– Do you know the fine line between excellence and exile? Why it feels good to belong, yet slightly better to be just a step ahead of everyone else?

– Because being a step ahead gives you an advantage?

– But why do you want to be just slightly better? Why just a step and not a thousand?

– I don’t know…

– Because when you’re just a step ahead, you may have an advantage, but you’re still part of a group. When you’re a thousand steps ahead, you’re no longer a part of that group.

– Very simplified but makes sense. So what’s the difference between excellence and exile?

– Excellence is an objective or a subjective advantage. To be excellent means to be different. Exile is to be different, a step too far.

– I don’t get it.

– We are social creatures, we gather into groups. Small groups have simple rules and as groups grow they become societies and develop more complex and dynamic sets of rules that we call morals and ethics. Now when our animal needs are fulfilled and primal instincts quiet down, our social needs and instincts come forth. We want to be accepted. We’re comforted by the feeling of belonging. We want to be virtuous. And as complex as we are, we become more complex in groups. As we change, the group changes and as the group changes, so do we. Each individual part affects the whole and the whole affects each part that makes it. But what happens when our animal and social instincts stay, yet the means of fulfilling them are constantly changing in an unknown direction?

– What happens?

– Conflict. Internal and external. We start to sabotage ourselves as well as others. Sometimes we do it consciously and sometimes not. We can be driven by ill will as well as ignorance. Even here subjective morals come into play. Misrepresentation of a fact can be done out of ill will with a goal of deceit. Subjectively we can consider that as bad. But is the same misrepresentation bad when it’s done by someone who believes it to be true and does it with a good intention? 

– I think misrepresentation of a fact is subjectively bad regardless of the underlying intention.

– Okay. But if the fact can’t be represented correctly, should it still be misrepresented or should it not be represented at all?

– I don’t know…

– Now imagine another situation. I know you’re going to die in 10 days. I don’t know how or where or when exactly. I just know it. It’s inevitable. Should I tell you? Should I even have the responsibility of telling you such a thing? Would you want to know that? How should I deliver the message? What would be the morally right choice?

– Well… It depends how you look at it, but I guess there’s no perfect way. Each option has its flaws.

– Exactly. Just like those textbook examples. Would you choose to kill this person or that person? Would you choose to kill this group to save the other group or vice versa? Questions where there is no objective victory.

– Yeah, I know what you mean.

– But there’s also the idea of greater good. An abstract idea that mesmerizes and captivates our minds. Like a distant blurry light bulb in the void of our consciousness that attracts our thoughts like moth’s in the night. But what is greater good, if not a glorified utopia that includes you?

– What do you mean by that?

– We only fantasize about the greater good. We don’t really want it unless it includes us in it. We want it only because we want to be in better conditions and it feels virtuous to think about things being the ultimate best way possible.

– I kind of get it and at the same time I’m not sure if I do.

– Okay. Let’s try a thought experiment. By the end of it you’ll get what I mean and you’ll be able to decide for yourself.

– Okay, sure.

– So imagine this. About a 100 years ago, a group of people that involved scientists, philosophers and powerful people came to a conclusion that with how our species have spread and developed, we are overpopulating and overpolluting our planet. They have concluded that with our current trajectory we will self-destruct eventually. In order to sustain our species, reverse some damages and rebuild better, mankind needs to consolidate the resources and get rid of excessive human waste. Only then they would be able to undo the damage and create conditions that would allow more of us to flourish. But for that to happen, let’s say 70% of us need to die off. Simply because people love comfort, the 70% in question wouldn’t agree to give up all the comforts to rebuild. Because for them the issue isn’t relevant like that. They’re worried about their own survival and wellbeing.

– Well I’ve heard about overpopulation and as much as I’ve heard it makes sense. But there are also people who are saying that overpopulation is a myth. At the same time I know there are more sustainable ways of living. But I also tend to think that maybe we do deserve to go extinct. I mean we’re like cancer. We destroy everything we come in contact with. But that’s besides the point. Hypothetically even if they did come to that conclusion. How would they do it? How would they kill off 70% of the population? People wouldn’t agree to this.

