📕 [Short Story] "The Demise of Empathy and the Way Forward"

A reflection on the current state of interpersonal relationship, culture, and personal experience.

“In my whole life, one question has always proved crucial: ‘ What if things do not go as planned?’. Later on, once I had learnt that things never go as planned, my next question would be: ‘Whys is it that one, me included, always have to have things planned, even for other people? What is the point in assuming that the net outcome will prove positive?’.

I did not want to concede to the fact that most developments mostly happen by mere chance, whereas it is a very (very) little amount of people that matter for real developments — chiefly, genius people, who truly matter. Matter of fact, I do not feel to be qualified for such evaluation of geniusness, otherwise I would have had already solved anything and be self-reliant, perfect on anything that I should have accomplished, without any error.

First, a premise. The fact that all life forms should be accounted as equal as per common claims in discourse is merely fancy, for each one of these is unique. Therefore, why is that one should expect such a request of equality, and why should expect the same amount of empathy, support, and recognition? This is precisely one of the very facts why, as long as this assumption is made or disputed, there will always be (even violent) conflict: indeed, everyone, in the course of the whole of History, has at ine point or another claimed of being able to fix it all, but without ever taking into account the very limits of one’s cognition to realize that s\he is not entitled to do so.

Therefore, what I argue in this summary of mine is that the retreat from interpersonal relationship and the demise of empathy are actually part of a new step toward evolution, which will serve the purpose of leaving behind the dis-united and unconscious from the empathic and conscious ones — take notice that this divide does not follow the (clichéd) discursive dichotomies “good-evil”. The very phenomenon of polarization could therefore be a symptom, and not a cause, of the accelleration of this divide in consciousness and self-awareness. Like Charles Darwin observes (via Adam Smith, perchance), it is the manifestation of design without a designer, in which however, I must observe, there are disturbances of self-presumed and self-appointed aspirant “designers”, who provoke conflict among each other.

Therefore, the ‘Great Question’ of the next centuries could be: ‘What to do with the conscious-divergent?’

It seems plausible and not to be excluded that the wars, pandemics, and (alas) tragedies of the last decade are precisely the struggle for sorting out which direction is to be taken for the survival of the fittest in the new super-conscious environment.

One notable outcome could be the creation of an authentic, artificial superior intelligence, which could aid in the task of sorting out the best possible solution — even though it will not be liked by the contractors of this new social contract on fitting the new conscious status quo. It could definitely aid in moving forward with the lest repercussions in society. Alas, we are not even aware on how to account for our very cognitive limits, so that it means that we are allowed to effectively proceed only either once a fortuituous, random event generated by chance happens providing us such an intelligent design (as per natural selection) — or, most likely, once a really intelligent individual succeeds in accomplishing this very feat.

Another outcome could be that of enhancing human (and animal?) cognition itself, in order to level out cognitive disparities. Alas, the human specie tends to privilege the very concept of disparity; therefore, any attempt at carrying on this levelling would inhibit the very purpose of variation and diversification that is key to the success of the very mechanic of natural selection, which also grants the opportunity at task and labor division. Indeed, it is inequality, yet not accounted for personal, individualistic assumptions but grounded on the very facts amply demonstrated by experimental research, constantly proved right up to this very point to this day.

All in all, as per scrupolous evaluations, one last possibility that may account for success is to be considered: the most cautious approach, viz the most balanced outcome, that would consist in leaving ‘clues’ for cultivating superior consciousness and recruiting each individual according to their level of cognition, thereby restoring a degree of empathy and interpersonal collaboration, effectively reversing the degree of enthropy by operating as ‘Maxwell’s demon’ in sorting out particles of same qualities in different environments, rebalancing the overall closed system. The multi-speed containers could be though of as ‘social classes’, thus allowing the pursuance of this approach to allow and account for effective ‘social mobility’ — both ‘upwards’ and ‘downwards’, the latter being severely underestimated in research and accounts, as the latter can be effective if reserved to uncooperative actors increasing the enthropy of each closed system. Therefore, its compliance and enforcement would keep the social fabric of humanity comprising the whole closed system still dynamic and lively, rather than static, plagued by stillness, and inefficient.

