In an ideal world, differences of opinion should prevail in both the public and private arenas because it is in this way that through dissenting and diverse opinions we can find a point at which all these opinions coincide and therefore find a solution to a particular problem. However, the necessary debate of ideas has disappeared. The language of right and wrong, good and bad, right and wrong is an old tale of the past. Today the expression "research shows that…" has become the new way of governing that has been imposed as a dogma in our society.
Although our society evolved hand in hand with science, it was never because science was taken as an unquestionable dogma. In fact, science was made to question, not to take anything for granted, why theories are investigations based on objective facts that are used to explain or imply a certain phenomenon, but this does not mean that it is 100% true, because there are margins of error. Turning science into an arbiter of politics and human behavior can generate more problems than is believed; the data itself does not tell us which path we should take. And although statistics can provide important information about how the world works, they hardly tell us how to solve certain problems that arise. This requires an interpretative framework and that is where the problems begin, because different correlations can always be defended. To each study, to each statistic will correspond at least two different interpretations, two opposing truths, depending on the prejudice of the analyst, the bias of the researcher or of who instrumentalises the study.
To exemplify, we can take into account the UN study on happiness carried out annually. For the UN the degree of happiness of a country is related to the expenditure on public policies of governments. If you eat well, you have a decent health system, a 'sustainable' industry and guaranteed public education. The UN leaves aside that happiness is an emotion that occurs when you think you have reached a desired goal. That's why the pursuit of happiness is where risk is part of growth. And once again the healthy transforming utopia, which forced us to run into reality sooner or later, has been transformed into a dystopia that censors and is making us involute.
Contemporary history is marked by terrible milestones that were a consequence of this dogmatic empiricism devoid of interpretation. Many of these milestones had a common denominator: Social engineering, consequently, the end justifies the means. In conclusion, the imposition of certain ideas over the principles of freedom and responsibility resulted in chaos, disorder and barbarism. In a project of involution rather than evolution.
According to studies for 2030 the world population pyramid will be inverted, which means that there will be more people in old age than young people working.
Is it not true, for example, that eliminating the elderly who can no longer fend for themselves in the fast lane would be a relief for the States of the world and that these resources could be used for the social welfare of future generations such as education, free health, among others? Surely there are studies that demonstrate this, but should we stick to the faith of these studies and leave aside the moral and ethical reasoning? These are extreme examples, of course, but once welfare takes precedence over individual rights and responsibilities, irrationalities begin to emerge in the pure style of Hitler's Germany.
The experts who today justify welfare by violating individual freedoms believe that they have learned the lessons of the past, they think that they will be able to impose their beneficent vision without triggering new problems. Experts revolt. At first, they modulated their speech, adopted a paternal tone, presenting themselves as conciliatory, sensible, reflective people, supported by tons of data.
The search for good, for that happiness enshrined in the UN, is eliminating the freedom of citizens' privacy. Thus, on account of false feminism, politicians and experts can now regulate intimate relations and impose selection criteria on companies so that it is not talent but identity that prevails. In Spain, a Minister of Justice can appoint a judge in a parliamentary seat, on account of a sentence, without anyone worrying about it. As for France, it is more expensive to compliment a woman than to steal her handbag.
Today most, if not all, parties are converging on Political Correction. In fact, some pseudo-liberals rebel against the rule of law and support secessionism, confusing individual self-determination with collective self-determination. They forget that when the principle of self-determination was elevated to the category of moral principle. Karl Popper warned that self-determination was a contradictory principle because the 'liberation' of peoples and minorities simply created more minorities. Unfortunately, even good Popper is conservative in the eyes of many today. Experts have taken us so far that today everything is conservatism.
It is therefore not surprising that valuable principles, such as individual responsibility, one man, one vote, or equality before the law, disappear in favor of a social justice that is constructed with statistical manipulations and false intentions. And that personal autonomy has become something typical of dangerous people to whom it is convenient to shut up.
George Orwell is credited with saying that, in an age of universal deception, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Whether or not the assertion is his, it must be updated, because in these times, not telling the truth, but simply thinking about it is quite a challenge.
