The Word Running the Mind

 The Word Running the Mind.

For so long I have thought that my research in computational neuroscience (together with other factors, like my visual disability and my extended travels) had given me the unique opportunity to learn so much about how the brain works and what is that really makes us happy. I had pledge to myself that I should share that knowledge and so help improve the lives of the people around me. With time, however, I have slowly come to realize that most people was not really interested to listen to anything I had to say. Rather, they tended to perceive my explanations as disdainful lectures that negated their intelligence. After all, who am I to tell you how your brain works, right? If your doctor tells you what is good for your health, you nod without hesitation. However, if a doctor in neuroscience tries to explain to you what causes your brain to experience a feeling of happiness, everybody naturally preceives it as an arrogant encroachment. Undoubtedly, we all have a take on intelligence and happyness, so why should mine be any better than anybody else's? Particularly, if we are talking about your happiness. Indeed, we all say to know how to pursue happiness, and hate to be lectured on how to lead a happy life; but then we are all ooked on antidepressants.

Since Alia was a little girl, Robyn has inculcated in her the notion that she should grow into a strong, independent woman. Robyn, as a firm believer of the feminist cause, cautioned her daughter against men, as we are dominant and oppressing by nature, and are constantly on the lookout for some naive woman to control and use to serve all of our needs and desires. It then becomes crucial for a woman to be financially independent, so that she does not confront any caveats breaking free and getting rid of her man, the day he decides to move from the initial courting phase into outright domination. According to this ideology, women are not really naturally inclined to motherhood. Instead, their true calling is to have some kind of job, even though most women end up stuck in rather plain, uninteresting jobs, like customer service representative, saleswoman, secretary, clerk, etc. Patriarchic societies then get the blame for having engrained for centuries the doctrine that women's true, natural longing is to have children and serve as housewives. As much as I think it is absurd to contradict the strong and deep influence that societies exert on children, as part of the socialization process, I also believe that it is undeniable that most (though not all) women feel a true and natural devotion for children. If at all, I would actually be more inclined to agree that patriarchic societies seek to negate the similar fondness men feel for children. 

Undeniably, with the advent of civilization and the written word, as humans gathered to live in big urban centers, social elites started to impose social rules and conventions to organize the coexistence of a high number of people within a reduced space. Although the notion, whereby there is some obscure mastermind deliberately spreading certain social norms throughout generations, may sound rather charged and convoluted; clearly, throughout History there have been individuals, who have had an enormous influence over the centuries to follow, on the lives of endless people. Given that the written word stands as the most powerful tool to produce this kind of impact, it is only natural that these influential men have always come from the literate classes; that is, the aristocracy. Undoubtedly, the best example of the power of the written word is the holy scriptures; but the list is endless. It is certainly impossible to overstate how the values of courage, honor, bravery, loyalty, etc. exalted in the works of Hommer, shaped the Ancient Greek society. In a similar way, Socrates and St. Augustine are often seen as the fathers of Western and Christian thought. If you think that suicide is forbidden, because our body does not belong to us, but to the Gods; that the State should have the monopoly of violence; that those who follow a virtuous, just life, will later enjoy a better afterlife; it is because Socrates taught us so. Now, if you ever got annoyed, because your teenage child would never stop asking: "why not?, why not?, why not?", until you finally concede anything he or she fancies for; now you also know who is that we all got it from. On the other hand, it was St. Augustine who define the relationship between man and God, that would then for centuries be transmitted to the parishioners in church. In fact, it is interesting to note, that these sages left in the long run a much stronger imprint and impression than any supreme political leader. Indeed, rulers, if anything at all, in a way served as the catalyst, by which the ideas of these high thinkers were spread over space and time. For example, Alexander the Great, in all his might, if we have to explain his legacy, this would definitely be the dissemination of Ancient Greece's ideology and mentality. However, to the extent that Alexander did not have any plan of his own, as soon as he died, his whole empire disintegrated. Adding to this point, there is every bit of reason to believe, that Xenophon's Anabasis inspired and laid behind Alexander's conquest. In his sensational and truly fascinating tale, the Athenian historian narrates the thrilling adventures of the 10,000 Greek mercenaries, as they retreated across hostile Persian territory, after fighting for Persian Prince Cyrus the Younger, at the battle of Cunaxa in 401 BC. Although the Greek soldiers were able to route King Artaxerxes II's forces, Cyrus' sudden death in battle left them isolated, deep in enemy territory and completely exposed and vulnerable to the attacks of the king's men. Still, in what can only be seen as a prodigious and truly spectacular display of perspicacity, cunning strategic planning, strict discipline and fighting prowess, the Greeks were able to dodge any ruse, fend off every strike, survive the inhospitable terrain and climate conditions, and, all in all, overcome every obstacle to keep on their heroic march until they finally reached friendly land. If Homer's fantastic and mithical Odyssey had mesmerized endless generations of Greeks, it is easy to conceive how real, contemporary events, as related by Xenophon - enchanted the IV-century-BC Greek psyche to a degree approaching intoxication. Definitely, as Socrates' disciple's words resounded throughout the Greek world, more and more voices continued spreading the notions of the Persian weakness and the unquestionable superiority of the Greek race and the Greek soldier; as well as consolidating the conviction that, the Persians were such pushovers, that a skilled, disciplined Greek army would steamroll through a Persian army many times its size. Then, the only question left to answer was, who was going to heed those calls to the legendary pure Greek spirit and lead the nation of Hellas into an attack on Persia, to subdue it and take all its immense wealth? Remarkably, we may have thus to conclude, that Socrates' view, whereby the soul - by means of the knowledge it represents - is immortal, was indeed correct.

The intellectuals' point generally was to provide insights, values or role models that would guide the behavior and conduct of the people and show them how to become better citizens; thus leading to the improvement of the community's functioning. However, these guidelines are not always released with such good intentions or, if they were, they have not always proved to be correct. For example, St. Augustine's philosophy was eventually applied to promote the crusades. As a matter of fact, the reknown English historian Edward Gibbon considered Christianity a main factor in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. While this view has nowadys lost significant support, it is certainly quite indicative of a civilization's decadence, that, at a time where the empire was under the severe attack of an endless succession of barbarian tribes, and the sheer survival of Rome was threaten, the brightest minds in the land were preoccupied trying to figure out the relationship between man and God.

Clearly, man proposes and God disposes. In other words, inescapably, time is the ultimate incorruptible and merciless judge. Indeed, evolutionary theories would explain that societies (and their social conventions, traditions, cultures, etc.) compete for survival in the same manner as individuals. Then, if certain societies and their social conventions thrive (while others wither or disappear altogether) is simply because they are fitter or more competitive. For example, if human beings eventually started consuming meat to become omnivores, is not because at some point somebody started some movement promoting meat consumption, that was later continued throughout time. Rather, at some point in Prehistory, certain communities emerged, where their individual members started eating meat and those communities eventually proved to be more competetive, to the extend that they cornered or brought all the way to extinction rival vegeterian communities. As a matter of fact, it therefore becomes irrelevant whether some drive of such sort actually ever took place. At the end of the day, the mightiness of nature rules and would overpower and crush any unfit movement any human being may try to start. Furthermore, notably, the fitness of a community is highly determined by the fitness of its social rules and ethics. As cynical as it may sound, it is then of little practical purpose to argue the relative moral values of opposing social conventions. For example, we can argue as much as we want whether it is morally right or not to eat meat; however, fact of the matter is, that, at the end of the day, whether we like it or not, the fittest social convention prevails. It is important to keep this observation in mind, in order to understand, that social engineering as a practice enforced by social elites, is not only generally pernicious, but it is also hopeless.

