Ethics Of Transitions What World Do We Want To Live In Together Jim Dratwa full chapter pdf docx

Ethics of Transitions: What World Do
We Want to Live in Together? Jim

Dratwa
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/ethics-of-transitions-what-world-do-we-want-to-live-in-
together-jim-dratwa/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Manipulation Black Book - How How To Make People Do

What You Want Them To Do - Not What They Want To Do
Jordan Hill
https://ebookmass.com/product/manipulation-black-book-how-how-to-
make-people-do-what-you-want-them-to-do-not-what-they-want-to-do-
jordan-hill/
What Do We Mean When We Talk about Meaning? Steven

Cassedy
https://ebookmass.com/product/what-do-we-mean-when-we-talk-about-
meaning-steven-cassedy/
How Do We Survive Together? (Irish Roulette Book 5) Ki

Brightly & M.D. Gregory
https://ebookmass.com/product/how-do-we-survive-together-irish-
roulette-book-5-ki-brightly-m-d-gregory/
The Extremely Busy Woman's Guide to Self-Care : Do

Less, Achieve More, and Live the Life You Want Suzanne
Falter
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-extremely-busy-womans-guide-to-
self-care-do-less-achieve-more-and-live-the-life-you-want-
suzanne-falter/
Rudolf Hilferding. What Do We Still Have to Learn from
His Legacy? 2nd edition Judith Dellheim
https://ebookmass.com/product/rudolf-hilferding-what-do-we-still-
have-to-learn-from-his-legacy-2nd-edition-judith-dellheim/
We, Together The Social Ontology of Us Hans Bernhard

Schmid
https://ebookmass.com/product/we-together-the-social-ontology-of-
us-hans-bernhard-schmid/
We, Together: The Social Ontology of Us Hans Bernhard

Schmid
https://ebookmass.com/product/we-together-the-social-ontology-of-
us-hans-bernhard-schmid-2/
Hepatic and gastrointestinal involvement in coronavirus

disease 2019 (COVID-19): What do we know till now?
Sherief Musa
https://ebookmass.com/product/hepatic-and-gastrointestinal-
involvement-in-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-what-do-we-know-
till-now-sherief-musa/
How to Persuade: The Skills You Need to Get What You

Want Michelle Bowden
https://ebookmass.com/product/how-to-persuade-the-skills-you-
need-to-get-what-you-want-michelle-bowden/
Ethics of Transitions
Innovation and Responsibility Set
coordinated by
Robert Gianni and Bernard Reber
Volume 8
Ethics of Transitions
What World
Do We Want
to Live in Together?
Jim Dratwa
First published 2022 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,
stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2022

The rights of Jim Dratwa to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022932441
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-102-4
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Bernard REBER
Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Before the first evening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I.1. First evening – First story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
I.2. Second evening – Second story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
I.3. Third evening – Ultimate story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
I.4. Beginning of the awakening – Histories found (Return to the roots) . . 27
I.5. The two sources (seeds, seedlings, schemes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
I.6. Far and wide open book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Inter-section 1. What is Ethics of Sciences, Technologies,

and Innovation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Book I. Living Your Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Before the first morning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
1.1. The measure of all things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
1.1.1. At any time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
1.1.2. A world of difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
1.2. Having read this book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
1.3. At the roots of ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1.3.1. What is the just? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
1.3.2. What is the good? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
1.3.3. Duty to respect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
1.3.4. Chanson de geste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1.3.5. Closed book, in the open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1.3.6. To be present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
vi Ethics of Transitions
1.4. At the roots of violence

(Sins of the Fathers) (Must one eat up?) (Winter is coming) . . . . . . . 78
1.4.1. Addendum: An eye for an eye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
1.4.2. Change in our time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
1.5. Is life a game? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
1.5.1. The game of the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
1.5.2. Between game and world: three movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
1.5.3. From the three movements to the fourth premise:
from lusory attitude to morality design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
1.6. The ethics paradox. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Inter-section 2. Cis-theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Book II. European Constructions of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

The rapture of Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
2.1. What Europe do we want to live in together? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
2.1.1. Futures (and Europe) (imagined communities) . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
2.1.2. (Fore)seeing like a State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
2.1.3. The European project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
2.1.4. Futures (and science and technology) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
2.1.5. Palimpsest and palinode (imagined communities) . . . . . . . . . . . 149
2.2. Precious participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
2.2.1. The three deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
2.2.1.1. Time travels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
2.2.1.2. The burnout of the hummingbird (deficit, overflow,
responsibility and catastrophe) (a cautionary tail) . . . . . . . . 154
2.2.1.3. Against the sovereign scheme and its world . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
2.2.2. Challenges in Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.2.2.1. Project Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.2.2.2. The two issues of our age: Democracy for Climate? . . . . . . . 159
2.2.2.3. To Chantal (États généraux) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
2.2.2.4. Thinking in Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
2.2.2.5. Transitions in the time of pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
2.2.2.6. L’autre fin de l’histoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
2.2.2.7. The Democracy Mystique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
2.2.2.8. Participatory inclusive deliberative democracy . . . . . . . . . . 173
2.3. Science and politics: divides and alternatives
(making sense together). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
2.3.1. Introducing the courage of alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
2.3.2. Openness to the worlds: towards alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
2.3.2.1. The cosmopolitical question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
2.3.2.2. Political and cosmopolitical epistemologies . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2.3.2.3. Precautionary principle and regime change . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Contents vii
Inter-section 3. The Other Europes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Book III. Institutions and Innovations of Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Europe of values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
3.1. Institutionalizing ethics: the value of ethicization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
3.2. “Ethics of” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
3.2.1. Addendum: the other ethicization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
3.3. Europocene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
3.3.1. The Anthropocene Misunderstanding:
what’s in a name and how to make the most of it . . . . . . . . . . . 202
3.3.2. The Question of Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Inter-section 4. For Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Book IV. We Have Never Been Human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Preliminaries: Ethics, Transitions, and something out of sight . . . . . . . . 211
4.1. Human dignity, I write your name (touchstone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.1.1. The section in brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.1.2. The inquiry is underway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.1.3. Human dignity and how did we get here? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
4.1.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
4.2. Portrait-robot
(breaking through the artificialities of intelligence and of free will) . . 227
4.3. Human too human
(Ecce homo) (us) (last dialogue of Estella and Sophy) . . . . . . . . . . 229
4.3.1. Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
4.4. Scriptures
(changing life) (the code) (the typewriter and the book of life) . . . . . 232
4.4.1. The ethical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
4.4.2. Political epistemologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
4.4.3. Ethics Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
4.4.4. The other code…
Towards the world – Hacking, Designing, Making . . . . . . . . . . 238
4.5. Letter to Apolline (transhumanism) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
4.6. The end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Table of Epigraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Good that you are reading the book at this stage.
It is a work of peace and transformation, about Europe, the other,

