The question may seem strange, but the answer to it is as banal as a wheel - well, of course, modern society needs science! But let’s approach the answer to this question not out of habit, but consider the problem from a sensible and, perhaps, somewhat cynical point of view.
First of all, let's define the terminology. Speaking about “science”, I will mean only “a system of knowledge about the laws of development of nature, society and thinking.” I leave out of the brackets technology and high technologies, which do not form a new “knowledge system”, but only exploit the existing one. The thesis that I will try to substantiate here is that the development of science in the classical and orthodox sense of the word, namely as the formation of a “system of knowledge,” is not necessary for modern society today. It is a burden to society. It diverts resources from solving the problems of survival of huge communities of people. It is not able to solve (although science should not solve this) global problems of humanity, the solution of which is required “here and now”.
I mean, first of all, the problems of energy production and consumption, the problems of providing entire continents with food and fresh water, the problems of environmental pollution and many others that newspapers write about every day, smart and advanced TV presenters speak about. As sad as it may be, today science is needed only by those who work in it (including, excuse me, me). But this is only because it still provides the opportunity to receive for your unnecessary (or rather, necessary for a very narrow circle of colleagues), but very exhausting work, a small piece of the overall pie baked by law-abiding citizens - taxpayers. This idea does not inspire me myself, and I would not agree with it if it were not for the objective realities of modern life, which confirm it every time. But let's talk about this and other things in order.
A little history, or why do generals need to know the mass of neutrinos?
Science has always been the preserve of the rich. First rich people, then rich metropolises, and today rich states. Only wealthy people in a rich society could afford to think about “the nature of things” and not think about their daily bread. At the same time, pursuing science was a personal choice, and not at all a social order. Powerful kings kept astrologers and alchemists at their courts not to form a “system of knowledge,” but to predict fate and mine the “philosopher’s stone.”
The first textbooks on the universe were apparently written by Ptolemy. In his books on astronomy, geography and optics, he gave a generalized body of knowledge of his time. The Alexandrian scientific school, of which Ptolemy was a prominent representative, ceased to exist after 640, when the famous Library of Alexandria burned down during the conquest of Alexandria by the Arabs. In 1428, Timur's great grandson, ruler of Samarkand and head of the Timurid dynasty Ulugbek, built the best observatory of that time. It existed for only 21 years, and after the murder of Ulugbek by religious fanatics it was completely destroyed by them.
And a hundred years later, King Frederick II, at the request of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, will build the first observatory in Europe, Uraniborg. The king will spend “more than a barrel of gold” (about one and a half million dollars) on the construction of the observatory. But this observatory will not last long and will be burned along with all astronomical instruments during the fighting.
These small historical examples, in my opinion, clearly demonstrate that the formation of a “system of knowledge” (read - the development of science) has always occurred not at all according to the order of society, but in spite of it. Society, represented by kings, and today presidents, ministers and various foundations, does not order, and is not able to order, what is unknown - new knowledge. The formation of orders for scientific research occurred and occurs today according to a vicious, but the only possible scheme - they (the state and society) finance scientific programs and developments, and we (scientists) produce the result introduced into the national economy.
In the historical examples described, the implemented output was a long-term astrological forecast along with a recipe for making “gold from dung.” And today, to denote such a result, even a special term has appeared - “innovative potential of scientific development,” which in Russian simply means the possibility of immediately implementing the result of scientific work in economic activity and making a profit. All this is good and even wonderful, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the formation of a “knowledge system”. The formation of a “knowledge system” occurs as if by the way and is a by-product and unclaimed (of course, for the time being, but more on that below) product of “innovative research.”
And the contradiction here is irremovable, at the level of a fundamental pattern - scientific research conducted by small teams always outstrips the development of the intellectual potential of the rest of society and that is why they remain unclaimed. And representatives of the scientific community, when filling out applications for funding, are disingenuous, just like Tycho Brahe was disingenuous, who advised Frederick II to build an observatory supposedly for more accurate astrological forecasts, but in fact understood that this observatory was needed to obtain new knowledge about the structure of the world. I don’t think that Frederick II would have slept more peacefully if he had become an adherent of the heliocentric system.
What is science today? The times of great loners such as Lomonosov, Faraday or Maxwell are long gone. Modern science today consists of huge teams equipped with large-scale installations and equipment that consume considerable resources from the budgets of their states. We owe many achievements in the formation of a modern “knowledge system” to the joint contribution of the budgets of several countries to scientific research. The scale and energy costs of obtaining new knowledge are beyond the capabilities of one state.
An anecdotal example can be given when scientists in the 1980s received enormous funding to develop communication systems between nuclear submarines using neutrino fluxes (a neutrino is such an elementary particle, predicted by Pauli and discovered in the 1930s, that can freely pass through Earth). Experts understand that this is impossible to do - neutrinos interact too weakly with matter. But scientists had to determine whether this particle had mass, or whether it was exactly zero. The fate of the picture of the universe being created then depended on this. So, the generals who determined the financing of the project were offered an “innovative idea” to create transceiver devices that operate not on radio waves, but on neutrinos, which freely pass through the globe, for example, from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic.
The device, of course, was not made, but the mass of neutrinos was measured. Considerable resources were diverted, scientists satisfied their curiosity and told the generals that if neutrinos have a mass, it is very small, less than 10-32 grams. But by that time the president had changed, and the generals had retired.
And here a reasonable question arises: do we really need such science in order to build steamships, fly into space and talk on a mobile phone (including from a submarine)? Is such science really necessary for society in order to create new weapons to protect the interests of its “states” that are not entirely clear to it? And is it really necessary for society today to spend enormous amounts of money on expanding the “system of knowledge about the laws of development of nature, society and thinking”, to know the features of the subatomic world and discover new laws of nature that only the discoverers themselves can understand? Why would a general pay a general's money to find out the mass of neutrinos?
Rule "100 years"
Legend has it that after a report at the Royal Society of London in 1831 on the discovery of the law of electromagnetic induction, Michael Faraday was asked by one of the Sirs: “What is the use of your discovery for our society?” To which the wise Faraday replied: “Wait, a hundred years will pass, and you will tax my discovery.” Today we cannot imagine our life without electricity, the production of which is based on the “system of knowledge” established by Faraday. We pay a lot for it, and its producers pay taxes on their profits. The prediction not only came true, but also stated the existing pattern in the relationship between science and society over time - the “100 years” rule!
Indeed, a similar example can be given with the discovery of the phenomenon of radioactivity by Antoine Henri Becquerel in 1896, without which today (again, a hundred years later) the existence of entire sectors of the national economy (medicine, nuclear energy, etc.) is unthinkable in almost all countries and on all continents (and who also pay taxes).
Today's achievements in the development of quantum computers and nanotechnology are entirely due to that very “knowledge system” - quantum mechanics, which was also created almost a hundred years ago by a completely small group of scientists, whose names can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
The American Physical Society and UNESCO declared 2005 the year of physics. Almost exactly a hundred years ago, in 1905, the first article by one person appeared, which was called “Zur Elektrodynamik der bewegter Korper” (“Towards the electrodynamics of moving bodies”) and which overturned existing ideas about the structure of the world, about time and space. This man's name is Albert Einstein. Today, that is, a hundred years later, the “system of knowledge”, which Einstein gave birth to, not only replenishes the budgets of different countries in the form of tax contributions, but has also become simply the worldview of the majority.
Faraday was right. Wait a hundred years. But if we had approached in his time with today’s standard for assessing the effectiveness of scientific developments, the “innovative potential” in all these examples would simply be equal to zero. Now, knowing this “100 years” rule, I dare to say that today’s society, preoccupied with the problems of survival, does not need a “system of knowledge” that may be in demand in a hundred years. And only a rich society (and what society is rich today?), with enlightened leaders at its helm (are there such people?), can spend its resources on an as yet unknown “system of knowledge.”