Indeed, given that social rules and morals govern and regulate the daily lives of the citizens, they present a formidable and most effective mechanism to subject the population. If the social elites have always held the power to establish the community's social conventions, it is only reasonable to suspect, that they would use, consciously or unconsciously, such power in their own benefit, rather than the community's general good. If only by pure nature, nobody could expect a landowner to not believe that landowners are better suited to participate in government than non-landowners, or that landowners should not pay much taxes, so that they are able to create jobs and generate wealth for the community. Elites everywhere have always gone any length of stretch to distinguish themselves from the rest: they do not give off that repugnant, natural, human stench, as we all do, because they bath every day and put on the most exquisite perfumes for a lovely smell; they hire the most talented musicians, because they have finer sensitivity and enjoy listening to better music; they buy the most expensive, exclusive clothes, so that they dress more elegantly and look more beautiful; they not only eat, but also have a better taste for the finest food, which everybody else otherwise is not able to fully appreciate; they get the best education and have higher language skills, so that they are better able to tell us what to do and how to guide our lives... Given that they are so exquisite, so noble and so much wiser, who on Earth is going to argue against their moral and intellectual superiority and refuse to follow their guidance and advice? In fact, as much as we may hate it, one of the most fundamental values for any community to be competitive, is the notion to obey to the authority, no questions asked. Clearly, a community, where everybody is free to take his and her own guess on where to go and what to do, is hardly going to be able to come together to accomplish anything. Interestingly, there is little doubt, that the main factor for monotheistic religions' strength and ultimate success, lied in the realization of the importance of this notion and its forceful inclusion as a key component of their docma. As a matter of fact, Isaac's submission and acceptance to be sacrificed is definitely about the most dramatic and striking episode of the Old Testament. It then so followed naturally, that it was all until recently that we were indoctrinated to believe that the monarch, if not directly related to GOD, had been appointed by God, and we therefore had to love and worship him. However, Charlemagne's crowning in Rome on Christmas day 800 AD represented a perplexing move, if not an outright critical strategical blunder, by the Emperor, since he stripped himself off of his authority as the supreme moral and cultural leader, and vested instead those powers on the Pope. In exchange, the Emperor was reaffirmed and remained as the unquestionable military leader. Then, with the advent of the printing press, the balance of power shifted. Considering that all successful revolutions (except for the Haitian and, perhaps, the Bronze-Age collapse) were orchestrated from top to bottom, it is easy to understand why we needed to wait until the invention of the printing press, before any could come to fruition.

Throughout History monarchs and the rest of aristocrats have been the worst, unreconcilable adversaries and foes. Clearly, every monarch's biggest concern was to keep the aristocracy in line, while every aristocrat's biggest ambition was to take over the monarch (Of course Julius Ceasar is here always the best example, but the list would have seemed endless: Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Domitian, Commodus, John I, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Charles I, Louis XVI... just to name a few best known in the English world). The printing press then provided a formidable weapon to the magnates in their particular feuds with their overlord. Now any person rich enough to run a press, was able to start disseminating any pamphlets or subversive materials, so empowering him to manipulate the people's minds. Like a magic wand in the hands of a magician, propaganda turned in a single stroke God's appointee on Earth into the most ruthless, evil tyrant; while the people became the most ferocious army against its old father. The scheme was so powerful, that our founding fathers were able to chop the head of the most powerful man on Earth off. If we consider that, in comparison, Socrates was sentenced to death and executed for poisoning the minds of the youths of Athens, we would have to agree, that the printing press enacted a miraculous evolution of what should be the outcome of the oldd Monarch-Vs.-Oligarchy conflict. As it got evident to what extent it was possible to manipulate the people's minds and use them in one own's interests, it was a matter of time that the new finding would be exploited to the extreme. With the downfall of the Ancient Regime, Socrates view, according to which knowledge led to just and moral behavior, and that, in turn, to happiness and wellbeing, also became obsolete and discredited. Our new masters have now taught us that might makes right, and  material wealth and power leads to happiness. With the advent of radio, movies and TV, we were all finally ready to dance to any music they fancy to play. Socrates did not charge any money for his teachings, and reproached those sophist demagogues, who had grown ridiculously rich charging exorbitant fees for their lectures on public speaking and how to win oral arguments. Obviously, Socrates lived and died poor; whereas the Media today is controlled by the wealthiest individuals.