about the human condition and the construction of futures.
It is a philosophical novel on the question of ethics and of

how to live one’s values. It is also an engaged academic book and
a guide of perplexity.
Particular attention is paid to the particular form – to the multiplicity of

voices, to the importance of narratives and to the intertextuality – which
comes at the service of the themes and theses developed in this manifesto.
To read it: take something to write with!
This is to note throughout the text the comments and suggestions,

sensations and references, subtractions and additions and
questions. All the associations of ideas that come,
the links and the desires.
All which can make the book better. And the world.
It is very important, very precious!
Indeed at this stage it is not finished, it is ‘under construction’,

we find ourselves in the middle of the action. In the thick of it.
Thank you, I am glad that we are sharing it like this. that way.
Typographer’s note:
This handwritten note, apparently intended for the reader, was found attached to the original
manuscript. It is presented here faithfully reproduced.
Foreword
The notion of responsibility, full and complete, as well as its exercise,

necessitates going further than typical writing. This book takes this difficulty
seriously. To do so, it pushes the boundaries of traditional academic writing as far as
possible. Jim Dratwa, who is familiar with the world of policy design, as well as of
games and role-playing, offers the reader a real experience of responsibility.
Accustomed as we may now be to hypertextual navigation, we will be immersed

here in all kinds of textual creations and literary prowess to make diverse
navigations of thought coexist. The stories that mark the progression of the book
invite us to thought-and-life experiments. They open up spaces for reflection and
probing and reinvention of the world. The book fully lives up to its initial subtitle:
songs of resistance. It cultivates questions without quenching them or burying them
with answers. The songs, experiments and trials, do not offer closed-off arguments
or ready-made conclusions.
Dratwa succeeds in enabling the reader to step up and engage with the thought. It
means taking seriously the sense of responsibility as responsiveness, conversation or
dialogue, the matrix of ancient philosophy, and even the style of its oral presentation
in teaching and seminar practices.
This book also has the merit of questioning how we read and what we look for in
a text – and indeed what a book can do. Philosophers such as Gilles Deleuze and
Felix Guattari, for example, have tried to escape the overly organized book, the
“livre racine”. In A Thousand Plateaus, a book whose editorial form has challenged
many, the authors want to free us from the paradigm of simplification and oppose it
with the figure of the rhizome, underground stem, bulb, tuber, which obeys a
principle of connection and heterogeneity, multiplicity, vanishing line. Their
criticism of considering books as instruments of deterministic thinking thus leads to
imagining other forms of organization of knowledges. To a certain extent, hypertext
Ethics of Transitions: What World Do We Want to Live in Together?,

First Edition. Jim Dratwa.
© ISTE Ltd 2022. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 Ethics of Transitions
meets this expectation and may appear to be a more appropriate medium for
complex thinking than most classic books.
Jim Dratwa proposes a book that liberates as much as it makes available, as the
etymology of the word livre reminds us. It is a book that binds and opens.
Combining multiplicity and coherence, this book is polymathic, the work of a
polymath: senior European public servant and engaged intellectual, physicist and
philosopher, award-winning game author and artist, activist for peace and social
justice, professor of political philosophy and also of game design and game studies.
The text is carefully helpfully marked out and so are the different levels of
interpretation, yet his book does not leave you untroubled and impassible, it is the
opposite of a frozen museum in which the route would be imposed and all would be
fossilized. The reflection on form also forms the reflection. Mallarmé said that a
book does not end and Hugo claimed that form is the content rising to the top. The
present project is part of this perspective. It does not only explain how transforming
the world calls on developing relations (conviviality and narrations), it also nurtures
this and performatively brings it about.
That writing elaboration is particularly well suited to philosophical reflection.

