhere in nature. When, for example, animal organisms become complex, then, in addition to the life and strength of the parts, the life and strength of the composite whole arises; beyond the ability for involuntary movements, the ability for voluntary movements. The actions and motives of a group of people are often noticeably different from the actions and motives which, under the same circumstances, would be aroused in individuals. The fighting qualities of a regiment can differ greatly from the fighting qualities of the soldiers composing it. And there is no need to look far for examples. In our study of the nature and origin of rent, we dealt with precisely the phenomena in question. With a sparse population, land has no value; but as soon as people come closer together, the value of the land arises and grows, something sharply different from the values ​​​​produced by individual labor; the value that flows from the association, which grows when the association grows, and is lost when the association is wasted. The same thing happens with this collective power in those cases when it has to be talked about differently than in terms of wealth.

And so, with the growth of society, the first of these characteristics, the disposition to continue the previous social orders, tends to concentrate this collective force, as it arises, in the hands of only a certain part of society; and the resulting unevenness in the distribution of wealth and power, which appears with the growth of society, fatally leads to greater and greater inequality, for encroachments increase in proportion to their success, and the idea of ​​justice loses its clarity amid the usual tolerance of injustice.

In this way, the patriarchal organization of society can easily grow into an Asian despotism, in which the ruler will be, as it were, a god on earth, and the masses of the people simply slaves to his whim. It is natural that the father should be the ruling head of the family, and that upon his death the eldest son should inherit his leadership, as the oldest and most experienced member of the small society. But to continue such an order even when the family has already become a whole clan or tribe means concentrating power in a separate line, and the power, thus concentrated, will need to increase as the composition of the family or clan increases and the power of society increases. The head of the family will turn into a hereditary ruler who will begin to look at himself and to whom others will begin to look as a being with higher rights. And the more the collective strength of society increases, in comparison with the strength of the individual, the more the power of the ruler to reward and punish will increase, and with it the incentives to flatter him or fear him will grow, and finally, if this process is not disrupted, things will come to an end. to the point that the whole nation will crawl at the foot of the ruler and whole [-357-] thousands of people will work for tens of years to build a tomb for a mortal being like them.

In the same way, the leader of a small crowd of savages is only one of their number, whom they follow as the bravest and most prudent. But when large groups begin to act together, then the choice becomes difficult, blind obedience becomes necessary and possible, and the very needs of war, since it is waged on a large scale, create absolute power. The same can be seen in the specialization of social functions. The gain in productive forces is obvious when social growth goes so far that the regular army can specialize and each producer no longer breaks away from his work for military purposes; nevertheless, this specialization inevitably leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the military class or military commanders. The protection of public order, the administration of justice, the organization and management of communications and, as has been noted, religious rites, all tend in a similar way to pass into the hands of separate classes, inclined to increase their functions and expand their power.

But the great cause of inequality everywhere is that natural monopoly which is created by the possession of land. The primary idea of ​​people always seems to be that land is common property, but those crude means by which the common right to it is first secured, such as annual redistribution or joint cultivation, are compatible only with a low level of development. And then the concept of property, which naturally arises in relation to the things produced by men, is easily transferred to the land, and the institution, which, with a sparse population, only provides for the person who improves and cultivates the land, a due reward for his labor, in the end, when the population becomes denser and when rent arises, it begins to deprive the producer of his earnings. Not only this, even the appropriation of rent in favor of society, the only way by which, with a more or less high civilization, the character of common property in land can easily be strengthened, even this appropriation becomes narrower when political and religious power passes into the hands of one class, by the act of transferring land into the ownership of this class, the rest of society being reduced simply to a class of tenants. And wars and conquests, tending to concentrate political power and to establish slavery, naturally lead to the seizure of land, as soon as the land, due to the growth of society, receives value. The ruling class, which concentrates power in its hands, soon also concentrates the ownership of land in its hands. He gets vast tracts of conquered land, which the original owners cultivate as tenants [-358-] or slaves, and he also gets state property or public lands, which, in the natural course of social growth, are still preserved for some time in each country (and which under the original system, agricultural crops remain under pastures and forests), and how easily they are taken over, there have been many examples of this in recent times. And once inequality has been established, land ownership will tend to become more and more concentrated as the development of society moves forward.