When I was little it was still strong the notion that men were better drivers. That was until the elite discovered the benefits of feminism and we started being lectured that, not only women and men should have equal rights, but also on the value of equality of men and women. We so realized that throughout History evil Patriarchy had brainwashed our minds with the mantra that there were jobs for men and jobs for women. But, with the advent of Democracy and Free Speech, we were finally able to hear and fully understand, that men and women were equal and it was wrong to say, that women were not equally skilled as men at certain tasks. However, as there were always some male-chauvinist assholes around, still ready to stubbornly argue otherwise; we were finally told that, as a matter of fact, women were safer drivers than men. Indeed, car-insurance companies had found out that women, in average, have fewer accidents, and consequently are offered lower premiums. So, it turns out, that not only, after all, men and women, fortunately, are, actually different, as, in average, have different personalities, and are, in average, differently skilled at different tasks; but they actually lied to us, when they insisted to us otherwise.     

It therefore seems wise that we do not only take much caution before unquestionably embracing as absolute truth our society's social conventions, but we also be more toleran and understanding of the social rules and morals of other comunities and times. For example, in ancient times, as well as in certain indigenous tribes today, it is not unheard the abandonment of babies born with some disability. From the perspective of our modern society, we all feel appalled at such act of inhumane insensitivity; however, we may want to consider, that the circumstances of those communities are very different, andperhaps the subsistence conditions endured by those people, do not leave them with much other option. . Of course, I only dare to make such an outrageously politically incorrect remark, because, given that I was myself born with a severe visual disability, I know that nobody will ever be able to reasonably argue, that I advocate for any practice of that kind. Clearly, if I had been born in any such communities, I would not be at this time in this world, because I would have been abandoned. However, fact of the matter is that, if I had been born within a hunter-gatherer's tribe in the middle of the jungle, my chances of surviving into adulthood and leading a fruitful and fulfilling life, would have been basically null. Under these circumstances, it would be understandable that a tribe enduring subsistence living conditions would not attempt to spend much-needed resources to try to extend my life. After all, given that nature's law is the survival of the fittest, a tribe with any different culture, as beautiful and admirable we may find it, would not be competitive in such challenging conditions and, therefore, would not likely escape extinction. Luckily for me, I was raised within a developed society empowered by ubiquitous surplus. I was therefore given access to assistive technology, which allowed me to learn how to read and write. That then enabled me to receive some good education and, consequently, cultivate and develop some intellectual skills; thus, empowering me to contribute, give back and further strengthening the society, that had chosen to sow all the seeds and invest in me.   

Going through our history, it is really striking to what extent our values have, not only changed, but completely flip-flopped. Yet, the disgust we may feel for other people's conventions and mentalities, is only comparable to the horror with which they would also see our own lifestyle. For example, Ancient Greeks did not see any moral distinction between homo- and heterosexual sex, and their views on sexuality were overall as liberal, if not more, than today's. Certainly, all our ancestors in between would be appalled at such mentalities. On the other hand, however, we would all undoubtedly steadfast agree with our backward ancestors to condemn Ancient Greece's acceptance of pederasty. Indeed, pederasty was a well-established institution in Ancient Greece, particularly among the noble classes. Back then there was no kind of state-run secondary schools. Consequently, among aristocrats it was a useful practice to find a mentor and tutor, who would teach and guide the young noble through his adolescence. Under such circumstances, it seems reasonable to think, that any affection the mentor would feel for his pupil, should contribute to his commitment to the young boy's advancement. Obviously, where we would radically diverge from the Ancient Greek aristocrats, is in their acceptance that any such affection would eventually yield a sexual expression. Now, from any logical view, pederasty seems really disgusting. Regardless of the practical use that Ancient Greeks may have found in the practice, it is certainly difficult to justify, that - at a time where the teenage boy is not mature and has not yet been able to build the character to stand up for himself, he may still be forced to accept having his body used and abused for some older male's sexual pleasure. However, while it is certainly natural to indulge ourselves in our intellectual and moral superiority; it is probably of better use and interest for us to reflect on how much our values have flip-flopped throughout time and, consequently, consider to what extent it is easy to engrain in our minds any notion on what is right and what is wrong.