This connection has changed over the course of its history, from Socratic dialogues,
to medieval summae, to writings today that are sometimes either very literary or as
abstruse as mathematical theorems. There are probably no endeavors that have
explored as many different and sometimes antithetical styles as philosophy. This
book builds gracefully on a far-reaching knowledge and practice of this breadth,
creating a singular form.
This concern for intertextuality and dialogue, which leads Jim Dratwa and allows
him to achieve feats of minstrelsy and acuteness, is also highly apropos with regard
to ethics, as evoked in the erstwhile subtitle of this book of many layers: Ethics to
Europe, echoing Aristotle’s Ethics to Nicomachus. Indeed, Europe here is not only
the European Union, whose institutional machinery the author knows so well,
especially in matters of ethics, environment and innovation, but it is also the
mythological figure, along with its questions beyond bounds. Ethics is first and
foremost a questioning. Jim Dratwa takes this up unfailingly through the text, also
by calling upon the reader. For him it is up to everyone, alone or together, to reflect
on these questions. And it is therefore incumbent to offer the reader thought
experiments that open up these spaces of possibilities.
How to delineate and to further the Ethics of Transitions, such a vast and crucial
challenge. He could have chosen an abstract philosophical style or, as senior
European civil servant, the cold style of reports and gray literature. Rather, he offers
a writing that is not an obstacle for those who are not necessarily accustomed to
Foreword 3
philosophical texts. Sometimes lyrical, very colorful, always attentive, he brings the
readers on a journey of individual and collective reflection and transition. To be
clear, for Dratwa philosophy is a practice of questioning and of inquiry, reflexivity
and reference, perplexity and creation of concepts. It is even a cutting-edge
technology, a hard science, a precision technique. With this high standard,
remarkable care is taken to accompany the reader on this eventful voyage.
While other books on responsibility and innovation address the importance of

roles in relation to responsibility; the confrontation of the different stories
accompanying innovations; the interpretation of norms in diverse contexts; the
concern for alternative futures; and public participation in relation to innovation and
democracy1, this book brings these aspects together, also bringing together
narrations in all forms: myths, poesis, exegesis and hermeneutics, scholarly analyses
and syntheses, conceptual genealogy, design fiction and speculative fabulation,
songs of resistance and open spaces of possibilities, expressed at the crossroads of
many languages, much as the histories of Europe.
Here is a book to be experienced, a book-experience. Let us hope that this book-

conversation, another way of taking responsibility, which should enable it to
develop fully, will reach many readers for whom responsibility and innovation must
go beyond forms of ethical compliance. For the sake of the transitions in which we
are engaged. For the sake of the futures of our worlds, which technological choices
shape.
One of the key questions traversing this book is indeed how to think about ethics,
innovation and democracy in other ways; how to think differently about “living-
one’s-values” and “making-world-together”. This book traces an ethical and thus
political gesture of overturning of narratives and of questioning of relationships and
forms of engagement. Ethics of Transitions.
May the publisher who made available to all a text as demanding as it is original
be thanked as well.
Bernard REBER
Research Director, CNRS
Centre de recherches politiques
Sciences Po Paris
1. See notably (Pellé and Reber 2016a, 2016b); (Grunwald 2016); (Maesschalck 2017);
(Lenoir 2018); (Reber 2016); respectively.
Introductions
Before the first evening

At the end of this sentence, take a moment, just close your eyes and imagine the
world a couple of decades from now. How would you like it to be?
This book is about the future, about alternative futures. More specifically, this
book on ethics and innovation is about the ways in which futures are made – and
made to come to pass. What world do we want to live in together? That is its
principal question.
Open your eyes, look around you, lo and behold, all around. And look inside too.
We are the authors of the worlds we live in. With what we invent, that which we say
and feel, that which we craft and share, what we accept and reject, with our dreams
and questions, with the how and why of what we do and who we are, alone and
together. That is how worlds1 are made.
We are the builders of the worlds we inhabit.
But wait, it is not just us, some of this was built before our time. Yes, it was.
The Talmud recounts this encounter that Khoni HaMe’agel had2. One day as he
was walking along the road, he saw a man planting a carob tree. Khoni said to him:
1. As I write to you, it is this book that gets progressively written. As I type the sentence
above, the word processing software underlines the word “worlds”, underscoring and
warning: surely you mean world, for there can be only one. It couldn’t be any other way. Oh
but it could. It is. Worlds.
2. This is the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Ta’anit, 23a), compiled around the fifth century,
and Khoni the Circle-Drawer, a sage of the first century BCE. Having good encounters,
stopping on the way, talking to the other, sharing one’s perplexity, asking questions,
recounting and being recounted; preliminary figures of wisdom.
“This tree, in how many years will it bear fruit?” “It will not produce fruit until
seventy years have passed,” the man replied. Khoni asked him: “Do you plan to live
another seventy years, to expect to enjoy this tree?” The man shook his head: “When
I was born, I found a world full of carob trees. Like my ancestors had planted for me,
I plant for those who are to come.”
Let us hear the call and questions of the child to come, of the people to come.
What have you done? What stories are you leaving us? And what worlds.
In quest of Europe
“The European ideal touches the very foundations of European society.
It is about values, and I underline this word: values.”
José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission,

State of the Union Address, Strasbourg, 11 September 2013
The European Union – the European project – was founded on the burning ashes
of the Second World War. From a painful past it was to build a better future. From
terrible divisions, it was to build togetherness, to build a community. It is a project
of peace, progress and solidarity. In the words of its founding figures, in the texts
that have established and re-established the Union, as well as in its concrete
achievements and self-image, developed over the past seven decades, such is the
founding story – amply woven with values – of the European integration project.
How, then, do values affect political projects? How is the future reflected and
shaped? What is the place of science and technology and innovation in this regard?
And what about Europe? And so: What ethics of transitions?
In this book we will address these questions and question these stories.
Reopening ethics in the digital and genetic age; repopulating democracy;