I am only trying to establish the general fact that with the development of society inequality always arises, without touching the sequence of phenomena itself, which will necessarily vary according to differences in conditions. Nevertheless, this main fact makes all the phenomena of stagnation and regression understandable. The inequality in the distribution of power and wealth that arises when people are integrated into society tends to restrain and finally completely balances the force that creates improvements and moves society forward. On the one hand, the mass of the people are forced to expend their mental strength solely on maintaining existence. On the other hand, mental power is spent on maintaining and strengthening the system of inequality, on vanity, luxury and war. A society divided between the very rich and the very poor can “build like giants and finish like jewelers”; but these will be monuments to arrogant pride and senseless vanity, or to a religion that has deviated from its duty to elevate man. Inventions, to a certain extent, may continue for some time; but these will be inventions related to the refinements of luxury, and not those inventions that facilitate labor and increase strength. In the depths of temples or in the offices of court doctors, knowledge can still find a home; but it will be kept secret, as something secret, and if it dares to appear in the world in order to elevate the people's thought or ennoble the people's life, it will be persecuted as something dangerous. For inequality not only tends to reduce the mental power devoted to improvement, but also tends to make people hostile to improvement. How strongly those classes of society are disposed to adhere to the old order, which are kept in ignorance, being forced to work with all their might, for the sake of their daily subsistence alone, is too well known to need to be enlarged upon; on the other hand, the conservatism of those classes for whom the existing social system provides special benefits is no less well known. This tendency to resist innovation, even in cases where it is an improvement, is noticed in every special organization, among the clergy, lawyers, doctors, scientists and merchants, and is expressed the more strongly the more closed the organization itself is. A closed corporation always has an instinctive [-359-] aversion to innovations and to innovators; this aversion is nothing more than an expression of an instinctive fear that these changes might lead to the destruction of the wall that fences off this corporation from the mass of mere mortals, and in this way they would not deprive it of its meaning and power; and she is always inclined to carefully guard her exceptional knowledge or art.

This is how petrification takes the place of progress. The development of inequality necessarily leads to a halt in improvements, and continuing further, or causing only impotent opposition, begins to absorb even the mental strength necessary for current affairs and causes regression.

These principles make the history of civilization understandable.

In localities where the climate, the soil, and the structure of the surface were least conducive to the disunity of a growing population, and where, therefore, civilization first arose, internal resistances to progress must naturally develop in a more regular and perfect manner than in those where smaller societies, separately developed in different ways okay, they were then moved into a closer association. This circumstance, it seems to me, explains the general characteristic features that distinguish early civilizations from later European ones. Homogeneous societies, developing from the very beginning apart from any clash of differing customs, laws, religions, etc., must reveal much greater uniformity in everything. Concentrating and conservative forces are all pushing in one direction, so to speak. Rival bosses do not hold each other back, and differences in faith do not check the growing influence of the clergy. Political and religious power, wealth and knowledge thus tend to concentrate in the same centers. The same causes that create hereditary rulers or hereditary priests tend to create a hereditary artisan or husbandman and divide society into castes. The force which association frees for progress is thus dissipated, and little by little barriers to further progress begin to be erected. The excess of the people's strength is spent on the construction of temples, palaces and pyramids; to serve pride and to satisfy the luxury of rulers; and if among the classes of society that have leisure, any disposition towards improvement arises, it is immediately suppressed due to fear of innovation. A society developing in this way must finally settle on conservatism, which does not allow further progress.

How long such a state of complete petrification can last, once it has occurred, apparently depends on external causes, for the iron shackles of the emerging social environment suppress both disintegrating forces and any improvement. Such a society can be extremely easily conquered, since the masses of the people [-360-] are accustomed only to passive obedience while living in hopeless labor. If the conquerors simply take the place of the ruling class, like the Hyxes in Egypt or the Tatars in China, then everything will continue as before. If they begin to devastate and destroy, then only ruins will remain of the great palaces and temples, the population will become rare, and knowledge and arts will be lost.

European civilization has a different character compared to civilizations of the Egyptian type, because it arose not through the association of a homogeneous population, developing from the very beginning, or at least over a long period of time under the same conditions, but through the association of peoples who disunity acquired various social characteristics and among which, due to their insignificant numbers, a complete concentration of power and wealth could not be established for a long time. On the Greek Peninsula, due to the structure of the surface, the population from the very beginning should have formed many small countries. And as soon as the small republics and nominal kingdoms stopped wasting their strength on war and began to develop peaceful trade relations, the light of civilization began to shine among them. However, in Greece the principle of association was never strong enough to prevent civil wars, and when they were put an end to conquest, the tendency towards inequality, which the Greek sages and statesmen fought by various means, did its work, and Greek valor, art and literature have become a thing of the past. Also in the rise and growth, in the decline and final fall of Roman civilization, one can trace the action of these two principles of association and equality, the combination of which leads to progress.

