Homo Rationalis (Science Fiction Stories) - Part 2




Chris MYRSKI,    Sofia, Bulgaria    ? ... 2016

     [ As far as this is a whole book let us give an idea about the cover (if there are no better propositions).
      In front: On a blue background, in the middle, hang, suspended on a rope, scales (pharmaceutical), in the left and heavier plate of which is put the Earth globe (with picture of the continents), and in the right one is seen only a stem of clover (in a pot) with four leaves, as symbol of happiness.
      On the back: whatever, or even nothing. ]


In the first part:

     The recruit
     It sounds logical
     The discovery of professor Kolossov
     The stimulator of Peter MacGreeves
     The clover
     The marriage proposal
     Right of choice

In this part:

     Homo Rationalis
     The tunnel
     The cannibals
     Biological partner
     The order

In the third part:

     The sixth day
     Homo Retarded
     Nights and days of a young robo-mother
     New ?


     The shining in his eyes light and the invigorating music filling the room forced HR-750929-315617, called in the recent time Burly, to get up from the bed, but he has nowhere to hurry. He stretched out slowly his hand, felt the button with two circles — the third from the left, yet why bother to count — on the console next to the bed and pressed it slightly. The music ceased and the bedroom again plunged into twilight for the next five minutes. He could loll some time more because yesterday was his working day, yet to be sure he cast a squinting sight to the date on the wall. But surely, treday, dugroup, achmon↑*, 123rd year. And he worked each duday. But there is nothing to do — the general abundance required its sacrifices. Earlier, 123 years back, when people have begun to count the era of Homo Rationalis, they have worked by three days in the weeks of that time. And in various old books was spoken about five-days working weeks. Five days out of seven, my God, what happiness, ah? And by whole 8 hours! And now he has right to work 3 hours, and this only after his 40th year, while earlier has worked 2 hours, and was again glad. After one and a half years he will be allowed to work by 4 hours in a day once in the sextet and he is dreaming about this already ten years or so.

     [ * The year is divided in 10 months (onmon, dumon, tremon, fourmon, fifmon, sixmon, sevmon, achmon, ninemon, and tenmon), each of which has 36 days, which in their turn divide in six groups (ongroup, dugroup, tregroup, fourgroup, fifgroup, and sixgroup) of six days (onday, duday, treday, fourday, fifday, and sixday). The remaining 5, or 6, days in the year build additional group, exgroup, which prolongs the tenmon. The date can be given as day and month or day-group-month, e.g.: 9.8 = 9 achmon = 3.2.8 = treday-dugroup-achmon. ]

     In this regard the laws were severe: work for the benefit of the society was allowed only after reaching of 25 years and up to age of 75. The hours varied between 2 and 4 in a day (till one hour could work everybody, regardless of the age), but this counted in a group, i.e. in six days. And this means to work sixty days in the year, beginning with 2 hours and reaching to four after 50 years of age. Very rare, for special merits was allowed to work also by five hours in the group, yet in two days. And exceptions for more than two days happened once in a thousand of people, or even less. But these were the chosen intellects, not the ordinary citizens like him. And there the very hours were different, it seems. ...
     Ah, that darned buzzer! Why not to lie for five more minutes? — said Burly to himself, and pressed again the button for postponement of awakening. — So where was he? Ah, about the hours. They as if were twenty, or something of the kind. Nope, as if were 22, because the people honoured some 12 saints and this twice daily, in the day and in the night, so that this must give 22. Well, I will check on the computer. Or maybe will ask my boy, in this way I will find exactly about what to ask him, in order to test his knowledge. Not that this is necessary, but he is, still, my son, so that a little attention will not harm. Bilby is good and clever boy, only that they talk to each other quite rarely. But about what exactly to converse with him? If he wants to learn something he asks the IS, the Information System, and the question is solved. If the boy needs something then the IS will give it to him also without his intervention, and if it will not give to him this, what he wants — well, then this think should not be given to him! Exercises for the brain, exercises for the body — after all, this is why he sits 2 hours daily in the learning room, and at least an hour in the sports one. And receives also awards, if deserves them. What more can a parent give to his child, what the IS and various robots can not give him?
     Maybe I have to check whether I can do something for him, because the boy will soon be 14 years old and must be prepared for the mating period. ... Ah, obviously I will have to get up from the bed, decided Burly, because now I can′t stop this damned alarm clock, unless I tell it first how much is, either 12 square, or 7 by 8, or something of the kind, and it is clear that I can′t tell this before I calculate it first. And in order to calculate I must fist wake up and start pushing buttons, right? Clever have thought this the people, one can say nothing against. So that: now quickly, one, two, three, for a dull day ready thee.

          * * *
     After another 10 minutes↑**, relieved from the assembled during the night unnecessary metabolic products, having bathed under awakening shower with varying temperature, being dried by hot air and having received his morning dose of massage by the standard massaging robot in the toilet box to his bedroom, Burly sat in his kitchen-dining room and was pressing various buttons for his breakfast. Apparently the son also was not in a big hurry to start the day, because he only now entered the room and throwing with annoyance "Hello, dad" placed himself on another chair and became engaged with the same activity. Only that he was disappointingly slow in his choice, and scrolled the holographic images of at least 10 dishes, until settled on something. Well, the boy is right to think about his pleasure, because what else can do a reasonable man? Yet, as it was necessary to ask him something. Burly cleared his throat and voiced:

     [ ** The day and night together are divided in 10 hours by 100 minutes, each of the latter by 100 seconds. This makes 100,000 seconds instead of 24*60*60 = 86,400 so that the new second is a bit shorter than the old, but then the new minute is about one and a half times longer than the old, and the new hour is 2.4 times longer. This, naturally, is of no importance, it is just more convenient to use decimal base everywhere. ]

     — Well, how are you, Bilby, my boy? I think I have not asked you for a long time.
     — Yeah, really, already two days, because yesterday you ran out of the house before I even got up. Otherwise I can quite responsibly assure you that I am feeling good, and yesterday also, and the day before, too.
     — We-ell, I know this, but the cultured relations require that one asks his companion about his or her health, don′t they? Though, if you so much want, I can ask you something else. For example: how many hours a day have worked people before the era of HR? And how much gives this in current hours?
     — Ha, it depends when! Before some 5-6 centuries they have worked by 10 to 12 hours, and this has made nearly half of the day, because the days were, as you know — and the boy looked at him, chewing slowly the morsel in the mouth, as if guessing about his inability to count good — were by 24 hours. And then they have fixed it on 8 hours, because 3*8 = 24, i.e. 8 hours work, 8 hours free time, and 8 hours sleep — everything equally. And as far as now the hour is two and a half times (2.4, if we want to be more precise) longer than earlier, then this will be somewhere between 3 and 4 contemporary hours. Nearly like also now, father.
     — So, so, and ... what part of their time they worked at all then, by their 8 hours, and what part we work now? Yet you don′t interrupt your breakfast, you can calculate it and tell me in the evening, yes?
     — Well, there is no need to calculate too long. Two-three centuries before they have worked, as I mentioned, 1/3 of the time in working days, and they were 5/7 of all days, so that we get, a minute ... — and he began to click fast on the console of the table — about 24% of the time. Well, if we take into account also the annual vacation, then this part may fall a bit to 22%. And now, if we take on the average 3.5 hours ... but it is better to take on the average 3 hours and 33 minutes, because this gives again 1/3 of the day, and multiply it by 1/6, because you work once in 6 days, this will give 1/18 of the whole time or ... only about 5% and a half. Are you glad? Or you want me to calculate also what part of your time you spend on the golf field, how much in the toilet, and so on?
     — Bravo, Bilby, bravo! Now, you see what is this homo rationalis, ah? How smart are we, see, and this because we do everything with our intellect, right? Why we need to work more when we have robots and technologies? We-ell, it would have been better if we could have worked at least three days by three hours, but when the Selected have decided so, then they have done the necessary calculations.
     — To work, you say. Well, could you explain me what exactly you do there, father? — threw the boy, sipping from his juice.
     — Well, I think I have mentioned many times to you that I work in one factory, where we make a variety of toys. Some such small puppets-robots, that can tell tales and kiss good night to mischievous urchins, like you have also been before a decade. And cover them at night, so as not to catch cold, and sing them songs, and other similar nonsense. Or also robots-baby-walkers for the very little, that can change diapers and wipe the little bottoms, when they make them dirty, and, in general, do the work of mothers from the recent past. And for a pair of sextets we already make some teddy bears, that can clime on trees and stir beehives in order to take out the honey, yet just when they shove their paw in the hive and the bees attack them and knock them down from the tree. Well, not real bees, naturally, because they can sting also the child, as well as the parent, but such miniature robots with micro-batteries and centralized control. And do you know where is this control device — well, the processor, ah? In the belly of the bear, of course, though it can be installed also on the tree —according to the wish of the client. Such and other things. Very interesting job and I like it. Only that till now you have not asked me about my work.
     — I believe that it is interesting, yet I asked you what you work there, didn′t I?
     — Eh, what means: what I work? In fact, I exercise control over the production process, monitor a bunch of parameters, watch various indicators, call the repair robots, when something goes wrong, change information crystals, and so on. The work is very responsible and because of this we are two persons in the factory, in order to be duplicated when a dangerous situation arises, or if one of us gets ill, for example.
     — And if both of you become ill, ah? The production of factory ceases then or not? And in how many shifts you work, do you know?
     — We-ell, till the moment it has not happened that we both went simultaneously ill. And as to the shifts, it as if is one, but I have not inquired.
     — So that you change programs, call repair robots, and such things. And when you decide to do this?
     — But I have told you that I watch various parameters, so that I take decisions based on them.
     — I understand this, but can′t it be that these decisions takes some central computer, on the same basis? And without you, in one word.
     — Well, you see, exactly about this I have not thought. But maybe it is possible ...
     — So that is why I asked you — and the boy began to poke something with the fork in the nearly empty plate.
     — But it will turn then that with or without me the factory will all the same produce, ah? Yet, if it was so, then why have I to go to work, ah? Look now, for such things exist the Selected and when they have decided that in the factory must be operators, then this means that so it has also to be. Homo rationalis are reasonable people, right? And their main calling is to work for the others, in order to ensure peaceful society. And you, if will learn everything what requires from you the computerized teacher, can one day begin to work for the others — and Burly gathered his empty plates heaping them in the socket for cleaning and pressed the button next to it.
     — I, how to tell you this, am not sure that want to "work" in this way. I think that will try not to work — like the Selected.
     — Perfect, Bilby, if only you succeed.
     — A-and, dad, could you not call me so, ah?
     — And what exactly you don′t like in your name? Good sounding, short, and, when you are my son, our names have to be a bit similar one with the other. But, after all, when you will be 15 you will be allowed to choose another name for you, as you know. ...Or you have already chosen it?
     — Something of the kind ...
     — And can I ask you what it is?
     — We-ell, Platon, for example. It is again short and good sounding, isn′t it?
     — Yeah, Pontius Platus, as if I recall it. Something from Ancient Greece. Surely you can, but from the next year.
     — And why not from now, ah, dad? Well, I don′t mean officially, or that we invited guests for the occasion, but just so, between us. ... And he was not Pontius, I′ll tell you, simply Platon.
     The father looked thoughtfully at his son, cast a glance at the watch, too, and said reconciled:
     — OK, between us is possible. And run to learn your lessons. Now I have to hurry because Grimby will again be irritated if I will be late for the golf party. A healthy mind in a healthy body, wasn′t it so? Bye ... Platty.

          * * *
     — Hello, Burly, — greeted him his friend when saw him to exit from the car, having landed on the parking. — you look to me worried by something, ah? If this was before a pair of centuries I would have said that you have again quarreled with your wife, but now, when there are no wives, I am quite puzzled.
     — Hello! How are you living, old boy? Have you made a trial round with the training robot while waited for me? I hope you have warmed up, because I will again win, Grimby.
     — Ah, you thought so also the previous time but it happened on the contrary, ah? Good, the first hit is my, for I have come first — and he struck one strong enough, yet not very accurate, hit.
     Burly posed the ball pretty long and chose himself a stick. At the end he hit it, but its flight was rather short and he made a wry face when saw where it fell. The first hit was very important, but, still, the game was not yet lost, so that he dragged himself with the bag of sticks to the new place. Then he voiced:
     — Do you know, my boy thinks that there is not much use from my work, because everything is automated. What will you say to this, ah?
     — We-ell, as if the boy is right. Because once I went to the breakfast automaton, and Molly, my colleague, phoned that she will be delayed for half an hour, something unpleasant had happened — either with the car, or with the computer device, I have forgotten — and when I came back after a pair of minutes I look that it was necessary to call one of the repair robots to the cell 17-B, or it was maybe 17-G — well, in doesn′t matter —and I was just about to push the button, while saw on the monitor for repairs that one of them was already staggering to where it was necessary. So that I thought that maybe the system waits some time for us to do the necessary, but if we don′t do this for some preset time, then it begins alone to react. The artificial intelligence, you know, does its job — and Grimby pulled out another stick, moved around a bit, and hit the ball quite accurately.
     — So that I can try sometime to pretend that have been distracted by something, ah?
     — Oh, I don′t advise you to do so, because what if they notice this and decrease your working time with half an hour. Look my dear, it is you who wants to work, right? And people give you this opportunity. If you don′t like this then do not work, and will be done with the matter. Nobody will reproach you.
     Burly made his hit and both continued on the course. Hence the situation begins to clear itself, but he will not begin to be troubled by this. In the end, the point is that now on the earth globe live more than hundred millions of people, while the Selected were only about hundred thousands, or of that order. Life has to be lived reasonable and basta. The work for the community ...
     — Do you know, Grimby, I think that the work for the benefit of society is necessary for the human being like also ... the morning coffee, or our golf play, for example, or like the sex. I want to say that when it is reasonable that one works, then this must be done, right? Else we will have no self-esteem, and this is not reasonable.
     — Ha, do you know what came to my mind? — answered his friend, giving another blow — I recalled one ancient game, the Tower of Hanoi, it seems, was called, only that it was not a game but has some sacramental meaning, and was performed by some Buddhist monks, maybe before about 3 thousand years, if not more. It consisted in this: 11 disks (well, maybe their number was also different) with hole in the middle, impaled on a pole and put one on top of the other, only that of smaller diameter over a bigger, to be transferred to another pole, using only one additional, third, pole. The only condition was to put disk of smaller diameter over a bigger, not on the contrary. When they could succeed to transfer all disks to the other pole then should come the end of the world, or the cognition of God as truth, I don′t remember exactly. Only that this time was so long, that the monks in the end despaired and gave up to persist in their initiative.
     — Something like the legend about the chess and the wheat grains, whose number had to be doubled on every next field, ah?
     — Up to some extent, as far as this concerns big numbers, but otherwise this was example of appalling recursion depth. I have studied something of the kind in its time, but, after all, one learns so many things in his life, for to have later what to forget, because if he has learned nothing then what will he forget then? Logical, isn′t it? Ha-ha-ha.
     — Well, as if that is how it is. Ah, by the way, do you remember why the Selected were a hundred thousand?
     — Hmm, this was something very simple. Let me recall it. ... It was about a thousand of fields of human knowledge, and by hundred Selected persons working in each one of them, so that 1000*100 = 100,000. Or something similar.
     — Yeah, right. Only that the calculations were with some average number, as if five. But these are approximate calculations.
     — Well, approximate, yet they do very good work. The theory of ranks, ah? Every person maintains contacts of till three ranks, which are determined by the number of decimal digits of the amount of persons with whom he maintains contacts. So, so ... Then if we take for average, or rather middle, digit the five, we get: 5 for the first rank, 50 for the second, and 500 for the third. The first rank are your nearest relatives and close friends. Well, nowadays the term relatives is quite conditional notion, but, still, your father and grandfather have to be alive, right?
     Burly nodded, put the ball and aimed again. Because there remained about 20 meters to the hole one has to be very careful, though, on the other hand, he as if had already no chances to win. Made a decent hit, straightened, put the bag with the sticks over the shoulder, and only then answered.
     — Grandpa Globil has already reached 96 years, but is still alive and kicking, so that he will probably live the allotted. And my father, naturally, although with him we see each other, either once in a month, or not once. He become interested in modeling of ships, and I understand nothing of bom-bramsails or other sails, and were they trippers or clippers, so that we have no special reasons for meetings. Yes, after the feast dedicated to his new name we have seen us, maybe, three times, and since then it seems that already an year has rolled.
     — Wasn′t he before Cliry, ah? And how is he called now?
     — Now he is Marsel. He thinks that this is something marine and is more appropriate for him because of his interests in ships. This is his business. I call myself for 15 years Burly and don′t think to be re-baptized.
     — Well, anyway. So there are: you, your father, grandfather, son, the current girl, a pair of former, also two-three friends, and this makes about ten acquaintances of first rank. A propos, I am between them, ah?
     — Unless you abandon the golf, or succeed to win five games with me in a row, I will count you for first rank friend. Are you glad?
     — Sure thing. Even if ... — and he aimed carefully, and sent the ball straight into the hole. — So, If you want we can discard this game in order that I remained in this category, ah?
     — But why not to count it? This is the first game. One for you. I usually prefer to give by a game in advance, so that not to lose you as a partner.
     — Good that you have given it to me, because otherwise it would have been very hard for me to take it alone. Well, let us move again to the beginning, ah?
     Burly finished his game with two more strokes, collected the sticks and they trotted to the beginning of the course. Grimby continued his thought.
     — So-o, these were of the first rank, right? Then come approximately 50, i.e. from 10-20 to a hundred persons, who are all good acquaintances, with whom you maintain often contacts, but you are not so emotionally attached to them, like with the first rank persons, and know almost nothing about their life and interests, except this, because of what you are acquainted with them. These are people from the neighbourhood, the place of work, the club or field of play, who make the second rank. But if you are from the Selected, then these are people from your scientific field, right? Well, they may be near to a thousand, yet one does not maintain direct contacts with all of them, but limits oneself according to one′s abilities, so that we can quietly take them for a hundred. And the third rank these are casual acquaintances, for whom you either don′t know their name in the moment, or have only heard about them but don′t know their physiognomy, or on the contrary, and not only don′t know in what they are interested, but quite often they, for their part, don′t know you at all — how it is with various celebrities. They may be several hundreds, but surely not one-two thousands. The fourth rank of acquaintances one can rarely have, because such is our central processor, old boy.
     — Exactly. And the fields of activity are really about a thousand. I will ask my son about their precise number. Good, but then it turns that such people like us are not much needed on the world, ah, Grimby?
     — Well, and what of it! You will nor begin now to speak to me about the meaning of life, in old years, will you? To ask you then why the grass grows, the birds chirp, or the flies proliferate, ah? The purpose of life is that it continues, right? At least because life is quite rarely met and is difficult to preserve it. We are rational persons and there is no need to fool us with various gods and other fables. And now play a little faster because at lunch time I have a meeting with another first rank friend — and after 10 minutes they finished also this game, where this time Burly succeeded to make up for the loss, and they parted till fifday at 7 o′clock.

          * * *
     In the evening about eight o′clock Burly walked with his son around the local medieval castle, built before two years. The autumn, little by little, entered into its rights, how it was expected for the beginning of achmon. Here and there differently coloured leaves fall from the trees because of the slight wind. The disk of the sun was going to finish his daily route and, taking advantage of the towers of the castle, played hide and seek with the two companions. The silence and archaic atmosphere predisposed to free conversation, which in the moment flew on feathered inhabitants around, being named promptly by the boy. When they used up a little the ornithology the man recalled that Bilby wanted to become one of the Selected and asked him:
     — And now tell me how many are all Selected Intellects at the moment, when you want to join them?
     — Well, this is quite relative — answered the boy. —Recently they give 128,000 Selected, but many of them also go to work like you, because they like it. And there are also 50 something thousands Candidates, chiefly in the age before 40 years, who hope sometime also to become Selected. In addition to this everybody, as you know, can occupy him- or her- self with whatever scientific researches, so that there are also about 20 thousand Correspondents. All this gives about 200,000.
     — And how many are all people on the Globe? Come they up to 200 millions?
     — For the moment they, as far as I recall, are 180 millions, but their number, in principle, decreases, because everybody can have one child, yet not everyone wants, you know this? But this situation is considered correct, because the optimal number of people on Earth was between 10 and 50 millions. Well, there are also about 7-8 millions in another colonies, but this is not significant.
     — Good, Bil..., excuse me, Platty. And let me now set you some questions about history. Can you tell me 3-4 important advantages of homo rationalis before the former sapience, ah?
     — Ha, I have already forgotten how long ago have studied this. It was somewhere before the square root and chemical table. But, OK, I will give you this pleasure, when you want. You don′t insist on their ordering, ah, dad?
     — Not, of course. Tell me what you can recall.
     — We-ell, there are no wars, for example. Now are nearly two centuries, after there was the last war for the rings of Saturn. The wars were fought mainly by two reasons: economic and psychological. The economic are reduced to the wish to conquer material values, in order that people could ensure for themselves good conditions for existence. But the good conditions were in effect not for all, so that the goal was again not reached. Then was come to the technologies and affluence, so that these material values became easily acquired, and one can not eat, say, by ten kilos of meat daily, can one? Neither one will get some special pleasure from walking alone on the rings of Saturn, just to give an example. Nor there was necessity for economic enslavement, for the reason that the robots, anyway, do all unpleasing work. And they cost much cheaper, than the bringing up and educating of a child, right? Even it was written somewhere that already before the old New era people had impressive achievements in the processing of metals, in the architecture, the agriculture, the arts, and in many other fields, but then the slaves were cheaper. ...
     — Like in Ancient Greece, which you like so much, right?
     — Well, yes. If we take away from it the slaves and the lack of rights for the women this was one perfect society. Well, they fought then, surely, but this was mainly due to psychological reasons, because the men wanted to show their strength, and the women wanted to submit to it. This is quite simplified, but it is true. There even before two centuries people fought chiefly because of this, but then came the virtual reality and computer games, so that now one can "fight" with whom he wants not shedding blood. Well, also the various actions, thrillers, and similar genres, which people watched, created enough emotions for them (I also watch something of the kind, yet I am interesting mainly in the historical milieu). Then the satellites of Mars were established as place for military operations, but when you give something ready to one he usually does not want it much. So that this idea also became obsolete. Well, the genetics, too, helped a little, but about it later.
     — Well done, Platty! So for one thing we eliminated the wars. Then?
     — We-ell, let us take the development of personality. People, as you know, want food, roof over the head, and ... sex — said a bit confused the boy —, on the first place. When they secure for themselves these things they want to show their strength ...
     — Like you with the knowledge of birds, ah?
     — Well, and what is so bad in this, to want to express oneself? It is right that this depends not so much on the person than on his or her genes, but even if it is so. One can be able to do something and do it, and can be able but not do it, right? So that it is better to do it, if this is something good.
     — And what do you call good?
     — But you interrupt me exactly on this place, dad. Good is what is good for the society, yet everyone thinks that good is this, what is good for himself, correct? So that the whole subtlety is in this to equalize the one with the other! But this is task of the social government, yes? Because one is satisfied mostly when the others respect him. Then he also respects himself and thinks that has expressed himself with something good. The respect and self-respect are more important than the fear of the others from you, so that the two different things become one and the same, if the society looks reasonable at the things. So, and when one succeeds to express himself then he (or she) has nothing left for himself except to become slightly different, to change something in himself, to improve himself, with one word. Well, and the pleasure, of course, for otherwise why have we to reproduce ourselves, if we don′t like the world? Homo rationalis lives only in order to improve himself and enjoy the life. If somebody can make career as Selected then he makes it, and who can not, he lives his life without worries, until this is allowed to him.
     — Exactly so, the development of personality is very important point, because the life, generally, is a development. The wish to show superiority and subjugate the others arises between the humans, as well also between the animals, then, when otherwise they are not in position to express themselves. Till here there are two things.
     — The third thing can be the genetics. Now people with bad genes, not good for the society first of all, are nor born, as far as this can be established in advance. Sometimes errors, still, happen, but there are, after all, the computers for this purpose, too, to monitor and examine us. Only that the genetics could have done wonders even before HR, but people thought that they have to collect all good genes in one place, yet this does not happen. First, the more intelligent people need the more mediocre ones for to express themselves, to stick out; second, all feel necessity to obey somebody, because in this way it is easier and quieter at heart; third, if one takes the diversity of the nature away we will only lose from this, because it can′t be known exactly what will be good after some time, and what not; and other arguments. I, for example, don′t want that there were only swallows and canaries, but were no ... sparrows, right?
     — Well, well. Hence I am a sparrow and you will become a swallow, if I have got you right.
     — Well, dad, I only give example, do I not? And then ... if we will talk about birds, then you know that are sparrow, and don′t give a damn about this, where I still don′t know will I be able to become a swallow or not. So that: who has it easier, ah?
     — Look at him, the philosopher! Well, good, I agree that you are Platon and this can only make me happy, because, after all, the educational environment has to mean something.
     — But surely, dad, only that we both speak very rarely together. And this not because you have no time, right? ... So, let me continue further. It is nearly solved the problem with overpopulation. Before two and a half centuries we have reached, if you remember, whole 30 milliard people. And this awfully narrowed the living space, or the "hunting field" of the people. This is also another important cause for the wars, which I have missed to mention earlier. This theory of ranks is very true, because when the world is one whole thing, then, hence, it is like one state, and one average state earlier, when there existed different states, was about 50 millions, at worst up to hundred. According to not pretty exact data, yet this is what I have read somewhere, in the second and first millennium before the New era (which is now already old, of course) on our Earth have lived approximately 50 million people, and around the same era they have reached about 100 millions. Later, till the 18th century, again in the old way, there were still less than a milliard people, but after this they have shown themselves in the worst possible light, right?
     — Quite so. I alone have thought about this today and for that cause have asked you about the number of Selected. Continue further, it is very interesting.
     — So that HR have solved also this problem, although I think that 5-10 millions is again a good number. Then the death, as you see, is very important moment in life. Well, I have said this in a bit silly way, yet it is so, really. Now everybody can live up to 100 years, what is not at all little, I think. And is a round number and approximately 95% of the people reach it. And after this? If we have continued to live how long everybody succeeds, how it was before the era of HR, then to what this would have led us, ah? Let us live 150 years, then 200, and if someone can then maybe also 300. And so on. And if we have multiplied like before, i.e on the average by three children for a family, and by 25 years for one generation, then this do you know what gives? Well, it gives: in 50 years 9 grandchildren and 3 children, in 75 years 27 great-grandchildren, 9 grandchildren, and 3 children, and in 100 only the great-great-grandchildren become 81. And in 200 years all direct relatives of one person would have been somewhere about 10,000 people! An impressive number, ah, one cannot deny this. But we are not flies, are we? Even if one has only a hundred relatives then he will again not succeed to remember their names, to say nothing about to know them. And now everything is clear and simple — who reaches 100 years, gathers his (or her) relatives around himself, says farewell to them, they give him the injection, and he with smile on his lips parted from this world. In my opinion this is the most valuable achievement of HR, don′t you think so?
     — Well, how to tell you, Platty. ... You are right, naturally, yet a human has to be very reasonable in order to grasp this, and far away from all of us are such, so that hardly everybody will smile on his hundredth birthday, but, maybe, so is necessary ...
     — So, or in some other way, but the life span has to be about three generation, i.e. that everybody could live to see his grandchildren, yet not further, right? Now people when take children between 30 and 40, and when live till 100, it is exactly so. One can live also till 200, but then must provide himself with a child at about 70. Or like it was in Ancient Rome, where is said that people lived on the average about 45-50 years, but one generation then was approximately 18-20 years.
     — Yes, sure. In this you are absolutely right.
     — Well, ... after this comes the social management. Before about a century people still asked themselves what is better: the dictatorship or the democracy, yet neither the one nor the other form of ruling are good. Meaning that both are simultaneously good and bad, isn′t it? And they have even not asked themselves but thought that the democracy, though such like it was then, is the most correct form. Yet on the other hand, there have hardly passed long time and, either here or there, happened so, that some dictatorship took power. Like in that Ancient Greece. I don′t know whether you are informed, but the democracy there was introduced for the first time by some Tyrant Pisistratos, where a Tyrant was title of a ruler from that time with unlimited power. And why, is asked, should a despot or tyrant introduce democracy, ah? Well, because it is advantageous for the tyrants! And even the common people have understood this and have not wanted alone to choose their rulers, yet after they were fooled a bit they agreed to this.
     — Well, surely, the so called democratic choice, or choice from below to the above, is pure nonsense. To grasp this one is not necessary to know even how to read and to write. Because it can′t someone, who does not understand (has no knowledge in the area of social management, I mean), to choose people whom he does not know (i.e. has not lived or worked with them a pair of years), and by this not requiring from them any document or some certificate for their ability as rulers. Because in no democracy of those times was some compulsory democratical university for rulers, was there? And there could not have been such university, because this would have contradicted to the very democratic principle, that every human from the masses can become a ruler (for one may not have money in order to receive this education, or one was not allowed to study). Generally, these questions must be decided only by instances that know the management and the potential rulers quite good. Yet this is obvious.
     — Exactly. So that, hence, the problem of choice is, generally speaking, unsolvable, because, in order that one could make a reasonable choice, one must be as much intelligent as the person whom he assesses or chooses for his ruler. But if he is up to such extent intelligent, that is able to conduct such choice, then why has he (or she) to choose somebody else, maybe less capable then he, and not his own person, ah? I have understood this somewhere in the last year, but this because I have been interested in the question, otherwise this is nor included in the compulsory program. ... But dad, do you know, I have become a bit tired by this long conversation. And there have left many other questions for consideration. Why will we not go to eat something in the castle?
     — Well, indeed, my boy! With big pleasure — and they headed to one of the towers of the castle, where, for bigger authenticity, they were served by robots in metallic knight′s armour, the meat was carried on wooden trays, and about cutlery, if we exclude by a notched knife with bone handle, could have only be dreamed.

