The dark side of science

The dark side of science

The human mind can be the darkest place in the universe

Immoral science means causing unnecessary pain to another living organism. That means that animal cruelty is one sign that there is something wrong. In the orders that were written to scientists is written that the living organism must not hurt or unnecessarily humiliated in the name of science. Of course, we have the right to defend ourselves against the attack of animals and other humans, but we must not cause unnecessary pain to animals and people.

And if we must end the life of the organism, that must be done by causing the minimum pain. This means that the tests of medicals and other things must be done by using the cell cultures and another kind of tissues, what is created by using biotechnology. Because the used cells are identical, that means that the results of the tests are fully comparable. That's why we should use cloned cells.

Opportunity makes criminals, and big opportunity makes big criminals

Evilness is the part of human nature, which is the thing that we must realize when we are selecting the research staff. And when we are thinking about politics and other kinds of things, the opportunity makes criminals. If the attitude of the nation is careless, or the attitude to some kind of minorities is racist, that would create the atmosphere, where the brutality is accepted.

When we are thinking about the most brutal science in the world, the human experiments, what are a symbol of pure evilness, we are always wanted to believe that those things happened only in some Nazi death camps, but the thing is that there are millions of people even in the modern world, who have not full citizen rights, or who would suffer because of the lack of the properly trained medical persons or lack of medicines. How many people have faced the situation that the lack of anesthetic has caused the pain in the dentist? And how many times our dentists have said, that this would cause little pain, and how we know, is the pain necessarily?

Those questions are difficult, and that's why the medical staff must have high moral. But when we are thinking about places, where evilness is accepted, like in concentration camps, the actions, what doctors are done is getting over the limits of understanding in the human mind.

When we are thinking about the hunger experiments, what were made by nazi doctors, we are always wanted to believe, that those tests, where the human was starved to death were made because the persons, who were ordered and made those tests were simply evil. But the tragedy is, that those tests had a very dangerous background.

The hunger experiments: a manifestation of pure evilness

The idea of hunger tests was that if the person would be kept in absolute hard conditions, the most valuable individuals would be selected by using that way. This thing is called "eugenics", and it is one of the evilest parts in anthropology. The idea was fastening the evolution and natural selection. And this kind of thing was "justified" the evilest actions, what were made in the name of science.

But there were also sociological aspects in that brutal treatment. The idea was that the leaders of the society were uncovered because other inmates would give them food. And the last and the most horrifying thing, what was the purpose of the absolute hunger, uncovered what was the most important part of the nervous system. The idea was that the absolute hunger causes in the human body the reaction that the other cells would give their life for upper cells.

So was this science? It was an immoral shame for the entire society, which was responsible for that kind of thing. In those tests, what is done also in many other places than in KZ-camps, we see the brutality and evilness of mankind. And when we are thinking about things like animal cruelty, we must realize, that every evil person starts the career as the animal mutilator. Then they continue their actions with humans.

Social media and the changing role of journalists

Social media and the changing role of journalists

In the point of view of journalists, social media has made their work easier, but otherwise, it has been removed the glory from the reporter's work. In old good times, reporters must move themselves to the place, where something has happened, and wait for the press conference. And after that, they spent their night at the hotel.

This is the thing, what made the work of the reporter so interesting. Today the reporter must just open Twitter, and then that person sees, what some leaders have to tell people, and this is the thing, what makes journalism of today different. Also, normal people can see themselves, what some president has to say, and this is bad for newspapers.

The thing is that in the past the journalists were filtered the information, what was sent to people, and the thing is that the news agencies like Reuters and Tass were in the key role of the business of information sharing. If some journalist made people in the news agencies angry, that could mean that there were no call to press conferences. And this was an excuse for the censorship.

The thing was that both sides must be heard in every case, and if something made somebody angry, that meant that the neutrality of the information was disturbing. Modern social media has brought in front of the people another reality, and that is that many people read things, what they want to read. This is a selective way to use sources. We all make this thing and leave the things, what are supporting our own interest or opinion without notice. But when we are looking at people like journalists, we must remember that they are humans too.

Some propagandists are not governmental 

There is no way to be the absolute neutral while we are writing something or handling data. If we would have political or some other attitudes for some case, we would automatically see things, as we want to see them. And this is the thing, what we must realize. If we are thinking about the political attitudes of the reporters, we must realize, that they also have political and cultural emotions. This means that also so-called professional journalists would have written stories, what is more, or less against the things, what really happened.