Arising from an association of independent peasants and free citizens of Italy, and receiving new strength from conquests that united hostile peoples under a common power, Roman dominion gave peace to mankind. But the tendency towards inequality, retarding true progress from the very beginning, increased in Rome along with the spread of its civilization. Roman civilization could not petrify, as homogeneous civilizations petrified, where the strong shackles of custom and superstition, keeping the people in subjection, at the same time somewhat protected them from oppression and, in any case, preserved peace between the rulers and the ruled; it rotted, gradually fell into decay and finally fell. Rome was essentially dead long before the Goths or Vandals broke through the chain of its legions, was dead even while its borders were still expanding. Large estates ruined Italy. Inequality sapped the strength and destroyed the valor of the Roman world. Management turned into despotism, which even secret murders could not moderate; patriotism has degenerated into servility; the dirtiest vices have entered, so to speak, into domestic [-361-] everyday life; literature took up childish things; they abandoned science; fertile areas, not knowing the devastation of war, began to turn into desert; inequality everywhere produced decay, political, mental, moral and material. The barbarism that destroyed Rome came not from without, but from within. It was a necessary consequence of a system that replaced the independent peasants of Italy with slaves and columns, and divided the provinces into estates of senatorial families.

Our new civilization owes its superiority to the development of equality together with the expansion of association. And this development was facilitated by two great causes: the disintegration of concentrated power into many small centers caused by the influx of northern peoples, and the influence of Christianity. Without the former, petrification and slow decline would have set in, as happened in the Eastern Empire, where church and state were closely linked and where the loss of external power did not lead to an alleviation of internal tyranny. And without the second, a state of barbarism would occur that would preclude the beginning of association or improvement. Petty leaders and powerful gentlemen, who everywhere seized supreme power during its disintegration into their own hands, began to curb each other. And so the Italian cities regained their ancient freedom, free cities were founded, rural communities began to strengthen, and serfs began to acquire rights to the land they cultivated. The ferment of Teutonic ideas of equality had its effect even among a disordered and divided society. But at the same time, although the whole society was divided into countless separate parts, nevertheless, among them the idea of ​​​​a closer association was still alive - it was preserved in the memories of the universal empire, it was supported in the desire to establish a universal church.

Although Christianity, amid a decaying civilization, was distorted and lost its purity, although pagan gods penetrated into its pantheon, pagan rites into its worship, and pagan concepts into its beliefs, nevertheless its basic idea of ​​​​the equality of people was never completely lost. By the way, two circumstances were of particular importance for the emerging civilization: the establishment of the papacy and the celibacy of the clergy. The first kept spiritual power from being concentrated in the same hands as secular power; and the second prevented the establishment of a priestly caste at a time when all power strove for a hereditary form.

In his efforts to abolish slavery, in his truces of God; in their monastic orders; in their councils, which united nations, and in their edicts, sent out without any regard to political boundaries; in those commoners to whom she presented a symbol that forced the proudest to kneel, and in the bishops who, through her mere consecration, became equal with the most noble; in his "slave of slaves," as the official title of the pope said, who claimed in [-362-] the power of the ring of a common fisherman, the right to be an arbitrator between nations, and whose stirrup was supported by kings; Because of all this, the church, in spite of everything, was still a conductor of association, a defender of the natural equality of people; and it was the church that at first supported those aspirations, which then, when its first work of association and liberation was almost completed, - when the alliance it had established was strengthened, and the knowledge it had preserved had spread, - broke the fetters it had imposed on the human spirit , and in most of Europe its organization was overthrown. The emergence and growth of European civilization is a subject too vast and complex to be presented in a few words in its proper form and respect, nevertheless, in this case, both in the main and in the particulars, the truth is confirmed that progress continues only when society strives for closer association and fuller equality. Civilization is cooperation. Unity and freedom are its factors. The great development of the principle of association, expressed not only in the formation of vast and densely populated states, but also in the development of trade and various kinds of exchange transactions, which are the connecting element within each country and, as it were, unite countries, even separated from each other by enormous distances; development of international and public law; the development of property and personal security, personal freedom and democratic government - in short, progress towards the recognition of equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - this is what makes our new civilization so great and lofty in comparison with previous civilizations. And it was these successes that liberated the mental power that opened the veil of ignorance, which hid from human knowledge all but a small part of the earth, which measured the orbits of the revolving celestial bodies and allowed us to see the moving and beating life in a drop of water, which opened the way to the mysteries of nature and unraveled the mysteries of times long past, which placed at our disposal physical forces next to which human effort is insignificant, and which increased the productivity of labor with many great inventions.

In the spirit of the fatalism with which, as I pointed out, current literature is permeated, it is customary to even talk about war and slavery as means of human progress. But war, the enemy of association, can only promote progress when it prevents further wars or destroys antisocial barriers, which in themselves are, as it were, a passive war.

As for slavery, I resolutely refuse to understand how it could ever contribute to the establishment of freedom, and freedom, synonymous with equality, even from the rudest state in which man can be imagined, is everywhere [-363-] engine and a necessary condition for progress. Auguste Comte's idea that the institution of slavery abolished cannibalism is as fantastic as Charles Lamb's amusing story of how mankind learned the taste of roast suckling pig. This idea recognizes as an original impulse that inclination that has never manifested itself in a person, except as a result of the most unnatural conditions, - as a result of the most terrible need or the grossest superstitions *60, and admits that to a person who, even in his lowest state, is the highest Of all animals, there are inherent desires that even more or less noble animals do not exhibit. The idea that slavery gave rise to civilization by providing slave owners with leisure for improvement is no more valid.