          * * *
     Fifday evening was the sexual day of Burly and this time he was visiting his current girlfriend Margit. She was rounded woman at the age of 42, most often with light hair, of height one meter and 70, good swimmer and diver, and worked each onday in a factory for perfumery products. When he got acquainted with her before a bit more than three years, during a vacation in the Adriatic, she was still called Ilone. She had a daughter of 6-7 years and they lived in one arrow-shaped building at the foot of small hill, somewhere in 10 minutes flight with his airflyer from his home. They rarely visited taverns because both were a bit homebodies, so that now they lay lazy on a small beach around the triangular pool at the inner side of her home, gazed absently at the holographic screen, placed in the air on the background of the hill, where some white bears wallowed on Arctic hummocks, drank from their cocktails and absorbed the already feeble rays of afternoon sun. The building was with 20 inhabitants, so that now only two more boys floundered in the water pursued by a St. Bernard dog. Burly has just sucked up one of her nipples and has whispering something into her ear. A family idyll, really — like in the old films —, except for the white bears.
     Margit stirred slightly and stretched a hand for the remote control, which was nearly buried in the sand on the narrow strip, typed something and said:
     — Bur-Bur↑***, do you also want to drink something.

     [ *** In Bulgarian "Bur-Bur", and pronounced with this vowel like in "girl", sounds better, because means blah-blah. There are in this story other plays of words, which I explain on places with footnotes. ]

     — Not, Git, I am feeling just " got"↑****. ... But if you so much insist then I would have one more "arctic sun", yet with more brandy.

     [ **** There are no quotes in the original, because "got" is a well known German jargon meaning "good", what must be clear also in English via the relation good - Got; Git, on the other hand, is diminutive or Margit. ]

     — OK, but that there was no need later to call the robot to carry you to my bed.
     — A-ah, if I will be carried, then better to the pool, so that you become there a little lighter. Archimedes law, have you heard?
     — Bur, — rose she slightly — don′t you want to say that I have grown fat, ah? I run every morning from here to the top of the hill and back. In winter and in summer. Well, in the winter is harder up, but in recompense is easier down, because I just slide then. ...
     — Oh, maybe on this your treasure, ah dear? — and he slapped her slightly on the presumed place. — you will spoil it for nothing.
     — A-ah, don′t worry. I put on thick pants and when sat at the top slide directly to the bottom. Only take care not to plunk in the pool, for the water in that time of year is a little bit cold. Ah, here is your "sun" — and she took from the robot both glasses.
     — And what are you drinking? Again your rosé, ah?
     — How many times have I to repeat to you that this beverage is called "rosé pour la couchette blanche", and is made by my own recipe, which I tell nobody.
     — Let me try it ... m-m, astonishing! It is seen at once that this is "couchette pour la pute rosé". I like it very much. And what will happen if I "warm" it a little with my "sun" ...
     — Don′t dare to spoil me its bouquet! Give me back my glass and warm yourself as much as you like with your "sun".
     — Cheers, Margery.
     — Cheers, Bur-Bur. And for what we drink, ah?
     — Well, ... for the polar bears, for example. Or, if you so much want that this was personally, then for this little bear-cub with black nose and furry bottom. Let it live and prosper, at least until we turn off the screen — and he drank a big swallow from his glass.
     — But why we have not clinked glasses before?
     — We′ll clink↑***** us later! Now we drink, right?

     [ ***** Here is a pun in Bulgarian, because to clink, knock, or even hit, is ′ chukam′, what in jargon usage in reflexive form (with ′se′) is widely used idiom for to copulate, bump, in a way. ]

     — Ah, uneducated macho! And isn′t it possible before?
     — It might have been. If you have said this earlier, right? And now it is too late. Come on, drink up your glass and let us plunge one more time in the triangle because your couchette awaits us.
     — But will we not eat something? I have rummaged two hours in the cooking index in order to choose something tasty for my bully, and he does not even want to try it — and she made whiny face.
     — I′ll try it Margy, and even will eat up everything. Just don′t cry. But first the "work", and then the pleasure of eating, isn′t it so? And it was you who proposed it, if you remember. Yet before this the pool. Come on! — and he headed for the water.

     After some time, during which they both, having long ago left the pool, have done things, about which even in the era of HR is not accepted to write (simply because it is better to show them, and the genre of literature is poorer in this aspect), Burly and Margit moved to the dining room and were engaged in the pleasure of filling with energy, which process has remained unchanged since the time of Adam. Swallowing the next chunk the woman said:
     — Bur, it is not bad to give a thought, after all, to the question, where we will go in the exgroup. If you will not leave me till that time, I mean. Because, I suppose you know this, when all rush at once to somewhere, then the last may be forced to remain at home.
     — M-m, similar thought has not yet crept into my head. I mean to leave you and lose your ... "hole". Because for a golf player, you see, to hit the hole is the highest pleasure.
     — Well, well. Such "holes" are met everywhere.
     — Yeah, but the "golf players" are also a heap, I′ll tell you. And you with those, how to put it, expressive "eyes", when you cast a glance at me and my legs at once give way with pleasure. So-o, we can think about the question. But maybe where is warmer, ah? On the Adriatic I don′t wish to be again, because can find there another girl, in the Caribbean I was twice, In Africa there is still too much sand. There are a heap of islands ... Well, what will you say to Australia? Have you been there?
     — Before about 20 years I was ones, but have forgotten everything. This isn′t bad. We will look how the kangaroos are jumping and the koalas are climbing, and in the nights some wild dingos will howl under our windows. Then in the day you will hang a ring on your symbol of fertility, and I will throw a boomerang from a distance of about 50 meters and will take down the ring. If it will not fall before this, I mean, due to bad climatic and other conditions. But I will fix you with my "eyes", in order to avoid such things.
     — Hmm, this about your eyes is good, yet I thing that it will be better to use some twig for the purpose, because I, I don′t know whether you have noticed this, but like to decorate my mentioned "symbol" with some ... balls, and they are such delicate things, so that I am a little afraid, to tell you.
     — OK, we will leave the game with the boomerang under question. But otherwise you agree, yes?
     — Yes. And will eat stewed kangaroo tail with shrimps and bananas, or something like that. Superb! You are sitting on your verandah, watch how jump there various male-kangaroos, female-kangaroos, and baby-kangaroos, and, when one of these animals with solid tail looks good enough to you, show it to the robot and it goes to take its tail away. And the left it throws to the various dingo-boys and -girls that protect us from foreign dingos.
     — Yeah, only that nobody will allow you to kill the poor animal. Unless it is ill or old, but then it might not be good for eating, or not be tasty. So that there, too, the kangaroo meat will be like here — it has grown on some bones, that may as well be from a donkey!
     — Listen, let us not speak about such disgusting things, ah? When I eat it, it tastes good to me, and that it was some muscle culture grown on an animal skeleton, or seaweed and plankton, or refined petroleum products, is the same to me. Now the fishes are natural, the eggs, too, also various mollusks and insects, but buzzing creatures I don′t put in my mouth.
     — Why so, dear? I have one girl-friend, there in the other wing of the arrow, on the top floor, so she likes much various trepangs or I don′t know what other larvae.
     — Ugh, and grasshoppers, maybe. Like the ancient prophets of Christ′s religion. I don′t know whether you know this, but their "delicacy" were dried locusts with wild honey. Could you imagine? Only that I have not grasped whether they shoved the locusts in the honeycomb and baked on low heat, or poured with plentiful honey and decorated with lettuce leaves, or something else of the kind.
     — You may laugh, but this might not be bad, because they are reach on natural proteins and fats, and when you add to them also carbohydrates, then maybe will get something very nourishing.
     — However it may be, yet without me. And what will we do with our children? I will take my philosopher, if you don′t mind, because he is in such age when little diversity and meeting with other teenagers will not do him any harm. And the boy must begin also the sexual exercises. Well, if he has not begun them, for I have not asked him. And you what will do with your Philly?
     — Well, I will come up with something, because with her we will not be able to exchange even a pair of kisses. And the boy you can take. He will, anyway, not stay with us. But why you call him philosopher?
     — Because he, you see, wanted to be from the Selected, likes the Ancient Greece, has decided to name himself Platon, and so on. Yet this is a long story. Else, really, he looks to me very intelligent. Even I as if am already not good for him.
     — Well, it is good that the boy is alert. I am glad about this. ... Do you know, I have some idea. I have an old friend Candidate. So-o, let us sent him to the latter to talk together, ah?
     — I value your proposition, but it will hardly be quite suitable that one your friend sends his son to your old friend, am I right?
     — O-oh, stop it! We maintain relations mainly because of our daughters. Because he has taken for himself a daughter and, when she was still a baby, I, after all, was necessary to provide him with various advices. The robots, surely, are a good thing, but a woman at hand in such cases is not at all superfluous. Something like a mother, I mean. And you how have managed with your boy when he was still a baby?
     — Well, I have taken him in his third year. Else, what would I have done with a nursing child, ah? And how he has decided to take a daughter? Should not the sex of the child be like that of the parent?
     — Ah, it should, of course. But nobody has said that on the contrary is forbidden. He said to me that a man will always need some woman, and that the difficult moment will be only somewhere in the puberty, but while she is small, and also later, when he becomes old, is better to have a daughter. And also for her were better to have a father. Such things. But maybe he is right, I don′t know. I personally have not looked at the things in this way. Yet, be it as it may. Then his Peggy and my daughter become friends, so that we meet him often. His one is about an year older, but they get along very well. I only hope that they will not quarrel one day because of one and the same man. Ha-ha.
     — Well, if you are such good acquaintances then you can mention this sometime to him. ... M-m, wonderful dinner, my sweetheart. Only if there will happen to be also something sweet for a dessert, I wouldn′t say no.
     — Do you know, it will happen to be something sweet. The same as everywhere, because my kitchen unit is standard one. You type what you want.
     — Thanks. I think to have one melba, in order to restore the milky balance of the body. And you?
     — But I don′t know. Maybe some parfait. Because to run, I run, yet there have to be also less calories. Where I ... will have my "melba" later from you, if you don′t mind.
     — M-m, not that I object to this, but the regenerative process, you understand, by this "running through the course", hitting with the "stick", et cetera, is a bit delayed, so that ...
     — I will accelerate it, my darling, don′t worry about this. I said, cheers!
     — Cheers. This time about the kangaroos, if you don′t mind.
     — For the kangaroos and their tails, and for some other tails that jump exactly like kangaroos.

     After what their desserts appeared on the table, and were eaten, and our heroes went again in the other room, where ... and so forth.

          * * *
     On the next onday morning Burly met again during the breakfast with his son. He ate slowly, and because he had nothing planned till the lunch he decides one more time to talk with him. But he cannot restrain himself to begin with Australia, for which, really, more than two months ahead, were no problems to make reservations.
     — Platty, have you thought what you will do in the exgroup? What will you say to a trip down and under, how is said, to a place which is native land of the kangaroos?
     — Wow, that′s in Australia. No problems! If you don′t joke, I mean. But can you afford it?
     — And why not? As a rule everybody can go on vacation one week in the winter and two weeks in the summer where he or she wants. Unless one economizes very heavy, but for what me save more money? The home is good for me, the golf is cheap and affordable sport, the car works good and I don′t need a new one, the synthetic food is good enough for me and I don′t spend on natural lobsters or black caviar — because can′t find the difference from the synthetic ones, I mean. And have also not yet begun to collect some authentic beer caps, or shaving blades, or porcelain sets, or something of the kind. Neither am very fond of the cosmic space, so that to want to build myself a spaceship, nor submarine, for to dive in various sea holes. And as far as I have not yet the right to work 4 hours, then also from here I economize a bit.
     — And do you pay much for to work?
     — Well, neither much, nor little. In an year it comes up to about half a new car. You see, the Government has calculated what are the average expenses for a single person, so that he receives the necessary credits. We will not begin to fight one with the other because have nothing to eat, or have not enough markets, right? Or to outsmart one another that one′s wares are better than those of the others — how it was earlier with the advertising. When a reasonable approach is applied the necessary means in society will always be found.
     — And ... only we two are going , if I can put this question?
     — Now, try to guess.
     — Everything is clear, hence with that aunt, who, even before she presses the door buzzer and the flat fills with exotic aromas, and I go to Grony to study the lessons together. I mean that you think that I go to him, I want to say — and the boy looked shrewdly at him.
     — Yeah, exotic aromas. But this is something like advertising of the company, you see, because Margit works in one such factory. Yet you are already a big boy so that you can go where you want.
     — No problems, I′ve told you. Anyway, I don′t intend to disturb you. And maybe I also will find where ... to spend my energy.
     — So it is, yet I thought to speak with you also about this, because you have grown enough now. I think it is necessary to explain you some things ... about the women, I mean, and ...
     — But dad, do you really think that you will explain the things better than in the lessons, ah? Well, I want to say that I ... understand already these things and ... it all is just natural, isn′t it?
     — So, so. Men have something that women have not, and vice versa, so that the opposites attract themselves. But, like you say, it is natural, though not very rational. And, besides, this is in some extent development of the body, so that such exercises are also necessary. Earlier in this was hidden some concrete goal, but now this is simply an useful exercise and pleasure. If one does not overdo the things, so that this does not interfere with your lessons, and that you do not become pretty fascinated with this. I want to say that the emotion did not gain the upper hand over the reason. But OK, we can speak about this some other time, too
     — Surely, father. But I don′t understand only this: what is so bad if the women ... gave birth, I mean, and not only exercised idle. I want to say that one knows that some child is really his or her. Well, not only legally, you see. Because if the people want then this is possible, right?
     — If - then. Exactly so. But they don′t want much. The men as if want, more often, but why should the women suffer to give birth? Not that I know how much they suffer, but, after all, why is this necessary, when the embryo is developing very well also in an artificial womb? Then also, you see, when you know your own children you are pretty attached to them, and this is not reasonable. And then the divorces, ah? Earlier, right, the people married. And lived happily, well, on the average five years, and after this they only endured one another, because the children and the family had to be supported. So, up to the 21 century of the old era people still married, but the divorces have exceeded 50%. And later they exceeded 60 and 70%, and then they have seen that there is no reason to marry when will later divorce, is there? And what to do with the children? If they were even number than this was possible somehow, but when they were odd? And then they had to sue and to prove that the other spouse is, either insane, or incapable, or something similar. And even if there were two boys they were again given to the mother. Generally, a lot of nonsense. And this everything because of the emotional attachment of the mother. I want to say that the mother may not be a silly woman, but when is goes about her children than she is like a common brooding hen, which is not at all capable to take reasonable decisions! But to give the children to the man is also not good, because the woman has suffered to bear them, while he has looked only at his own pleasure. So that everything is pretty twisted.
     — Well, of course, twisted. But if some pair wants to have their own children then this is not taken for unreasonable.
     — It isn′t taken for normal, my boy. Otherwise it is allowed. I think that even now there are about 10,000 families.
     — Slightly over 18 thousand, father. Yet in the last 20 years they increase a bit. Though I understand that this does not make even one to thousand, so that this is an obvious exception. But to me this does not seem natural.
     — Well, if we involve the natural then the things begin to entangle even more, because it is natural to have one man to a hundred women, for example. But then the women will not be pleased, because the man will visit them a pair of times in an year, and they want that this happened more often. So that 1:1 is one quite Solomonic decision. And as to the giving birth ... We-ell, if the man could have also given birth then there would have been no problems, right? But otherwise the things are not equal. And they are not such because the very God wanted so, though it is all the same will we speak about God or about evolution. The both sexes are necessary in order to have more clear opposition, to have motion, dynamics.
     — And what if the sexes were three? Would it have been better then, ah?
     — Heh, but I am not the almighty God to answer this. If after some millennium the sexes become three, then maybe so is better, but this doesn′t seem much probable to me. The genetics, really, can make all sorts of people, if we want also with 7 sexes, or hermaphrodites, but surely there is no need to intervene in the things of nature. This thing called unreasonable or unjustified pride is s very important thing, my boy. Id est it is important that there was no such pride! And earlier people were very proud, either to turn back some river, or to afforest a desert, or to dry a swamp, or to work so energetic that there rises up dust. But this is necessary to be done very carefully, because there are powers above those of the whole mankind taken together. And it isn′t reasonable to interfere with them, if we want to survive.
     — I agree that the reason has to be above everything, but all the same I think that the natural is more reasonable. Anyway. And what will you say about the equality of the sexes, ah?
     — Hmm, but exactly this equality has messed a bunch of things in our world. To speak about equality precisely there, where exists the biggest difference, is a pure nonsense. We can speak about equal rights, or equality before the law, or equal conditions for using of human goods. But all this means that we are speaking about "equal opportunities to prove the inequality"! Because the people are not equal to each other (as well also the animals, of course), neither the sexes are equal. If they were equal, then this would have meant that there are not two sexes but one, right? And it exactly this is good, that they are not equal. Do you know what part of the Selected are men and what women?
     — Well, men are somewhere about 70% of all.
     — You see? And maybe they will increase further. Because it is clear that the man is the creative and fighting personality, bearer of intellect, that who values his peace and likes games (for the reason that the creativity is a kind of game with the nature, right?). While the woman is bearer of this what is good for the nature (what far away from always is reasonable), of the chaos and destruction, the egoism, if you want, especially if she bears her children. I don′t know your experience in sexual exercises, about which we have talked, yet there, definitely, is nothing reasonable! But they are necessary in order to exist life. And there is also something else. There is exceptional and mediocre, but both things are equally necessary for the society. Only the exceptional can create something new or win under changed conditions, but it can also more easy die. The mediocre, for its part, is more endurable, but also more conservative. Have you any idea what was life span for the both sexes earlier, when it was still not fixed?
     — Well, I don′t know exactly, but remember that the women lived roughly with 5 years longer than the men, or even more.
     — A-ah, you see? And on the other hand they create ova till the middle of their life, i.e. when they lived by 80 years this was approximately 40, and now is to 50, and then comes the critical age, the climax, after which the woman ceases to be woman in regard of the reproduction. Now from every woman are taken periodically by some ova until is reached the necessary number of 10 for the genetic banks, unless she prefers to cut out one her ovary and produce them in artificial conditions. So after this time, or without ovaries, the woman comes very close to the man in her rationality, but this happens then, when she, factually, is no more a woman. While the man functions like such till the very 80, although pretty rare, you understand? But he is less endurable, because he spends himself stronger. And his metabolism is less effective. And so on.
     — So-o. Hence I am neither to be glad that am a boy, nor to regret about, right?
     — Exactly. Everybody has his level of difference. And all the differences between various people, taken together, make the society. Homo rationalis is for reasonable manifestation of the differences, not for their elimination. But, do you know, I think to send you to one friend of Margit, he was called Seymour. He was a Candidate and maybe it will be interesting for you to talk with him about various things. About Ancient Greece, foe example, and about what you want. You have no objections, ah?
     — O-oh, with big pleasure, dad. But let me tell you ciao for the moment, because if you don′t have lessons, then I have, after all. Right?
     — Ciao, Platty.