remaking the world.
Not without stories

One of the theses that explicitly underlies this work is that, while the ethical
question has classically been asked (and deployed, and closed) behind the
frontispieces of philosophy treatises, it is up to each and every one of us – alone,
together, in good company – to ponder such questions. From the moment this is
taken seriously, and I take it to heart, it behooves me to offer the reader thought
experiments that open up these spaces of possibilities (rather than simply taking (or
peddling) this or that model at face value).
Introductions 7
Another thesis developed in the book is that ethics – with the tangle of paradoxes
that weave it and which will be explained over the course of the book – rests on...
stories.
Stories: powerful, enthralling, even dangerous devices which, like an incantation or
anointment, like the seal and wax, trace or close off or cover the foundations.
To thwart this fate, to ward off adversity, to enter together into this edifice, partly
buried, collapsed, petrified and perennial, we will therefore also have to mobilize...
stories.
Retrace, reweave, reinvest, reinvite and reinvent the matricial threads.
How to think ethics and innovation and democracy differently; how to think
differently about living-one’s-values and making-world-together. It is a matter here
of discerning, drawing and deploying new (old) resources to rethink the relationship
with the self, with the other and with the world.
Another life is possible, and another Europe, and another world.
It is up to us to invent it3.
3. Wait a minute. Did I use an “us”, a “we”? Yes. Yes that is clearly what just happened!
Well, this can indeed happen... But, anytime it does, it is important to stop for a moment and
to think about who or what is in the “we”.
Two clarifications need to be made from the outset: as to the we and as to participation in the
choices.
(1) The “we” traces a vast field of possibilities, modular and uncertain, extending somewhere
between the locutor (or the scriptor, the one who expresses) and all the possible entities and
relationships. The construction of this “we” is the research question that underlies this book.
No conclusion before the inquiry, but these two invitations, these two exhortations now. What
would happen if you asked yourself the question, every time you are in front of a “we”: Who
is in this we? and who is out, and how is this in-or-out established? Furthermore, what would
happen if you asked the question, every time you are in a situation of “choices” (or of
“ethics”, of “politics”, of “democracy”, of representation, of participation, of deliberation):
where are the others?
(2) “It’s up to you to choose” (or perhaps even more formidable: “it’s up to us”) evokes for
me the electoral advertising slogan of the conglomerate to be reinstated in a totalitarian
democracy with a single party. Or the end-user license agreement at the bottom of which you
must give your consent – click and check the small box – to be able to open your parachute
when jumping from a falling plane. The question of choice (choice of life, choice of society,
choice of world) is at the heart of this book. Forced choices or real choices? Who is it exactly
that frames and participates in these choices? It may be that the choices have been taken out
(out of scope, out of reach), abducted. It may be that they are nevertheless recoverable. This
book investigates this abduction and partakes in this recovery. To be continued.
In Transitions
“This generation wants to move fast – and they are right. Because in front of us
are the major twin ecological and digital transitions.”
Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission,

Op-ed marking her 100th day in office, 07 March 2020
The central thesis of this book is that we can – and ought to – change the world.
Building on a questioning of the values it incorporates and holds over.
Values are baked into everything. One can neither act nor govern, nor design nor
innovate, without them. No narratives evolve, no decisions are taken, no
technologies are developed without values shaping them, whether wittingly or
unwittingly, explicitly or implicitly.
From pacifiers to plasticisers, from the Plantagenets to the Plantation, from Europa
to the European project, from what has come to pass to what is to come, for all that
bears in some way or other the human touch, for constitutions, for institutions, for
lands, atmospheres, ecosystems, for devices, processes, events, relations, you name
it.
The world is “under construction”. It is full of stuff – such stuff as dreams are made
on – and this stuff is full of values… But how to decides what values – shaping and
shaped in return – ought to go in?
What if values were not for some small group to decide in everyone else’s stead?
What if these considerations – what values, what world – were neither left undone
nor left to a happy few, but open instead to a wide societal deliberation?
To summarize the above in the most succinct form: how can the ought be
related – not as an afterthought, not as a dogma, but as an ongoing question – to the
is?
And to be clear: no need to be in the midst of a catastrophe or for it to lie in wait, on
the brink of the abyss or in a post-apocalyptic aftermath, on a desert island disc or
on a newly reached planet, to “build (back) better”!
This is how we arrive at the question of Transitions.

The epigraph opening this section underscores the confluence of green and digital
under the aegis of the “twin transitions”. In the search for direction – priorities,
mobilizations, narratives, not just in Europe – these two broad framings deservedly
garner much joint attention.
The twinning can be highly problematic, however, if it is conceived as a “win-win”
sleight of hand, assuming or asserting that climate action and digitalization go hand
in hand without careful reflection, without balancing, without losers, without
contradictions.
Introductions 9
What is more, while environmental and digital are the order of the day, the
necessary transition is also social, political, conceptual, individual as well as
collective.
Further, we will discover that at the heart of the notion of transition is the question
of democracy alongside the question of innovation.
But first, wait a moment, what is Transition in the first place?
It is important to note the polysemy of Transition, emanating from a wide

diversity of fields. While it is possible merely to marvel at the patchiness and
heterogeneousness, I will explicitly opt here – in section I.6 – for connecting the
dots, the plots, the threads; for recognizing the differences and for weaving together
those diverse endeavors and meanings. Transitional justice, democracy transition,
sustainability transitions, transition initiatives, innovation transitions, moving to
other important dimensions.
We will see, throughout, the leitmotifs of justice, solidarity, autonomy, dignity, and
democracy (or how to care for the connections between the individual, the common,
and the relational).
To begin with, and the etymology sticks, transition stems from the Latin verb
transire: to go over, across, beyond. A crossing to the other side – and the bridge
itself. Be it in thought, in speech, in writing. Be it in rhetoric or in astrology, in
linguistics or in music, in life and after. Evoking passing, passing away, dying,
agony. Then numb, then in trance. And evoking that which is fleeting, transient,
transitory, not durable, not sustainable.
The going beyond and also the in-between.
Deep down, all contemporary mobilizations of the notion of transition have this
in common: the realization that a past state is problematic and would – without
intervention – lead to a problematic future state. That is to say: change is needed.
The epigraph of this section also draws attention to the sens de l’histoire ; it draws
attention to the question of temporalities (and of related ascriptions of ordering and
of pace), which further down we will unpack as constitutive of the notion of
transition.
It is interesting to think of Transition as the answer to the “evolution or revolution?”
conundrum. At bottom, Transition denotes a profound transformation, with a
particular attention to the question of coexistence, to the question of interweaved
temporalities, or simply put: a particular attention to what happens between
the “before” and the “after”.
Thinking in Transition.
For the road