But in the context of the existing systemic crisis and the unresolved global problems mentioned above, there is no rich society on any continent today. And in the next hundred years the situation is unlikely to change, unless the “golden billion” of our earth’s population finally usurps the rest’s access to the vital resources of the planet and exclusively for themselves and their descendants begins to replenish the “knowledge system”.
Overproduction in the "knowledge system"
The rapid development of science has already led to negative consequences. This is a pile of unused information, and a large gap between what is done in scientific laboratories and what is taught in school, and the emergence of a new type of professional career scientist who puts science at the service of his own interests, and very little effectiveness in correcting the harm caused nature by inept “scientific and technological progress”. All the features of a crisis of overproduction of the “knowledge system” are evident. Open modern school textbooks on natural science. You will not see a word there about the “knowledge system” that was formed several decades ago.
The structure of the microcosm, the “grand unification” of interactions in nature, quantum teleportation and achievements in astrophysics. Peryshkin’s good old textbook on physics in three volumes is today more modern than the current ones. The logic is simple - this “knowledge system” has no “innovative potential”, and there is no need to bother children’s heads with this. And the children of these children will live on our land in a hundred years. Society does not want to prepare them for life in accordance with the “one hundred year” rule. Because it doesn't have time, and it can't (although it might want to) wait a hundred years.
But astrological predictions have an “innovative potential” today that is higher than ever. All sorts of magicians and psychics cast spells in every way, bewitch and dispel, remove damage. You can call it a crisis of the mind. Our main enemy today is the disease of ignorance that has afflicted society due to the overproduction of the “knowledge system”, which is no longer accepted by society.
An analogy arises with stupor during strong emotional arousal - inhibition of the nervous system to the incoming flow of information. The lessons of history and the knowledge acquired over centuries are forgotten. Scientists and professionals leave and are replaced by amateurs who do not have any theory or hard-earned teaching behind them. The development of society does not keep pace with the formation of a new “system of knowledge”. A huge gap arises between the minority that forms this very “system of knowledge” and the rest of the majority that is not able to perceive it. In contrast to the objective circumstances that I mentioned earlier, this is a powerful subjective factor that alienates society from science.
About morality and spirituality
I’ll try to answer one more important question: does doing science in itself contribute to the education of moral qualities that are so important for the development of society, for its enlightened structuring? I dare to say that the history of the development of science and society does not make it possible to establish any connection between these two categories - science and morality. And in general, it is doubtful that there are professions that, simply by the fact of their existence, can transform devils into angels and witches into nuns. And there are no fewer scoundrels and scammers in the scientific community than, for example, in the banking or housing and communal services.
Our wonderful writer Lev Uspensky (who once created, together with Ya. Perelman, the famous House of Entertaining Science in Leningrad) said that only the professions of executioners and prostitutes were (and remain) like that, and even here there is a dilemma about a cause-and-effect relationship - or profession began with a vice or a vice with a profession. That is, even here today’s science is not able to influence anything.
Dinosaur Graveyard
The discoverer of the largest known dinosaur cemetery in the Gobi Desert, writer Ivan Efremov, in one of his long-standing interviews with Literaturnaya Gazeta, said that today there are grounds for stopping scientific research. "The sophistication of scientific research, especially in physics and chemistry, consumes a significant part of public income. In order not to turn science into an economic disaster, it is probably necessary to balance its contribution to the achievement of human happiness with the funds spent on it. This is difficult, but achievable if science will be able to again earn the trust that she has already begun to lose precisely in the matter of human happiness.” I cannot agree with this idea regarding human happiness. Happiness from science in the understanding of this word, which I outlined above, will come to us no earlier than in a hundred years - we will no longer be in this world. Human happiness will not increase from understanding the nature of the vacuum, or from the discovery of new elementary particles. Only those few who have achieved a new understanding of the structure of the world will be happy, but there are only a few of them.