Here I must say that the press is a good tool for lobbying things. When we are thinking about the cases, where some reporter has faced the attempts to influence the things, what that inmate has been written, we can remember the cases, where the MC-clubs like Hell's Angels have offered the meal for the reporters, that they would give nicely image to those persons, who are driving with motorbikes with the logo of the club on the back of the vests. That kind of things was really good advertisements for those clubs, and the reporters have faced many times another kind of attempts to influence the information, what they are sharing.

One version is the expensive car, what some "firms" are offered the reporter for the working tool. The car has always been marked that it has been used some director, and the kilometers would be marked after the use. Another version is the free parking permission in the expensive parking houses. Or sometimes some actors of the cases has been offered a good five-star hotel for free, which means that the hotel room has been paid by some company, what is asking some permissions, and sometimes the texts, what the journalists have published have come straight from the public affairs section of the company. In those cases, the reporters have been highlighted the benefits of some action.

And of course, in the war, the propaganda is the very usual tool. When we are thinking about propaganda, one mark of it is that the things, what are published are supporting another side, and another side has only bad things. This is one very good point of view of the information.

Let's think one thing. We are the journalists who are operating in the middle of the crisis. And then the government official brings us to the place, where have been happened the war crime. Then that person would give the governmental and official information about that thing, what might be something like killing children. Would we dare to write anything else to our boss, if we are surrounded by the local militia, what is telling the stories about the war crimes?

And what if that information would be given in the press conference, and the information officer would say, that he has taken us to the place, what is not true. But the men with assault rifles in that room would be real. Then we would write something, and the government official wants to check that information, what we are sending. Then we would go to our motherland, and tell that story to our boss or editor, who tells that the sell of the newspaper has risen.

Disinformation is not a new thing. 

Would that person write to the newspaper, that the situation, where the information was given, was somehow different than the reporter claims? Or would the reporter dare to tell the editor that thing? This is a very good point when we are analyzing the disinformation, and another name of the disinformation is propaganda. When we are looking at the information, what is shared in the press conferences, we must remember that the information, what is shared must be accepted by the keepers of the conference.

And especially in the case of the crisis, the press conferences share only the information, what is serving another side. And that's why we should take the purpose of all of the so-called press conferences more or less propagandist. We should know that all shared data of those press conferences are "cleaned". That means that they share only information, which supports their own benefit.

When we are thinking about social media, we are facing the situation, that the shared data is very one-sided. And the thing what makes this data more one-sided than before is that we are choosing people, who have similar opinions with us to our social media network. This makes social media really good tool for propaganda and other ways there is a massive number of non-relevant information, what means information, what has nothing to do with the thing, what we are looking for. And this is the reason, why we must have to use critics when we are looking for information from the Internet.

Could the soul of human hide in the digital mode?

Could the soul of human hide in the digital mode?

The idea was actually in the movie "Tron", where the man disappeared, but the electric vortex or the soul would suck in the computer. The thing was that the system would destroy the body of the human, but the person would continue the living in the digital form, which means that the brain waves of that person would be stored in the computer or Internet. Then the soul could jump between the different robots and hide on the Internet, and if we could do that, could we someday return the soul to some other or the cloned body. And would the experience of being in the digital form similar to the movie "Tron".

This might feel a wild idea, but things like witness protection and other kinds of things would need the case that the body would be cooled in the very low temperature, and then the person would "sleep" a couple of hundred of years. And then the "soul" would return to that body, when the people, who were treated that person have been dead, or the symptom, what caused the freezing would get treatment.

The thing in that kind of thing is that we cannot even know is that kind of thing possible, or would it cause the thing that this inmates personality would change? In the case that we could store our EEG or soul on the Internet, we must think, what it might feel to be in the electric memory of the computer.

Would it actually like in some "Tron" movie, or would it be something different, or would that brain signals have the awareness at all, and could that person remember things, about the time, when that hypothetical test, where the soul has been copied and transferred to the new body has been done. One of the most interesting questions about this kind of things is would that EEG has the own will, what would make it dangerous? And would it possible to create synthetic EEG or soul and transfer it to the brains by using electric shocks, what will stimulate the neurons?

And the second thing in the cases that we would store our memories to the Internet for reusing that thing, would the person what would be created by the cloning and memory transfer actually the thing or person, what that person was before that operation? The idea that the soul can  be copied in the hard disk would seem very interesting, but there is one thing, and that is that we don't have a single official experience about this kind of things, but there is one very interesting problem, and that is the possibility of connection with the original and copied souls. This kind of things is really interesting to think about when we are thinking about computers and their connection to human brains.