Nevertheless, undeniably, some social norms, under certain circumstances, may have a positive impact, while opposite conventions may work better under different conditions. In any case, the easy part - especially these days - is to convince the population of the validity of whatever norm is appropriate at the time. The same reasoning can be applied to the value of equality of women and men. Regardless of whether women and men are just alike or absolutely equal, it does not take much effort to see many advantages in the policy to bring all women to the job market. If only one thing, it is immediate to note how it may help slow down overpopulation. However, probably the biggest improvement is that now the individual skills and talents of all women become available to everybody, through all the different professional activities that women are now slowly taking on. Yet, on the other hand, perhaps the gain of the current generation is the loss of the next one. Undoubtedly, mothers have always had a fundamental role shaping the character of our children. If men represented the present, women represented the future. Children definitely need a lot of love, attention and patience. I believe we can all agree that, in general, nobody will ever have as much patience and will love you and care for you as much as your own mother.

As a matter of fact, if there is a value which can be reasonably argued to hold anything near to absolute validity, it is that of the prominent relevance of females' lives, particularly in times of peril, over that of males'. Clearly, a community that decimates to 90% of its female population and 10% of its male population, is far more likely to recuperate than if the same community decimates to 10% of its female population and 90% of its male population. Indeed, it is not by pure coincidence and it just cannot come to anybody's surprise that all traditional societies, as male-chauvinist as we have come to believe they were, have been sure to understand and embrace this fundamental notion. Of course, throughout time there most certainly should have been communities, that could not see this logic, but valued men more than women and, whenever any disaster stroke, prioritize saving the lives of men over those of women. On that day, however, those communities sealed their fate: evolution, being the incorruptible and merciless judge that it is, soom had them pay for their foolishness by purging them out of existence. Still, it is very interesting to consider to what extent we have been completely convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the more insightful and fitter societies that did understand and embrace the prominence of women's lives, nevertheless discriminated against women: so much for freedom of speech, but who on Earth would be foolish enough to dare to argue today, that traditional societies did not discriminate against women? The sophists were most definitely right when they insisted, that it is possible to argue in favor or against any notion, regardless of, respectively, how irrational or sensible this may be. The key issue to understand is that, the way our brain works, no matter how smart we may be, the most irrational argument will start making sense, if it is heard enough times; even more so, if it is heard from different sources. This principle is obviously equally applicable in order to defeat the most sound and logical idea. For example, if the concept turns out to be simply flawless, they will still easily find a way to attack it, by questioning the true and real motivations of its proponent. We have so learned to distrust and disregard any politician who advocates for social justice and the rights of the have-not's. We all know that all politicians are hypocrites, thus he certainly is only looking for popularity, so that he can soon become a tyrant. Obviously, such course of events should be stopped by all means, because, as much as we may associate tyranny to injustice, it is always better to stay entrenched in injustice than to live under a tyrant. For instance, if Pericles determined that Athenian public officers should be paid for their public service; it was not because he genuinely wanted to enable the lower classes to have access to public offices and, in general, to the political system, in order to achieve the expansion and stabilization of all democratic institutions. Instead, his real motive was to stifle all other rival prominent families out of power, so that they will never be able to challenge his own line anymore. If Tiberius Gracchus pushed so hard for his agrarian reform law, it was not because he sincerely believed that Rome's public lands, which the wealthiest families had seized over the years, needed to be redistributed and doled out among the impoverished citizens, who had been slowly losing their own properties while serving in the legions. Rather, he was only looking at increasing his own network of clients and political supporters, so that he could become Rome's tyrant. If Napoleon III got rid of the intricate labyrinth of dark and filthy, very-narrow streets and alleys of Paris, and replaced them with wide boulevards and parks; it was not because he was concerned with improving the living conditions of the citizens, but because he wanted to prevent anybody from being able to raise again barricades on those old medieval streets, in order to overthrow him. If Franco made of every Spaniard a homeowner; it was not because he cared a thing for the people's wellbeing. Rather, he wanted to keep everybody fixed at a specific place, so that it would be easier for him to control them. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera... 