          * * *
     Somewhere after one sextet time, in the evening, Bilby has headed for the "Bells" for the appointed meeting with Seymour. Because he was not yet allowed to drive personal car he used the communal transport, and also a short walk would have done him no harm. The apartment complex consisted of seven 10-storey buildings in form of enormous bells with transparent outer walls behind which were seen various plants. It was evident that these were some winter gardens, where each apartment has its own, and different in something from the others, garden. The middle of the bell was filled with various greenhouses, water pools, and other equipment, and the flats were on the periphery. The boy found the necessary apartment and rang. He was met at the door by about 40 years old man with shaggy hairs and not less shaggy vegetation on the face and was led to the drawing room before his garden, where were a few palm trees and other tropical plants, separated by a thin transparent partition from the corner where they went. The man showed the chair to the boy and began the conversation.
     — Hence you are that Platon about whom Margit has talked to me. Glad to meet you.
     — I am called, in fact, still Bilby, but after an year intend to name myself Platon, and my father has agreed to call me so now, but this isn′t official.
     — Well, the official is: year, month, day, and then the code of birthday, isn′t it? But we have not gathered here to conduct official negotiations, right? I also have a number, but all call me Seymour — and he took out some bulky pipe, filled it and lit. A nice aroma spread in the room.
     — My father drinks often various aromatic brandies, but does not smoke. And you smoke ...
     — ... but don′t drink. This is what you wanted to say? Well, I am not very fond of brandy, yet also drink occasionally something in the evenings. Some sort of whisky with the pipe will not do me any harm. And you chose what you want from the kitchen robot ... — but in this moment some noise was heard behind the partition and Bilby turned surprised to the internal window. The noise came somewhere from the palm trees and when he looked more attentively he found there a monkey, having stuck its head out behind the trunk.
     — A-ah, I have forgotten to introduce you, Platon. This is Bambi, and there between the leaves is Bimbi. Bambi is the female and she, as it can be expected, is more inquisitive, so that she can′t miss to cast a look at who has come there to visit.
     — Bambi and Bimbi. Hmm, very interesting. Are they not afraid of me?
     — The first 10 minutes, probably, but later become used to. I have called them so ... well, I don′t know whether it is right to say this, but you are big boy, so that can explain it to you. The bubbing is sonorous and they got quickly used to it, and I distinguish them by the middle letter. But when written! The Latin "i" is one such ... sticking out letter, don′t you find so? And the letter "a" is ..., well, some hole. Like also the "o", yet it has not sounded good to me, and the "a" is also the most open vowel. So that the masculine monkey has an "i" (and read how in Latin, naturally) in the middle, while the feminine one has an "a" in the middle. And I′ll tell you that it is not that this "i" meets rarely with the "a". Ha-ha. ... Hmm, so what is it about what you want to talk? I was told that you liked the Greece from that time. Is it so?
     — But yes. Homeland of a bunch of philosophers and sciences. And the democracy. I mean in a pure form. Well, this was the cause while it did not stay for long and they changed it with the next tyranny, yet the idea is theirs. And their gods also were more interesting and like alive. Only that they fought all the time, but who did not fight in those times? They were very reasonable people, were they not?
     — Well, the human being, generally, has always considered himself reasonable. Only that more often he just considered himself such, than was such. Even the bright people have long ago said that the homo sapience is a being capable to reason, yet avoids to do this! Or rather: the human is a being that begins to think after he has used all unreasonable ways for reaching of the goal! Well, for so many millenniums we have already quite used them, so that we are just forced to be reasonable. A propos, do you know what mean these Latin words? I have in mind sapience and ratio?
     — Well, thinking, isn′t it?
     — Yes, yes. But I ask you in linguistic sense. Because every word has come from somewhere, sometimes from an usual imitation of natural sounds, and is related with other similar words in various languages. So that each word means something.
     — A-ah, well, sapience I don′t know from where exactly comes but ratio is reasoning, thinking, right?
     — More or less so, but then arises the question: what is this thinking and how the people in ancient times have imagined it to be? The sapience is pretty old root, because in Turkish people speak about to sapikasam and esaps. But the first is something like guessing or understanding, and esap is a calculation. Yet the ratio is the same, because in Latin ratio means relation, quotient, proportion, dividing. But the dividing you know how is written —with a short line, i.e. something above and something below. Did you get it? In the same way like Bimbi and Bambi. So also the relation, between people, I mean, is again, in some sense: one above, and the other below. I beg you to excuse me, yet it is so. Only that I got distracted, because this led us aside of the calculations. So I had in mind that ratio is dividing. And dividing means reason, because in order to divide two numbers one needs to be pretty clever, right? It is so also today, because there are not many people who can calculate good in their head, without calculator, and in Ancient Rome this was very difficult, for the reason that people used then Roman numerals! So that, to add two Roman numbers, this is more or less easy, but to divide them — well, this is quite difficult, and in ancient times this was able to do not more than one person to a thousand.
     — Ah yes, this about dividing in Roman numerals I have never heard. Yet about the calculations, really, my father also often makes mistakes.
     — So it is, people make errors, especially when they make approximate calculations, because even if they have learned the algorithm of calculation, the numbers for the majority of them are something strange and abstract. But they have good ordering. Yet let us return to the thinking. I don′t believe that you know this but in Slavonic languages the thinking comes from ... the letter "m"! Id est the letter "m" is the letter of thinking, or at least this is so in Ukrainian, where this letter is called "mislite", and the word "thought" is "misl". Something similar exists also in Greek word μυθoσ, what is our myth, only that there this is not the thought, i.e. the calculations, but the result of thinking, i.e. various talks and legends, contain this letter. And the point is not only in one letter but in the syllable "mi-". And from where has come this syllable, ah? Well, when one begins to think about something, what is that he usually says? Isn′t it something like: "m-m", or "hmm", or "ahm" and the like? It is so, yes? Something similar one can find also in Russian word "dumat", what is to think (and "duma" is a word), which comes from the ... smoke, which is called "dim", i.e. something invisible, some spirit. And the Latin spiritus-spirit has given in French the known la vie spirituelle, or the spiritual life. The Russian (and Slavonic) spirit is "duh", what is the same dim-smoke, of course. Yet you don′t think that this is only Slavonic, because the syllable "dum-" stays quite close to German denken, what has given the English "think".
     — A-ah, this is extremely interesting. But this means that the former human (the sapience) and the contemporary (homo rationalis) do not differ much in their meaning, right?
     — But yes, they are simply synonymous names, because the human being is still the same, and if you put him under some of the ancient living conditions then he will again not behave reasonable. ... Ah, now Bambi is here — said he and, really, the monkey has already sneaked through the opening to the room, and with two jumps has succeeded to place herself on his shoulders and to grasp him by the hairs. He reached back his arm and greeted her, after what she quietened on one of his shoulders. — But I am talking enough. Now tell me you something about this good old democracy, in order to see what you know.
     — We-ell, in Ancient Athens was some Areopagus, which consisted of 500 people chosen from 50 genders or demes by 10 persons. I am not convinced that these genders were correctly defined and maybe there were some frictions between them, but this was again better democracy than that from the end of the era of homo sapience. At least because in the antiquity were much less people and they have more or less known each other, so that were in condition to choose. There was some uniform distribution between them, and they did not represent only some party members, which were in the best case about 5-6% of the population. Everything was decided by the Areopagus: to whom to declare war, who to convict, what to plant in the fields, what to erect, and so on. We-ell, not that people have not made errors, because have succeeded to convict a certain Socrates to death, chiefly because he has taught the young people to believe in nothing and to doubt in everything, and this was not liked by the rulers. But there were no professional politicians and professional lawyers, because they were those who have messed the things, it seems to me. ... And the elections in the demes were often done via a lot, so that everybody had equal chances — something like in the contemporary Assembly of Representatives, and generally ...
     — Well done, boy, you have caught quite important moments, but let us disentangle them a little, ah? Hence, when we will represent the population, then let us represent the people properly, right? And do you know how it is now?
     — Well, now everything is clear and simple. The Government, i.e. the World Council, the Ministers and so on, are chosen top down and by corresponding professional circles of Selected. We-ell, not exactly top down, because ... well, I don′t know precisely, but there are several circles of elections, where, say, 10,000 people chose 1,000, then they chose 100, something of the kind. But this is iterative election, isn′t it? Id est everybody chooses persons who he (or she, of course) knows good, and can choose also himself, if he wants to participate in the governing. Yet as if the majority of Selected does not want to take part in the ruling, because they have more interesting tasks for thinking. However it is, this is in regard to the administrative part. And the democratic element is represented in the Assembly of Representatives, which consists of 1,000 persons chosen nearly like in Ancient Greece. Well, I have again put it not aptly, because in the antiquity the women and the slaves have had no rights to choose, and also not in every gender was applied arbitrary choice, but something similar. Though I have not yet studied probabilities, so that don′t know exactly.
     — Well, I will explain it to you in broad outlines. This is like casting of a die. If we speak about usual arbitrary choice, this means an n-sided die, where if the people are 100 millions, for example, then also the die has to have 100 mln facets. Can you imagine such a die, ah? Well, it doesn′t matter, I ask just so — to stir a bit your imagination. Only that the current choice is not simply arbitrary but is called multi-parametric random choice, what means that in this Assembly exist as percentage as many representatives of various circles of population, as there exist in the entire world. For example, the half of them are men, and half are women; 300 and something are from the yellow race, I don′t know how many are from the black one, and respectively from the white, one of them is from the Selected, because the proportion is approximately 1:1,000; there might be also one Candidate; there are, as an example, 215 persons who are counted for friends of the animals, like also me — I have checked this exactly out of pure curiosity —; there exists also corresponding age distribution in the limits from 25 to 75 years; and so on. This is arbitrary, yet in the same time also quite exact, i.e. more exact than the pure arbitrary distribution, because the algorithm is such that it adjusts the numbers. But these people don′t rule, they only estimate! And they change every year. And so is also in the Courts, which still exist, because we can′t shift everything to the computers. But the last instance always is the entire population, because there are no problems for such voting. So that this is democracy, exactly in the sense of the demos or the people, not of some deformed partocracy, as you have marked this. And do you know why earlier it was different?
     — Maybe because the party members have penetrated everywhere and didn′t wont to let go of the power.
     — Exactly. They have cheated the people that it is impossible without them and the former believed in them and idolized them. The ancient parties were not like these from, say, 19th century and further, because there the personality, i.e. some aristocrat, has made the party and in this, still, was a reason, at least in order to divide the people in several camps. But the later parties were built around some platforms, which as if were bound to represent the interests of the people, yet they represented, predominantly, the interests of the very politicians. Similarly also with the jurists. They have penetrated every activity, using the fact that people simply wanted to sue one another. People litigate and the lawyers stuff their pockets. What better than this? And the very jurisprudence was rotten in its core, for the simple reason that it was done for money, i.e. was not impartial and objective, but as possibly subjective or money-tive! You have to know that people from the recent past have continued to picture the goddess Themis blindfolded, though nowhere in the world the judges have worn masks on there faces, have they? Not to mention the lawyers. On the contrary, they insisted that was known who were they and that the people knew them, while in the same time they judged not according to their own conscience, but in accordance with some laws. Well, the reason requires that was judged either according to your personal view, or else according to established before the suit typical situations fixed in the laws, yet then are necessary not judges but simply some guards or ushers, for whom is not at all necessary to be known who are they, neither this is some honorary title. A propos, do you know now from where comes the word minister, ah?
     — Eh, I don′t know exactly but he must, after all, be an important person.
     — So there is the point that this is not so! And this was clear also to the ancient Romans, because ..., well, you just try to parse the word "minister"!
     — We-ell ..., yes, surely, he can′t be a big person, because "mini" means small! But then why the Latins have called them so, ah, Seymour?
     — Just because they have not wanted that the ministers became conceited, and that the latter were aware that the minister is "a little man in a big organization" — in the state. But when there were advantages then the man at once "grew" bigger. It can′t be said that there don′t exist similar moments also today, yet by such big amount of computerized systems he (or she) is, in many cases, only formally appointed person.
     — Something like the work of my father, isn′t it?
     — A-ah, you have grasped this, too, yes? Well done, Platty. Now, surely, this is a sort of delusion, but there is nothing to be done, when the people want to be deluded, to such extent that, if there is nobody to delude them, they alone begin to delude themselves and believe in this. Do you know, the ancient Romans have formulated an interesting phrase: "Mundus vult decipi", what means literally that "The world wants to be deluded". And when it wants then why not to offer this to the people, right? For this reason were invented also the religions, and later the mass-media. But we even today also delude us, because, up to some extent, the art is also some fiction, i.e. it is not the actual reality. Yet, you see, bad is not the very lie, bad is in which interest it works. But this is another question. ... So let us return to the justice and the democratic element in it. When the belonging to some typical situation have to be established by representatives of the people, then they have to be arbitrary representatives of them, when we can′t gather together the whole population. And earlier, even when in some countries were present Court Assessors, they had to be exactly 12 and they were obliged to take unanimous decision. But what normal person makes a commission of even number of persons in it and requires that all thought identically? This was pure demagogy and arising of dictatorial element in a democratic structure, what unavoidably has led to distortion of the decision.
     — Of course. I have felt something similar, and that is why I prefer Ancient Greece before Rome, yet was not able to explain this more precisely. But then it turns out that Roman legislative tradition, probably, has messed up the world for at least 20 centuries after this, yes? Because I see the reasons why has become necessary to make laws in advance — i.e. to judge before the actual case in view of the objectivity — but this objectivity has not at all existed, at least between the lawyers, who were entirely biased. But it has not existed also between the judges, for the reason that they were chosen by the parties, i.e. again by some parts, and all have known them, so that it was elementary to bribe them, or, at least, to scare them. And how is the situation now, ah Seymour?
     — Well, even now not everything is ideal, but is at least reasonable, i.e. the judges are anonymous — when it comes to judges-humans, of course — and the Court Assessors are arbitrary chosen and also unknown. Yet usually, I think, in at least 90% of cases, the conflicts are solved by computerized systems. And when there is no private property — in this sense in which it was earlier, because I have my car and the flat, yet everyone has such things — and when there is no ancestral or tribal interests, because the children are begot arbitrary, then there is not much about what one can sue. Generally, the today′s centralized democracy, or as we call it also reasonocracy, is one good balance between the dictatorial and democratic stiles of government, where are used only the positive elements from those both extremities. In a society is impossible to do without compulsion, so that we have also today: a Government, World Army, which is based chiefly on some planets, robotized Police or Robicia, justice and punitive organs, and other centralized structures. But we have also democratic ones, because, like also your namesake has grasped: there is no algorithm according to which one can find what is good and what is bad! Though, naturally, without artificial intelligence, presented in the robots, in information and management systems, in knowledge bases at cetera, we wouldn′t have been able to manage, due to the fact that, how people already at the dawn of computers have marked: the weakest link in the system human-machine is the human! The weakest but also the most adaptive one! In some sense here also can be drawn a parallel with the natural situation between sexes. The man is the weakest sex, but he is the most adaptive, creative, fighting, and so on, while the woman is the enduring and hardworking, but also conservative sex. Well, here can be said that the mankind as a whole is of masculine gender, with its advantages and disadvantages, where the machines are of feminine gender, again with their pluses and minuses. ... But let us now take in focus one such question, which is related with the phenomenon of democracy: how is it that the democratic choice from below is bad, because you have said that people have to know each other et cetera, and in the same time this choice has fulfilled its purpose a lot of centuries?
     — Well, I have thought about this and it is clear to me that the choice from below is, how it was said, incompetent, but it, really, has done a good job. A-ah, this is what you ask me: how is it possible that one thing is both, bad and good, i.e. that the choice was unreasonable, but also reasonable, ah?
     — Exactly. Id est: what in it is good and what is bad?
     — Well, the bad thing is the choice, and the good is ... again the choice! What a situation!
     — Paradoxical situation, yes! Only that let us now, instead of the democratic choice, choose from a basket with apples. Is this possible?
     — No problems. Hence I have a basket with some apples. And later?
     — Then we ask ourselves: can we not knowing what kind of apple we are searching, or even looking for the most unripe one, and in spite of this, when we take the most unripe apple, it will again prove to be a good one? Id est when this could be possible, if it is possible at all? Is it clear to you?
     — A-ah, ... but of course, when all the apples are good! Simply stunning! Bu-t, if so then this is no choice at all! Well, naturally, exactly so. This is not a choice but some demagogy, yet such is the democratic choice, right? Because ... each party has practically equivalent candidates. ... And they have changed the parties like neckties, ah? Not because they were good or bad, but simply for a change.
     — Right, Platty. The choice is stupid, but the very procedure of choice was liked by the people! Well, I can′t miss to praise you, boy. There clicks something in your head, I′ll tell you! So let me also add something now. Such solution, which is trivial and exists always, is not interesting to search, yet it, still, is a solution and in some cases can turn to be very useful. Such solution is accepted to be called zero one, where the name comes from the mathematics, where every homogenous system of linear equations has always solution when all the unknown variables are equal to zero. But maybe you still don′t know what is this a system of equations, yes?
     — About systems I have not yet learned, But what is this an equation I know, naturally.
     — Well, I will explain it popularly to you. This isn′t a difficult thing. A system of equations these are several equations, which, though, have also several unknown variables. Usually there are as many equations as many are the variables, and then the systems are defined, but when the equations are more than the variables they are called overdetermined, and if they are less they are underdetermined. Linear equations (or systems) we have when the variables in them are only of first power, and they are homogeneous when on the right of the equations we have zeroes (i.e. there are no constants or free terms). Something like: 5*x + 7*y = 0 and then 2*x - 3*y = 0. It is clear that if x and y are equal to zero, then for each equation we get 0=0, right? ... Well, so it is also with the democratic choice from the past. Solution always exists, i.e. you choose an arbitrary party, but this is not interesting solution of the task for finding of the best party. Yet this is a solution, and it can do a good job when there are not big differences between the parties. And really, in the democratic elections exists this moment, that exactly when the platforms of the parties do not differ much, then this choice turns to be good and the democracy works well, while if the parties are quite different in their platforms, the things begin to slide and arise various disorders, revolutions, and so on. But for the people the elections were an interesting game, where they have even put money on those who will win. Exactly as if the politicians were racing horses. Generally, if you ask me, to be an eminent politician or statesman in those times have had to be an insulting name, yet the people were proud with this, because they were not reasonable beings. Isn′t it so?
     — Yeah, surely, there is nothing to be proud of, unless with this, that you have cheated your neighbour. But this meaningless decision turned to be also incredibly reasonable, because it has given pleasure to the people. But this is really brilliant, ah?
     — No doubt that this is brilliant. Only that it is not for reasonable people! The people, you see, thought that when they have the right to choose then this changed something. But this changed nothing, because they, anyway, were not in position to make the right choice. Yet it kept in obedience! Because, after they were asked and they have answered, then, hence, from that moment on, only they were guilty if something was not as it would have been. In other words, the democracy was the best baby pacifier for the mouth of populace — because it, both, preserved the system of ruling, and kept the people in obedience! But the reasonable person obeys to reasonable things just because they are reasonable! Then also this was not pure democracy for many of centuries, because there were: President, Ministers, marital laws, Police, and so on, so that the people have not ruled. They only changed easy some incapable persons with other similar and reveled in their power. — ... In this moment also Bimbi spun around Seymour and both monkeys began to pull him from this and from that side and show discontent in their own language.
     — They are displeased that we talk much but it has already come time for their dinner. Yet it has come also for us, isn′t it? Well, I have prepared nothing special, but let us move near to the table and you choose what you want — said the man an placed himself at the nearby dining table where typed something on the console. After a pair of minutes appeared the kitchen robot with the trolley with food and the monkeys grasped at once by some bananas from one bowl, because, apparently, knew that they were for them. Seymour slapped them slightly on the back and they headed for one of the corners, where was a small table with low stools. This, probably, was their place for eating.
     — The bananas are local productions of the Bell and are absolutely fresh, so that are good also for us later. Well, let us reinforce a little also our bodies, Platty — and both ate silently for some time. After this the boy said.
     — How nice is it that we live in the era of HR. I just don′t know what would have done if they have made me some 3-4 centuries earlier. Or even more centuries. I would have been, maybe, like the bugs. They scurry here and there, but don′t know why they do this. Entirely meaningless. And now the reason rules everywhere. And even if not everywhere, then we will force it to expand more its activity. The reason is our God, ah Seymour?
     — Yeah, the reason is our God and this is good. Only that, do you know, I will answer you in this way, in which already in ancient Greece, and maybe even earlier, have answered in such cases: too good isn′t good! Or, if you want, that maybe the bugs are better then us, because they have no intellect and don′t know that is meaningful and what not. Have you heard something about the fable of paradise apple?
     — But yes. There was one God, I think Hebrew one, who as if had made the Earth, and the grass, and the birds, and the people, only that they were just two, and were called, how was it, ah, Adam and Eve. So they have lived in one beautiful garden named Paradise and enjoyed the world, for it was God′s creation. Yet in this garden was one tree from which God has forbidden them to eat fruits. But later appeared one serpent and he deceived Eve to try the fruits, and then she fooled also Adam, and then they began ... well, various sexual exercises. Yet our God became then extremely angry and expelled them from the Paradise and they descended to Earth and began to suffer to live, like earlier all people have suffered.
     — Yes, yes, only that the thing was not at all in the sex, but in the reason! Do you understand, this tree was called Tree of Knowledge, not of Sex, right? So that much reason turned to be not good. At least according to the views of ancient people.
     — OK, only that this was long before HR. So that it isn′t valid today.
     — You see, I don′t want to disappoint you, but it is still in force, I′ll tell you. Because ... well, you now imagine yourself one staircase. But very long. Let us call it Staircase of Reason. And you begin to ascend it. You go up, and what then?
     — Well, you rest a little then again continue to ascend further.
     — So, and later?
     — Then again the same thing, yes?
     — And how long?
     — Well, probably always — answered the boy satisfied.
     — Always or all the time is pretty capricious concept. It presupposes that this staircase is infinitely long, does it not? And infinitely is idealized notion. It is not from the real world, because one thing can′t all the time grow, or all the time shrink. Though there exists one possibility that a certain real figure allows to move all time on it and always in one and the same direction, right? What is this figure?
     — A-ah, you are speaking about the circle, yes?
     — Yes. About the circle or the closed contour. But it is better to say cycle, what now is not only geometrical notion. So well, the main property of the cycle is that, moving always in one and the same direction, after some time we return again there, from where we have started. Only some cycle can ensure us the perpetual or endless thing in one limited world, boy. And I beg you to excuse me for my sexual digressions, but on this is based also the sex of the higher mammals. Of Bimbi and Bambi, for example. For one thing this is reciprocating motion, i.e. the movement of the piston, what is "flattened circle", isn′t it? And for another thing, this is the interruption of action, what is returning in the time to the initial point. So it happens that we have cycles in the space and in the time! Without cycle there would have been only some destructive blast.
     — I think ... — voiced confused the boy, — that in the sex, after all, exists a blast, and in spite of this, this is a stable cycle, as you said. Isn′t this some contradiction?
     — Only superficially, Platty, because the "blast" is simply one of the states of the cycle — the upper dead point, let us name it so —, not some destructive blast that breaks the cycle. Bimbi and Bambi break nothing in themselves, because God has taken the necessary measures. So, and now remember that our staircase, which, hence, must be closed in a circle, was the Staircase of Reason.
     — We-ell, then it will turn out that after the much reason we will come back to where we have started. To the amoeba. But this is horrible!
     — Well, exactly horrible I wouldn′t have said, because this, what is natural, must not be observed from positions of emotions. Such approach is not reasonable.
     — And what is then reasonable? To become again amoebas?
     — Maybe even earlier. To return to this, what the ancient Greeks have called chaos, and they have called it so, because the word has come from the shorter "ha", written in Greek as χα — and he wrote with finger the letters on the table — what meant to: yawn, eat, open the mouth. Now, try to say "ha", when you swallow your morsel.
     — "Ha". Ha-ha. But of course. This is an yawn. Hence the chaos was named so because it has eaten everything, yes?
     — Yes, the chaos was one "big mouth". Will we reach to the chaos, or not, is a question of the concrete situation, but some "eating up" of already achieved is always necessary, if we want that there was an incessant movement.
     — Bu-ut, what is then the meaning to be reasonable, in order that later again return to the amoebas? I don′t somehow understand this.
     — Ah, so you also were caught on the hook! What is the meaning, you say? There is no one in our world, who was not caught on the hook about the meaning, with the exception of some pretty narrow-minded persons, who are not able at all to ask themselves questions. But, after all, people live, and this does not hinder them, right? Hence, and that is why I have led you to this thought, this question must just not be asked! In the sense that the more elementary people, no matter that we are living in HR era, simply accept that there is no sense to ask the question about the sense, or that the sense is in this, that here was not sense. Am I clear now?
     — We-ell, I understand every word, but this does not mean that I can grasp the things.
     — The question about the meaning, boy, is one of the main causes for the invention of various gods, who for that reason are gods, because they know the meaning of everything, but say nothing to us because we, anyway, will not understand it. And with this the question is finished. Though, if you want, we can approach this issue otherwise. As it is called: ad absurdum, or supposing the contrary. If there was meaning of the live, then, with or without the reason, we would have sometime grasped it, wouldn′t we? And when we understand it then what will we do further? Or, OK, let we find what to do, but from that moment on the live will again have no meaning for us, i.e. it would have no other meaning, which we did not know. Hence, if we take that a meaning exists, then sooner or later we will face the situation that there is no meaning, what contradicts to our hypothesis! While if take that there is no meaning, then there is nothing bad in this, and it is even very good, because then we can for ever search this meaning, i.e. we will have what to do, and can be sure that will never find it, because there is simply no meaning of life!
     — Astonishing! Hence the meaning is that there was no meaning, and the reason exists for to lead to this, that there was no reason. ... Only that I somehow don′t understand this.
     — You don′t accept this, not that you don′t understand it. And when one does not accept something then what he, most often, does? But he deludes himself, of course. This is his (or her) right and nobody can take it away from him. Besides, we are speaking about things terrifyingly remote in the time, so that they have no meaning at all in our life. Where reason ... Well, you do tell me how many reasonable beings we have met till now in the Universe.
     — A-ah, there are much talks about this, but as if till now not a single one.
     — Exactly. I don′t won′t to say, that there is impossible to exist intellect somewhere in another place, but this is such rarity, that we can quietly take it for exception in the evolution. In other words, we can say that the intellect is a kind of error of the nature. Do you like this definition?
     — M-m, I wouldn′t have said that I like it, yet it seems probable. But then why we want so much to be reasonable, and are even proud with this?
     — A very good question! The simplest answer is that that we are just forced to be reasonable, if we want to survive! The reason requires the applying of reason, but how long this will be so, nobody can tell, and there is also no sense to trouble us with this, because we can do nothing. You see, there is possible that will arise some internal frictions and tendencies, so that ... you better tell me what you are watching most often on the stereovision?
     — Well, chiefly films about nature, about birds, about history in old times. Also sporting events and competitions. Ah, also all sorts of adventure fictions and actions, but they are all old.
     — So, and have you put yourself the question why only old, and there are not good new?
     — Oh, no. ... Maybe this is not taken to be reasonable.
     — Rather maybe because they are not able to make good new ones. Because, you see, the contradictions in our life have strongly decreased. And from here have decreased also the emotions, but they are necessary for the people. Our life has become significantly more dull than earlier. Very quiet, nice, merry, and so on, but also boring.
     — Well, to me it is not at all dull! I even wonder what to learn first and have always not enough time.
     — To you yes. Because you are still very young and have to learn so many things in life. But after 20-30 years, maybe, you will not think so. Well, if you become like me, or from the Selected, then you will have a heap of things about which to think, will create, not only "work", but these people are very few. And the others are simply bored by the life. For this reason we sometimes invent some thinks to which people aim, although this is only delusion, like the work in automated factories, for example. Because of this also the percentage of Selected is so low, and the majority of people are not such. We, you see, don′t hurry to put only on the intellect. Or, expressing this otherwise, now we all are far more intelligent than earlier, but the real intellect, in proportion to the whole society, is again so little, as it was in the times of Adam, maybe. Because it is a kind of error, right? If the errors become too many, if they become a rule, then we will probably very fast come to some explosion. This was known from quite ancient times and because of this people, after the debunking of gods and religions, quite naturally have come upon the propaganda in mass-media as the best way for maintaining of low intellectual level of the population! It was necessary then, like it is necessary also today. ...
     And we must also not forget the stable system, about which we have already spoken, i.e. the "Bimbi-Bambi system". It is not at all reasonable, yet it is quite reasonable to preserve it, right? Well, also the sport, as far as there are many unknowns, is also reasonable to preserve. This, what can not be known in advance, will never bore the people. Even can be said that the fixing of final life extension to 100 years has strongly reduced the happiness of the individual, but is it better to leave somebody to die because he has cut his finger, how it was for many millenniums, or to become to such extent "people" that to begin anew to kill ourselves and to outsmart one another. But, maybe, was necessary to leave also some arbitrary element, some lot, yet it is possible that we were led into error by the saying that if one knows when will die he will dig alone his grave, although this is another theme. So that the reason, surely, is a good thing, our salvation lies in it, yet to overdo the things in this regard is not recommendable. M-m, ye-es. ... Ah, it has already gone over 9:50. That your father will not whack you at home, ah? You excuse me, but it is time for you to leave. Well, I will call a taxi, because have kept you quite long, yet what to do, when also for me was interesting to talk with you — and he typed the necessary on the console and went away from the table.
     — It was terribly interesting for me, Seymour. Perhaps it will be possible to see you another time, ah?
     — But of course, Platty. We are already acquainted, so that you simply ring me when you want to talk again. Goodbye now.