Slavery never did, and never could, promote improvement. Whether society consists of one master and one slave, or of a thousand masters and a million slaves, slavery will inevitably cause a waste of human power; for the work of a slave is less productive, compared with the work of a free person, and the master’s strength is spent only on maintaining power over slaves and supervising them, diverting from the direction in which serious improvements are possible. Everywhere and at all times, slavery, like any other denial of the natural equality of people, suppressed progress and served as an obstacle to it. As soon as it assumed more or less significant proportions anywhere, the improvement immediately stopped. And undoubtedly, such a universal spread of slavery in the classical world was the reason for the fact that its mental activity, which had so elevated literature and ennobled art, did not come across any of those great discoveries and inventions that distinguish the new civilization. No slaveholding people were an inventive people. In a slave state the upper classes may reach the heights of luxury and refinement; but they will never reach inventions. Everything that humiliates the working person and robs him of the fruits of his labors also destroys the spirit of invention, not allowing the use of even discoveries and inventions already made. Only freedom has the wonderful power to command the spirits who guard the treasures of the earth and the invisible forces of heaven.

And can the law of human progress be anything other than a moral law? If public institutions are based on justice, if they recognize the equality of rights [-364-] are based on justice, if they recognize the equality of rights between all people and provide for each citizen complete freedom, limited only by the same freedom of other citizens, then civilization must progress . And if this is not the case, then the developing civilization will begin to decline and go into regression. Political economy and social science cannot teach anything that is not contained in those simple truths that were taught to the poor fishermen and Jewish peasants by the Crucified One eighteen centuries ago - in those truths that can be seen under a layer of selfish perversions and superstitious distortions in the basis of every religion that has ever sought to satisfy the highest needs of the human spirit.

*59 How easy it is for ignorance to turn into contempt and disgust; how natural it is for us to consider any difference in morals, customs, religion, etc., as evidence of a lower degree of development of people different from us - can be observed in any civilized country by any person who, to a certain extent, has freed himself from prejudices and revolves in various classes of society. In religion, for example, in all sects one can notice the spirit that is expressed in the famous hymn: “It is better to be a Baptist in order to have a bright face, than to be a Methodist and forever lose grace.” - “True faith is my faith, and other faiths are “any other faith,” as one English bishop put it, while everyone is generally inclined to consider any deviation from orthodoxy and any other faith other than the dominant one as paganism and atheism. A similar tendency appears in relation to all other differences.

*60 The Sandwich Islanders honored their good leaders by eating their bodies. They would not even touch their bad and tyrannical bosses. New Zealanders imagined that by eating their enemies they gained their strength and courage. And apparently, it was precisely this thought that caused the custom of eating prisoners of war to arise everywhere.

PROGRESS,

HUMAN RIGHTS

Nobel lecture

Dear members of the Nobel Committee!

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

Peace, progress, human rights - these three goals are inextricably linked; it is impossible to achieve any one of them while neglecting the others. This is the main idea that I want to convey in this lecture.

I am deeply grateful for being awarded this high, exciting honor - the Nobel Peace Prize - and for the opportunity to speak to you today. I was particularly pleased by the Committee's language, which emphasized the protection of human rights as the only sound basis for genuine and lasting international cooperation. This idea seems very important to me. I am convinced that international trust, mutual understanding, disarmament and international security are unthinkable without open society, freedom of information, freedom of opinion, transparency, freedom of travel and choice of country of residence. I am also convinced that freedom of opinion, along with other civil liberties, is the basis of scientific and technological progress and a guarantee against the use of its achievements to the detriment of humanity, thereby the basis of economic and social progress, and is also a political guarantee of the possibility of effective protection of social rights. Thus, I defend the thesis about the primary, determining significance of civil and political rights in shaping the destinies of mankind. This point of view differs significantly from widespread Marxist, as well as technocratic concepts, according to which material factors, social and economic rights are of decisive importance. (The above does not mean, of course, that I in any way deny the importance of the material conditions of people’s lives.)

I am going to reflect all these theses in the lecture and particularly focus on some specific problems of human rights violations, the solution of which seems to me necessary and urgent.

In accordance with this plan, the title of the lecture was chosen: “Peace, progress, human rights.” This, of course, is a conscious parallel to the title of my 1968 article, “Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom,” which is in many ways close in its focus and in the warnings it contains.

There are many signs that, starting from the second half of the 20th century, humanity entered a particularly responsible, critical period in its history.

Thermonuclear missile weapons have been created that are capable, in principle, of destroying all of humanity - this is the greatest danger of our time. Thanks to economic, industrial and scientific achievements, so-called conventional weapons have also become incomparably more dangerous, not to mention chemical and bacteriological weapons.