These “Introductions” are not a preliminary notice for the book; they are an
integral part of it. No need to wait for the end of the admonitions and reflexive
feedback for things to get serious. Without warning, they have already started. It is
now. We find ourselves in the heart of the action.
Thinking over the course of stories and through them does not mean advancing a
point of view – or “making points”, demonstrating, persuading – with implacable
argumentative machinery.
It is not a mathematical construction or a Death Star or a game of chess. It is more of
a good meal, a campfire with its evening gathering and songs, a forest trek. It is a
INNER PROLOGUE
Hello, my name is Estella, I have just been recruited to an artificial intelligence
research center to work with other colleagues in the humanities, social sciences
and natural sciences, with doctors and engineers, to develop a robot with values,
a robot endowed with universal values. Well, it is a little more specific than that in
principle, the work has European funding and the robot is supposed to be
designed with European values. It is a challenge and an opportunity, that’s what
they said. It will be a perfect mix of continuity and change, of tradition and
innovation. It sounds good, it’s got a nice ring to it. Or maybe hollow, maybe it
just doesn’t ring true. I like traveling, chocolate, gastronomy and good food. I like
people, forests, landscapes. That’s it, I’ve unpacked everything for you in one go,
that’s because I need to know, to know if you can help me.
The sun was only just beginning to rise and Estella was only just leaving her
house when she realized she didn’t know Professor Smith’s exact address. The
message indicated a rendezvous at ten o’clock at Liberty Square. Well then, that is
where she would go. On her way she was playing out in her mind what she would
say to the professor.
When she arrived at the edge of the square, in the middle of the central area,
between the statue and the fountain, she saw a silhouette draped in red that seemed
to gesticulate in her direction.
A few more steps and Estella recognized the professor’s face, looking like the
pictures she had found online. They greeted each other and then settled side by
side on a public bench right there.
So then, it was our dear doctor who suggested that we meet.
In response to this mention of their mutual friend, Estella explained to Professor
Smith her situation, her arrival, her new project, her aspirations and her doubts.
Introductions 11
gleaning accompanying a work of the earth, swarming and cross-pollination. It is an

assembly of stories. An invitation.
If sooner or later you find yourself perplexed, lost, disoriented here, I

invite you to live the experience of this perplexity. If and when it is too much,
then safeguards, guardrails and railings are in place to guide the journey: not
only the Table of Contents and the Index, but also sections like this one,
throughout the book, indicating where this skein comes from and where
it leads, how and why it is deployed, indicating the ins and outs and
the paths less traveled. This book traces a poetics; it calls upon a poetics
Same here, I also love chocolate, interrupted the professor, glad to be able to
squeeze in a warm smile. You can simply call me Sophy.
The sun was high enough in the sky now and it was casting shafts of light straight
into the eyes of Estella, who changed position and placed herself in the shadow of
her older companion.
Estella: You see professor, all in all that is my problem, I ask myself a lot of
questions, I don’t know how to do to do things right!
Sophy: I know, I see, yes, I am familiar with this. “Science without conscience is
but the ruin of the soul”, warns Rabelais.
Estella: Right, that’s just it. For me it’s a question of responsibility. Research and
innovation are inseparable from moral questions, I am acutely conscious of that,
but I know nothing about all this.
Sophy: Don’t worry, Estella, between us let me tell you what matters most: you
have it all within you!
Estella: In me, I don’t know, but in you, surely, yes: if I understood correctly, you
participate as an expert in research ethics reviews for international
organizations?
Sophy: That’s right. For me it’s second nature.
Estella: But how can I go about this?
Sophy: For ethics, it is simple, clear and precise: it is a grid with checkboxes.
Does this research involve children? Animals? Human embryonic stem cells, and
so on? And then, if necessary, participants in the experiment must give their “free
and informed consent”. Well, there you go, I am glad I was able to address that
a poiesis, upon creating. Creating and thinking that which is created. It is a book of
interactive fiction, a “book of which you are the hero”.
What does the inquiry pertain to? What is the research question? In sum, what is
the book talking about?
About our relationship to ourselves, to others and to the world.
It talks by asking questions:
How do we live by our values? What is a good life?
What world do we want to live in together?
What is the “we” and what about the others?
The two experiments we will examine in this book are the European project
and the ethics project. This is what underlies the architecture of the book in its
entirety; following the introductions, we explore the ethics project, then the
concern. No need for more information here. There is a user guide with
instructions and you can also find all the answers on Wikipedia.
Estella: The answers, okay, but what about the questions?
Sophy: What I am offering you here on a silver platter is precisely how to do it
right, fast and well, how to avoid giving rise to questions.
Estella: But values, responsible research, the future, Europe, the world, all the
possible paths?
Sophy: What I am offering you here is morality and responsibility ready-made,
plug-and-play. In other words: how to get the process done without any issues,
pains or complications.
Estella: I understand and I am very grateful, but how can I say this... Would you
agree to guide me through these issues, this pain, these complications?
Sophy: Well… Very well.
Estella saw Sophy Smith’s moue, her air of vexed or resigned disappointment,
turning into a sort of glow, of softness, as if at the evocation of a distant place or
of a loved one too soon departed.
Sophy: You know, Estella, deep down, all this bodes well. I thought I would tell
you quickly how to quickly proceed; satisfying you with a user guide. But it’s
good, you remind me of the time of yore...cultivating the questions. The good old
Introductions 13
European project, and finally the particular forms of institutionalization of ethics in