Consequently, in the same way, we should understand, that traditional societies prioritize the lives of women over mens', not because they valued women more than men; but because they simply saw them as weak creatures, incapable of doing anything other than to make children, and only felt pity for them. Similarly, we can only guess that the queen bee should also see herself really used and abused by all others in the honeycomb. Nevertheless, women should be grateful to current fake-feminist, who - in fully appreciating all what women are really capable and worth for, have come to liberate them and allow them to once and forever express their true calling in life, working as lawyers, architects, or, as it is more often the case, customer service representatives, cleaners, saleswomen, etc.. Clearly, the clever fox is out once again to get some more cheese. After all, at least since Pericles' funeral oration in the prelude of the Peloponnesian War, freedom AND LIBERTY has always been used to bait the people into submission.

If it were not already difficult to figure out what social norms will work better, the fact that the social elites have always manipulated everybody else, in order to impose those norms and conventions which suited their interests best, only makes this endeavor harder. This difficulty, however, should not be taken to mean that there is not anything such as a best behavior or anything such as a moral or immoral action. Just because sometimes it is difficult to figure out where exactly does the truth stand; it does not mean that the truth does not exist. Perhaps in theory there is nothing absolutely true or absolutely false; however, in real life we definitely can steadfast trust and stand by certain values: indeed, it does not seem possible to imagine some circumstances where indifference towards murder will not have disastrous consequences in a society. Undeniably, it is always possible to come up with arguments in favor or against a given course of action; yet, as hard as it may sometimes be to figure out, there is generally, among different options, some course of action that is reasonably more promising than the others. The challenge then becomes to find out what is the optimal course of action.

Undoubtedly, time will always make the final judgement; however, it is rather unsatisfying to realize a past mistake, after the harm has already been done and one is laying on his death bed. In fact, the most evolved animal species developed a brain to figure out associations and learn the laws of nature, so that the individual may eventually be able to predict the consequences of a given action. My Ph.D. research in computational neuroscience led me to define intelligence as the animal's ability to learn to optimize its interactions with the environment, in order to accomplish the individual's natural goals. That is, an intelligent animal learns the rules of nature and uses that knowledge to achieve its natural goals; which, in the case of humans, I consider to be surviving and leading a happy life. Clearly, if your brain does not get you to be happy, then what good is your intelligence for? Similarly, as intelligent animals, we should use our best judgement to find the rules, that will optimize the functioning of the society. In other words, a community of intelligent individuals should use its collective wisdom, that is the knowledge of its members, to achieve its natural goals, which, in the case of a community, we can probably think to be to prevail.

Artificial Intelligence research shows that evolution follows the most robust procedure to optimize systems of extreme complexity. It therefore does not seem wise to go against evolution. At the very least, it is audacious to change whatever has been working well for a very long time. However, undeniably, our world today is very different than what it was until just very recently. For example, perhaps in the past it might have been understandable to abandon disabled babies. Yet, in today's world it certainly seems a horrific practice. In the same way, perhaps we end up finding out that, in today's world, women's personalities and talents are better suited than men's for the exercise of government. Certainly, it is something that we have not explored well enough. Still, it never seems sensible to go against nature. I think we can all agree, that, for any person, the most fulfilling occupation is the one, which he or she is better gifted for. Fortunately, our insatiable pursuit of love, guide and lead us to be more inclined towards those occupations, that we are more appreciated for. Moreover, obviously, we get more appreciation for those jobs, which we are best gifted for. It therefore only makes sense, that we allow each and every person to figure out for himself or herself, what path to follow in life. Neither parents, the Media nor the government is in as good as a position than oneself to make such call.  