Undoubtedly, the success of industrial and technological progress is the main factor in overcoming poverty, hunger and disease; but at the same time they lead to threatening changes in the environment and to the depletion of resources. Humanity is thus faced with a formidable environmental danger.

Rapid changes in traditional forms of life have led to an uncontrollable population explosion, especially powerful in developing countries of the third world. Population growth is creating unusually difficult economic, social and psychological problems now and inevitably threatens much greater dangers in the future. In many countries, especially in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, food shortage continues to be a constant factor in the lives of hundreds of millions of people, doomed from the moment of birth to a miserable, half-starved existence. At the same time, forecasts for the future, despite the undoubted successes of the “green revolution,” are alarming, and, in the opinion of many experts, tragic.

But even in developed countries, people face very serious problems. Among them are the severe consequences of excessive urbanization, the loss of social and psychological stability of society, the continuous exhausting race of fashion and overproduction, the frantic, insane pace of life and its changes, the increase in the number of nervous and mental illnesses, the separation of an increasing number of people from nature and normal, traditional human life. life, the destruction of family and simple human joys, the decline of the moral and ethical foundations of society and a weakening sense of purpose and meaningfulness in life. Against this background, numerous ugly phenomena arise - an increase in crime, alcoholism, drug addiction, terrorism, etc. The impending depletion of the Earth's resources, the threat of overpopulation, many times aggravated by international political and social problems, are beginning to put more and more pressure on life also in developed countries, depriving (or threatening to deprive) many people of the abundance, convenience and comfort that have already become familiar.

However, the most significant, determining role in the problems of the modern world is played by the global political polarization of humanity, which has divided it into the so-called first world (let’s call it “Western”), the second (socialist), and the third (developing countries). The two largest socialist states have actually become warring totalitarian empires with the exorbitant power of a single party and state over all aspects of the lives of their citizens and with enormous expansionist potential, seeking to subjugate vast areas of the globe to their influence. At the same time, one of these states - the PRC - is still at a relatively low level of economic development, and the other - the USSR - using unique natural resources, having gone through decades of unheard-of disasters and overexertion of all the forces of the people, has now reached enormous military power and a relatively high (albeit one-sided) economic development. But even in the USSR, the standard of living of the population is low, and the level of civil liberties is even lower than in small socialist countries. Very complex global problems are also associated with the “third world”, with its relative economic passivity, combined with growing international political activity.

This polarization greatly intensifies the already very serious dangers looming over the world - the dangers of thermonuclear destruction, famine, environmental poisoning, resource depletion, overpopulation, dehumanization. Discussing this whole complex of urgent problems and contradictions, it should first of all be said that, in my opinion, any attempts to slow down the pace of scientific and technological progress, reverse urbanization, calls for isolationism, patriarchy, and revival based on an appeal to the healthy national traditions of past centuries - unrealistic. Progress is inevitable; its cessation would mean the death of civilization.

Not so long ago, people did not know mineral fertilizers, mechanical tillage, pesticides, or intensive farming methods. There are voices calling for a return to more traditional and perhaps safer forms of farming. But is it possible to do this in a world where hundreds of millions of people still suffer from hunger? Undoubtedly, on the contrary, further intensification and its spread to the whole world, to all developing countries, are necessary. The ever-increasing application of medical advances and the expansion of research in all its branches, including in such fields as bacteriology and virology, neurophysiology, human genetics and gene surgery, cannot be abandoned, despite the potential dangers of abuse and undesirable social consequences of some of this research . The same applies to research in the field of creating systems for simulating intelligence, to research in the field of managing mass behavior of people, to the creation of unified global communication systems, systems for collecting and storing information, etc. It is quite obvious that in the hands of irresponsible bureaucrats operating under cover secrecy of institutions - all these studies can turn out to be unusually dangerous, but at the same time they can become extremely important and necessary for humanity if they are carried out under the control of openness, discussion, and scientific social analysis. It is impossible to abandon the ever-increasing use of artificial materials, synthetic food, and the modernization of all aspects of people’s lives. Increasing automation and consolidation of industrial production cannot be abandoned, despite the social problems associated with it.

It is impossible to abandon the construction of ever more powerful thermal and nuclear power plants, and research in the field of controlled thermonuclear reactions, since energy is one of the foundations of civilization. Let me recall in this regard that 25 years ago I, together with my teacher, Nobel Prize laureate in physics Igor Evgenievich Tamm, had the opportunity to stand at the beginning of research into controlled thermonuclear reactions in our country. Now these works have acquired enormous scope; a variety of directions are being explored, from classical magnetic thermal insulation schemes to methods using lasers.

It is impossible to refuse the expansion of work on the exploration of near-Earth space and deep space exploration, including attempts to receive signals from extraterrestrial civilizations - the chances of success of such attempts are probably small, but the consequences of success can be enormous.