– You’re right. If it was presented to them boldly, right in their faces, they would revolt and the group of conspirators would fail. But what if they approached it indirectly? What if they turned the moral values and virtues of those people against themselves?

– What do you mean?

– Morals and virtues are dynamic and are learned. That means they can be conditioned. Like an instrument that is capable of playing notes. The strings are in place and can be fine tuned to play different notes. 

– Hmm…

– Let’s continue. Now imagine that the group of people I described previously remained in power and through the tools and resources that gave them that power, they started spreading views that benefit their agenda. At first quietly through small suggestive injections and as time went on, the injections became more direct and clear. 

– But why would people accept what they’re being told?

– There are two reasons. First is that the process is gradual. If you place a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will try to jump out. If you place a frog into a pot of warm water and turn up the heat gradually, the frog will remain in the pot and boil to death. The second reason is linked to conditions. The general population lives in conditions that barely exceed the state of survival. When you’re in a constant state of survival, you don’t have the energy to think critically and about things that don’t directly affect your chances of survival. When you’re hungry, it’s almost impossible to think about greater good. Only when our basic needs are fulfilled, we can start thinking about greater things.

– So what does all this have to do with morals?

– Everything. Your frame of thought can be manipulated. When your frame of thought is manipulated to be a specific way, it’s much easier to inject ideas and views that align with that manipulated framework. You can be taught to believe and want things that go against your interests. What you consider to be good is dictated by your moral values.

– Seems kind of far fetched if you ask me…

– Well maybe to a bystanding observer it does. 

– What do you mean?

– What’s normal for a spider is chaos for a fly. As observers, we can conceptualize what both the spider and fly can be going through, yet we’re still separate from them. At the end of the day the spider’s feast doesn’t affect our lives. If we were spiders, we wouldn’t feel sympathy for the fly. If we were flies, we would feel sympathy for the fly and deep hatred for the spider.

– What do spiders and flies have to do with this?

– We are the flies, but instead of being trapped and killed by spiders, we are manipulated by other flies into believing that it’s virtuous to jump into the spider’s web. 

– You’re starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.

– I’m aware of that, but our thought experiment is not over yet. By the end of it you’ll be able to decide for yourself.

– Okay. Let’s carry on then.

– Maybe in order to make this thought experiment more digestible, let’s center it in our own lives.

– Can we?

– Of course. Have you ever looked at yourself from the side? 

– I’m not sure.

– Look. You’re fuck knows where in an Eastern European country. On a Friday night you’re sitting in an underground garage smoking weed, drinking cheap beer and watching football. Yeah you’ve found comfort in it, but at what cost? You sleep for 6-7 hours just to go to work for 10 hours so you’re able to afford a decoratable box to sleep in. At this point you have 7 hours left and you’re already tired and probably slightly pissed off. Lets not forget the time it takes to commute. Also what about your preferred choice of transportation, the wreck of a car you’re driving and how you had to shit blood to get it, plus the continuous costs of maintenance. What about the food you’re eating? Artificial imitations of fruits and vegetables that lack any nutrients. Garbage that looks and smells good. Where do you get the energy to think from? Most choices of entertainment available to you are softly speaking degenerate and if subjected to, will most certainly waste your time and dumb you down. Most people you know are shallow and superficial with no taste or substance. What about the media? When was the last time the media didn’t try to scare you, sell you something or make you think some certain way? Consumption, sleep, work and transportation aside, you have about 4 hours left for less urgent activities and maybe some time for yourself.

– But we have phones and the internet. I can look up anything. I can learn things and pick up hobbies.

– Yes, you can always distract yourself. Most of the things you’re engaging in are no more than distractions. And yes, you have a phone and the internet, but how often do you actually use it as intended? And how certain can you be that the information you’re consuming is correct? It’s a fair point that you can learn things and pick up hobbies. Once again, you can become excellent at something and that will surely give you some advantages. Nevertheless, you’ll probably never break your class barrier. You will be better, but in a way, never good enough.

– Are we still talking about the experiment?

– Yes, you and I are a part of the experiment and all that we are witnessing is the experiment. As you yourself mentioned previously – You believe that we are a cancer to this planet. Have you seen proof of it or have you been fed ideas and only evidence that supports the idea? Have you come to the conclusion yourself or have you accepted the narrative?