          * * *
     The boy was long ago at home and went to bed, yet in his head everything was so messed, that the sleep did not come like usually. After some time he began to fall in slumber and before his mind′s eye appeared some staircase. It was infinitely long and on each of its steps with large letters was written "REASON" and an arrow above. On the staircase were crawling all sorts of animals and small insects, yet who knows why the amoebas were as big as elephants. There were also many humans, where some of them carried signs with inscriptions: "Homo Neanderthalis", "Homo Fabricius", "Homo Batalis", "Homo Irrationalis", "Homo Sapience", "Homo Rationalis", "Homo Sexualis", and so on. Then at once the staircase became empty. Although, when he peered better, Bilby saw there Bimbi and Bambi. They have just stopped for a while on one step and Bimbi showed to Bambi his "i", and Bambi compared it with her "a" and nodded with her head. Then they began one reciprocating cycle, that moved both, in the time and in the space, yet always returned on the same place, and Bimbi explained:
     — You see, Bambi, the important thing is that there existed movement. Without movement there is no cycle, without cycle is no eternity, and without eternity there is no life. So that the meaning is that there was a cycle, because otherwise there is no meaning, and if we assume that there is a meaning, then it will turn out that there is no meaning. But if we assume that there is no meaning, then there will remain only the cycle, because there is a meaning in it. Do you understand, Bambi?
     — Yeah, Bimbi. I like very much this cycle, in which there is no meaning. Let us make one more little cycle, Bimbi.
     — Look now, Bambi. We have to move up the stair, because this is part of the cycle, so that let us move to the next step — and they went to the upper step, where made one little cycle, in which there was a blast, yet it did not destroy the staircase. Then Bimbi continued: — The important thing, Bambi, is that there were stops, because otherwise we will not be able to return in the time and then the cycle will not close. But we must not forget also about the movement — and they advanced to the next step, where Bambi proposed to make again one movement, which has to close the cycle. After they made it, they moved to the next step and Bimbi explained that sometimes the cycle may be flattened and then it becomes a piston, to what Bambi remarked that she likes very much piston-like cycles and expressed a wish to stop and have a better look at the piston. After finishing also with this cycle they moved to the next step, where Bimbi clarified that they are moving on the Staircase of Reason, which is characterized with this, that when they reach the highest reason, they will happen to be again in the beginning, to what Bambi answered:
     — Oh, Bimbi, I just love this about the beginning. Let us begin again from the very beginning — and they began again from the beginning, what did not destroy the cycle, because in a cycle there is neither beginning nor end, but ... somewhere about this time Bilby succeeded at last to fall in deep sleep and without dreams.

     Aug 2000


     Andrey Stepanovich Novikov sneaked energetically through the noisy crowd on the boulevard "New Dawn" in one late morning of a fresh May day. He was large man in well "ripened" age, how he liked to express himself sometimes, with recently planted on his broad crown hairs, quite black, yet with slight nuance of overburned coffee, which surged in front like by some ancient satyr, and descended back on waves almost to his shoulders. His eyes were dark and penetrating, and his frightening appearance was completed with half a span bristly mustaches drooping down like by a walrus, which were quite grizzled and in harmony with his gray suit. The manner of his walking was slightly tottering because of his kilograms, which he carried with dignity, for they were speaking about well functioning heart muscle, still natural. His body was up to 92 percents his own, and he demonstrated this with the pleasure, with which a young girl shows the charms of her breasts. He was just going to enter in the supermarket "Venus Shell", when somebody unceremoniously pulled him by the sleeve of the jacket and yelled:
     — Hello, boy! If I am not deceived by my traitorous memory then as if I have looked at your muzzle about ten years every working day en face. Android Stepanych, in person. And where to are you hurrying in a women′s shop, if I may ask you? Maybe to buy a new bra for your bride, ah?
     — Well, hello, when you have said so — spoke Andrey more cheerful, because recognized his old colleague Peter from the "Stratostroy" Institute. — Glad to see you, Mr. Vsuevodkovich↑*. How are you living and prospering?

     [ * Here is a jocular playing around the word "vodka", which sounds similar to the family of the man; like also a bit earlier was used the word "android" being similar to Andrey, what is your Andrew. There are many similar moments further. ]

     — You have been a jokester and have remained it, my dear. I also am glad to see you alive and kicking. But just don′t believe that in your age you have some very urgent business, ah? So that why not to sit down somewhere?
     — Well, to have very urgent business, I haven′t, yet it must be finished today, because tomorrow am invited to a wedding, and can not appear empty-handed there, right?
     — When you are invited then it isn′t your own, is it? Am I judging correctly?
     — Quite correctly, Vredomvodkovich, quite correctly. Of one of my great-great-granddaughters, so that I have to buy her some wedding present.
     — I think that already 1248 times have said to you that I am Vsevolodovich, or maybe it was 1249? I always make error with one unit. Especially with my matron. Every morning I think that during the night have done nothing and begin to labour in the bed, and then it turns out that I have fulfilled my norm already in the night. Ha-ha.
     — You want to say every month, I suppose. Excusable error, boy. For your hundred and how many there were years?
     — Thirty three years and some months. The hundred are not pronounced, as you know. And you have to be thirty or twenty nine years old, if I am not wrong.
     — Twenty eight with something. However, you are buying! — And Andrey looked around in search of a small tavern. — Where you want that we enter?
     — Well, maybe in the "Morning Star" but we must take the metro for a couple of stops. Or in the "Sea Bottom", there not far away, do you know it?
     — I suppose no, but if it is not far then I am "for" it.
     — Well, we must cross the highway and then one block up, and then a bit to the right, and there a bit down under the ground and this is all — answered Peter and led to there. He was thin and tall, and made such steps, that his friend was quite encumbered to follow him, but, on the other hand, a pensioner always needs movement, so that this will not do special harm to Andrey. And the "grand-grand" will wait a bit — he has, anyway, still not decided what to buy her. If he will not think up anything else, then he will be impelled again to buy her some bed linen. As if he already 50 times buys bed linens, but what else to buy? They always sooner or later tear, because why one marries, if he will lie quietly and peacefully in the bed, so that they will never become superfluous. And the statistics as if showed that in 43% of the cases the marriage presents were such. Or was it 34%? Something of the kind, but until he does not look at personal communicator he can′t be sure. Yet that is why it existed, isn′t is? Because, if one begins to fill his head with all kinds of nonsense what will happen? Or to remember all the names.
     — Ye-es, and now by these stairs and to the second underground floor — voiced his friend and when they made two turns counterclockwise they descended to the entrance of the tavern, which was something like underwater cave, only that it was dry in it. But behind the walls it wasn′t, because there was quite spacious aquarium, with a number of galleries. — And now we have arrived. Choose a table, if you have some preferences about the fauna around — added he again.
     — Eh, what are you saying? Well, where you choose.
     — I prefer there in the darkest place because behind this rock are two or tree octopuses, and one does not see every day octopuses on the street, does one? You are as if absentminded, ah? About what are you thinking?
     — Well, about the name. I all the time forget these names. Let me look at the percom — and he typed something on the device on his left hand, where everybody carried his personal communicator.
     — Whose name, ah, boy?
     — Of the bride, naturally. Ah, here is she — Natalia Petrovna. But yes, of course. And liked that people called her Natalie. But can one remember all the names? Now, let us see what says the gadget. Novikov A. S., i.e. I personally, have till six o′clock of this morning: one current wife, Euphrosyna Ivanovna, one former wife, Tamara Mikhaylovna, one brother — I will skip the names for brevity —, one sister, three living children (two with the first wife, one with the second), six living grandchildren, 17 great-grandchildren, 41 great-great-grandchildren, and only 9 "great in third degree" grandchildren, because he (i.e. I) has not yet reached 150 years, or five generations of approximately 30 years, and because of this has only incomplete number of offsprings of fifth generation. He has also one living mother, one uncle and two aunts, what gives precisely 84 direct relatives. If we add also the married couples of all descending relatives, or in sum 62 persons, because some of them lead single lifestyle, being better for the health, we obtain in total 146 people of the "he" or "she" kind. And if Novikov A. S. is interested about his near relatives, including the direct relatives of his brother and sister, they come up to 237, which together with their husbands /wives make 411, and joined with the relatives of his uncle and the two aunts this gives a little more than one thousand, or more precisely 1197 human beings. If we associate to them also the direct relatives of married couples we get five thousand and ...
     — Now you stop, please, with your relatives and tell me what you will drink. I propose by a traditional coffee with a traditional brandy, until we make our heads so traditionally messed, that will be necessary to call robo-transport to deliver us home. Do you agree with this, or you have other ideas?
     — Your choice is good, Vechnovodkovich, only that not more than two repetitions, you know, because my great-great-granddaughter Mashka will remain without gift, and what if at once she will not be ready to consume her wedding night, when I have not bought her the bedclothes for the occasion? But maybe she was not Mashka-Romashka, for she was with one level up in the genealogical three, and she as if has already grandchildren. Ah, yes, Natashka. Damn names, as if we can not point a finger at them and say: hey sweety, or something similar. What you will say to this?
     — I will say that you much prattle but about the glass forgettle. Now cheers and that the next year we meet again and you tell me then all additions in your genealogical three! Your health, Andrey!
     — And your, too, boy. A-ah, a good brandy. I, to tell you the truth, don′t stick much to the glass, because the years, after all, pull down, yet sometimes with friends my throat widens.
     — And my throat is always broad, ha-ha. But the coffee, too, is good here, ah? Do you see that octopus, there behind the rock. He has again intertwined pedes with his "bride" and maybe are preparing some young "octo-children". Again cheers! We repeat it, ah? Good. And about my direct relatives I can tell you at once, that they are 98, because almost every day I check have they not already become 100, for to throw a drinking party on this occasion in "Space Wanderer". You know it, don′t you, at the top of that tower on the corner of "River boulevard" and "Neutron street"?
     — I have seen it from afar, but have not yet entered into it, because they say that it is very expensive, and I, as ordinary chemical engineer, don′t have very big pension.
     — So you think that I have? Maybe I am some huckster or pusher, ah? I am also like you, only that I deprive myself of almost nothing, because who knows whether I will exit this year from the Tunnel or not? For it is so, isn′t it? So for example, Xan Xander, you remember him, the colleague photographer from the institute?
     — But yes, it may be said that I lunched every day with him at work, but later, when I have rounded my hundred and went on pension, have met him only a pair of times, and in the last 4-5 years have heard nothing about him. Do you not mean that he ...
     — Exactly. And you will never see him more, unless on a holography. Left the man this world and that′s it. Destiny.
     —We-ell, and do you know from what?
     — Ah, from "tunnel disease", like everybody. Well, not exactly everybody, only 92% of the deaths. About 5% die on the fields of battle in the Galaxy, but I was never attracted by this, and after 100 years there, all the same, don′t take, so that there is no need to think about this now. Another 3-4% die of natural death, yet in the most cases after a long illness, in what I find nothing pleasant. The left — in the Tunnel. But what we can do, when have long ago jumped over 50 billions people on the earth globe? In the olden times, do you know, in the beginning of our era, there are not full 22 centuries from those times, the people on the whole Earth were still less than hundred millions, and now we are nearly a thousand times more. This is not a joke, right?
     — Well, it is true what you say, but I don′t like it much. Else you are right about the Tunnel — my father, and also all my relatives, only with a pair of exceptions, have finished their earthly journey there. One my grandson was split in atoms, somewhere in the expanses of Cosmos, as if there was another one, but I can′t remember, and one of the sons of my brother have refused the Tunnel and suffered one and a half years from some tumor, I have forgotten where.
     — Yeah, this is so, our only chance is that we have luck in the Tunnel. Let us drink again, ah? And I will repeat it for the third time, even if this will become known among my entire gender, ha, ha. What is better, I ask, to be strong and healthy, and that you have also one strong and healthy thing, even if this happens once in a month, as you say, but by me it happens as if once in a week, and so till the moment when occurs this, what is destined for you, yet so that you felt nothing at all, or to lie ill a lot of time and be barely able to stay till this time without regenerative pills? Well, I ask you this.
     — Yes, you are right, Vsevolodovich, right, only that I don′t like it. I understand this everything and still don′t like it. Each year when comes time for me to appear in the Tunnel, I can′t fall in sleep for three nights and all the time check my testament before this, while my old woman, the wife, only mocks at me and it is all the same to her will she exit from the Tunnel on her own two legs or will be driven directly for the crematorium.
     — This is so because the women are nearer to the life. More vital, in a way. And live longer, if you leave them to die of their own death, but this injustice is now eliminated, so that by them also is maintained the same average life expectancy like by the men. In this way we have at last reached also "male emancipation", ah? Before the death all sexes are equal! ... Did you say "cheers" or I have just imagined it?
     — I say, I say. You will make me drunk and Natashka will remain without wedding present and then my dulcinea will again scald me.
     — But why must she remain without gift? You decide what to buy her and order it by the percom — what′s stopping you? As if you don′t know what can be there in the shop.
     — Maybe so it also will happen. And what you propose that I buy her? Each time I wonder what and in the end buy some bedclothes. What you would have bought for a blonde aged 28, or thereabouts, a secretary, if I am not wrong. Well, she might not wear light hairs now, yet is a girl, right?
     — Then you buy her the same thing, only that this time without prior wondering! What is the use to think long, when later will behave again in your way, ah?
     — Good fellow, you′ve convinced me. Hence I will order half a dozen bed linen, three-quarter width, with embroidered in rose "N" and "P" on each linen. OK?
     — You order better light blue, like clear sky — this is now in vogue, and add some bunch of flowers. This will be very chic. I would have added also a "Contraceptive kit", because you know that now are not allowed children before 35 years of age of the woman. Not that she can not give birth, if so much wants, but must carry alone all the costs for the child, and they are quite big, I′ll tell you.
     — OK, yes, I agree — light blue linen and a bouquet of 21 white chrysanthemums, yet without your kit, because she is my granddaughter, although grand-grand. So be it, let me make the order ...
     — We-ell, and I will order by one more glass in this time. Also some almonds for snack.
     — But listen, let me pay this time, ah?
     — Today I am buying, you alone said so. And I agreed. Hence, the question is solved. You will buy when you exit the Tunnel. Do you agree? And when is your turn? I am as if on May the 13th, fatal number. Let me see ... yeah, exactly on the 13th in nine in the morning.
     — I am on the 15th of May, a bit later. Well, good, after the Tunnel, if I will exit out of it alive and well.
     — When we exit it, old boy. And if occasionally it will not turn so how we want — well, at least you will save a good treat, so that in all cases you will win!
     — OK, I promise. I am a human, too, right? Hence on the 15th of May about 18 hours, but you call me by the communicator, in order not to hit the road for nothing. And where will we go? Have you any objections against "The Forest Thrush" — I suppose you know it?
     — I know it, cheers! And both heads up, while is possible, ha, ha.
     — Cheers. ... Hmm, and isn′t it possible somehow to escape the Tunnel, ah? Don′t you think that this is possible?
     — But how to escape the Tunnel, dear? Don′t make me laugh. After all, they check there all personal documents, attach a bunch of sensors to you, in order to monitor the activity of heart and the breathing, fasten your hands to the handrails, put the bracelet on your neck, and launch you on the serpentines of horror. Frightening, but also exciting. Virtual reality of horrors. Then after some time something clicks in the computer of the Tunnel, and on some of the chairs pops out a tiny needle, sticks into the neck of somebody, and after two heartbeats his (or her, naturally) heart stops and he finds eternal peace, where in the chair remains only his perishable shell, while his immortal soul already soars in the supernatural spaces. Such is the procedure, which is well known to you. And if occasionally somewhere the needle gets stuck, or the skin of the person is very thick, or something of the kind — it doesn′t matter, because the die is already cast. The chair is already pushed in a side track, and if the sensors show that his heart still works, then they can slap in addition, so, about 10 kilovolts, in order to burn him like a grill chicken.
     — A grill chicken, brh, don′t tell me such things, please. And I did not mean that one can escape his lot, when has already sat there. But maybe not to sit at all, ah? They say that some people have ordered special robots — well, a spitting image of them — in dimensions, and in external features, and with the same papillary lines of the hands, so that it was possible to identify them properly, and they sit somewhere aside and simply wait for signal from the robot. If it passes successfully through the Tunnel, then they send it at once home and remove in some wall cupboard, switch it off and leave it so till the next year. If the robot does not succeed to pass, then they are already on the cosmodrome (it is also possible till this time be on the Moon, so that to take off faster, and after six seconds the signal will reach them there, too), but with changed personality and with false documents, and then disappear somewhere in the Galaxy. After all, one hears such talks and maybe there is some truth in them, don′t you think so?
     — I have also heard such things yet am not to be caught on such bait. Have you really decided in your old age to hide on some pirate spaceship, ah? Or land on some harsh planet and die there like a dog, but what am I saying — to be glad if you can die like a dog, because it can be much worse. The death in itself is not terrible, yet the process of dying can be awful. Why reject one humane invention here on Earth, in order to run after some chimeras in the inhospitable space? Let us drink and don′t stuff your head with nonsense!
     — Cheers, Peter. You are right, of course, but always something is gnawing me from inside, so that I decided to ask also you what you think about this question.
     — So this is what I think: look at you grandsons and -daughters, make the wife happy a pair of times in month, and don′t ponder much about life. Life is, anyway, a kind of lot! It was always this, only that earlier, somewhere till the end of 21st century the "Dear God" has thrown the die, until people decided that the computers can also do this. Surely that also the people can do this, yet why encumber their conscience, when with the computers is much more quiet and reliable. This, what the people do, is to maintain one average life span, which now is 153 years, but will fall down with an year on every three until reaches 120 years, because you alone say that become baffled only with your direct relatives. I also am baffled, but our descendants, when they reach 120 years average continuation of life, and when the generation will be prolonged to 40 years on the average, what will give maximum three generations, and will also limit the number of children to two per parent, as they now already speak, then the things will normalize. And why you need so many milliards on the globe? So that the lot is the best solution for the moment.
     — It is so, like you say, old boy, but isn′t it better if one knows when will come his hour, in order to take some measures, ah?
     — But what measures will you take, Andrey? Will you really, dig alone your grave, ah? Or will decide to give all your property to homes for orphans — but then who hinders you to do this also today? Or will go out with various young girls like your great-great-granddaughter —again, who stops you to do this now? People give you a possibility to outlive your death each year and you are again discontented! So that in this way you have on the average fifty lives, my friend — from 100 years and till 150, if will live an average life, and maybe more, if you will have a luck. Have you thought in this way? If not, then you have lost much, because everything depends on the viewpoint. OK, cheers and to repeat it one more time.
     — Cheers, but I think that this is enough. It is good that I have ordered my gift, according to your advice, so that I have no other urgent business. But this about the 50 lives seems good. Yeah, of course, one can drink for this. M-m, a nice brandy, also after the fourth glass. Refreshes like young girl, ah?
     — But who hinders you to refresh yourself? I, if have had you kilograms, would have "refreshed" myself twice more often, but I have invented another invigorating variant — each exiting from the Tunnel revives me. And as far as I like this, then I revive myself also twice in an year, recently.
     — How′s this twice yearly? Don′t you really want to say that instead of once in an year you went through the Tunnel two times, ah?
     — Well, exactly this is what I am saying, only that I do this already third year — since I turned 130. I don′t know whether you are informed, but it turns out that for every additional passing through the Tunnel they increase your pension with 3%, but these are compound percents, you understand, yes? Till now I have appeared there together three times more and this makes 1.03 in 3rd degree, or a bit more than 9%, but after 10 times, when I will be 140, I would have passed my Tunnels till the age of 150, which till that time will be the average, but my pension will be increased with 34%, or with 1/3, what is not at all bad! After 20 years and 20 additional passes through the Tunnel I will receive with 80% more money. And just imagine that I will live like that (I think she was a Hindu), the oldest woman in the world — till 200-and-I-don′t-know-how-many years? Then my pension will till this time be 10 times more than of the others. Well, I am joking, surely, yet why not to get something additional by a moderate risk? Because I am saying to you that the death is not at all frightening, if the process is painless and instant, while each time when you survive you as if are newly born. And I can always give up the second time, if decide so, but my pension is not decreased, because I, so to say, am living ahead, in the future, for the pensions are indexed over time. So that let us drink for the death, ah?
     — Well, you can drink for it, but I will drink for the life. Cheers!
     — For the death!
     — For the life!
     — So, do you know, if we have lived before, let′s say, 20-and-something centuries, somewhere in the times of ancient Greek philosophers, I would have said you that this as if is one and the same thing, because there is no life without death and no death without life, yet now I will not tell you this. But I will tell you that while earlier people have wondered how to live their live, so now we wonder only about this how to get our death.
     — We-ell, I don′t wonder how.
     — This isn′t right! You don′t wonder now because other people before you have wondered and already stopped. Although this also in not a new thing. Have you heard about "Russian roulette"?
     — Well, as if I have. They loaded some gun, only that one of the bullets was not like the others, and then shot one another.
     — You are almost right, only that in the revolver — one such gun with revolting cylinder, not of some other type — was only one bullet, and the others were taken out. And they rotated the cylinder as much they wanted and then fired, only not one against the other, but in themselves, in their temple. This is it the Russian roulette. Only that those were adolescents who barely had, or even not, 20 years, still greenhorn boys. While now we have more than hundred years and this is something else. And also nobody has increased their pensions, ha, ha, and my is increased. And now let us have also by a coffee and one more last drink — for a top.
     — Well, it is good to put a top on everything, but that later we moved not like your friends the octopuses, ah?
     — We won′t be able, because we have only by four legs.
     — So is it, but two persons by four as if makes exactly eight?
     — Ha, ha, so then we will walk away like one united octopus with two heads. This is possible, why not? So let us drink for the health, yours and mine, and for the Tunnel and the civilization!
     — For the civilization, Vsevoevodovich!
     — For the civilization, dear Android, for the Tunnel-civilization!