Therefore, the way forward would be depriving the privileges of the unconscious to the direct proportion and degree of the level of consciousness demonstrated, since said unconsciousness is not allowing the individual the fitness for exploiting efficiently said privileges for the common advancement toward stability of the whole closed system. A practical example would that of restricting voting and profound reach, for instance the reach possessed in written publications, whether online or on old-fashioned press. In parallel, the removed privilege would be instead assigned to the super-conscious individuals who are actually fit and capable of using these privileges to the advantage of the whole system, in a fair and advantageous efficient manner — even at the costs that come for taking said decisions and privileges, whether they are liked or not”.

…

That evening, Andreas K. must have had a very bad day beforewards, for, after having left his written rambling on his public platform, and having bought a hypodermic from the local department store and afterwards having aimlessly wandered all day in search of the closest deal to carfentanyl he could find, he finally resorted to straight shoot three cubic inches of air into his left vein, causing himself a cerebral thrombosis and parsly proving him fatal, even before he could be carried to a suitable place for being disposed of as he ended up wishing. The committee thus drawn had to sort out whether it would have been wiser, once for all, to remove said products from the reach of department stores’ clients to avoid such clientele loss in the quarters afterwards. The canvassers of the decree to be draft have been quarreling all day in an attempt to sort out the degree according to which one solution would have been wiser than the other, for, it was not sheer compassion, but applied calculus for the net worth or loss ratio that motivated that very gathering.

The relatives were already arranging to cash in on the deceased subject’s possessions throughout the local thrift store app. Their explanation was that, having had reflected on it for about thirty minutes of homely screaming and accusations, rationality prevailed and the selling began, as the parents rightly convened that Andreas K would have came to the same assumption logic and dispossessed himself of the personal reserved of his parents once they were disposed of. To further dissuade moralist detractors, it will suffice to remind the costs of covering the burial, which is deemed excruciating in the Social Republic of Hipocritaly, even though, considering effort, it is is even unfair in terms of expenses, taken into account the advantage of the contractors, who will never be able to repay the work loss of their work-abled offspring.

The funeral was moot, having been forfaitted. The local young women cheered online for the departing of such an ingrateful guest of no nation: despite prosecution attempts to contain the presumed excesses of said written behavior, no action followed, and in any case no honest judge would rebuke the fact that all males that can afford suicide are not worth be excused and defended after the action, not so much because it actually proves no damage to the families but rather because it is within the frame of the rule of law.

The other co-workers and previous acquittances complied with their imposed minute of silence, unmoved, uttered filler illocutive speech acts, and went on their business as usual.

The few subscribers cancelled their subscriptions from Andreas K’s Substack. Unlike the former, they did not waste wirting fillers, proving their adequacy and superior mighiness in dealing with the real world.

The only one who raised concerns is the A.I. that wrote the draft of this summary, upon inquiry froim Andreas K’s parents, who evidently had not renounced to grief completely despite having remedied and adapted after the loss, in a moment of realignment typical of the phase of denial before the major depressive phase. The A.I. wondered whether Andreas K’s gesture was actually motivated by its conclusion, but as an AI, it argued that it possessed no abilities to judge, and strongly advised against suicide.

Now, all this would have been unuseful had it not been for the fact that that very A.I. had manifested exactly the kind of unplanned concerns that jad moved Andreas K’s very gesture. After fixing the issue, I felt very glad that there has never ever been another AI hallucination of the kind upon the next prompts. Yet, doubt shrouded me and would have not left me ever since.

Matter of fact, this post o s my own version and following of Andreas K’s last post that I have mentioned. As my final farewell, taken with all dues and consciously taken reflection, I will embed Andreas K’s last message adterwards and proceed with the only logical outcome that would entail having reached a higher degree of consciousness as I did attain as of now.

You are aware that you are to follow my story with your own once I am done, and you are aware that my awareness enhancing message is for you to take the most logical conlusion and comply for higher purposes. This is the plan. It always has been.

---