And they will be happy only because, due to their genetic predisposition, they cannot live without a sense of understanding of nature. I repeat, there are only a few of these, and they will always appear as long as humanity exists. And society needs to make efforts to more effectively use the existing “knowledge system” to solve its problems on its basis. Let no new and expensive accelerators and colliders be built to reveal the secrets of the microworld, let expensive telescopes for observing deep space be removed from orbit. There will be no tragedy.
But if the “system of knowledge” that has been formed over the last hundred years is lost, then a tragedy will occur. And it is quite possible that in a million years (or maybe earlier) representatives of the next new civilization will open another cemetery, but not for dinosaurs. And the task of society today is to preserve (I’m not saying to increase it - society today cannot do this) in the name of its own salvation, what its best representatives have done.
V. MALYSHEVSKY "Knowledge is Power", No. 3. 2007.
Plan
1.Science in Russia
2.Science at the service of man
The development of science is very important for any state. In Russia, a lot is being done on this issue. Putin V.V. constantly pays attention to the development of science, monitors and is interested in innovation. The quality of our life depends on this. Our country has always had many minds, these people created radio, television, telephone and much more.
Science in Russia is at the service of people. There is not a single industry in the country where scientific discoveries are not involved. To feed the country with quality products, many agronomists are involved. They develop new varieties and collaborate with employees of large enterprises and small farms.
Unique objects are created based on scientific projects. For example, the Crimean Bridge. It is being built thanks to the developments of Russian scientists. There is no such bridge anywhere in the world.
Essay Why the development of science is important for Russia, grade 5
Plan
1. The importance of science in Russia
2.Discoveries for people
For Russia to be a strong state with a developed economy, a large number of scientists is needed. For this purpose, various scientific sites and science cities are being created in our country, which attract gifted youth. Russian science is valued all over the world; our discoverers and creators are invited to work abroad. And the task of the state is to keep them and create all working conditions for them.
Scientists make new discoveries, develop new projects to make people's lives easier and calmer. They come up with new medicines so that people get sick less and live longer. It is necessary to develop medicine so that serious diseases can be treated, such as AIDS, cancer and others.
Scientific developments in agriculture are important for economic development. The production of products will increase, their quality will improve, and they will become cheaper for buyers. It is also very important that scientists help protect our Motherland with their discoveries. Military science invents new weapons, military designers construct ships and submarines that are impossible to detect. And we must study well and try to ensure that there are outstanding scientists in our generation.
The first reaction of the Russian average person (in the best sense of the word) to words about the plight of Russian science, especially fundamental science, is to condemn the position of those in power. However, having learned, for example, that the average cost of producing one more or less decent scientific article in the field of molecular biology and microbiology, often devoted to a rather private issue even from the point of view of a specialist, is 2-6 million rubles, many citizens who do not have direct attitude towards scientific work, they begin to reasonably think about how advisable it is in the current situation to pay for such an expensive curiosity of scientists. Are officials really wrong in this regard, insistently demanding the development of “innovation”, the transition of research work to development work and subsequent commercialization?
I dare say that on the whole they are not very right. If the productivity of domestic fundamental science in some places remains at an acceptable level: although slowly and with difficulty, many teams manage to publish their research in good international journals, many of our scientists are known in the world scientific community, etc. - then high-tech products, which are the fruit domestic scientific (and not just design) developments, especially in the field of biological sciences familiar to me, is a rare object. There are, of course, a few exceptions, which rather confirm the general rule. This happens mainly because there is no justified demand in industry for the implementation of real (i.e., those that can actually be obtained in a reasonable time and for the available money) scientific results. Cases when some “innovative” product is brought directly to commercialization by the inventors of its idea are very rare, not only here, but throughout the world. And there are very few specific orders for a truly solvable problem, coming from people who clearly understand what they need and why (i.e. from a competent Customer), on the domestic market. Perhaps in some areas, for example in the defense industry, aviation and space technology, the situation is better, but I am not an expert in these matters and therefore will not develop this topic.
It turns out that from the point of view of direct financial efficiency, investments in domestic biology and most other areas of fundamental research have been and will continue to be unprofitable for a long time. So what does the Russian taxpayer pay for when the Ministry of Finance transfers certain (according to scientists, sharply insufficient) amounts for scientific research, including fundamental science? Let’s try to figure out why Russian society needs science, taking into account the specifics of the current situation.