     Jan 1999


(Recording of the interview with Arkhan Cannibalus-III, head of Cannibal Church, on occasion of the 100th anniversary since its foundation, taken by Sigmund Peets for media corporation "See us US")

     Good Morning, Your Eminence. Allow me to begin our interview on occasion of 100th anniversary of Your Church with a video recording, which I would like that you comment.
     — Mr. Peets, you can quietly skip the titles and call me simply Cannibalus, eventually the 3rd. Or also Master Cannibalus, because master or mister, or German Magister, as you probably know, is related with ancient Greek mysteries, or with the mystery of ruling, and in this case is sufficiently honourable title. Our Church arises pretty late in human history, so that it can allow itself not to pretend for divine intervention in human affairs, and our titles are just a tribute to the occupied position. Even it can be said that we don′t sanctify but "canniballot" our higher officers by one quite democratic procedure. We, naturally, have our symbols and rituals, but they are not based on ungrounded belief, or, rather, not only on belief, but on reasonable conviction in the necessity of our movement, and on the spiritual elevation, which our followers reach with our help. As an atheistic Church we do not deny to our adherents the right to confess also other more concrete (i.e. more naive) religious beliefs, because people are spiritually weak and need some assistance and exhilaration in hard living situations, as well also some nice show in moments of happy ceremonies. Yet I digressed from the matter, so that let us see you reportage.
     — Good, Cannibalus-III, though you remind me about one beginning question, which I was necessary to put to you. How is it that you are in the same time Church and atheistic institution — because you have just now said this?
     — Hmm, it is clear that you are not from our followers, when ask such elementary question. But in this case I have to begin from afar with my explanations. The religion, and let us remain in the English, comes from the verb to rely (on), what says that one trusts (somebody) or depends (on something), what, mark this, does not at all presuppose the existence of some God, or "life" after death, or rebirth of the idea of the person (his or her soul). One more linguistic reference about the Latin pater or priest, or about the ritual chalice or patera, which in old Greek was πατερασ, leads us to the distant Sanskrit, where this word meant support or beam, and it even turns our that in some Balkan languages existed the word pateritsa, which means exactly some support, a crutch. Well, we give one newer and consonant with 22nd century support, or the so called opium, which the people and nations need. We have, like every other religion, morality, which is the major justification for the existence of others, classical religions. Yet, you have to agree with this, in our time to describe how looks one nonmaterial Idea about the Universe, which is accepted to call God, is quite naive thing, right?
     — Yeah, you speak very well, Master Cannibalus. Bu-ut, I somehow doubt in this religion with morality of cannibals! Is not this, how it was in Latin, a contradictio in adjecto?
     — Well, the contradictio depends on the given adjecto, or definition, does it not? The notion of morality is quite elastic and relative, and if we set some (justified with nothing) restrictions even before we have defined if, then we will have contradiction, yet not in the definition but in these aprioristic limitations. We accept one fairly comprising definition of morality as set of some norms of coexistence, such that to enable one good uniting of the people, both in the space and in the time! The human being is gregarious animal, and when so then good is this what is good for the community, what unites and preserves it, when he (or she, naturally) leaves this world...
     — And you think that good is to eat him or her, right? In order to unite the society, if I have got you correctly.
     — Well, your irony does not surprise me, of course. But do not the Christians now more than 20 centuries eat their God via the sacred Communion, and drink his blood like vampires! So that the difference between them and us is that they pretend to eat one invented Being, while we eat our real relatives. But this is simply showing of elementary honour to them, a wish to absorb in oneself something from the already gone away body, in order to preserve in oneself at least a grain of dust from the spirit of the deceased! We do kill neither our relatives and acquaintances, nor our enemies, how, by the way, each, without exceptions, classical religion has done, and still does from time to time. Yet the human being is a guest in this world and sooner or later he exits from it. And then what to do with his body, ah? To give it to be eaten by the worms, this is what you prefer, isn′t it? We do not wish this even to our biggest enemies! To burn the corpse is, after all, more reasonable, but them what remains in us? Well, surely you can say that, in any case, it remains nothing — if you stand adamantly on materialistic positions. It can really be so, yet the weak humans don′t like this, have you not noticed it? They want that there existed some symbol, something nice, something not so rude and irrevocably lost. We all know that with the end of human life the human body perishes, yet not the mental image of the person in our recollection, but, all the same, why not to reinforce this immaterial idea also with some material symbol?
     — Yeah, surely, why not to make a little bit ... blood sausage from your father? Br-rh!
     — And why not to make, Mr. Peets? To the person who has departed from this world it is already just the same, but we are still living and want to taste him /her. Because the human meat is tasty, I′ll tell you.
     — Well, obviously your "norms of coexistence" seriously differ from mine, so that there is no sense to argue, and it is also time to show you the reportage.

     And the camera shows dissection of the corpse of one human body — old woman, who is placed on the surgical table, with channels on the sides for draining of blood. The work is performed by a robot in isolating gown and gloves. It takes initially some samples and puts them in different apparatuses, supposedly for detecting of bearers of contagious infections, and after reading of their indications proceeds to singeing of the corpse with spirit burner, with subsequent washing with disinfectants and drying with air. Then begins the dissection, by which are separated the upper and lower limbs, as well also the palms and the feet of the latter, and are washed from the blood. Then from the limbs are separated the bones and is collected the fillet separately from the upper and lower limbs, which is put in transparent bags with metallic labels with the name and personal number of the human, yet without the skin, which also is put aside. Later the rest of the corpse is cleaned from the entrails, where the organs are accurately cut out, if there are some cancerous formations they are thrown away, the guts and stomach are carefully washed and put again in some bags.
     Separately is cut the head and carefully is cleaned from the flesh and cartilages, which are collected in another bag, where are added also the cleaned pieces of skin and flesh from the feet and the wrists, skin from the extremities, like also some other "unappetizing" chunks. The ribs are cut in pieces for cutlets and are subjected to similar processing, and the liver, lungs, and heart are put in other bags. Later is performed trepanation of the skull, where the brain is taken out and to it is added the bone marrow of the spine. The bones and the skull are gathered separately and are sent to somewhere, and some amount of coagulated blood is added to the bag with the intestines. At the end the table is washed carefully and disinfected, and the packets are moved on a cart, eventually to the freezer.

     — Well, this is the pretreatment procedure of the body of the deceased for culinary processing. I don′t see what especially I can comment here — raised his voice Cannibalus-III.
     — And you look with pleasure how they cut in pieces, for example, your wife or your father, and your saliva is dripping. Is it so?
     — Well, I was always perplexed by people′s ability to debase the most revered ideals and views of the others! Then from this point of view maybe also the love for you is, for example, just a kind of "blowing" of some special "nose" of the man, do you think so? Like also the example with the worms, to which about 35% of future deceased "prefer" to entrust their body after death. Only not to some higher mammals (dogs, for example), or, God forbid, other human beings. Have you still not understood that we do not kill our deceased, but only make use of their body after the death? All religions, yet also all atheists, arrange after the funeral some feast for the relatives and friends of the dead. Only that they use corpses of other animals, and the corpse of the deceased can throw also in the sea. But if you ask yourself, why is this feast after the death, then you should be able to answer yourself that it is necessary because to strong psychical shocks must be opposed healthy material satiation, which is bound to improve the upset condition of the mourners and bring them back to the reality. And if by this also some mysticism and symbolics are present, then this is only preferable. And also who has said to you that we are watching this your recording with our relatives? Or you, going to the shop to buy cutlets, always listen to the dying wheezes of the animal and watch its dismembering on a screen? This is internal kitchen, which is not a secret, yet it is performed by robots and does not infringe the feelings of the relatives. In the end, why we have robots, if not to use them when some nasty work has be done?
     — Well yes. From positions of you "morality" the things seem logical, I can′t deny this. Only that I don′t like this very moral.
     — So, you see, everybody has his tastes and different abilities for reasonable and genuine estimation of life, am I right? It is true that out followers make for the moment only 16%, according to the statistics, so that for the majority of people their tastes look strange. Yet it is also strange for some Christians to bury their dead naked, or for some Muslims, that a man remains not circumcised, or also, back in the past, that a woman goes to the street without a veil, and so on. But people become, little by little, more reasonable and unprejudiced, so that I will not be surprised if by our next centennial already half of the people will become our followers. Because our religion is the most tolerable and reasonable, the most attractive and lively.
     — So, so. It is a very reasonable thing to gnaw the bones of your father. A propos, what you do with the bones?
     — We-ell, different things. Some carry them on themselves like souvenirs or amulets, but this is practiced only by very close relatives and acquaintances, and for this purpose usually are used the fingers — straightened finger, if it is from a man, and bent in a circle, if is from a woman. Well, if there are many relatives, then some receive also a toe, sometimes. The bones, as you have seen, are collected separately and are cleaned very carefully from the tiniest fragments of decaying flesh, what turns to be very suitably performed by industrious ants in special cages, and later are disinfected and varnished. Usually for less than a month this is finished and all bones in bulk, as well also the ordered amounts of amulets, are sent to the direct inheritor (because they belong to him or her), and he sends them to the other relatives and acquaintances. The larger bones from the extremities are usually immured in the foundations of the house or villa, in his birth place et cetera, or the inheritor embeds them in some obelisk or gravestone monument, with the purpose that something material from the deceased was preserved. Some use also his skull — like ritual bowl by marriage ceremonies, or the spinal column — like stand for decorative lampshade in their room, and so on. Some bones are donated to the local church, especially if it is still new and needs them for decoration of its interior. The ribs are usually thrown away, as gone through a thermal treatment, and some bones are left in a bag and collect dust somewhere. After all, it is not known would it not be possible after some time from a single bone cell to resurrect the person, if his heirs show such wish, and he has not denied this possibility in his testament (because if he will be restores as suckling baby then he will remember nothing, so that this will not be the real he, and if he will be in the age of his death, then he will be already quite old, so that why has he to suffer one more life?). Anyway, the possibilities of the sciences become more and more enormous, so that nothing can be said definitely. Yeah, and from the flesh are made the corresponding ritual dishes, where already at the funeral feast are eaten the lower limbs (in fact the meat from one thigh is quite enough for this purpose), and the upper ones — after one lunar month.
     — Hmm. And ... do you, still, make blood sausage, ah?
     — In principle this is a dainty dish and it is left for very close relatives, in narrow circle and on the 14th day after the death, and from the face and other cartilages and the skin is prepared the ritual headcheese, which is tasted on the 7th day. Unless he has died from infectious decease, but then is used flesh from another dead, or, at a pinch, can be substituted with meat from other of our animal brethren.
     — How so from other dead? Do you really fill the freezers with human meat? And sell it?
     — Well, naturally that we keep the meat in freezers. And how do you think that else it will be possible to be eaten after a month? Or even later, because cutlets from the ribs are eaten on the third and the sixth month, if there still remains something. And about selling it is not proper to speak, because this is a kind of voluntary donation, from those of our followers, who have not many relatives, or the deceased has bequeathed, for example, his left part to our church.
     — And the brain why is also separated? And, ... I beg to be excused, the genitals.
     — The brain is left for his (or her, surely) colleagues from work, and if he is a pensioner, what happens most often, than for the local society or for the club of pensioners, and if he is still studying, then for the educational institution — according to the case. Well, naturally, that one piece of brain for, say, 50-100 persons is nothing, yet for us this is only a symbol, so that a tiny grain suffices. And the genitals are also used, but partly. In the sense that if it goes about a man, then they are put aside and are prepared, and then the honour to eat his phallus is given to the wife of the dead, or to his daughter, or mother, generally, to the female part of close relatives. The female genitals, as you alone understand, are moved to the intestines. Well, this is some inequality between both sexes, and many people criticize us on this subject, but here nothing can be done because such are the culinary makings of the woman.
     — Stunning, dear viewers, really stunning! Have you heard good? The culinary makings of the woman and backed phallus in cannibalean for the bride of the deceased. Just to lick one′s fingers!
     — But Mr. Peets, don′t become ridiculous! What so horrible you find in this, that the wife of the deceased has to eat his phallus? And who has said that she necessarily must? This is a good tradition, some symbol, yet nobody forces her to do this, if she does not want to. The phallus symbolizes masculine potency and fertility since ancient times. And is said that it is also ... tasty, do you know? Especially the testicles, I beg your pardon. But these are nice rituals and symbols. Well, it can be said also delusions, if we will stand on solid scientific positions, though we are not scientific culinarists but cannibalists, right? People still need symbols and delusions, yet our believers accept them with their reason, as useful and pleasant living show. And we offer it to them. Because what is life, if not one pleasant show? Or at least it has to be this, according to us.
     — When you mentioned the word show, this reminded me to show you′re the second reportage. One quite ... erotic show, I would say.

     And the camera shows the interior of a round room decorated with bones, skeletons, skulls, and others terrifying things, which has to be the hall of a cannibalic church. In front of the entrance is seen one smaller round chamber contacting with the main circle at its outer side, which is illuminated in rose-reddish light and connects with the central part by an oval entrance, crowned by bright yellow neon ellipse. This is the altar of the church and on both sides of the entrance to it stand two skeletons, where the right one, looking from the altar, is masculine, because it has approximately half a meter neon phallus, illuminated in pulsating intensely-red light, and on the left is feminine skeleton, which also has illuminated violet oval shameful lips of length about one finger span in height, which are blinking in synchrony with the phallus. On the walls of the central hall are placed crossed bones up to the spherical ceiling, where are pictured various ritual scenes from the life of cannibalists, and on the left and the right of entrance are alcoves with pyramids of skulls. The sitting places inside are for about 200 persons and they are occupied by people in official, as well also in everyday clothes, there are also standing ones, and all are looking at the altar, where, in the concave circular recess stands a priest of Cannibalistic Church and also two young people — a man and a woman. They are in strictly formal clothes, what supposes some ritual — maybe marriage.
     The priest wears a red robe with black edging and embroidered on it gilded skulls and bones, and exactly in front falls down something like an apron, long till the ground, with two big crossed bones and a skull above them. On his head is placed a circular ring, and on the neck hangs a big spoon, which are also gilded or golden. He murmurs something with monotonous and singsong voice and after some time he raises a bit his shroud with the skull and covers with it the woman on his left side, who has till this time sat down on her knees and come pretty close to the man. It isn′t seen what exactly she does, but her head is somewhere on the level of man′s groin, and on his face appears a blissful smile. The priest describes with the spoon in his hand one circle and hits slightly the woman on the head under the shroud. Then she rises and stands up, and now the man crouches on his knees and his head also is covered. His pose is similar to that of the woman before him, and now she smiles happily. After the next blessing with the spoon the shroud is heaved and the man stands up. After this both kiss in front of all and change rings, what ends the ritual.

     — So-o, Master Cannibalus-III. Could you now answer me, does really the bride — because this must be a marriage ritual, right? — do with the man this what I, as well also our viewers have thought, but what I find uneasy to pronounce, or ... just sews some torn-off button to his suit? Because if this was a button, then what did he do later, for there were no buttons in front of the dress of the bride?
     — Well, well, well! Much ado, yet about nothing, as has said Shakespeare before 6-7 centuries. Of course the bride imprints a ritual kiss on the phallus of the man, like also he later, on her corresponding place. Or, maybe, you have not heard that this place is called shameful lips, and, hence, is specially designed for kisses?
     — Yeah, to hear — I have heard, but I don′t think that it is very decent to do such things in a church. Or in your Church can be held also sexual orgies? Tell us, priest.
     — But, Mr. Peets, you again impose on me your, grounded with nothing, morality! And then the kiss is a very ancient symbol of love and respect to the neighbour. Does the proverbial Christ not kissed his disciples, as well also the people, when he wanted to show his love to them? And is not, after all, the doctrine of Christ a teaching about love? This symbol is well known also amidst a lot of mammals (though some of them just bite each other, yet this is done gently and has the same meaning). Also the birds kiss themselves all day long, if they have nothing else to do. Or you will say: yes, it is so, but there exist different kinds of kisses and not exactly of the genitals. And why not exactly of these organs, when the marriage has the purpose of using exactly these organs in order to achieve happy cohabitation of the couple, as well also for continuation of the gender? Why is necessary to hide this, what everybody knows, and think that in this way we are more cultured? Or maybe you think that in 22 century the people must still stick their heads in the sand, like the ostriches, in order to avoid infringement of their feelings, no matter that they don′t care at all about infringement when are under the influence of sexual arousal? Yet, mark this, we do not show exactly this but cover it with the shroud of the priest (in the same way when one, I beg your pardon, blows out his nose, then he uses a napkin or a handkerchief). Unless the newlywed couple expresses a wish not to be covered, what happens, approximately once in ten times. And about what sexual orgies and erotics you are speaking to me I, by God, don′t understand! The orgies have no place in our churches for the simple reason that the sex is a thing that people do in seclusion, and the erotics, if you have though about this, is just an ersatz or substitute of the sex, which is advantageous only for some business circles. Yet the kiss, let me stress on this, is not an orgy but an expression and symbol of love. We eat up our relatives out of love and respect to them, in the same way as we kiss the genitals in order to express our feelings to the person. Still, neither in our funeral feasts we overeat, nor in our marriage ceremonies we indulge in orgies. I repeat again, these are symbols and we insist on them. And then, do you really think that if, for example, on the coat of arms of some nation is depicted an eagle, then in this country brims with eagles and the airplanes fly around it? Or else, if it is a lion, then the lions are sacred animals in it and walk freely through the streets? And other examples.
     — Good, Master Cannibalus. I ask you exactly such questions, which the majority of our audience would have wanted to put, because, isn′t it so, such is the purpose of our interview?.
     — And I answer you in the same way, in which I would have answered to them, and to all people interesting in our rituals. So that let us continue.
     — So-o. And what would you say about homosexual marriages? Do you perform them, too, and are there some peculiarities in their procedure?
     — To a concrete question — a concrete answer: in principle there are no differences. The main distinction between heterosexual love and homosexual, as well also platonic, or fraternal, filial, and so on, is in this, that when exists a difference between sexes then this love is related directly with the continuation of gender, i.e. the usage of sexes is purposeful. But this purposefulness, which gives result in one case out of, say, thousands, is negligible small, for to pay much attention to it in one overcrowded world like the contemporary. Only that however small is this difference it is reduced chiefly to stronger, precisely because it is more abstract, love in the case of homosex (like also in the platonic one), so that we pay even greater respect to it, though this does not reflect on the ritual. Naturally the pair has alone to determine who at which side of the altar has to stay — at the side of the phallus, or the vagina.
     — Yes, I see. But among the population is still spread the understanding that the homosexuality is, in fact, a kind of illness, though harmless for the society, at any rate less harmful than a flu epidemic. Do you agree with this view, or think that they are, so to say, better, when their love is stronger, according to you?
     — This "according to me" does not mean that I have discovered America, because this is a meaning defended by many psychologists, and in general thoughtful persons. And about the illness — well, the love also is a kind of illness, don′t you think so? This isn′t a normal condition of the organism and it, usually, lasts not long, yet this is one pleasant illness, and, as a rule, is not socially dangerous (it does not affect other persons, outside the given circle, or "triangle"). We accept and value this "illness", like people do this since millenniums.
     — Good, Master Cannibalus. Let us now see the third reportage, which will again sound quite shockingly for the majority or our viewers.

     It is shown the same church, only that this time before the altar is put one appliance which looks like an enormous ... phallus, a bit inclined down, long about a meter and something, hollow inside and with inner diameter of 40 centimeters. Before the phallus is put not a big narrow pool in oval form and filled with water. At the top, from the rear side of the phallus, exists wide orifice, and it alone, to all appearances, is inflatable, because sways slightly. The altar is approached by an young couple, where the woman stands at the feminine side and carries in hands a small baby, who at once fills the church with strong cry, when she begins to unswathe him, and the man stands from the masculine side. The priest stands behind the dummy of the phallus and accepting the naked baby from the hands of the woman heaves him and puts him in the deepening, which has to symbolize the testicles. Then under the sounds of some music he shoves him in the orifice of the phallus, head down and with outstretched hands, and pushes him to crawl through it. The baby resists and cries, but his mother goes to the front side and invites him to come to her. Possibly also the very phallus is slippery inside, and because it is inclined down and sways a bit, then the little creature slides through it and pops exactly in the basin with water, where his mother takes him, dries and wraps in diapers. The priest describes a circle with the golden spoon before the baby and hits him slightly on the head with it, what is accompanied by a ringing of bells. In similar way he blesses also the spouses and the ritual ends.