Nevertheless, whenever we should deem it necessary or feel confident enough to set some norm on the entire community, - in order to ensure that the general good remains paramount - such a decision needs to be taken among everybody, by the community as a whole, and not by just a few. History tells us that, if we allow an exquisite subgroup of the population to set the course of action for everybody else, we can only expect them to determine according to their very own interests. Unfortunately, the benefit of a few always leads to the downfall of everybody. Since beginning of History, the most powerful men have tried to understand, what brings, one after another, sooner or later, all empires to fall; no matter how big they once were or how powerful they became. Yet, the basic, underlying reason is the last they are willing to accept; the cancer of human societies: parents' obsession to transmit their accomplishments to their offsprings. Clearly, the fortunes or misfortunes of any society have always been determined by its ruling class' competence. However, the elites have always done everything possible or impossible to perpetuate themselves in control, from one generation to the next. Since parents always look after their offspring, before they do for the community, the elites have always done everything possible or impossible to transfer their power to their offsprings. Unfortunately, we all know that talent does not transmit from parents to children. Even worse, those who never need to fight to accomplish anything, are not only destined to be miserable their whole lives, but are also hardly ever able to develop any skill. Hence, it is only a matter of time, that the ruling class will become incompetent enough to bring everybody's demise.

After all, the recipe for a society to flourish is very simple and has been known for a very long time. There is little doubt that the generalization of education (through the adoption of a simple alphabet which anybody could easily learn, and the teaching of some basic reading skills) and the opportunities it projected, was and has been a fundamental reason for the expansion and the prosperity experienced by the societies of, for instance, Ancient Greece, post-medieval Protestant Northern Europe, XX-century China, etc.. It really does not require the resolution of any differential equation. Indeed, it really does not take the brightest bulb in the room to understand that advancements in the arts, sciences and technologies are the main factor for a society to prosper by means of a rich and vigorous social, cultural and economic development. It is also straightforward to see that the more talent a society is able to muster, the more the arts and sciences will advance. Now, as much as they have tried to convinced us that virtue and excellence is inherent with lineage, we all know that education is the base for talent to blossom. It has been well established that genius does not transmit from parents to children; but, fortunately, it only takes to cultivate a child's mind for excellence and virtuosity to flourish. Once all the seeds have been sown, we only need to water everything nice and well for the entire field to bloom. While education does not by itself represent equal opportunities, it does generate the conditions from where everybody has a fair chance to grow and prosper. After all, Since necessity and motivation are fundamental components for the development and expansion of any citizen, parents' patronage is often more of a detriment for those of privilege origin; unless we allow ourselves to be fooled to believe that education means to teach the lower classes how to write and read, while the upper classes receive high education on how to run the family's business and pass down instructions and moral lessons to the now literate lower classes, for them to read and follow to the letter. Definitely, noble parents do not necessarily produce virtuous youths; but cultivated youths lead to virtuous and talented citizens. At this time we have come to understand that the noble origin of our rulers does not do much to ensure the good functioning of the government and the society they run. Neither does it constitute any improvement to set the uncultivated, easily-manipulatable body of citizens free to vote for government, those streetwise and quick-on-the-uptake naughty kids, who have come to understand that it is only in their careers' and personal best interest to respect the natural order of things. If we can all agree that a meritocracy is the best form of social organization, and equal-opportunities is the natural path to meritocracy; it only makes sense to once and forever reject any further distraction and focus at last on that end. Once we brush aside all the leaf litter spread by the current regime's Freedom-and-Democracy propaganda, we find that education is the real freedom. Education is the only defense people have to keep their minds free from manipulation. Education is what empowers the people to pursue the dreams of his or her own choosing. Education, real education, for everybody. Education for boys and, most absolutely, for girls.