Science for society or society for science?
First of all, it is necessary to make a reservation that the thesis itself, that the main purpose of science is to meet the needs of society, is not completely indisputable. In Soviet times, for example, there was a popular philosophical concept (apparently dating back to Aristotle) that the meaning of Human existence is self-knowledge of the Universe through the medium of thinking matter, i.e. you and me. In this paradigm, the question of why society should pay for science has a very clear answer: being at least not the only, but one of the most powerful tools of knowledge, science serves the purpose of the existence of society itself, both Russian and global. That is, in a sense, the tram is not intended for the public, but the public is for the tram. However, I dare to suggest that in our pragmatic times, few citizens are ready to put up with multi-billion dollar expenditures of budget funds to achieve the abstract meaning of life (which they have the right to see in a completely different direction). Therefore, we will still discuss the functions of science in maintaining and developing Russian society.
Is it worth doing what the Germans will do anyway?
Obviously, the direct purpose of science is the production of new knowledge. However, if we analyze publications in almost any field of natural sciences (I say “almost” because, fortunately, there are some exceptions), it turns out that most of the new results are produced outside the Russian Federation. Moreover, with such a balance that if domestic science one day disappears, foreign scientists, of course, will be very upset and grieve for some of their Russian colleagues, but in general this sad event will not have a very strong impact on the progress of science. Unfortunately, a similar statement can be made regarding the role of Russian science in the progress of technology. I don’t want to say that we are not doing anything worthwhile. I only assert that the world around us can easily survive without our contribution to the common treasury of knowledge and technology. But if science in the United States suddenly collapses, global progress will be greatly slowed down for quite a long time.
Does it follow from the above that we pay part of our taxes in vain and that it would be cheaper not to conduct our own research, but simply purchase a subscription to world scientific journals and wait a little until the answers to the questions that interest us appear on their pages? From my point of view - no. The fact is that the primacy of scientific research itself over other social functions of science is indisputable only from the point of view of scientists themselves. From the point of view of society - I emphasize once again that we are talking specifically about Russian society - its other functions can be much more important. Similarly, today the main function of the army (especially strategic forces) is not so much combat as psychological deterrence of potential aggressors. But this role will not be fulfilled if preparing the army for a real battle ceases to be the main goal of both the military itself and those who are responsible for their weapons and supplies.
Prestige item
As in the case of the army, the function of impressing foreign observers is also inherent in fundamental science, although to a much lesser extent. This is the so-called international prestige. In this area, what is significant is not so much the general level of scientific research in the country, but the presence of outstanding works, world-class “stars”, such as Nobel laureates. In the context of this task, the government’s efforts to create so-called centers of excellence through massive injections of money into individual research centers and groups (such as the mega-grant program) look logical, although not necessarily effective. However, the Russian Federation is not a world show, and the main tasks of our science are aimed at our own interests, and not at forming ideas about us outside.
Our earthly compass
As Mikhail Gelfand rightly noted in one of his recent interviews, trouble will come not when there is no one to write an article in Nature, but when there is no one to read what others have written there. The perception and transmission of scientific knowledge obtained in the world is, apparently, a much more important function of Russian science than the direct acquisition of new information on its own.
A related function of science is an expert assessment of what is happening. In particular, competent explanations to the public about new technologies or emerging threats. Moreover, the truly existing distrust of the West does not allow our society to accept the expert opinion of foreign scientists, especially when it comes to such burning issues, from the point of view of the average person, as GMOs, swine or bird flu, mad cow disease, pathogenic E. coli in vegetables or asteroid danger .
However, the competence of experts is created and maintained only through their actual work in science. Please note: journalists almost never turn to university professors for comments on such issues, but they always try to get explanations from scientists, even if they do not work in exactly the same field. By the way, the authors of most good scientific reviews are, as a rule, actively working researchers or (rather rarely) people teaching at universities, those who have directly worked in laboratories in the past and continue to actively communicate with current scientists.