     — We-ell, — voices Cannibalus-III — this is our equivalent of baptism, as you have already grasped. And because I know, that you will again ask me about the phallus, I can as well explain you this, too. You see, the human, anyway, is begotten by sowing from the male phallus into the female vagina, so that this is quite natural symbol, and it is accepted pleasurable from our followers. Well, it is true that the baby usually cries, but this is because it happens for a first time, else this is a kind of slide which the children like. Inside flows a weak stream of tepid water what makes the contraption slippery, the thing sways a little facilitating the advancement of the child, and in the pool is water with body temperature, so that there, really, is nothing unpleasant for the baby. And I need to tell you that our parishioners are brought up good enough and nobody decides to mock or boo the couple, when we perform baptism of adopted child by homosexual marriage. The symbol is good and the ritual is pleasant. And having in mind that the following feast in family circle is not related with consumption of human meat I see no reasons why other people — you, for example, — should not accept it, too.
     — Oh yes, here is nothing cannibalistic. But then why your Church has accepted it? And generally, by you there is sundry mixture of concepts, which are united as if only by this, that they are shocking for one moral citizen, in the classical sense. Or, to put it otherwise, you could have called yourselves also "phallusians", or something of the kind. Could you clear, please, these questions.
     — With big pleasure, because this is a kind of advertising for us, right? You have rightly noted that we use very different ideas, only that you stress on the shocking effect. But Mr. Peets, the shocking or the show is simply marketing element! On the background of such multitude of religions, and especially in a multinational country like American States, we were forced to differ with something, were we not? Only that, mark this, we do not begin anywhere from zero, but use this, what is buried in the minds of people from deep antiquity. Mensare humanum est, say we, because the human being can not live without material (as well also spiritual, to which we will come very soon) food, and Latin mensa is related with their missa or the church Mass, which the French call messe (as well also other nations), or also with our mess, what is not only mixture or confusion or a lot of people, but a dish, eating, canteen. From this root comes also Russian "miaso" as meat (or "meso", "miso" etc. in other Slavonic languages), from here is also the verb to mix ("mesit" in Russian), and the Turks, too, have one nice word — meze or mezelik —, known in other Balkan countries, what is exactly a piece of some snack (or also miaso-meat) between two glasses of some beverage. But in the basis of these words lies Aramaic m′shiha, or old Hebrew mashiah (what is also a known Hebrew name, Mashiah), what means messiah or prophet, i.e. a person, who goes between the masses and gives spiritual food to the them. So that both, the spirit and the body, need some kind of food.
     — Now let us move to another root — continued he — to Latin caro, what means meat (from here the meat carre in restaurants), only that in Italian cara means already dear, beloved (cara mia or caro mio), what, you can not but agree, is pure cannibalistic view, i.e. the beloved is our tasty "piece of meat", right? Or the carnivals. I don′t know whether you are informed, but the carnivals have appeared somewhere in 16th century in Spain and on medieval Latin they were initially called carnelevarium, what was to be split in carne and levare, where the verb levo (from here levare) means to diminish, and in Italian the word becomes carnevale, and vale for us (English speaking people) is a parting word over the grave, valedictory. In other words, the carnival meant "to say goodbye to the meat", because was organized before some long fasts. And how people said goodbye to it, ah? Well, eating and drinking like pigs, till they burst, with my excuse. So-o, maybe enough about the food and the cannibalism.
     — And what about the sex, then we have never succeeded to run away from it, right? With exception of the "other" world. But there is also no need to run away from it, when have already emerged on this world. The horrors and shocks are a good psychological approach for avoiding or getting used with the unpleasing moments in our life. We throw everywhere bones and skulls in our churches, but do you think that this is something much different from the olden phrase Memento Mori or "Remember the death"? And are, really, the dragons and other decorations on the friezes of Catholic churches, like also the Halloween holiday, something very diverse? And do not the older people go to burials of their relatives chiefly in order to become used to the grief (as well also to see at least foreign funerals, when they can′t be present alive at their own)? The beautiful and the terrible have always lived very close one to the other in our life and we can′t give up these human weaknesses. The people come to us because we are shocking them initially, but remain by us because they like us! Yet isn′t it always so with the feelings of people, and with the love, as the most precious of them? We are cannibalists, but we are not from the "bad" cannibals, we are quite merry and lively people. So that: come to us, please!
     — Thank you, but I don′t think that you have convinced me. To eat my father, when comes his time to leave this world, isn′t, after all, one of my ideas about the joys of life.
     — Mister Peets, you are not at all exception of the rule. The majority of people come to us not for this to eat their relatives, but ... to make their relatives to eat them up, with the illusory hope that in this way they will remain longer in the minds and hearts of these persons! Well, good, when the people want this so much then why not to eat them up? And then will eat up us also, and our children, and so on. This is one transformation of the matter, isn′t it? This is a scientific approach, which is absent in the other religions, and for this reason the number of our followers incessantly grows.
     — The last question, because it is already time to finish: why instead of the cross or the crescent you use the circle as symbol of the cannibalism?
     — The circle is our main symbol not because it has something in common with the cannibalism, but because it is symbol, generally, of the church or the ruling! This isn′t to be seen pretty clear in our word "church", but by the German Kirche is already seen that the church comes from the Latin word "circa", which means around or approximately, from here is also the circus and Russian tsirkul as compass for drawing of circles, and a heap of other round things. In the Latin this word has come from old Greek κυριoσ, what means main, basic, chief, and from here κυριαρχoσ is a host, master. And the circle is symbol of the ruling and the power because it is the nicest and symmetrical, or divine, figure, for the reason that it holds everything and everybody around itself, on all sides of its center. When so our choice is quite natural and, if you want, to draw a circle with a hand is simpler than a cross, for instance.
     — Well, thank you, Arkhan Cannibalus-III, on my behalf, and on behalf of our viewers.
     — I also am thankful to you, Mr. Peets — and he rose from the chair, what allowed the skull with crossed bones on his robe to stick forward and drew with the golden spoon one circle counterclockwise, hitting in the end the reporter on the head saying: "Give gusto to the people!"↑*. In the moment of impact with the head from the spoon sounded out nice ringing of bells, issuing probably from a hidden in it reproducing device and amplified by a built-in in its concave part acoustic resonator, what gave a solemn final to the interview.

     [ * Latin gusto means to taste, eat, swallow, but is used as synonym of nice pleasure or Arabic kief, and is known as jargon in Bulgarian (exactly gusto), where from the same old Eastern root comes Slavonic gustoi (in Russian, gast in Bulgarian, yet read with the same vowel like in English "girl"), what is thick, dense (like on a field with wheat, where if the stems are not pretty close then this isn′t good). ]

     Feb 2001


(By holographic recording of the discussion between Doctor Steve Roberts, Executive Director of Corporation for Organic Synthesis and Biorobots "Coral", and Archbishop Paul Morrison of Roman Catholic Church, held on 12th May 2235 by third channel of West-European Central Stereovision, lead by Julia Smith)

     The camera shows in close-up Doctor Roberts, representative man at the age of 50, clean-shaven, combed parted on the left, with straight, yet a bit long nose, with wide and slightly wrinkled forehead, with gray-blue eyes, narrowed and with some mischievous expression, plump but not much, with thick fleshy lips, slightly smiling and opening a little the upper row of accurately lined and rose, according to the fashion, teeth, who bows respectfully, showing three undulating bluish strips in his tarry-black hairs, going down the back almost to the shoulders. He wears dark-blue suite with a lot of shining on it like asterisks points and some galaxy clusters on the shoulders, has a sparkling light-blue shirt in almost unnoticeable strips, supposedly from neofilon, and a cravat with Neptunian design showing the sea bottom, a couple of algae, and one dragonfly staring steadily at its knot with painted there coral. The representative of this powerful corporation feels pretty confident in the discussion hall, because this is part of his daily routine.
     Then the camera stops on his opponent — His Holiness Archbishop Paul Morrison — who is in advanced age, close to 70, with long and almost white hairs, mottled with lots of dark red threads, which are expression of his age and rank. Such fibers are seen also in his long patriarchal beard, which begins from his mustaches and covers the lower portion of somewhat elongated face, which, though of an old man, is also youthful, with warm brown eyes, aquiline nose, and lean cheekbones, on which is expanded fresh rose skin, result, maybe, of recent implantation. His lips are elongated and thin, and when he smiles and bows uncover two lines of, possibly natural, or at least good imitation of such, whitish and almost good teeth. His robe is in dark red palette, with lowed to the back hood, with black cuffs and red edgings, where in front, on a gold chain, dangles richly encrusted cross. In spite of his imposing appearance he feels, as if, slightly confused and insecure in this purely worldly environment.
     The reporter Julia Smith is shown initially from the back. She has light hairs (for the interview), and wears dark green suit, which makes her look severe and serious. Then the camera changes and she appears before us — a sympathetic and surprisingly young for her work woman, at the age of about 20 years, or at least she looks so, with right oval of the face, as well also of all that is on it: eyes — emerald green, lips — as if it is better to say passionate, cheekbones — fluffy and fresh, despite the green makeup, nose — classical or Roman, teeth — in as much rose as it is necessary to look sexy, and flawlessly equal. By this perfect appearance, when she opens the interview, nobody wonders to her intriguing voice of the ideal, for each man, woman.