I have named only a few examples; they can be multiplied. In reality, all the main aspects of progress are closely interconnected, not one of them can be canceled without risking the destruction of the entire edifice of civilization - progress is indivisible. But intellectual and spiritual factors play a special role in the mechanism of progress. Underestimation of these factors, especially widespread in socialist countries, perhaps under the influence of vulgar ideological dogmas of official philosophy, can lead to a distortion of the paths of progress or even to its cessation, to stagnation. Progress is possible and safe only under the control of Reason. The most important problem of environmental protection is one of the examples where the role of publicity, openness of society, and freedom of belief is especially clear. Only the partial liberalization that occurred in our country after the death of Stalin made possible the memorable public discussions of the first half of the sixties on this problem, but its effective solution requires further strengthening of public and international control. Military applications of science, disarmament and disarmament control are another equally critical area where international trust depends on transparency and openness of society. The mentioned example of managing mass behavior of people, despite its external exoticism, is also quite relevant now.

Freedom of belief, the presence of an enlightened public opinion, the pluralistic nature of the education system, freedom of the press and other media - all this is sorely lacking in socialist countries due to their inherent economic, political and ideological monism. Meanwhile, these conditions are vital not only to avoid abuse of progress, either freely or through ignorance, but also to maintain it. It is especially important that only in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom is an effective system of education and creative continuity of generations possible. On the contrary, intellectual lack of freedom, the power of a dull bureaucracy, conformism, first destroying the humanitarian fields of knowledge, literature and art, then inevitably lead to a general intellectual decline, bureaucratization and formalization of the entire education system, to the decline of scientific research, the disappearance of the atmosphere of creative search, to stagnation and decay .

Before moving on to a discussion of disarmament problems, I would like to take the opportunity to once again recall some of my general proposals. This is, first of all, the idea of ​​creating, under the auspices of the UN, an International Consultative Committee on Disarmament, Human Rights and Environmental Protection. The Committee, in my opinion, should be given the right to obtain binding responses from all governments to its inquiries and recommendations. Such a committee would be an important working body for ensuring global discussions and publicity on the most important problems on which the future of humanity depends. I look forward to support and discussion of this idea.

I also want to emphasize that I consider it especially important to use UN troops more widely to stop international and interethnic armed conflicts. I highly appreciate the possible and necessary role of the UN, considering it one of humanity's main hopes for a better future. Recent years have been difficult and critical for this organization. I wrote about this in the book “About the Country and the World”; Already after its publication, a regrettable event was the adoption by the General Assembly (and almost without discussion on the merits) of a resolution declaring Zionism a form of racism and racial discrimination. All impartial people know that Zionism is the ideology of the national revival of the Jewish people after two thousand years of dispersion and that this ideology is not directed against other peoples. The adoption of such a resolution, in my opinion, dealt a blow to the prestige of the UN. Despite such facts, often generated by the lack of a sense of responsibility to humanity among the leaders of some younger members of the UN, I still believe that sooner or later the UN will be able to play a worthy role in the life of mankind, in accordance with the purposes of the Charter.

I turn to one of the central problems of our time - disarmament. I outlined my position in detail in the book “About the Country and the World.” It is necessary to strengthen international confidence and perfect local control by international inspection teams. All this is impossible without expanding detente to the area of ​​ideology, without increasing the openness of society. In the same book, I emphasized the need for international agreements to limit the supply of weapons to other states, the cessation of new development of weapons systems under special agreements, an agreement to prohibit secret work, and the elimination of factors of strategic instability, in particular the ban on multiple warheads.

How do I imagine an ideal global disarmament agreement in technical terms?

I think that such an agreement should be preceded by an official (not necessarily immediately open) statement on the volume of all types of military potential (from stockpiles of thermonuclear charges to forecasts of military personnel), indicating approximate conditional breakdown in areas of potential confrontation. The agreement should provide, as a first stage, for the elimination of the advantages of one side over the other separately for each strategic area and for each type of military potential (of course, this is only a scheme from which some deviations are inevitable). Thus, it will be excluded, firstly, that an agreement in one strategic area (say, in Europe) will be used to strengthen military positions in another area (say, on the Soviet-Chinese border), and, secondly, possible injustices will be excluded due to the difficulty of quantitatively comparing the significance of different types of potential (for example, it is difficult to say how many anti-aircraft missile defense installations one cruiser is equivalent to, etc.). The next stage of arms reduction should be a proportional reduction simultaneously for all countries and all strategic areas. Such a formula for a “balanced” two-stage arms reduction will ensure the uninterrupted security of each country, a continuous balance of power in each area of ​​potential confrontation, and at the same time a radical solution to the economic and social problems generated by militarization. For many decades, variations of this approach have been put forward by many experts and government officials, but so far there has been very little success. But I hope that now, when humanity is really threatened with death in the fire of thermonuclear explosions, the minds of people will not allow this outcome. Radical, balanced disarmament is indeed necessary and possible as part of a multilateral and complex process of resolving the world's formidable, urgent problems. That new phase of interstate relations, which is called détente, or détente, and which probably culminates in the meeting in Helsinki, in principle opens up certain possibilities for progress in this direction.