Europe, pursuing our Ethics of Transitions quest.
On the one hand, the European project: project of peace and fraternity,
confronted with the trials of sovereignty and solidarity, with the trials of
constructions of stories and of constructions of “we”.
On the other hand, the ethical project: project of “our common values” and of the
incommensurability of pluralities, project of universality confronted with the
singular experience of living and thinking.
The book offers a reflection on the nature of the good and on the values in the
world.
The book offers a reflection on the relationship to stories and histories, on
experiments of thought and of life.
Thus the book invites particular forms of introspection. That being so, this manual
of perplexity is also a philosophical essay and novel, a joint work of fiction. Talking
of stories, yes, but not without living and recounting them.
days when everything surprised me, when everything could arouse in me

perplexity or even a singular wonder. The time of questions.
So listen, since you don’t want to settle for off-the-shelf, ready-made, ready-to-
swallow answers, perhaps we could embark together on something much more
audacious.
Estella: What do you mean?
Sophy: I mean that you are, or in other words, that we are together, the right
people in the right place.
Estella: I am not sure I understand...
Sophy: Here: before his departure, the doctor left an envelope containing a book.
Well this book pertains precisely to the questions you told me about, those
questions which brought you here.
Estella: What a beautiful synchronicity, it is almost unsettling, even if I brace
myself for everything these days! But this book then, can we have access to it?
Sophy: Here is the book. The book is here.
*
* *
I.1. First evening – First story
It was late. He couldn’t close his eyes. He was half asleep and remained
motionless for fear of waking the others. She was slumbering right there. So close
and yet so far. In his mother’s face he could see his own features. Behind her not
quite closed eyelids, her dark pupils flitted frantically and, with this whirling, they
seemed to retrace a dream or perhaps to struggle in search of a way out of it. She
exhaled, deeper than before. “I’m not asleep you know”, she whispered gently as she
caught her breath. Both of them were waiting for the results of the vote. The Union
was not the one of their dreams, for sure, but did this mean that leaving was the
answer? He was nine months old when she had fled with him and, as long as he
could remember, she had devoted her entire life to this project. Project of peace,
project of paper and of smoke. She was well and truly awake now. Lithuanian,
Australian, British, subject of Her Gracious Majesty, Jewish, Sufi, feminist,
communist, anti-communist, cancerous, European, citizen of the world and aspiring
to a different world, she was all that and more. He was too, in his own way. In the
way of the story of his life, well beyond his life, woven with multiple identities and
multiple alterities. It was a whisper in the night: “I must tell you this, it is a story
from when you were little. First and foremost I have to make a confession to you.”
In me there rages a terrible struggle.

It is a terrible struggle between two trees: two seeds, two shoots, two trees growing
in me.
Their roots entangling and estranging and strangling each other.
Two trees.
One is fear, hatred, jealousy and wrath.

It is superiority and inferiority, selfishness and resentment.
Animosity and avidity.
It is fulmination and fury.
The other is trust and sharing, love and giving. Curiosity and desire.
It is prudence, courage, respect and benevolence.
Hope and peace.
It is forbearance and forgiveness.
Two trees in me are waging a terrible struggle.

In me and in everyone it is so.
Two trees.
In you too.
These words resonated in the mind of the child. He reflected on them and heard
himself asking his mother with empathy and anguish:
Introductions 15
“But then: the two trees, the struggle,

which of the two prevails?”
The one that you water.
I.2. Second evening – Second story
“I wouldn’t want you to think that this only refers to the ‘big issues’ and ‘big
projects’ ”, the mother told her son. Europe, values, justice and solidarity. Our world
and the worlds to come, the meaning of life, the human condition, how to do justice
to one’s principles, how to fulfill together our highest potential and ideals and be in
harmony with our values. Authenticity and quest; simplicity and complexity. “Truth
be told, all this is just as important and as relevant for the little things in life, for the
big and small things of the everyday”. A child’s joyful laughter, the sun rising on the
horizon and everything is possible, the key left on the other side of the door that
closes, the misunderstanding despite the precautions and repetitions, how to do
things right, how to tell him that there is a problem without causing an even more
serious problem, without breakage or wound, how to live together and together heal.
And now: What are we eating?
Yes, to think the collective elaboration of decisions as well as meaningful