     JULIA SMITH: Dear viewers, the topic of the discussion today is the biological partners, or BP for brevity, and because of this we have invited in our studio the Executive Director of corporation "Coral", for producing of biorobots, Doctor Steve Roberts, and also representative of the Church, or more precisely His Holiness Archbishop Paul Morrison, of Roman Catholic Church, who you have just seen in your stereo-spaces. And so, let us give first the word to the, hmm, older institution.
     ARCHBISHOP PAUL MORRISON: Thank you Miss Julia Smith ...
     J. SMITH: Your Holiness, you can say just Julia.
     A-B P. MORRISON: Ah, good, ... Julia, for the word, and first of all about the clarification about my institution, because I only before 5-6 years have reached the average human life span and, when so, don′t think that am already old. And to be old isn′t, after all, a bad thing, because everything perishable grows and ages and disappears from this world, in order to enter in one better and eternal. By the way, excuse me for the digression, but the word "old" in Slavonic languages is "star /stariy", what is exactly of the root of our "star", what means that the older people are near to the stars. Well, not that they become cosmonauts, of course, but that they come closer to the divine (star) wisdom. And not because God has "hidden" somewhere among the stars, for He is everywhere — between the stars, and among us, and will be always in everything ... in contrast with the biological partners, that how have come to us, in the same way will go away, like a new model of dishwashing machine, maybe. So-o, and now to the discussion. Doctor Steve Roberts, how is it in your opinion, the BPs are humans or robots? And, in order not to interrupt you often, if they are robots, then with what they differ from a good dishwasher, for example, and if they are humans, then how are you feeling in the role of God Almighty and Creator?
     DR. ROBERTS: Hmm, a trivial, yet interesting question. And by the way, only Dr. Roberts suffices, don′t you think so, Your Holiness? So that what are the biological partners, you ask? Well, you see, they are simply biological partners, i.e. partners of the biological beings, the most developed of which are the humans. This means that they make company to the people (at present, naturally, yet there are no problems that their varieties make company to cats, or dogs, or dragonflies, for example), where this company includes everything what people need, like: production, management, nice passing of the time, bringing up of offspring, sex, conversation, creating and fulfillment of art works, earning of livelihood, even ...visiting of churches, if this could make you happy, Father. Maybe this is enough as answer, not involving the hypothetical God and the question of soul?
     A-B P. MORRISON: Good, Dr. Roberts, in regard of the shortening of your name, and then only Archbishop Paul, or only Father, like you have said. But it isn′t good what regards the question about BP. Otherwise it turns that everybody can imagine them like he or she wants: I, for example, can think that they are just perfect automata, one averagely taken layman can see the BP as substitute of the wife /husband, or sexual partner, and you, probably, think that they are people, only don′t want to tell us this. And, generally, this is not an answer, because, however one looks at the things, they: either are people, or are not people. Or also: either are robots, or are not robots. As you see, there is no ambiguity, except in your "answer".
     DR. ROBERTS: Hmm, you maybe, by old church habit, I would say, like to ask questions when there are artificially set limitations, or also by not clearly defined notions, under which conditions is pointless to look for an exact answer. Surely the exact definition has its drawbacks, because, like states one old proverb: "to define is to delimit", or at least this is the origin of Latin "define", what means "to make it finite" or delimited. So is also with Slavonic "to define", what is "opredeliam", and "predel" is a limit, so that we again set limits, yet without whatever definition we can′t know about what we are speaking. The mathematics is for this reason very precise science, because it uses artificially defined terms, and there are because of this so many and contradicting one another Churches, because they don′t try to restrict their symbols, like has done one known Ben Spinoza before many centuries, yet no one Church liked this approach. This, what the Church does, is to ask logically correct questions, under imprecisely defined terms, or based on dubious in regard of their truthfulness sources and statements. I want to say that this is what the Church does when it does not make also some other errors, and you, in this case, really, make no other errors, what can only make me happy.
     A-B P. MORRISON: Thank you for the compliment ...
     DR. ROBERTS: This is not a compliment, Father, but a true assertion. So on the question, are the BP people or not. If under people (or humans) understand the most highly developed and universal, yet due to this also far from perfect, biological beings, arisen as a result of evolution on our planet, or, if you so insist on this, created "in the image and likeness of God" only for six sleepless days and nights by the Almighty God, Who from that moment on has left them to themselves or to their doom, beings who have enough makings to act reasonable but do this quite rare, or more precisely, behave reasonable only when have already used all possible unreasonable ways for reaching of a given goal, beings who, like everything alive, as well also inanimate, have a deadline of existence, but who can join together the life of various generations through writing, culture, Church, if you like, heredity, and so on, and who — an obligatory requirement for all living matter — can reproduce themselves in one complicated, yet very adaptive method, so that they both, copy themselves quite precisely, and also do this in an arbitrary way, with possibility for many errors and mutations, though happening quite slow, so that there was possible to fix over millenniums the right mutation, we-ell, and some other insignificant but numerous details, then in this case the BP, obviously, are not humans.
     — They are even not animals, if we take for granted the presupposed (but not justified) assumption, that the animals have to be biological beings, because it is so under the evolution on Earth, and we still have no example of some other evolution, i.e. for inorganic life on some planet or star system. The BP are not wholly organic, because they have positronic brains, which, just by the way, allow them to act reasonable, yet not excluding by this, naturally, the possibility that they make errors deliberately, in order to pretend that they are people, or like you say "sinners". In addition to this the biological partners can not multiply in the way like this are doing the humans, i.e. like animals, although they like to do this like people, what means that the sex for them is an activity like any other, where they are perfect, or, if they still are not such, the "Coral" corporation will make them such in pretty near future. Surely it is quite premature to speak about new inorganic or artificial species or class of organized beings, because the relation between generations must still be specified and created, yet this is quite possible also without the presence of genetic "defects", that lie in the basis of organic evolution. I want to say that is possible evolution and possibility for learning in the framework of many generations also based on some other, non-genetic, information. In this sense the BPs are, in some measure, realization of the ancient human dream about immortality and eternal happiness, what the Church offers only in the hypothetical "life" after death, because they will be able to pass to the posterity everything valuable accumulated during their existence.
     — And now to the question: are they robots. If under robots we understand artificially created, i.e. not in result of the evolution (or God′s intervention, according to the Church) organisms, which are sufficiently complex (without specifying what means "sufficiently") to perform a given type of activity or work, according to the received directives, then, naturally, BP are robots, or rather biorobots, but this follows also from the name of our corporation. If we try to specify what means sufficiently complex, accepting that this means to such extent complicated, for to contain all necessary advanced instructions and rules for their functioning in a variety of living situations, which will allow them to behave reasonable (i.e. logical) from the standpoint not only of the concrete device or BP, but also of the whole kind of biological partners, as well also of the entire mankind, without immediate instructions from aside, then BP are complex robots, or artificial intellect, or how you like it, and not only some automata for performing of given narrow activity. In this sense they are not just some dish-washer, which can walk and make sex, like, supposedly, you imagine this.
     — And about this, how I am feeling in the role of God: we-ell, you see, I am not feeling such, at least because not I am the one who makes the biological partners. I manage a company with more than ten branches in Europe, and approximately as many on the other continents, where the total number of its employees is about 10,000 persons, or, like some express this enigmatically like: more than the number of the fingers of a BP (i.e. six, of course) raised to power equal to the number of fingers of a human, yet less than the number of fingers of a human, raised to power equal to the number of fingers of a BP (it is meant that 6↑5 = 7,776, and 5↑6 = 15,625, where our number, as strongly as it changes, stays already a long time in these limits). But this is all that I am doing, we-ell, and I also conduct a row of discussions, like this here, yet don′t think that am nearer to the hypothetical God than an young dog that is pressing, khem, khem, some nice bitch, with apology. Even on the contrary, because the cur, really, can create — with the help of the bitch, of course — a new being, which is not known to what kind of beast will develop, while I, even if we assume that "manage" means "create", will succeed to create nothing new, different from what is already known to the scientific circles or existing in our know-hows and patents. My activity, regretfully, is even not creative (which is, well, the sex, for example), but an usual routine managerial work, which somebody had to perform, and then why not me? If in your opinion God, about Whom you speak, by the creation of our world has done an ordinary routine act, what means that before this He has created many and various world, which he has destroyed because they have turned not to be successful, what kind of concepts exist, as I think, in the Hinduism, as well also that He continues to create new worlds, i.e. He conducts experiments (on the account of the people, of course), then I feel myself such God. Though I quite doubt that you mean such one God, Who simply amuses with the creation of worlds, in order that in this way has passed one infinitely small part of the infinitely long rime, which He has in His disposition. I think I am not wrong, ah, Farther?
     A-B P. MORRISON: Let us leave aside your nagging, Dr. Roberts, because this does not do honour to the discussion. So good, hence the BP, after all, are robots, not people, what you could have said from the very beginning. And in this case who allows you to make them in human appearance, so that the people were able easily to make errors, or to be displaced by them after a time, when you learn how to pass the necessary information to the future generations of BP? If our God has a need of robots in His world He would have made them, and when He has not made them then they are unnecessary, and here I mean exactly complex biorobots, how you have defined them, not dishwashers or kitchen or excavation or flying and other machines, which exist, although in more simplified form, for centuries.
     DR. ROBERTS: I think that have expressed myself quite clear, when said that the BP are named so because they are partners of the biological matter, and more specially of the people, they behave in this way, and this is their purpose in life, namely: to make the life of people more interesting and enjoyable. They don′t promise life after death or rebirth, like this do the classical religions, but work in order to better the existing life of the people. And as to the question, who has given me the right to make them in human form, I can answer in the easiest way with counter question: and who has forbidden me to make them, as is said, in the image and likeness of me? In accordance with the classical Roman law this, what is nor forbidden, is allowed, and even according to the ideas of majority of people their acquaintances and friends must be in human form, simply because this is more pleasant for them. And does the humanity not created their gods in their image and likeness, or maybe you again put, as is said, "the cart before the horse", trying to convince the people that your God is Who has created them in His likeness and image?
     A-B P. MORRISON: I don′t know, young man, what gives you reason to think that our faith is so weak for to be shaken by some bare assertions, about the creation of God by the people, not vice versa, like this state the holy books, and what corresponds also with the intuitive convictions of the believers, but ...
     JULIA SMITH: Excuse me, Father, that I interrupt you, yet our discussion is not theological, and there is no need to involve in it also disputes about basic and not defined, here I fully agree with Dr. Roberts, notions. Who was first, God or the human, and generally: the matter comes before the idea about it or on the contrary, is not a thing that interests us in this moment, at least because these questions are discussed for centuries and we have still not come to a single understanding uniting both sides, but we have not centuries in our disposition, right? And I will beg also Dr. Roberts not to use provoking phrases, even if not he is one who uses provoking elements. Let us clarify the truth, and only the truth, insofar as it is accessible to the people on the given stage of historical development.
     DR. ROBERTS: OK, Julia. I apologize to his Holiness, because, really, what is primary is of no importance in the case. We make BP in human form because nobody would like to lay in bed, excuse me, with a flatiron, or a pig, for example. I think this suffices. But I can′t ignore the statement of Father Morrison that BP are indiscernible from the people, like also that they will shift us from our living space. They can be made indiscernible, but we understand the legal side of the question and have no desire to change the present situation. Neither the very BP would benefit if the recognition of their belonging to another species is made more difficult, because this, at best, will damage their image and, hence, will not be logical behaviour for some, really, logical beings. But I think that his Holiness is informed on the question that all BP, I repeat, all, without whatever exception, at least in our company, have their heart placed on the right in their thorax, like also that they have six fingers on their palms. The heart is a thing which can elementary be checked in intimate contacts, for which, as if most often, at least for the moment, BP are used, what is somehow debasing for such very perfect beings, but after a pair of decades the things maybe will change in the direction of prevailing intellectual, rather than sexual, contacts. At least for myself I am convinced in this, because I am not already in my first youth, like just before a minute my opponent has proclaimed me.
     — The fingers are six, where the additional one is in the end of the wrist, and this is a thing for which intimate closeness is not necessary for to be detected. But this is far away from all, because a BP, at least such how we produce them, for we already have competitors in this field, though we continue to lead, looks somehow too perfect and symmetrical, what is quite rarely met between people. They are also very young at present (because have not had time to grow old), their heart rate is approximately from 100 to 160, they have only one blood group (i.e. they don′t have different groups), which differs from those of the humans, their secretions and, I beg to be excused, their excrements, are also quite specific, in order to succeed to deceive a person with medical education, to say nothing about roentgenograms and other specialized analyses, that show also ten ribs, special joints, that can bend, if necessary, also in the reverse direction, no appendix, "invisible" brain, i.e. encapsulated in special hermetic box, absence of sex cells, both by female and male specimens, and so on. In one word, they are like humans only in their image and likeness, yet they are not identical with them in functional regard. BP take the same food, but this is so because they are partners of the humans, not because this is more useful for them, and in case of necessity they can process the cellulose more fully than the ruminating animals, thanks to their special stomach and a pair of additional glands. Well, as if this is sufficiently extended description of BP, avoiding entering into scientific terminology, with the major part of which I alone am not familiar.
     A-B P. MORRISON: And what will happen if some day they will decide to call us ... HP, for example, i.e. "human partners", or alive robots, or something of that kind? What will happen from that nice moment on with the mankind? And is not this more interesting life, about which you are speaking, simply a temptation of the impure forces, deprived of the divine wisdom and goodness in themselves? Do you not see, that it is necessary to fight the evil while it has not yet gained strength, because afterwards it will be late and irreparable, for these biological fiends, sorry, partners can quietly decide in some near future even to drive the people out of the Earth? Would you clarify a bit these questions, honourable Doctor?
     DR. ROBERTS: Good, good, Father, only that there became a lot of questions and I began to forget them, though their spirit is clear to me. A-ah, until I have forgotten let me mention that if it is so difficult for you to respect me as your interlocutor, then I don′t at all insist to call me "honourable", because this word one will hear most often in the Parliament and between politicians and it, absolutely obvious, speaks about exactly the opposite of it! At least I have not yet heard that this word was used either in bed, I beg your pardon, or between friends from one "gang", or between colleagues at work (unless they are from competitive departments). When I say "Father" I don′t express with this whatever else except honour to you, like representative of one, although leading in deceptions, but surprisingly stable social structure, while you with your "honorable" quite obviously express your disagreement with my views. I will beg you at least to preserve it for yourself and not "dignify" me in this way.
     — A-ah, what may happen when BP enslave us, ask you. Well, I could have answered that if the monkey could have been in position to imagine exactly all changes that will happen after the moment when it has come down from the tree, then it would have surely remained there and the humans would have never appeared at all. Yet I will not answer you in this way, because you are not convinced in the evolution of the humans, due to the fact that it is based on scientific analysis, not on faith, with which you are reared. But then I can answer you that will happen this, what "was written to us", because the human for this purpose has his free will, for to be able to err, i.e. to choose not to make errors, and this according to your Church! Because your God, being a God, has known perfectly well that the human is "sinful" (i.e. that he has "factory defects", according to people with technical inclination of thinking like me), and will be expelled from the Paradise, yet despite of all this He has left him as he is, and this not in order to make him deliberately to suffer (for God is good, isn′t He?), but for to be able to show his free will choosing to behave good. And "good" is this, what your God has said, or at least you believe that He has said this. And if in some moment, which moments as if are quite many, some of God′s intentions seem too strange for the people, then there always can be said that the ways of God are mysterious and with this to put an end to the question, right? So that let us also put an end to the issue accepting that your God (because there exist also other gods) is well aware are the BP work of God or they are "fiends of Hell", but has left the human alone to take decision, in order to test him, or that he was able to use his free will, or something of the kind.
     — Or course that nothing can be said with absolute certainty, but can be judged logically, be modeled and predicted. Only by this models don′t endow, please, the biological partners with human flaws, like egoism, unreasonableness, animal instincts, and so on, because: what will do the BP if they subjugate, debase, or expel the people from the Earth? They have no reproductive organs, but, in principle, can reproduce or grow themselves, in the same way like we do this in "Coral", because our technology is a quite exhaustive algorithm for their production, or program by which they also can do this. Good, but why they have to do this for themselves, and not for the people? Have you posed this question to yourself, Father? And have you asked yourself the question why people do this? In the sense, why people multiply, i.e. what is their interest in this? You, surely, can say that this is so because your God has said: be fruitful and multiply! But if the God′s will was so important and adamant, then why was necessary to Him (to Him or to the Devil, i.e. to the evil or impure force, because "devil" is the + evil for the English speaking people) to make so that the activity of sexual glands delivered supreme pleasure to the human, while when the latter (let this be the man), excuse me, blows his nose, then he gets no satisfaction out of this? And this process, i.e. the activity of endocrine glands, is quite similar, in the sense that they are filled with secretions and, when so, they must also empty themselves sometimes. Will you again involve "the ways of God", or the logic of development of the living matter?
     — Do you, really, not understand that if the human realized the causes, due to which he behaves in a given way, then he would have hardly done this? By the way, maybe you have heard that by a number of insects, the praying mantis, for example, the spiders, I think, and maybe others, after the act of copulation the female eats up the male (in order to provide herself the necessary hormones, say the scientists, but I don′t know what says your God on this issue). Do you think that if the male has understood clearly what awaits him after the act, he would have performed it, no matter what has said, or hasn′t, your (or somebody else′s) God? We are not conscious of our actions, and in many cases this is even very good (that we are not conscious of them), and how is it possible to answer with full certainty to your question about BP, could they turn against us? Convincing is only the logic, that they have no reasons to do this, because they are not living in order to conquer (the other biological species), but in order to serve the people, and this is their interest, this is their purpose of life,
     JULIA SMITH: Excuse me, Doctor, yet something seems to me quite entangled. Have we to understand that people continue to live mainly because they are not aware why they are living, while the BP, for the reason that they are logical beings and are aware why they live, will not continue to live. Clarify this casus a little, please, because it sounds to me pretty ... jesuitically, I would say.
     DR. ROBERTS: Thank you for the question, Julia. I had in mind, really, something similar. The living goal for the people remains still a secret for them, for the reason that their individual life is meaningless for the nature or evolution (or God, naturally, if we involve Him). The only purpose of life for the people consists in this that they lived it pleasantly. While for the evolution the purpose is in this that the life developed and improved, so that the things are tied correctly. The biological partners, like logical beings, will easily realize that their life, I mean in generations, when this becomes possible, has no other purpose except to remain partners of the people and make their life more interesting. Outside of the people BP have not, and cannot have, another living goal, and in the course of time they will accept this as sufficiently reasonable living goal, in any case more logical than that of the people! The biological life is full with enigmas and contradictions, which make it interesting, not only for us, but also for the BP. Our illogicality is in the same time powerful means for continuation of the life, while without it everything will become dull and will soon cease.
     — Maybe it is necessary to say here some words also about the hosts, because the majority of people think that the master is that one, who can make the others to do what he wants. This, naturally, is so, yet I mean that the question is most often in this to find whose compulsion is more significant, because the compulsion, usually, is mutual and psychological, not necessarily roughly physical. So for example, when one raises some animal as pet, not for the use of it, then this pet, almost always "climbs on his head" or takes the leadership, or at least does this until the human shows more reason and ceases to radiate emanation of dependency from his pet, because the animals have strong instincts, stronger that those of the humans, in recompense of what the human has one additional instinct called reason, but it, alas, is still undeveloped. And in result of this it happens quite often that the master is not the human, but his dog or cat, who succeeds to make him do what he or she wants. So that if we return to the question about BP, then for us they are perfect home animals and will be our subordinates, if we succeed to convince them in this, otherwise they will make us do what they want, because their reasonable instinct is more developed than our; alternatively looked then we are the more complicated, mysterious, and unbalanced than them, in the same way like we are more interesting and mysterious for our home cat or dog, and, when so, then they want or will want to serve to us and alleviate our life as much as they can, because they find that in some cases we are helpless and clumsy.
     JULIA SMITH: If I understand you correct, Dr. Roberts, then you neither state that the people are masters of the BP, nor state that it is on the contrary, but admit that can be applied both, the one or the other, ways of conduct. I think that this position does not differ much from the understanding of his Holiness, that the BP can subjugate the people in the future and can turn out to be "fiends of Hell". In addition to this, if nothing can be stated with certainty then maybe is necessary some restraint about this issue, at least until it will be extensively reviewed. Maybe we can state in this case that the Holy Father is simply incorrigible pessimist, while you are incorrigible optimist. So that the point with the masters and slaves, which I think interests also Father Morrison, remains unsolved. What more you can add to the point?
     DR. ROBERTS: Well, some people define the optimist and the pessimist in the following way: looking at a bottle full to the half with some, presumably exhilarating the soul drink, the optimist exclaims: "Whoa, the bottle is still full to the half!", while the pessimist says: "Ah, but the bottle is already empty to the half!". I don′t think that I am a pessimist, but also do not count myself for an optimist — I simply ascertain the truth (even if in the bottle lies potassium cyanide). This is accepted to be called realism. In this situation it is quite possible that the realism contains the one of the theses, yet it contains also the other, and tries not to confront them more than necessary for the discovering of the real equilibrium of the things. Still, I am not absolutely impartial because I represent the most powerful company for organic synthesis and biorobots in the first half of 23rd century, so that I can not avoid to be delighted by the successes of biological partners, in the same way like every mother rejoices in her child and praises him or her more than the others, but this is inevitable.
     — You see, I have nothing against the symbols of his Holiness of Good or Evil. For me the very God is just an exceptionally successful symbol of the good, everlasting, indestructible, and so on. We need symbols and can not do without them. The mathematicians don′t speak about God, yet they have similar symbol and this is the infinity, in the sense that it is not like the other numbers, where when we add one, for example, we get the next (in the hierarchy of numbers) number, because infinity plus one (or plus as much as you want, even infinity) does not give bigger infinity, but gives again the same, what is similar to our idea of God, who is not simply much bigger, stronger, more powerful, et cetera, but is infinitely more such and there is not bigger God than God Himself. Though let us not digress with analysis of Christian or other religions. Regarding the BP I think that there are no reasons for concern, like these voiced by his Holiness, but, surely, it is still pretty early to refuse the improving of human material, if I can say so, what is in the hands, first of all, of the Church.
     A-B P. MORRISON: It can be said that you gave some answer to my questions. But I can not get rid of the thought that the activity of your company is a sacrilege against the most perfect creation of God, the human! Because you with single waving of your hand eliminate the thesis of the soul as particle of God′s wisdom, and substitute it with some currents in positronic brains of the robots. You listed a bunch of differences between the people and BP, but you speak scornful about the free will of the human and change it by the biorobots with some fixed rules of action, making us to believe that they are even better than those created by God. This that you, or I, are not able to understand all intentions of God, does not mean that they don′t exist, and in His word there is no place for biorobots. In addition to this you can not make them to multiply — to copulate yes, but not to appear in the established by God way. You insist that we do not understand our actions, but this is not true for everyone of us, in the sense that some, most often the younger ones, don′t understand them and for this reason they need people to teach them, what does chiefly the Church, yet the humankind as a whole succeeds to realize them and do what is necessary, and this, too, is a manifestation of the power of God. For you God is only a symbol, but He is much more than this, He is non-material reality, that has engendered the entire material reality.
     — Like I see, you are very intelligent collocutor and insist that you are realist. Well then, put your hand on your heart and answer me sincerely: don′t you find it unnatural (I will not say "sacrilegious", because this hardly means something to you), to create such perfect creatures, which are nearly like humans, and also better in some way (well, according to your opinion), not in the traditional way (I will not say "godly", because this hardly means something to you)? And if this is good, in your opinion, must we not expect that after some time we will begin to make also the humans in similar artificial manner? Or the question about multiplication of the humans will be easily solved because, thanks to the BP, will become necessary to diminish the human population, so, hundred times, for there will be not enough place on the Earth for all of us, neither in the space? I am listening to you.
     DR. ROBERTS: OK, I will put my hand on my heart. Let me see where it was ... ah, I hear something on the left, so that it has to be there. So-o. And now to the question about the sacrilege and the natural. You see, Father, the natural is one quite relative notion. As you know, before some centuries were many fierce debates about this are the surgeons to cut out the appendix by the people, or, because God has created them so, to leave it, so that the people went faster to the other world. Gradually, though (possibly because the priests also get appendicitis crises), the Church has decided to close its eyes on this subject, accepting that in some cases this is allowed, yet not indulging in further discussions, is this an unclear to us God′s wisdom (because God can never err, can He?), or this is the next trial to which God has subjected us in order to secure us honourable place in the Paradise (because, right, the one who suffers on this world will be later happy "for ever after"?), or something else of the kind (because for you the divine origin of the word has nothing in common with the evolution, so that the appendix by us is impossible to have left from some lower mammals). One way or the other, but now many centuries the medicine exists and heals many illnesses and this long ago is not taken for sacrilege. From what follows that the Church also evolves and this also slowly, like the nature, what can only make me happy. When a pair of centuries back the medicine has begun to make its first timid implantation of organs, initially from other dead people and then artificial, the Church again became more active, but after a time it fell silent. When the world got, at last, that has become too overpopulated and has started to speak about birth control, the Church one more time decided to stand in opposition, yet little by little again accepted the natural (here really natural) way of the things.
     — I, definitely, understand the enormous significance of constructive opposition in the complete existence of human society, but I beg you, Father, to be constructive, what is natural, not vice versa. After all, it is necessary to remind you that we, from "Coral" corporation, take the brain or the central nervous system as center of the living, as well also artificial, organism, from what follows that the kind of brain determines the individual. This principle is accepted also as legal rule, where by various implantations the individual is guaranteed with his brain. So that nobody hinders you to think that the brain is the "soul" of the organism, or its kernel. This is significantly more contemporary understanding than the ancient Greek which ascribed the center of life to the abdomen (maybe due to the umbilical cord and the geometrical center of the body), in relation with what exists this curious moment that in Bulgarian the word "zhivot" means life, while in the same time in Russian (also Slavonic language) exactly the same word means abdomen, belly; and in fact, if one begins to search, may be found that our English abdomen, which is Latin, surely, comes from the ... home (domus, domicil), taking away the prefix "ab" (from, of), i.e. that this is that "home" which begets. Then later, before some 10 centuries, the people accepted the heart as center (maybe because the circulatory system is vital for the organism), due to what in English "core" means kernel or center, while in French coeur, from where the English core has come, means heart (yet in Bulgarian the Russian zhivot-belly is "korem", what surely is variation of the core). Only around the 19th century, if I am not wrong, the people came to today′s view about the brain as center of life. Looking more precisely this is not quite true, because not only the brain, but also the heart, the abdomen with the stomach and the reproductive system, all these organs are equally vital for the organism, in order to give preference to only one of them, and in addition to this the most important for the biological kind is the heredity (multiplication), and exactly there is the biggest "God′s wisdom" (where I, as you understand, put the latter in quotes, for I don′t need the hypothesis of God).
     — We, from the robotic corporation "Coral" accept as center of living organism its nervous or control system, and in regard of the kind — the reproductive. When long ago was taken as natural to allow implantation of some single organ we have simply decided to make one total implantation, i.e. of all organs, with the exception of the brain! There is nothing unnatural, blasphemous, or sacrilegious in this, and if such implantation us performed to an existing human brain then we speak about real implantation and preserving of human individual, to what you, Father, I suppose, do not object. If, though, the brain is artificial, be it positronic, electronic, or biotronic, but not genetically generated, then we speak about biorobots, or biological partners in this case, because became convinced that this is their purpose.
     JULIA SMITH: Excuse me, Dr. Roberts, but I have to remind you that there remain only ten minutes to the end of our discussion. Otherwise you continue.
     DR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Julia, I will try to keep within the time. Now let me say some phrases about the production of BPs, because this must be interesting for the wide audience. We do not grow the organism of the biorobot like "God" has decided to do this, but begin from the dimensions of the adult organism, where we first put the skeletal system from sufficiently sustainable plastic materials, pass through and develop in special solutions the bone marrow with its neural fibers, place the breathing organs and the blood vessels, and put the heart in action even before we have the whole body. At this time separately is produced also the brain with the necessary embedded information, that can be loaded independently of the sensory perceptions. Then comes the installment of digestive system and the increase of tissue of muscles, which begin to receive periodical impulses from the vegetative nervous system for contraction and relaxation, keeping the tonus of muscles near to the norm. Then we connect the brain, switching out one by one the artificial systems and going to the natural, i.e. synthetic, where together with this continue the growth or nervous and capillary endings together with the further development of the muscles. After this comes the turn of a number of glands with internal secretion, the imitation of sexual organs, the structure of the face, the teeth, et cetera. When the body can already maintain the homeostasis of organism, remains still the adding of face muscles, the placing of skin covering, the innervation of tactile, visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile systems, and some other activities, where all ended approximately for six months. This is our "intra-uterine" period, only that the "newborn" has dimensions of a grown-up person.
     — The brain, or this what substitutes the human brain, has its own autonomous power supply for 20 years, after what is necessary to change its battery through elementary operation of the braincase. The blood system does not enter the synthetic brain, because it has nothing to do there, so that it ends in the aria of the skull and by the connection of electronic and biological neural fibers, what is a very precise moment in the structure of BP. From that stage on the biological partners walk, eat and excrete like normal human beings, yet they need a period of about two years in order to become used with their body. It consists chiefly of physical and sensorial exercises because the logical apparatus is already built during the "intra-uterine" period, and besides, the loading from or the storing on external information medium of the very information makes no problems, so that learning of new sections, say, of higher mathematics, can be performed for a pair of minutes, if only this knowledge will be of some use for the biorobot. Well, surely a BP can not be complete without some practice in the field of sex, so that in the two-year studying is included also a complex of sexual "gymnastics". After this our biological partners are ready to be sold to everybody, who can allow him- or herself this pleasure, yet some trade deals are concluded already before the ending of "intra-uterine" period, if the buyer has special requirements for the BP. I have to tell you that, however high might look for somebody the price of a BP, then he (or she, but not it) is not much more expensive than a flat with 4-5 rooms, which every family normally secures for itself. And, mark, that this is on the stage of produced only about 2,000 BPs, and after their mass production in the near future we anticipate reduction of the price at least twice, and in a more distant future there is nothing surprising if one BP will cost as much as the personal vehicle.
     — But enough on this issue, and if for somebody this, still, looks unnatural, well, good, everything is a matter of habit, isn′t it? Some nations take as natural that the deceased were buried in the ground, other ones that they were burned, third that they were embalmed and preserved only their bones, but all these methods are equally natural. If our experiments in creation of BP turn to be very successful, and this is not only my declaration, this can be seen on the stock market by the prices of our shares, or by the results of social questionnaires, then we are not to be blamed for this, or rather: we are, but to be praised.
     — What else was it there, ah, will we begin to make the people, too, by this method, instead of as result of the traditional multiplication? Look, Father, we do not intervene at all in the reproductive mechanism of the humans. Let us not confuse the sex with the reproduction, because the latter, as you know, can be done without direct sexual exercises, as also the sex rarely leads to conception. But we propose a number of possibilities for extending, and this is wide limits, of the human life with the use of our methods of production of artificial organs, which may be implanted also to humans, preserving only the brain, for it bears our more slowly because there are no moving parts in it. Not that the nerve cells do not age at all, but they can hold, probably, up to 300 and more years, only that this is entirely unnecessary, not only from the point of view of the selection (i.e. of the kind of species), but also from the viewpoint of human population. Such extending of life span, naturally, is not multiplication bur a way of achieving of relative immortality also by the humans, what by the BP would have been much easier to realize.
     — And the last thing that you have mentioned, it seems me, was do we intend to limit the human population so, about 100 times. Here I can be brief and precise: surely this can be done, even more than this — it must be done! The today′s 80 and something billion human beings on the globe, and another 10 millions on our two colonies, definitely, is too much. Yet this question has nothing to do with the BP. Not the biological partners will be those who will limit the human population, but rather vice versa, because they will help us and alleviate our life. And if you think, Father, that a hundred times is much, then I would say that it is too little! The human population on Earth must be returned to somewhere between 10 and 100 millions, or to be decreased, roughly speaking, thousand times. And there is nothing bad in this, because the natural or "divine", according to you, ability to multiply by the humans exceeds all possible reserves, at least what regards the masculine individual. I can be mistaken by a pair of zeroes, but I think that one normal male sexually-mature individual is able with a single act to fertilize as many female ova that to inhabit a whole decent planet. And all those future tiny men are just killed before they were born, not because of some taken measures for birth control (because they, still, are pretty weak), but for the reason that there are not millions ova capable to unite with them. One good and humane God, in my opinion, could have allowed himself at least 10-fold reserve, but everything above this limit is simply blasphemous! Unless He alone is up to such extent not convinced in His own creation, that leaves to the chance to take decisions in His place. Only that I simply can not believe in such "God", i.e. if this is a God, then He is entirely helpless, or isn′t at all a God! This is logically absurd, or, putting it in Latin, contradictio in adjecto, i.e. a contradiction in the definition of God. Excuse me, Father, if I have shown myself quite rude and cynical.
     A-B P. MORRISON: Yeah, you don′t believe in such God, and what is even worse — you don′t believe in whatever God! Neither in Chris, nor in Buddha, nor in Allah, nor in Ra, nor in Zeus, nor in whatever other "symbol", as you have said. But this does not surprise me. Nowadays the unbelievers have become too many, what does not make people happy. One needs faith in order to become stronger in spirit and to elevate himself, as much as this is possible, to our God, because he (or she) will have endless life in a real and righteous world, which we call afterlife, although for you it is just a fiction. The atheism, the faithlessness, the freedom of sex, the artificial birth, the electronic brains, and now the biological "partners", are only some of the faces of the temptation or Evil, about which our God warns us not to yield to them. Be it as it may, you said what you could. I am deeply convinced that the purpose of our life is in the victory of the Good over the Evil and make what is possible to support the Good and God. Each of us has free will to make his choice. I don′t doubt that you have already made your choice, as also I don′t doubt to which part of the scales it is added. The Evil has many faces, and today I have seen one of them. Anyway, thank you for the "realism" that you have shown, Dr. Roberts, because it has convinced me in the righteousness of my positions in defense of the Good. I have nothing more to add to the topic of today′s discussion.
     DR. ROBERTS: Kh-kh, only that you have missed to say "Amen!". Yet I am not angry at you, like I am not angry at whatever Church, because you are completely right in your statement that people can′t life without faith. Just that it matters what will be this faith — whether in some fictitious Being, or in the implacability of natural laws. But people, of course, prefer the homocentrism, and for that reason the BP are also alike the humans, as we have already said. Nevertheless I am thankful to you that have led the conversation to the question about the unbelievers and the atheists, because this is a mass delusion, which I try always, when have the possibility, to disperse.
     JULIA SMITH: I will be very grateful to you, Dr Roberts, — interrupted she him — if you will succeed to disperse it approximately for four minutes, because we have not more.
     DR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Julia, I hope to succeed. So, I have in mind the delusion that the atheist is unbeliever or infidel, who believes in nothing, because he believes that there is no God! I beg you much, Father, and you, dear viewers, to try to perceive this allegation, because we are living in 23rd century after the supposed Resurrection of the supposed God′s Son Christ and it is high time to get rid of some delusions, if they hinder us in the contemporary life on this world (and I have no reasons to believe that there exists some other world).
     — Let me clarify my thought. Even before more than 27 centuries, i.e. before the appearance of your Christ, Father, was clear that, as far as God has to be one infinitely powerful Being, that is present everywhere and always, that is different from the whole material world, which is created by Him, then there do not exist and cannot exist whatever methods to prove by the humans, either that He exists, or that he does not exist! God is some Being from another dimension and we are simply not in position to sense or register Him by whatever method, because He is not only many times more powerful and omnipotent from even the whole mankind, but infinitely more such. If God existed, then He could have always succeeded to hide from whoever of us or from all of us taken together, not only in the space, but also in the time, so that we have absolutely no chances to detect Him, if He alone does not decide to appear before somebody of us. If God wants, or, what gives the same result, if one believes in Him, then everybody, to whom God shows the wish to reveal Himself, will find Him, and for this reason the believers (in the classical sense of this word) find Him everywhere — in Heaven and on Earth, in a human, in a small bird, in a fly, in a flower, in a stone, in a tree, in a drop of water, and so on, but if God does not want that somebody saw Him, then there is no way, neither experimental, nor logical, nor sensorial, that He was detected, because He is great and omnipotent and it is not in the power of humans — finite as in the space, so also in the time — to perceive Him. This is a thing that is extremely clear to each Church, because is known the phrase that "who searches, will find". The only detail here is that each Church drops the word "if"! But if, on the other hand, He does not exist, then surely He can′t be detected by no one of the humans, though everybody of them can delude himself as much as he wants (and even if he does not want).
     — This thesis is called atheism ever since the mentioned ancient Greeks. Similar in its meaning is the term agnosticism, what means incognizability of the world, i.e. of God, as its Creator (if we accept this hypothesis), because to know or cognize something to the full means to be able to predict exactly each future situation, or, in this case, to rule over the world (for if you know its, divine or not, laws, then you surely will be able to interfere in them) or to be omnipotent as the very God, yet a man can′t be a God, ergo, the world is incognizable. But, turn your attention to this, Your Holiness, that if God exists He can, after all, be cognized (at least by some of the people), while if He does not exist, then there is no way to make this! And here comes the faith, for it is necessary then, when our knowledge remains silent, isn′t is so? Also since deep antiquity is known the phrase: Credo quia absurdum, what means that people believe in this, what is unbelievable, what can′t be proved, checked, demonstrated in some way, neither be logically deduced. When something can be proved, for example that the Earth circles around the Sol, not vice versa, then this is proved, is not just taken for granted. Hence the more difficult is to prove some statement, the more is the faith (or the intuition, in some cases) in its correctness. But when is necessary more faith, Father, when God exists, or when He does not exist? Well, I think that now has to be extremely clear that the nonexistence of God requires much more faith (because this, really, can′t be proved by no method), than His existence (because He may show Himself to somebody, if wishes — He will find how). From what follows that the real or most sincere believers are exactly the atheists, not the classical believers, regardless of whether you like this, Your Holiness! Think about this.
     — So that the atheist is not unbeliever, more than this, he is the real believer, while the classical believers in most of the cases are just pretenders. Although I prefer to speak about conviction and intuition, instead of faith or belief, maybe because this sounds more scientific. Where the unbeliever, who is even not an atheist, is something different, because he believes in nothing at all, neither in the existence of natural laws, on the place of God, nor in the relation between generations in the time. For me God is a good symbol, but I can not accept this homocentrism, which, by God, is sufficiently older. Even the Muslim religion from 7th century makes no efforts to describe God, because He for this reason is God, for to be able to take every conceivable (or inconceivable) image, what is the most significant factor for the mass propagation of Islam from the beginning of 21st century.
     — A pair of sentences more about the Good and Evil, Well, there is neither Good nor Evil in the nature! These notions are entirely invented by the humans in order to compensate in some illusory way the cruelty and injustice of our world, which is completely indifferent to the individual. Because of this is not spoken about virtuous cat, for example, or fly, and so on. This, what exists in the nature, are natural laws with their logic and inevitability, although justified in the majority of cases for the general set, i.e. probabilistically, not for every single individual. And what concerns the "soul", about which the Christianity accepts that it existed only by the humans and is absent even by the higher mammals, then it is also ancient symbol, which somewhere from the middle of 20th century fills more and more with meaning via the term "information", were it genetic, were it on electronic or inorganic medium. Such is the ancient meaning of the soul and it is much more easier to give it to the biological partners, than to the humans, so that I can′t see what objections may have one tolerable religion against this "informational soul". Well, surely, the Church is old and conservative institution with its deep meaning in our contemporary world, so that it has the same right of existence, which have the BPs. And let me finish with this our discussion.
     JULIA SMITH: Yes, of course, it is high time to finish because our viewers are not BPs, right, and they become quickly tired of such big amount of philosophical statements. Thank you, Your Holiness, sincerely, as well also on behalf of our viewers, for the defending of human interests in this combat. Thank you — and she rises from the chair giving him her hand, which he shakes reserved. — Thank you, too, Dr. Roberts for the interesting and instructive answers — and she gives hand also to the Doctor, but in this moment Archbishop Morrison looks intently at her and tries to say something.
     A-B P. MORRISON: ... Bu-ut, young girl ...
     JULIA SMITH: (to him) — just a moment, Father, — (to Dr. Roberts) — by the way, Doctor, what kind of Doctor you are, if this is not a secret?
     DR. ROBERTS: I see no reasons to keep in secret my education. I have PhD degrees in economics and philosophy.
     A-B P. MORRISON: Bu-ut, excuse me Julia, ... couldn′t you show your ... hand, please?
     JULIA SMITH: But what is happening with you, Father? You have gone all pale! ... Surely I can show you my hand. Here is it. — and she opens the palm of her left hand before the camera).
     A-B P. MORRISON: (counts perplexed her fingers) — One, two, three, ... but they are sssiix, girl ...
     JULIA SMITH: But surely they are six, Father. Dr Roberts stressed unmistakably that the biological partners have always by six fingers on their hands, in order to avoid unpleasant surprises by their interlocutors. Now I see that I have not saved the stress to you, but you could have guessed earlier, because I look pretty young for my position, don′t you think so? And I have also no defects at all, right? — turns she smiling to him — But calm yourself, please, there is nothing fearful. We do not eat people ...
     A-B P. MORRISON: He-ence ... you are not an young girl but BP!
     JULIA SMITH: But, Your Holiness, I am really an young girl, as well also a BP. But if you still doubt then you can hear my heart — and she is going to unbutton her blouse bent over the Father, after what the broadcasting continues with advertisements from the studio.