The final act of the meeting in Helsinki particularly attracts our attention in that for the first time it officially reflects the comprehensive approach to solving international security problems that seems to be the only possible one; The act contains profound language on the connection between international security and the protection of human rights, freedom of information and freedom of movement and important obligations of participating countries guaranteeing these rights. It is obvious, of course, that we are not talking about a guaranteed result, but about new opportunities that can only be realized as a result of long-term systematic work, with a unified and consistent position of all participating countries, especially democratic countries.

This applies, in particular, to the problem of human rights, which is the subject of the last part of the lecture. In our country, about which I will now speak mainly, in the months that have passed since the meeting in Helsinki, there has not been any significant improvement in this direction at all; In some issues, even attempts by hardliners to “tighten the screws” are noticeable.

The important problems of international information exchange, freedom to choose the country of residence, travel for study, work, treatment, and simply tourism are still in the same state. To make this statement more concrete, I will now give some examples - not in order of importance and without striving for completeness.

You all know better than I that children from, say, Denmark can get on their bikes and have fun riding to the Adriatic. No one will see them as “young spies.” But Soviet children cannot do this! You yourself can mentally develop this example (and all the following) to many similar situations.

You know that the General Assembly, under pressure from socialist countries, adopted a decision limiting the freedom of television broadcasting from satellites. I think that now, after Helsinki, there is every reason to revise it. For millions of Soviet citizens this is very important and interesting.

In the USSR, the quality of prostheses for disabled people is extremely low. But not a single Soviet disabled person, even having a call from a foreign company, can travel abroad on this call.

You cannot buy non-communist foreign newspapers at Soviet newsstands, and not every issue of communist ones is sold. Even information magazines such as “America” are extremely scarce and are sold in an insignificant number of newsstands, but they sell out instantly and usually with the “load” of slow-selling publications.

Anyone wishing to emigrate from the USSR must have a call from close relatives. For many, this is an insoluble problem, for example, for 300 thousand Germans who want to leave for Germany (besides, the exit quota for Germans is only 5 thousand people per year, that is, departure is planned for 60 years!). Behind this is a huge tragedy. The situation of people who want to unite with relatives in socialist countries is especially tragic - there is no one to stand up for them, and the arbitrariness of the authorities knows no limits.

Freedom of movement, choice of place of work and residence continues to be violated for millions of collective farmers, continues to be violated for hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tatars, who were evicted from Crimea with great cruelty 30 years ago and are still deprived of the right to return to their native land.

The final act of the meeting in Helsinki reaffirmed the principles of freedom of opinion. But a great and persistent struggle is required for these provisions of the act to have more than just a declarative meaning. In the USSR, many thousands of people are persecuted today for their beliefs in court and extrajudicially - for religious beliefs and the desire to raise their children in a religious spirit; for reading and distributing (often simply introducing one or two people) literature that is undesirable to the authorities, usually absolutely legal according to democratic norms, for example religious literature; for attempting to leave the country; Particularly important from a moral point of view is the problem of persecution of persons suffering for the protection of other victims of injustice, for the desire for transparency, in particular for disseminating information about the courts, about persecution for convictions, about the conditions of places of detention.

It is unbearable to think that now, when we have gathered for a festive ceremony in this hall, hundreds and thousands of prisoners of conscience suffer from severe long-term hunger, from an almost complete lack of proteins and vitamins in food, from a lack of medicine (vitamins and medicines are prohibited from being sent to places of detention), from backbreaking work, they are shivering from cold, dampness and exhaustion in darkened punishment cells, forced to wage a constant struggle for their human dignity, for their convictions, against the machine of “re-education”, but actually breaking their souls. The peculiarities of the prison system are carefully hidden, dozens of people suffer for exposing it - this is the best proof of the reality of the accusations against it. Our sense of human dignity demands immediate change to this system for all prisoners, no matter how guilty they may be. But what can we say about the torment of the innocent? The worst thing is the hell of the special psychiatric hospitals in Dnepropetrovsk, Sychevka, Blagoveshchensk, Kazan, Chernyakhovsk, Orel, Leningrad, Tashkent...