conversations, let’s think about the approaching meal. Let’s think of these five
protagonists; each one has a name and a face, desires and cracks, intense feelings
and mixed attachments. And at present each one of them has a gurgling stomach.
It is almost dinner time; they have to choose where they will eat the evening meal
together. Three of them, tempted by the smell, would like to go to the steakhouse
grill, a rotisserie in the area. Two others, two young vegan women, are in favor of
visiting the communal organic market, fields of transition, held at the end of each
day in the neighborhood, down by the gardening commons. This is a thought
experiment. Many options are possible. But for now, everyone is hungry.
Our five protagonists choose to resort to a form of democratic reflex: they will
vote – and even vote by secret ballot – to determine where it is they will go to eat.
At the end of this process, the result comes out: that’s it, it’s decided, the dinner will
be at the steakhouse grill.
I do not recount here the end of the evening, nor the arrival at the rotisserie and
finding it short of salad, nor the very meagre meal that the two vegan protagonists
had a taste of.
One can however imagine a completely different story, a completely different
outcome.
A story made of conversations, of shared questions. “What are your desires? And
you what would please you? What do you like, what do you love? It would be so
good to eat together, what do we expect from this really? What do we want to do
together? What is it we hold dear? Where are the others? How together can we
decide what we will eat together? What matters to each one and what matters to us
together? […]”.
Each of the protagonists listens to the others sharing aspirations and hesitations,
tastes and recipes, stories and memories, values and visions, meanings, questions,
perplexities, demands and proposals.
At the end of these exchanges, the five guests prepare a meal together where they all
meet.
I do not recount here the attention given to each person’s desires; the attention given
to the preparation but also to the provenance of the products and to the worlds of
justice and of power, of environmental impacts and social relations that each
ingredient brings to the table; and even the attention given to the neighbors that the
five guests invited, but who were all absent that evening. We can nonetheless
observe that the outcome here is much happier, both for each of the protagonists and
for the group they form together. The outcome is much happier, moreover, in terms
of taking into account the “others” (those who are not part of the group that is
favored here).
So these are two similar stories, but they differ in many ways. In contrast to the
second one, adventure of felicity4, the first narrative recounts the pitfalls and
misdeeds of a form of institutionalization of democratic ideals which is as poor as it
is predominant, a form that consists in the reflex of the vote and in the tyranny
exercised by a majority against minorities. These parables are rich with insights. But
beware; there is also a third dénouement.
In fact, some say that our five companions in misfortune chose to resort to a far
more terrible and more deeply rooted form of democratic misunderstanding: they
resolved to appoint onto themselves a sovereign! No, they would not converse about
important issues to be cultivated together. No, they would not vote to know – black
or white, black against white, the majority wins, the majority takes it away – what
the answer to these questions would be. No, no short straws being drawn either, no
luck of the draw to trump the potluck. Yes, they would submit to another to decide
in their place. The (His)story does not say whether their sovereign was designated
by casting votes, or by casting lots, or even if he was one of the five crew members.
But in any case, yes, once consecrated, it is he who “reconciled the pleaders” and
decided who would eat what.
4. Auguring a field of possibilities that will be marked out and traveled in Book II.
Introductions 17
*
* *
Sophy:5 These stories that open the book, I am reading them as parables. That is
to say: a trajectory, a curve between the point and the straight line, a short
allegorical, familiar, symbolic narrative in which many learnings are found. What
do you think of this?
Estella: For me they are stories in the story, experiments about who recounts, what
is being recounted, how to hear, how to transmit, how to think together and be
together. They are thought experiments. Experimentations of thought and of life.
Sophy: And of worlds.
Estella: I am not sure I understand. What do you mean by that?
Sophy: Worlds. Thus, in this story of the meal, we have different possible worlds.
We have a sovereign’s world, the regime of the lord president, the more or less
enlightened despot. We have a democratic city where the majority takes it all and
the minority takes it on the chin. We have something of the common, the
participative, the deliberative, the cooperative, the diverse, the disorder even; a
large table of conversation and of preparation and a shared meal; something that
opens up to other worlds.
Estella: Is it up to the readers to draw their own conclusions, their own
connections and reflections?
Sophy: Yes. Yes, but without rushing. Just taking the time to read, to live.
Estella: Then we have to help them.
Sophy: Well indeed, that is precisely what we’re endeavoring to do.
Estella: I must draw your attention to this short scribbled text right here in the
book: it is written in the form of a little dialogue. Take a look.
Sophy: You seem so thoughtful, Estella. And where is the dialogue, pray tell.
Estella: Parable, hyperbole, ellipse... This interlacing of curves, this nest of lines,
also traces like an egg to watch over, to hatch. Yes excuse me, it is right here, see:
–– It seems to me that the questions that are addressed here in a way that is
concise and full of imagery are also taken up later on in the book in more detail.
5. Typographer’s note: to facilitate easy identification throughout the book, these dialogues
between Sophy and Estella are presented enlivened by a hairline to the left of the text.
–– To my eyes these stories are a mapping of the book, they draw an initial map
that allows to see its structure.
The first story – and with it the first of the books – refers to values, to living one’s
values, and to the framings which make possible and constrain this relationship to
values in our lives.
The second pertains to our democracies, their crises and their possible futures, I
mean to living together and building together, to convivencia and convivialité to
including and excluding, to participation and co-production. Foreshadowing the
Sovereign Scheme. It is the question of the public and the State, of the polis (city,
State) or rather of the politeia (citizens as a whole, organization of a society, form
of life and of government, constitution). With, against, or without the State, it is
the question of ‘we-making’ and ‘world-making’. That which is called here
Europe.
–– And what about the third then?
–– The third story, still rooted in the thought-and-life experiment, brings together
the different themes and theses of the book: the meeting between values and
institutions; the question of power in the world and of engagement; the
governance of the technologies that govern us; ethics in/and/of transition; the
construction of the future and of the human that we want to be.
For that matter, it must be said that the third story raises the stakes, in terms of
inviting reflection and also simply in terms of breadth. In fact we are almost there.
You are forewarned: fasten your seatbelt.
I.3. Third evening – Ultimate story
The steering wheel. The road. The night. The speed and the calm. The lights
passing by. The radio humming. The turn. The crossing. The shadow. The face. The
screeching of the tires. The screaming. The dull shock. The silence.
I have two close friends – perhaps you too know someone in such a
situation – who have been in a serious car accident.
Think of this experience that never ceases to haunt, think of the weight of the
responsibility they will bear for the rest of their lives.
Bearing the burden of responsibility. Such is the sword of Damocles that weighs on
all those who touch the wheel, on us as on our children, called to take our “place in
the traffic”.
Introductions 19
But imagine for a moment that we could free ourselves from this yoke of suffering,
forever discharge our children from this heavy burden.
Yes, we shall see it here, this emancipation is in fact possible.
Yet this absolution has a price. That of choice. The choice of worlds.
*
* *
Imagine driving your new car in a few years’ time, an automated autonomous
vehicle. So not exactly behind the wheel, your car doesn’t have one, but comfortably
seated alone or rather with your other half and your two young ones. How good and
pleasant it is to sit together, all four around the small padded coffee table, playing a
game of Moi Président in the passenger compartment while your car (an electric
Tusla from Google Alphabet or a zero-emission diesel Duce from VW) takes you to
Grandma’s. Grandma is out of cake and wine and butter, yes, out of strong emotions
and of stories to tell, but not for much longer.
So here you are, comfortably seated and, the game having come to an end, you
can now immerse yourself in this thought experiment, the trolley problem.
Let’s imagine the experience facing this tramway driver: “the driver of a runaway
tram (or trolley) which he can only steer from one narrow track onto another; five
men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he
enters is bound to be killed” (Foot 1967). So let’s imagine this: you can operate the
switch and prevent the tram from killing five people. But only by directing it to a
side track where it will kill one person. You can also do nothing and the five people
will be killed. So, would you do it? All you have to do is pull a small lever. To
activate the switch or not, that is the question.
Take a moment to consider this dilemma. It is an ethical dilemma. It pertains to