– I haven’t really thought about this like that…

– It’s okay. You haven’t had the time or energy to think about such things. You were rightfully busy making ends meet. You never got into the elite school and you never made any influential connections along the way, so you and your friends had to make due with what was available. You are here, seeking comfort in distractions and creating meaning and joy in small things. Meanwhile the clouds are covering the sky and more and more draconian conditions are being imposed onto you. You gladly accept it because you’ve made it morally acceptable. You’ve found virtue in it. At the same time there are people out there who eat good food, drink clean water, have all the time and resources in the world to receive the best care and have all the fun in the world. They don’t care about the pollution. They don’t care about inflation or that you’re forced to live in a box and eat modified soup for dinner and watch porn afterwards. To them you are the pollution.

– This whole conversation’s been a mess, what are you trying to say?

– We are the ones being sacrificed and most of us are utterly unaware of it. 

– That’s a very bold statement.

– And so the question is, is it moral for us to blindly accept the fate of sacrificial goats? Should we have a choice in this moral dilemma or should we trust our lives into the hands of those who are no different from ourselves?

– I don’t know, it’s hard to tell.

– It is, but that doesn’t mean that the hard question shouldn’t be asked. After all it’s our and our children’s lives we’re talking about. 

– Well… You started this conversation, so you tell me. What do you suggest?

– Hmm… Before I suggest anything, let’s remember what question we’re facing. Should we sacrifice 70% of our own kind in order to preserve the 30% and the planet in order to allow those 30% to harmonize the situation and rebuild more sustainably? 

– The question is clear.

– Now if the question will not be addressed, there’s a high chance we will self-destruct and a low chance that we will wiggle our way out of this with some inevitable losses. So that means the question needs to be addressed urgently. Yet who is to address the question? Because for the 30% the answer is rather self evident. For the 70% on the other hand, it’s very debatable. Besides, how do we know if the question and the solution embedded in it are right? How do we know if the solution will work and how do we decide if it’s morally right? 

– Maybe it depends on who those 30% are?

– Maybe, but how can we be absolutely certain?

– I guess we can’t…

– And how do we know those 70% can’t contribute to the solution in another way than being herded like cattle and then killed off?

– Maybe they could?

– Maybe. But we don’t know and we can’t know until we find out. Yet so far we haven’t even asked them.

– Why don’t we ask them?

– Because as I described previously, most are too busy surviving to have the energy and mental capacity to reason. What if most are unable to reason or simply don’t care to? Let’s not forget that words are cheap. What if the majority said it wanted to contribute, but didn’t?

– Where are we going with this?

– We’re slowly moving towards probabilities. Morals are too abstract, too personal and too inconsistent. For example, can violence be justified? Even if so, would you choose to be the one that’s violent or the one being violated? Can one or the other justify the actions or inactions of the other? Morals are not laws of physics, they don’t and can’t work the same way. Math, on the other hand, is indifferent. It doesn’t care. Theoretically we could use math to calculate relative probabilities of escalations and solutions. Those could be more or less correct. We, at this moment, could even agree with them, but would the next generation think the same way? Even something as fundamental as math can be disregarded by our naive and ignorant minds.

– I think you’re trailing off again… What are you trying to say?

– Yeah, sorry… What I’m trying to say is as follows… As long as our morals are fluid, we will never find common ground and we will always find something to conflict with. Either with one of our own kind or with something in our surrounding. Maybe we haven’t found the ideology that would work universally. Maybe our brains and minds are too fresh, too recent and haven’t formed the right way yet. Maybe we just need to hold on until we evolve. Maybe it’s just the condition of our species, to be out of touch with ourselves and the rest of the world. Maybe we’re doomed and cursed to be aware of our own inevitable self-destruction. Either way. You and I will never know.

– So now what?

– Nothing and everything. The planet moves on indifferently as well as its dwellers. What is known doesn’t care if it’s known or not. It just is. Same with you and I and all those before and after us. We simply are until we are no more. Squirming towards excellence, floating towards exile…