Today I cannot talk about specific court cases, specific fates. There is a large literature (I draw your attention here to the publications of the Chronicle Press publishing house in New York, which reprints, in particular, the Soviet samizdat magazine Chronicle of Current Events and publishes a similar newsletter). I will simply name here, in this room, the names of some prisoners known to me. As you heard yesterday, I ask you to consider that All prisoners of conscience, All The political prisoners of my country share with me the honor of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here are some names I know: Plyushch, Bukovsky, Gluzman, Moroz, Maria Semenova, Nadezhda Svetlichnaya, Stefania Shabatura, Irina Kalinets-Stasiv, Irina Senik, Nijole Sadunaite, Anait Karapetyan, Osipov, Kronid Lyubarsky, Shumuk, Vince, Rumachik, Khaustov, Superfin, Paulaitis, Simutis, Karavansky, Valery Marchenko, Shukhevych, Pavlenkov, Chernoglaz, Abankin, Suslensky, Meshener, Svetlichny, Safronov, Rode, Shakirov, Kheifets, Afanasiev, Mo-Hun, Butman, Lukyanenko, Ogurtsov, Sergienko, Antonyuk, Lupynos , Ruban, Plahotniuc, Kovgar, Belov, Igrunov, Soldatov, Myattik, Yushkevich, Kiyrend, Zdorovy, Tovmasyan, Shakhverdyan, Zagrobyan, Hayrikyan, Markosyan, Arshakyan, Mirauskas, Stus, Sverstyuk, Kandyba, Ubozhko, Romanyuk, Vorobyov, Gel, Pronyuk , Gladko, Malchevsky, Grazys, Prishlyak, Sapelyak, Kalinets, Suprey, Waldman, Demidov, Bernichuk, Shovkovy, Gorbachev, Verkhov, Turik, Zhukauskas, Senkiv, Grinkiv, Navasardyan, Saarts, Yuri Woodka, Putse, Davydov, Bolonkin, Lisovoy, Petrov, Chekalin, Gorodetsky, Chernovol, Balakhonov, Bondar, Kalinichenko, Kolomin, Plumpa, Yaugyalis, Fedoseev, Osadchy, Budulak-Sharygin, Makarenko, Malkin, Stern, Lazar Lyubarsky, Feldman, Roytburt, Shkolnik, Murzhenko, Fedorov, Dymshits, Kuznetsov , Mendelevich, Altman, Panson, Khnoch, Wulf Zalmanson, Israel Zalmanson and many, many others. In unfair exile - Anatoly Marchenko, Nashpits, Tsitlenok. Awaiting trial are Mustafa Dzhemilev, Kovalev, Tverdokhlebov. I could not name all the prisoners known to me for lack of space; I do not know even more or do not have a certificate at hand. But I mean everyone mentally and I ask you to excuse me from everyone not named explicitly. Behind every named and unnamed name is a difficult and heroic human fate, years of suffering, years of struggle for human dignity.

The fundamental solution to the problem of persecution for convictions is the release on the basis of an international agreement, possibly a decision of the UN General Assembly, of all political prisoners, all prisoners of conscience in prisons, camps and psychiatric hospitals. This proposal does not involve any interference in the internal affairs of any country, because it applies equally to all countries, the USSR, Indonesia, Chile, South Africa, Spain, Brazil, and all other countries, and because the protection of human rights declared by the UN Universal Declaration to be an international and not an internal matter. For the sake of this great goal, no effort should be spared, no matter how long the path is - and that it is long, we saw this during the last session of the UN. At this session, the United States introduced a proposal for a political amnesty, but then withdrew it after a number of countries attempted to expand the scope of the amnesty too much (in the opinion of the US delegation). I'm sorry about what happened. But the problem cannot be solved. And I am deeply convinced that it is better to release a certain number of people who are guilty of something than to keep thousands of innocents imprisoned and tortured.

Without abandoning a fundamental solution, today we must fight for each person individually, against each case of injustice, violation of human rights - too much in our future depends on this. In an effort to protect the rights of people, we must act, in my opinion, first of all as defenders of the innocent victims of the regimes existing in different countries, without demanding crushing and total condemnation of these regimes. We need reforms, not revolutions. What is needed is a flexible, pluralistic and tolerant society that embodies the spirit of inquiry, discussion and free, non-dogmatic use of the achievements of all social systems. What is this - discharge? convergence? - it’s not a matter of words, but of our determination to create a better, kinder society, a better world order.

Thousands of years ago, human tribes underwent a harsh selection for survival, and in this struggle it was important not only the ability to wield a club, but also the ability to reason, to preserve traditions, and the ability for altruistic mutual assistance among members of the tribe. Today, all of humanity as a whole is undergoing a similar exam. In infinite space, many civilizations must exist, including more intelligent, more “successful” ones than ours. I also defend the cosmological hypothesis, according to which the cosmological development of the Universe repeats itself in its basic features an infinite number of times. At the same time, other civilizations, including more “successful” ones, must exist an infinite number of times on the “previous” and “following” pages of the book of the Universe to our world. But all this should not detract from our sacred desire in this world, where we, like a flash in the darkness, arose for an instant from the black non-existence of the unconscious existence of matter, to fulfill the demands of Reason and create a life worthy of ourselves and the Goal we dimly guess.

DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS Digital human rights are the extension and application of universal human rights to the needs of an information-based society. The Information Society increasingly needs developed information and communication technologies,