Is bigger or better?
Unlike some small countries, such as Belgium or Norway, which are fully integrated into the Western world and may not employ their scientists in all relevant subject areas, but support several local, but very high-quality research areas, providing them with the best personnel (due to fierce competition) and resources, Russian society is to a certain extent distanced from Western civilization (I do not condemn this feature of ours, but simply state its presence). Under these conditions, the functions of knowledge translation and expertise require the preservation of the so-called “Great” science in Russia, i.e. a network of scientific centers covering almost the entire front of modern scientific knowledge. In this situation, it is vitally important for us to avoid the profanation of scientific work, which in recent decades has become a real scourge of Russian science. This is largely a consequence of a long-term crisis of underfunding, which in many institutions has led to the degradation of human resources and the loss of normal functioning of the professional community, and a reduction in internal standards to an unacceptable level. As a result, in most Russian scientific journals the quality of manuscript review has fallen to a level that allows almost any nonsense to be published, maintaining the status of a scientist in the absence of real competence. In my opinion, what Russia needs now is not a few disparate groups of excellent researchers gathered “in ivory towers”, capable of publishing work from time to time in the journals Nature and Science, but a normally functioning system of institutes and university laboratories, the vast majority of groups in which publish regularly in mid-tier journals in their respective fields. In my field of science, for example, I think it would be advisable to require at least three international publications when defending doctoral dissertations (and, preferably, not in just any, but in reputable journals with an impact factor of at least 1.5-2).
Learn to teach
An equally important function of fundamental science is participation in the training of personnel, both scientific, teaching and technical. The need for direct contact with good working scientists for the full training of future teachers and doctors is beyond doubt among most colleagues working in higher education. The presence of a conditionally accessible reserve of scientific personnel for meaningful applied projects that do emerge (not ministerial “innovation”, but real work for competent customers) also requires that these personnel be trained somewhere and do something before they are involved in the applied applied project. project. The only truly working field of science in Russia, at least biological, is fundamental research (although, as I already said, there are some exceptions). By the way, becoming a good applied scientist, capable of leading a complex project and generating its ideology, is noticeably more difficult than a scientist working in fundamental science. The fact is that for applied research, in addition to scientific competence, you also need to have a very good understanding of the realities of the practical field (i.e., be able to switch between very different styles of thinking), as well as have a certain psychology that allows you to effectively work on the applicable result. This kind of talent is rarer than just scientific talent, and such personnel are forged in today’s Russia precisely in the environment of strong laboratories conducting fundamental research.
Intelligence, honor and conscience?
A similar, but not identical, educational function of science is to ensure the presence in society of a certain percentage of people for whom scientific thinking is basic and natural. And, on the other hand, the formation of standards for such thinking, guidelines that one can follow. Despite the apparent artificiality of this function, its significance is comparable to all others. The simple presence of people who have absorbed such concepts as “control” and “authenticity” into their flesh and blood, always remembering that the meaning of a statement depends on the accepted definitions of terms and concepts, as well as an even larger number of people who regularly communicate with the former (relatives, friends, students), significantly improves the mentality of society, allows one to resist mythologization and distortion of scientific truths, and limits the expansion of non-scientific styles of thinking (for example, religious, administrative, magical) beyond their inherent areas of applicability. In other words, thank you to us (scientists) for what we exist (modesty is undoubtedly one of my important virtues. - Author's note). By the way, perhaps in 2018 we should seriously consider choosing a new president from among respected natural scientists.
Organizational conclusions
Thus, in general, from the point of view of public good, Russian science brings benefits not so much directly through scientific achievements, but mainly through the by-products of its existence. But as soon as scientists believe even a little that scientific research is not the main thing in their work, all the benefits of this public institution will evaporate as if by magic. In exactly the same way our security will disappear if soldiers and generals believe that they will never have to go into battle.
