I am introducing to you here the “Theory of the Struggle for Existence” and to illustrate it, a love story that has been fairly successful online at “Alexandrie Online”.
If competent minds discuss passionately this theory, and come to sound conclusions, be they to say that it is reliable or, on the contrary, that it is not worth anything: then, I shall be satisfied and finally I shall retire.
The “Theory of the Struggle for Existence” is a philosophical theory which has a scientific vocation and concerns virtually all domains of understanding, in particular history, the social sciences and biology.
I am a retired teacher.
Until 1979, I was at the same time a communist. Between the real history which I had to teach and the supposedly scientific history the “Party” disseminated, I discovered too often what seemed to me to be contradictions. That particular year, their mass had surpassed the critical threshold. I asked for a part-time job that would allow me to do better research in the explanation of history.
After many months of cogitation, I discovered what seemed a revelation; the concept of “human existence” that would finally enable me to render history intelligible.
From where did it come, that “necessity for existence”?
I obtained an answer quickly. It was already present in our ancestors the animals as well as in everything alive. Therefore, I had to overhaul the “Theory of Evolution” into a more inclusive whole which one could call the “Theory of the Struggle for Existence”.
And how could matter give birth to that “need for existence” of the living?
This question took me another few months until this bolt was broken. And behind the door which he had bolted I discovered this: the “necessity for existence” is in the matter.
Ever since, I have felt like David Vincent, the hero of the American series “The Invaders”. Because quite by chance he has surprised aliens plotting the end of humanity, and behold he is condemned to carry alone the responsibility for our fate until the moment when we finally take him seriously. Should he be proved to be in the wrong, he would be delivered. Should he be proved to have hit on a problem, he would be equally saved for it.
It is as simple as that.
I have never wished to be a hero. Please, deliver me.
If this theory turned out to be reliable, we would be able to deal better with the problems of our time: globalisation, unemployment, pollution, terrorism, genetic engineering, human rights, education, cultural diversity... The hope of curing humanity from wars, from poverty, from unemployment, from madness, the hope of setting out to conquer the stars, this hope which has lately been flagging would have new wings. - “Yes, but we must not take our wished for realities. - It is true. We ought not to dismiss a real probability under the pretext that it answers well to our hopes. Conclusion: let us be prudent.”
Afterwards, I found out that I was in line with some famous researchers which the scientific community has more or less marginalized. The English biologist, James Lovelock, is at the origin of the Gaïa hypothesis: the earth will react like a living organism, maintaining certain constants necessary for life, for example, a level of 21% of oxygen in the air. Doctor Jacques Benveniste, a French researcher, believes to have discovered through experimentation a “memory of water”. The German researcher Roland Plocher markets a product that treats polluted water by disseminating “information” in it: it follows that one does not know how to explain nevertheless a certain success. The “discoveries” of these two researchers aim at explaining those of homeopathy.
Formulated in 1980, my theory implicitly announced a part of the failure suffered in the cloning operations. Here is what, in fact, it supposes. In the course of life of an individual, his necessity for existence keeps in mind the events that have happened to him as well as the appropriate reactions to these; part of this memory is passed on his descendants through the intermediary of reproductive cells known as gametes. In other words, part of life becomes hereditary, the acquired part modifies the inborn. “Bang, you might say, here's the monstrous theory of Lyssenko who claimed that the acquired becomes hereditary”.
Ah well, it is not at all the same thing.
I think that the gametes keep in the memory the most remarkable expe riences of life: yes. But it is necessary that these expe riences are repeated, however, I don't know through how many generations and generations, in order to be inscribed in large characters in the genetic inheritance. Thus, supposing that the black skin of certain types of humans is really a good answer to the constraints of very hot climates, perhaps it took tens of thousands of years so that the black ethnic groups of Africa, India, Papua and New Guinea, Australia... were formed. Even so, there are left only two hypothesis inferred from my theory which could explain the difficulties of cloning:
- the genes are not the only hereditary factors, they are even the most important ones either in the long term,
- the gametes don't carry the same information as the other cells, for example, those used for cloning.
My theory also has similarities with several philosophies, in particular those of Socrates, of Auguste Comte, of Karl Marx, of the scholar Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, of the existentialists and the phenomenologists...
I have just discovered a new relation in a science-fiction novel written by two American physicists: “At the heart of the comet” by Gregory Benford and David Brin. They formulate a hypothesis of a “creation” or of an “evolution” in three stages: first the existence in the beginning of the universe, then life, and finally conscience, the human stage of the planet Earth.
If I am right, the implications of my theory would lead to relying on the experimental method. Thousands of scientific experiments are conceivable. For example, it should be possible to explain why the efforts of Jacques Benveniste do not succeed every time to conduct other conclusive experiments.
Above all I don't want to start a sect cult. As long as this “Theory of the Struggle for Existence” seems valid, I shall be with those who treat it just as the “Theory of Evolution”: in a scientific manner. No dogmas: each element of the framework can be questioned. And if it happens that the experimental verifications invalidate the theory, well, then, I shall have to discard it.
At the same time, it could serve the useful purpose to construct complex electronic games of which some will be useful for science: simulations of the biological, or historical, or even psychological processes.
This time, in order to illustrate it, I chose to write a novel: “My Love for the Year 2000”. Since it appeals to all the dimensions of existence, love is particularly suitable to stage what, alas, is yet but “my” theory.
Analysed like this, love must appear even more marvellous: an essential agent of human existence and a source of unparalleled happiness. Above all, you must realise, if it is not already done, it is at your door.
The work consists of two parallel parts: the novel and the theory. The latter, being in bold italics, is easy to distinguish. You can therefore, if you like it, read only the novel.
Every day I shall be reading your criticism at my e-mail address. From the letters to the editor, I shall put at your disposition all those which seem sound. If your diplomas, your expe rience, your popularity can support your statements, say so for the sake of advancing the debate.
|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .