Self-discovery

“Ah, so? Well, that's laudable. But I won't be up for a defense for a while. My work keeps pulling me away. Current events don't give me time for creative work. You'll do your defense before I do, Valentin Vasilyevich, both your candidate and doctoral dissertations, he — he….”

We walked back to the lab in lousy humor. There was a creepy duality in our work: in the lab we were gods, but when we had to come into contact with the environment, we had to politic, sneak, wheedle. What was it — a characteristic of research? Or of reality? Or, perhaps, of our personality?

“After all, it wasn't I who invented a system of ticketing humanity: passports, passes, requisitions, reports, and so on,” I said. “Without papers you're a gnat; with papers you're a man.”

Victor Kravets said nothing.

December 20. Well, our work together is beginning!

“Don't you think that we went overboard with our vow?”

“?!”

“Well, not the whole vow, but that sacred part.”

“To use the discovery for the benefit of mankind with absolute dependability?”

“Precisely. We've realized four methods: synthesis of information about man into man; synthesis of rabbits with improvements and without; synthesis of electronic circuits; and synthesis of man with improvements. Does even one of them have an absolute guarantee of benefits?”

“Hmmmm. No. But the last method at least in principle — “

“ — can create 'knights without fear or flaw, cavaliers of Saint George, and fiery warriors?”

“Let's just say good people. Any objections?”

“We're not voting yet. We're discussing. And I think that that idea is based — please forgive me — on very jejune ideas of so — called good people. There are no abstractly good and bad people. Every man is good for some and bad for others. That's why the real knights without fear and flaw had more enemies than anyone else. The only one who's good for everyone is a smart and sneaky egotist, who tries to get along with everyone in order to achieve his ends. There is, however, a quasi — objective criterion: he is good who is supported by the majority. Are you willing to use that criterion as the basis for this method?”

“Hmm… let me think.”

“What for? If I've already thought about it, after all, you'll come to the same conclusion — that the criterion is no good. The majority has supported God knows who since time immemorial. But there are two other criteria: good is what I think is good (or who I think is good) and good is what is good for me. Like all people who care professionally about the welfare of mankind, we operated on the basis of both — only in our simplicity we thought that we were only using the first one, and considered it objective at that.”

“Now you're exaggerating!”

“Not a bit! I won't remind you about poor Adam, but even when you were synthesizing me you were worried that it should be good for me (rather, what you thought was good) and that it should be good for you, too. Right? But that's a subjective criterion and other people — “

“ — with this method could do what they thought was good for them?”

“Precisely.”

“Hmmm. All right, let's say you're right. Then we have to look for another method of synthesizing and transforming information in man.”

“Like what?”

“I don't know.”

“I'll tell you what method is needed. We have to convert our computer — womb into an apparatus that continually turns out 'good' at the rate of… say, a million and a half good deeds a second. And at the same time, it should do away with bad deeds at the same rate. Actually, a million and a half — that's just a drop in the ocean. There are three and a half billion people on earth and every one of them performs several dozen acts a day that can never be construed as neutral. And we still have to figure out a method of equal distribution of this production across the surface of the earth. In a word, it had to be something like an ensilage harrow on magnetrons of unfired brick.”

“You're mocking me, right?”

“Yes. I'm trampling your dream — otherwise it will lead us into God knows where.”

“You think that I…?”