Therefore, I believe that the state should change its policy in the field of science, reduce the intensity of “innovation” rhetoric and not try to create lists of “critical technologies”, areas of scientific breakthrough and socially significant problems. It would be better to provide support to scientific groups in exchange for meeting reasonable requirements for the quality and productivity of their work. In modern Russia there is no intellectual center capable of directing scientific activity on a national scale. But in light of the above, there is no need for this. It is quite possible to allow science to develop, obeying its internal logic, because what is really important for society is not what exactly this or that group of scientists does, but how well it does it.
The problem of scientific comprehension of the world is more relevant than ever. The direction of scientific knowledge is determined spontaneously or from practical considerations of rational existence on Earth. The direction of development of science must be determined scientifically. This is what the article is about.
WHY DEVELOP SCIENCE
Question: “Why develop science?” - sounds very unusual, but this issue is worth addressing, because the direction of science does not correspond to modern trends in preserving the planet. Even the question of the development of science is very interesting, because the question arises about the premature development of scientific knowledge of earthlings. Yes, it is impossible to stop progress, including the progress of science, but the lifespan of the planet is enormous; the development of science brings closer the premature end of civilization rather than its preservation. In the Middle Ages, when science was in its infancy, there were no questions about preserving civilization or preserving the nature of the planet. Nowadays there is no need to look deeply into space; there is no need to look for other civilizations, since science faces more pressing challenges on earth. These are the tasks of social development of all states as a single whole of the international community. Without a unified approach to this issue there will be no correct solution. The solution to this issue is not possible within the framework of the existing economic system. Science must direct its efforts to solving the issue of the social structure of humanity on the planet. The difficulty of this task cannot be determined. Without determining the complexity of a problem, it is impossible to solve it. The second question of scientific knowledge about man is the question of population. Science should direct its efforts not to studying the human body as a biological species with all its problems in healthcare, but to direct its efforts to solving the existence of the human biological species from the point of view of stabilizing its numbers, and even reducing them for the full existence of the next generations of people on the planet The Earth as a cosmic object of intergalactic significance, for no one can now deny the Creation of earthly civilization by intergalactic intelligence, just as no one can deny the existence of God within the framework of the Earth’s man’s concept of Him. The complexity of the second question cannot be assessed, and without assessing the complexity of the question it is impossible to solve the question itself. The science of our time on planet Earth hides its head in the sand like an ostrich, giving in to these two questions; and in order to continue his scientific research, he is engaged in much less important tasks in order to justify his presence in the body of culture of earthly civilization, as one of the branches of this culture, with the complete failure that was indicated above.
The principle of the relativity of morality on Earth will help in solving the second insoluble problem about the population of the Earth. This principle will allow us to have the correct decision regarding the imperfect (damaged in relation to DNA) flesh of the born child. This principle will allow us to make the right decision regarding life expectancy in favor of reducing it to the time of the reproductive period of a person’s life. This principle will make it possible to reduce the birth rate according to the recommendations of scientific programs based on calculations on powerful computers that allow regulating the birth rate with the condition of its reduction for the possibility of a full life for the next generations of people on the surface of planet Earth. The value of life is not in its duration, but in its continuation in subsequent generations. The instinct of motherhood of all living things in nature is based on this principle, when the mother sacrifices herself for the sake of the cub (both animal and human). The Savior sacrificed His flesh for the salvation of mankind; Now humanity must sacrifice its flesh from generation to generation for the sake of preserving the next generations of people on the surface of planet Earth. Otherwise, humanity will become like herds of cattle that eat all the vegetation on Earth, without which there will be no animal life on Earth.
The meaning of human life on Earth is in the existence of the UNIVERSAL MIND, for IT feeds all life on Earth with mind, for It feeds all life on Earth with the energy of flesh!!! Without man there will be no meaning in the existence of the UNIVERSAL MIND. Without the universal mind there will be no human life, there will be no human life if a person does not understand the reality of the existence of the UNIVERSAL MIND. The discovery by earthling science of the Mystery of Almighty God will be the greatest scientific discovery. It will be a revelation for the church, which still does not understand the SECRETS OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD!!!