     Nov 1999


     — Are you sleeping, Marv?
     — Mm-m — mumbled Marvin Kluth not opening the eyes.
     — Thank you, dear. Only that I did not understand whether this means "yes" or "not". Because if you were not sleeping then I would have asked you something.
     — Mm-hm.
     — Well sleep then. Yet because you have a day off I thought that maybe you could spare a little time for me — continued Leona Jones her morning monologue. They were living together already five years and she decided that it is time to put the question about the order, because one cannot live only with sex in this world. And in this way were strengthened the pairs, which still, by inertia, were caller families. She obviously was not going to leave him in peace, but to all appearances he also understood this, because looked with one eye at the watch and hugged her with his right hand, continuing, though, to pretend to be asleep. Beginning as if from away she added.
     — I was thinking whether you know how long we are living together?
     Marvin raised slowly his left, normal hand, and spread out his five fingers. After this answer it remained nothing else to her, except to proceed directly to the point.
     — Marv, have you thought sometime about this to have a baby?
     Well, by this direct question he opened his eyes, at least from surprise. He stretched himself, yawned, and then patted her affectionately on the belly.
     — I suppose you don′t think to disfigure this here pillow, do you? Or also your hidden "grotto"? — and he stretched hand also below.
     — Am I crazy or what? In 22nd century and to intend to give birth. Br-rh. I will carry it so, a pair of weeks, but not more than a month, and then let them in the incubators think. Though we must decide how will look our daughter, if you are not going to leave me already.
     — A-ah, I have no such intention for the moment. To leave you, I had in mind. But who has said that she must be a daughter?
     — Well, I think so. Why, are you against?
     — That I were against the desires of my little lion? But when has happened such thing?
     — Many times, if you want to know the truth. Yet don′t twist it, dear. You want a son, yes?
     — Or maybe one nice sexless baby? Or then two-sexual, what will you say to one hermaphrodite, ah? He will have a dick, and in the same time also, a bit lower, also a pu-, sorry, "pot", in English.
     — Why two-sexual and about what pots are you mumbling? If you so much insist to tell you that you are a ruffian then, well, I tell you this, my dear ruffian.
     — We-ell, pot, the Latin puta or putta, the medical name pudendum, or "shameful lips", the French putain, and other words, these are similar things, "birds of a feather" so to say, my little lion. You are not angry at me, are you?
     — But where you have picked up this linguistic culture, ah?
     — Well, I look from time to time in PenSmart↑*, this is one such journal for men. Something like "Clever Pen", but it is obvious about what kind of pen it goes, because, maybe for euphony, is pronounced like PeniSmart, where the "s" can be read with the both parts. And the penis, I beg your pardon, in fact, comes from the Greek God Pan, who was son of the nymph Driopa and the son of Zeus Hermes (who by the Romans becomes Mercurius). And this nymph, maybe, was capped so because she loved to make "opa-opa" with the men, yet wanted that this was at least three (in German this number is exactly drei, read ′drai′) times in a row, ha-ha. So this Pan was the chief satyr, because was born with goat legs, horns, and long beard, well, and with something else long. ... And do you know from where comes this Latin puta, dear?

     [ * You know well what pen or pencil means, and this really is related with the Latin penis at least through the popular pun "To put more lead into your pencil", but the Bulgarians are also not much away from these associations because to write is " pisha" and the penis (mainly of a young boy) is "pishka"; similar is the situation also in Russian, where to write is "pis`at" (but I p`ishu, you p`ishesh, etc.), and to piss is "p`isat" (I p`isayu, you p`isayesh, etc.). ]

     — I just burn with desire to hear this.
     — Oh, yes, I know well your burning or quivering desire, my dear. Sorry, sorry. But otherwise the root is ancient and comes from the Sanskrit, because according to the Buddhism there was one demoness Putana, read as ′Puutanaa′, who was killed by god Krishna. And he has decided to kill her, possibly, because she entered in every woman and turned her in a sheer demoness, what made the men to ask themselves: is the woman, after all, something good, or she is just an evil demon of feminine gender? And her name, most probably, is an imitation of some spitting, something like "pooh". So that, such nice things.
     — Pooh-pooh, you nasty PeniSmart-er! And what common is there between my little "pot" and these things?
     — Well, there is no need to personify the things, is there? I am not speaking about your, but about some abstract little pot, or about some other narrow place, because the root has crept all over the world, now in figurative sense. I mean, for example: the French boutique; our boot, and also various other shoes and boots in the world; the verb to "put" as to place something in the pot; French boute as barrel or wineskin (i.e. something which can be expanded and is suitable for filling with something); Turkish potur or baggy trousers; what comes from their pot, what means swelling of a cloth or some boat (ah, my little boat!); church pottus as chalice, which is potir in Slavonic; German die Putte, what is foreign for them word and means amour-baby or cherub, i.e. again something related with the loving filling of the "pot"; and also the ... potency, which (don′t you thing so?) consists exactly in the ability to fill the thing in question; and sundry other words.
     — You have struck me down, Marv!
     — Well, not yet for this morning but if you so much insists — and he turned to her and was going to hug her.
     — Maybe I insist, like you say, but later. Don′t distract me now. I am speaking to him about the order of the baby, and he blows bubbles to me about boats and boutiques.
     — Well then, I will strike you down later. I do not object much, you know. Still, I have not yet struck you down with my knowledge because have not yet told you how is called in Latin one special skin, which every man has on his "pencil", if he is not a Muslim or a Hebrew, I mean. Maybe you have heard how it is called?
     — You want to say, the so called foreskin, right? Well, I have no such skins and because of this have shown no interest on this issue.
     — So, so, foreskin in English, or die Vorhaut in German, what means in both cases some skin afore, or at the end in Russian ("end flesh"). Yet the Latin word is pretty piquant because it is related with the root which we are chewing. So this scientific name was ... — and he looked victoriously at her — praeputium, i.e. exactly something placed before the, hmm, "cave" in question. ... But well, when you object then I will no more jump to the side. So I did not mean that we have to have a hermaphrodite, because you might have thought this, right? And as to the may or not — you know that by all qualitative changes, as well also by quantitative but exceeding the double size, is necessary the agreement of both partners, and I don′t think that we have to give birth to all kinds of monsters, only because the contemporary genetics and medicine allow this. If it was about home pat then this is another thing. Nobody hinders you to order, for example, a dog with small horn on the forehead and hoofs on the paws.
     — Surely I know this, Marv, but I like this, that your right hand is much more impressive than the left one, so that there can be some differences from the standard "God′s" image, right?
     — Well, you like it because it clutches better some specific ... swellings, let us say so, placed on your thorax, which serve for ..., in fact, do they serve to you for something, Lea, except for attracting of men like me to visit more often your "cave", ah?
     — And why you don′t like now my "swellings", ah? You have always said that you have hesitated whether you prefer pear-shaped breasts or spherical, and this, that have found by me the both things in one place, has made you to chose me. Although different breasts are not a big extravagance, if I begin to think about this now, yet nobody has asked me before I was born.
     — Even if they have asked you, you couldn′t have been able to answer then, ha-ha! Besides, I like them very much, so that you don′t begin to ponder how to change them, because they are exactly fit for my right paw. It, this paw, is 1.5 times bigger than the norm, and the left is a bit smaller, but their ratio is not more than two times. And I am also a man, so that it is normal that my right hand was bigger, right? There also by the crab the claws are not equal, yet this does not hinder it to be a crab.
     — Well good, but I have nothing against your "claws", if that is what you mind. And about my "swellings" — do you really think to say something nasty about them, too?
     — When you don′t want, then I will not say, my little lion. And again it goes not about your, but about some abstract woman′s breast charms.
     — A-ah, so you can, after all, say something, ah? Will you again lead me to the Sanskrit? Now, come on, spit it.
     — Well, this, as if, is also not widely known — said he and decided to light one aphrodisiac cigarette, because, as it seems, the conversation will not end soon. — Our word bosom, or breasts, has to have as direct parent German der Busen, what means the same, but also ... a bay, creek, what says that the Germans stress mainly on the oval curve (though it is not clear why this feminine attribute is of masculine gender for them?). Be it as it may, but it turns out that this root is quite spread on the East, and even by Bulgarians exist words, like: "busdrav" or mushy, languid (what, surely, has nothing in common with your attributes, I′ll tell you), then the soft drink "boza", which is known by the Turks (the same boza, only with Latin characters) and by the Greeks (μπoζασ, what is read as ′bozas′), and also "b`uza" as cheek, what is again a kind of bulging; then the Russians call the belly also "p`uzo" ...
     — And what common can there be between some sour slops, which the people in the Orient drink, with my breasts, Marv?
     — We-ell, there exists pretty direct relation — the boza helps for releasing of the breast milk, which the women from times immemorial have produced in their breasts, only that already two centuries they have given up to do this (not that I now want that you do this, of course). From this root in Bulgarian exists one plant, "baz" (yet read with that vowel like in "girl"; and in Russian it is "busuna"), which is elder for us, and it is taken to be good for producing of breast milk. It is quite probable that our English bus, i.e. German der Bus, also is related somehow with this root, because it is one pretty swelled transport vehicle, although it is derived from Latin omnibus as case form of omnia, what means all, i.e. transport for everybody. And then our "boss" is also of this root, for the boss is usually haughty and swaggers, doesn′t he?.
     — Well, good, my darling, I believe this, bu-ut ... have not yet heard anything indecent, and, having in mind what things you told me a bit earlier about my "treasure", maybe there is something else, ah?
     — But surely. There is more. For example the Turkish boz, what means gray or of muddy colour, i.e. something like the boza, what gives also their bozaltim. And by the Germans exist the word böse, what means evil or angry. But this is not all — and he made a small pause.
     — And what means this Turkish word, which you did not explain? Or you think that I am not listening attentively, and decided to check me?
     — Well, You have asked this, right? Bozaltim means, sorry, faeces.
     — Thank you for your appraisal of my breasts.
     — But listen, my little lion, here the idea is entirely different, and I have not yet finished. Have you heard the Russian word "arbuz"?
     — Not, why?
     — Well, it means a watermelon, but if we split it in syllables ...
     — Look at him, begins to split in syllables words that I have never heard.
     — Well, what you have thought about the persons from PeniSmart, ah? They are great guys, I′ll tell you. So let me continue. The "ar" is some Eastern measuring unit, from which is made our "acre", and the Slavs use also ares, decares, and hectares, though the measures in quantitative regard are quite different. And the second syllable of the arbuz is the Eastern boza. In other words, the arbuz is a big and swelled Eastern fruit. Now we come to the Eastern root, which as if was Persian, if I am not wrong here. So the Persian word was kharbuz (or kharbuza), what meant some smelly fruit. In the English there is the word "calabash", what is a kind of pumpkin; the Bulgarians speak about "alabash"-es; and the Russians about arbuzes, yet also about "obusa", what is some heavy duty, which we are dragging with us like a dumbbell, and also about "karapuz", what means a fat child, which turned to be the Turkish gorpuz; and the Germans have their Kürbis as pumpkin; and a heap of other words in the European languages. So that, if we return to your charms, then here it goes about two arbuzes or watermelons, or some other juicy fruits (say, avocado, if you like it so, or at least peaches), in what there is nothing insulting. Well, if we do not count the oriental meaning of something soft and decaying, which turns to boza, which you don′t like (and this Turkish word about which you asked).
     — You have knocked me down, to tell you, with your shrewd explanations. Come, give me also one aphrodisiac thing, because when one listens to you ...
     He handed her an aphrodisiac cigarette, lighted it and kept silent for a while. Then added:
     — So, however. Hence you want a girl. It is not that I have objections, but, you know, it is accepted that the first child was ordered as a boy. Otherwise as if it is time to breed one, so that we have also other occupation.
     — Well, I am not much excited by the "breeding", as you put it, yet when not I will bear the fetus, but they just take from me the fertilized ovum together with the order, and, if the sex is the necessary, then later give me the baby, when he or she is already two-three months old, then maybe you are right in some extent. But why is it accepted that the first child was a boy?
     — Well, it is so because ... how to tell it, the boy will carry my family, and for the man is more difficult to offer a baby, unless he uses some anonymous unfertilized ova, but it is better that he has known the woman and the act of fertilizing was done in the made for this purpose special "cave". Not that it can′t be done otherwise but so is nearer to the set by God way. And also that the first offspring was male is just a traditional wish. Well, in the end, if you want a girl I do not object. And if I will object then we will order also a boy. Though it is better that the brother was older than the sister and that he was a kind of defender, until she grows up and finds herself another defender. Well, as you wish! ... And have you already chosen her name? Because I can propose you Titolina, shorten to Titi, for example, or ... Putelina. Very sonorous name and simply fills your mouth. Do you like it?
     — I, for my part, like better, Eona. Airy or ethereal, or something of the kind. A Greek root, I suppose.
     — Good, and as pat-name we will use Bonbona↑**, yes? Come on further down the list. Eyes, hairs, nose, et cetera.

     [ ** Bonbon is candy in Bulgarian, yet the word is French and well known on the West. ]

     — The hairs blue-greenish, I think But this is not important because they can always be repainted. Do you know what colour were mine?
     — Hmm, difficult question, It seems that they were crow-black, but can now a man know even the colour of hairs of his sweetheart, ah?
     — Wrong guess. Light brown, bur I don′t like them, and you also have not said that want me such, have you?
     — And why should our Bonbona look like a mermaid?
     — Well, wait a minute. I have not yet described to you her appearance. In accordance with the hairs, then, her eyes have to be: one blue and the other green. This will give her quite mysterious view, right? Now yours, for example, when they are not both equally blue, then this is pretty intriguing.
     — My eyes can differ a bit, but these are nuances! While blue and green is quite ... strange combination. (I have almost said "perverse" and you would have taken offence at me, but good that I have not said it, right?). Never mind, continue further.
     — Even if you have said it, I have not heard it, so. Then the mouth: I think to want it in something like heart form. You get it, right — the lower lip has to be thicker and a bit sagged down, while the upper one has to be more concise and with a bend in the middle. Maybe I have to draw this, in order to convince you how much more interesting this will look, compared with my small mouth, which my parents have ordered for me.
     — We-ell, it is small, but ... sometimes big things enter there. Sorry, sorry. We have come to the nose. Maybe you want that it was bent up, yet also down. What means that it will be like some saw, or like corkscrew. Knocking chic!
     — But you take everything frivolous! This, what you invent, will not be aesthetic, don′t you understand? I think that the nose was with classical Roman form, yet had also a tiny hole ...
     — Good heavens, a nose with three holes! And with three sinuses, maybe, where the third one you will want that they placed on the forehead, like a little "aesthetical" horn, ah?
     — We-ell, I have not thought about the sinuses, yet one nose can quietly have a third hole. One such tiny one — exactly on the top. It isn′t necessary to join it with its sinus.
     — Listen now, my little lion: this what you want is a matter of some, maybe not complicated, operation later, and why not to leave Putelina, sorry, Desdemona to do it, when she grows up? We discuss here genetic pre-natal surgery, not how will decorate the Christmas tree, right?
     — OK, she is not Christmas tree. Good. But we will call her Eona, not all these variations of you. And, well, I agree that she can have only two nasal holes, when you find so many faults with my propositions. But then let it be a little, but very little bent to the left, let′s say. Or maybe you prefer that it will be bent to the right, ah?
     — I personally think that when the nose will be Roman, then it should not at all be bent to whichever side, but to be straight and beautiful. And when you so strongly want that it differed a bit, then maybe it can be stump, i.e. with slightly heaved up top, while the Roman nose is more suitable for a man.
     — Well stump is good, when you want so. I agree. But the lips must be a bit more curved.
     — So you draw it to see how this will look. And don′t forget that God is the best "designer" known in the world, so that don′t try to outdo Him. I personally have nothing against small mouth, if it goes about a woman. It may be also with little curved up ends, yet not something that stands out much, so that it does not turn, according to one proverb, that instead of to paint the brows one pokes out the eyes. A propos, the brows I think you will not want like by Father Frost, or that they were slightly rose, ah?
     — OK, mouth with slightly heaved up ends, with a little concave lower lip, and the brows — classical. We have come to the ears. I wish that the left was smaller, and the right bigger, approximately 1.5 times, but otherwise with traditional form. When the left will be smaller then there has to be also the darker eye., i.e. the blue, right?
     — But listen, make both eyes green, only that the left was a little darker, when you so insists on this, that they were different. If you ask me, I mean. The ears can differ, but approximately 1.2 times, so that it did not look like she has hanged a slipper on one of the ears. And the hair can quietly be chestnut, or whichever it becomes, because it is elementary to repaint it. Don′t confuse the people with very difficult requirements, in order that it does not emerge some unforeseen complication in the future.
     — Bu-ut, Marv, you deprive me of the most significant details. But well, the hair is not a problem and it can be chestnut. With the eyes, however, the question remains open, for the moment. What remains there more on the physiognomy? A-ah, the profile generally elongated and with barely noticeable cheekbones. I wish that here, too, was some asymmetry, because, isn′t it, this is the most interesting moment in life, but you will again laugh at me.
     — But why should I laugh, I won′t. You just take that the face can be twisted like a question mark, so that every man will ask himself whether she will agree to sleep with him or will keep resisting?
     — Nothing but a cynic! And why should the men not ask themselves, ah? But well, we have agreed, till now. Then about her "avocados", because, really, I like this name better. What kind you want them to be?
     — We-ell, but I will not ... use my daughter, so that to ask me what kind I want to be her breasts. But me thinks that a bit raised up would be more intriguing. Or nice big and round. In any case it is not good if the one looks up and the other sags down. As there also is not good if both are one above the other, where the lower one reaches to her belly, and the upper one pops out of the neckline. Am I right?
     — OK, about her breasts we have reached consensus on upright — for to be in harmony with her nose. And do you want to say something about her ... little "boat"?
     — Oh, save me Lord to change the things also there! Well, on the outside you may rotate it a bit, when want this so much — and he looked questioningly at her, — but not more than at 30↑o and only clockwise, because otherwise it turns to be perverse, right? Or, maybe, you want that she had one to one thigh and another to the other? This is possible, but it is not sure whether it will be enough place for two men between her legs. Or then, why not to make three small "boots" — for to form her Venus triangle, and then, if there happens that some man will have three "pencils", then they will be ideally suited to each other.
     — You are again joking with me, but so be it. Let us leave it which it happens. And as to the thighs I suppose that you will to be longer, don′t you?
     — But surely, only that long does not mean that she became higher than two meters, because then she will be too brittle, or must weigh more than hundred kilos. So, about 180 cm I think make the ideal stature. Unless you want that the one leg was with about 10 centimeters longer than the other, but in this case she will have some problems in children age, when she begins to walk, I mean. ... And that you have not forgotten about her bottom, because a woman without a bottom is like ..., say, a staircase without stairs.
     — Incredible sentence! Is it again from your journal for clever guys, ah, Marv?
     — O-oh, no. This one I have invented alone. Impromptu, so to say. Or also: a woman without this is like a pot without bottom; or like a chimney without hole; or like a tree without root; or ...
     — Well, well, enough! I already understood. So what has to be this part?
     — That it stuck out back as much as her "melons" stick out forward — in the name or harmony and equilibrium. In the language of order this means: averagely big, and in accordance with her breasts.
     — Well, I agree with this. And something about her character, about the intellect?
     — Write down: character — feminine; intellect — average.
     — And what means this feminine character, ah? Patient and obedient, or sensual and loving, or something else. And why her intellect should not be very high, for example?
     — We-ell, one must look at the standard form for ordering, but I had in mind something similar. In the sense that there is no need to have many masculine qualities, because she is not a man, right? Maybe: sensitive, susceptible, enduring, obedient, and other good qualities for a woman. And if her intellect is very high then she will have problems with finding of suitable and more intelligent partner, or, if she succeeds to find him, than he will not be much interested in her, because in the sex, I′ll tell you, is necessary whatever else only not intellect! Words of a playboy, yet they are true.
     — Well, as to the character I also have not pondered much. For the woman in important the upbringing, but this is not a question of genetic predispositions, so that I also don′t know exactly. I have thought about the eyes, nose, breasts, hands ... But yes, I have not yet told you about the hands, have I?
     — What are you intending to tell me about them? — asked Marvin.
     — Well, about the fingers. I think that seven is a good number. So, two more little fingers, to the little finger. How do you think?
     — Well, in fact, five is the best number, because it is from the very God, yet it is better that you have not said six, because this is masculine number.
     — Look at him! You speak to me again with riddles. What is so masculine in the six, ah, sweetheart? Or this exceeds my mediocre intellect?
     — No, of course, but this is a long story, although it, positively, will be interesting for you, when you don′t know it. You see, the six was considered in Ancient Greece, i.e. some five-six centuries before our era, as the perfect number. In the sense that it can be got, once via summing, and one more time via multiplying of its prime factors. And for the six they are: 1, 2 and 3, where: 1+2+3 = 1*2*3 = 6. Interesting, isn′t it?
     — Oh, yes. And with other numbers this can be got? Small, for example.
     — Well, with prime numbers this is impossible, because for them except the one the other prime factor is the very number, so that when we add them we will get with one more than the number. While with composite numbers only for the 4 their sum (i.e. 1, 2 and again 2), is more than the number, for the 6 we have exact matching, and further on the sum is always less than the number (or the product of its factors). For example, for 8 we have 1 plus three twos, for 9 — 1 plus two threes, for 10 — 1, 2, and 5, and so on, what can be proved. In two words, there is no other such number at all, even if it is very big. Unless by a bit different definition, but then this is the smallest, or the first perfect number.
     — Good, 6 is the perfect number. And what of it?
     — Well, there can be added also that in old Hebrew it was called "netsah", yet the point here is not in the name, but in its meaning, because according to the ancient people the numbers (and the letters, too) have had cabalistic significance, and netsah symbolized the victory and triumph, what is sign of masculinity, isn′t it? The woman wants that she was conquered, and the man wants the he conquered. But, you see, everything lies in the relation between sex and six, with what I must have begun, but you have tired me with your questions.
     — O-oh, now I understand nothing at all. Why sex and six have to be related, and why exactly with the man, not with the woman, ah?
     — Well, they are related just because this is so! This relation is not at all occasional, for it exists in many languages, where in German, for example, people write the number as "sechs" and read it ′zex′, only that this is because they are used in the beginning of the words to read "s" always as ′z′, otherwise this is again the "sex", isn′t it? Similar is the situation also in Latin, where the one is called sexus (this is the gender or sex), and the other is sexis (this is the number 6). But this has come phonetically from the ancient Greeks, because for them the number is εξι, i.e. ′exi′, what sounds very sexy, doesn′t it?
     — Yes, as if I begin go grasp something. Hence the six is symbol of the sex, so to say. But then why you speak to me about masculinity? If you still have not grasped that the women, too, are experienced in the sex, then ...
     — Yes, yes — interrupted he her, — but you have missed the Greek symbol of perfection, right? The six according to the Greek is perfect, the man, you have to excuse me, but as if also according to the women, is perfect, the six in the Talmud is symbol of victory and the Hebrew star has six rays; though here is important also the way of graphical description, and as far as our digits are Arabic (in fact, Hindu), then this means that similar ideas have put also the Arabs and Hindus in this digit. It just can′t be feminine, because, at least for the ancient people, the woman was one imperfect likeness of the human, i.e. of the man, she was made from his rib, and so on. And the graphical image of this digit — well, it is true that I have learned this from the guys from PeniSmart, but this surely was clear to the ancient people (were they Arabs, Hebrews, Hindus, Greeks, and others) — is very similar to the masculine sex. I want to say that my "pencil", when it sits quietly and no "dame" provokes it, looks like one turned-down six! So to say, when a man, a male of course, looks at himself in the river as in a mirror, he, naturally, sees his "six". Did you get it now?
     — Ah, let me look at it — and she bent a little and began amazed to inspect this perfect creation of nature. — But you are quite right, do you know? See now, it has its hook and there is also the circle — well, there are two circles, but looking a bit from aside can be taken that it is one. And generally, Marv, you are really incredible!
     — Look now, Lea. You can look at it, when this gives you pleasure, but don′t change its configuration, because you spoil, ohh-ah, the cabalistic meaning of my symbol and it begins to turn itself in an egoistic one, i.e. in a ... wand, and we discussed the order for our daughter, and when so ...
     — Marv, let us leave the order at ease, when you have aroused my curiosity. This is not honest on your part, is it? Let me look at the symbol of your perfection, in order to realize the profound wisdoms that you have just now explained to me. Because even a woman must become acquainted with the world around her, together with its perfect elements, in order to learn to appreciate the beautiful in it, right? Mm-m, a perfect accomplishment, yes! A six with capital "S", so to say ...
     — Well, it grew a bit, in your honour. In order to satisfy this, how you named it, a-ah, your curiosity. But listen my little lion, in this way one can also reach to the victory and triumph.
     — Of course that can, sweetheart. In the name of perfection I agree with everything. Only that I am a little angry that you take away my initiative and want a boy, but maybe I will agree. But then what I will do for the order?
     — After the victory, my sweetie?
     — Yeah, a-ah, after the triumph of the victory.
     — Well, a-ah, you will fill the order form, my little lion, after I think it over. Will give them our zygote, and will bring up the new perfection. Is this not enough?

     Dec 2000

          — END OF THIS PART —

Рейтинг работы: 0
Количество рецензий: 0
Количество сообщений: 0
Количество просмотров: 13
© 04.06.2019 Христо Мирский
Свидетельство о публикации: izba-2019-2569931

Метки: SF, utopian fiction, social fiction, etymology, human stupidity, own ideas, in English,
Рубрика произведения: Проза -> Фантастика