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.

Black magic and zombies

Black magic and zombies

This is a writing about the horror character, what is known as a zombie. The tale of zombies has the background in the voodoo-shamanism, where is used the chemicals, what are destroying own will of a human being. Also the brutal surgery, lobotomy has feed those tales. But the popular culture like computer games are full of stories about zombies, what are undead or rise from the dead, and then the only thing, what those horrifying characters would understand is the food.

Sometimes in my mind has become the one really interesting idea from the horror movies, where military personnel fight against zombies. The thing is what if some soldier just throws the zombie by using grenade in the condition, where no samples can be taken? Who would believe those persons? This is one remarkable thing in zombie movies and horror tales.

When we are thinking about that kind of movies, we might understand that there is very little scientific background in those movies, where the main topics are to shoot zombies with high power weapons. When we are thinking about the scientific background of zombies, there is a fish, named Fugu, what poison makes people characters, what has no own will.

But when we are thinking about things, what somebody doesn't want you to know there is a possible connection with zombie stories and the large storages of quicksilver or mercury, what name would you use about the only liquid metal in the world. As I wrote about the ability to use mercury as the simulator for the neurotransmitters in the computers, there is a possibility to make zombies by using this metal.

The thing would seem like black magic, but there is the thing, what makes those things probably possible. That thing bases that the neurons have not equality. That thing means that some of the neurons are handling data, what is more, important than others. This thing means that neurons, what is handling the things, what are treating have superior for other neurons.

And this thing makes a very dangerous thing possible. The thing is connected to the number of neurotransmitters what those cells are using in communication between neurons. The higher voltage means that another neuron is higher than the other. So what if we would want to make another neuron privilege to another one, what we should do? The idea is to strengthen the connections of certain neurons.

If we would create a strong connection in neural tracks between brain areas, what is handling the speech recognition and movements, we could just pass the will of the person. One way to make that thing is just driving the mercury drops between the holes what separate axons together. In this case, the mercury replaces neurotransmitters in certain axin line in the human brains.

But when we are thinking about the deadly and brutal surgical experiments, there is a possibility to remove every other neural connection than the connection between movement centers of the brains and hearing centers. That means that the human would turn to the robot, what has no own will.

If that brutal and inhumane action would be made by removing all other areas and leave those two centers that thing can be put in the silicon. That kind of surgery is prohibited and against humanity, but sometimes I have thought that could those things, stuff what somebody don't want you to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H73c5qjCvj4

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.