the action, its motivations and justifications, the choices and constraints, the
responsibilities and consequences, the values and situations, the passions and
reasons. Ask yourself the question. You can then indicate below – yes or no –
whether or not you are activating the switch. But there is no obligation here; I don’t
want to force you to make this choice.
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
And now what – what to do – if the only way to save the five people is to put (a
little push in the back is enough) a bystander (a passer-by, say a traveling salesman)
on the path of the trolley so that his body stops the trolley and only the bystander
dies? Here too there are two choices: either one person dies or five people die.
What would be the right choice?
This thought experiment can give rise to numerous variations: what if the person on
the side-track is a person who is dear to you (a friend for example); what if the
passer-by is the villain who sabotaged the trolley etc.
The moral dilemma of this “trolley problem” is a thought experiment in ethics as

old as the trolleys themselves (Frank Chapman Sharp 1908) and that has had a
lasting legacy.
Its mobilization by the British philosopher Philippa Foot for instance, quoted above,
is set in an attempt to establish (that there is) a universal, natural moral sense.
Let us consider the two lemmas of the dilemma (i.e. the two propositions, the two
terms, the two alternatives of the alternative, the two options). To activate the switch
or not.
From a utilitarian point of view, namely from the point of view of maximizing
collective well-being (understood as the sum or average of the well-being of all
affected sentient beings), one must necessarily choose to operate the switch. Better
five survivors than one. It is one of the consequentialist conceptions – an ethics of
consequences – i.e. for which the consequences6 of the action are more important
than other considerations. It thus differs from deontological ethics (which focus on
duty, compliance with certain principles, on the type of action rather than on its
consequences) and from virtue ethics (which focus on the motivations, characters,
intentions of the moral agents – the ones who carry out the action).
Not activating the switch may be based on principles such as the axiom of
non-aggression, or the refusal to make an attempt on the life of others. Not
sacrificing one life to save five can also be justified in view of the
incommensurability of human lives: no, one life is not equivalent to “20% of five
lives”. Besides, it can also be argued that the situation is already morally
compromised and that any action taken in this context therefore constitutes a
contribution to this moral injury, thus making the perpetrator of the action partly
responsible for the death. It is here a “principle of abstention” or of non-compromise
which is mobilized. However, in the framework of other conceptions of moral
obligation, the mere fact of being present in this situation and of being able to
influence its outcome results in a requirement to participate. Duty to rescue, non-
assistance à personnes en danger, duty of care. In this context, “doing nothing is
6. Judging the morality of an action by its results is an interesting idea. But who calculates or
judges, and how, what are the consequences of an action ? And what determines the value of
consequences? In other words, what determines a “good” state of things; and what about the
distribution of “goods” (of benefits, and costs, and risks)? It is interesting to question
consequentialism and we will extend this when the time comes, in Book I.
Introductions 21
immoral”; in other words, the choice to refrain from acting is as such an act contrary
to the moral obligation – provided that one attaches greater value to five lives than
to one.
But now duty calls, enough abstract considerations with trolleys! You are there
sitting in your autonomous automated vehicle, your “auto”.
Just a question: Was it an electric Tusla or a zero-emission diesel Duce? If you
hadn’t made a choice yet, that is fine, and the time has now come: Tusla or Duce,
just indicate your choice here. Simply circle one or cross one out:
Tusla or Duce
Everything is in order now, you are sitting comfortably. No steering wheel. No

heavy burden.
The speed and the calm. The lights passing by. The radio humming. The turn.
The crossing. The shadow.
Your auto is breezing along at a good pace and all is well – but now a group of
children are in the middle of the road just around the corner it is necessary to act
immediately: either the auto will hit these pedestrians or it will hit the side wall.
Either the auto will kill the pedestrians or it will sacrifice its passengers. In an
instant we go from the dream to the drama. We have to act immediately, decide
immediately! But just a moment: it is not up to you to decide, not for you to act.
The system of automated autonomous vehicles has of course been programmed in
advance – the heavy burden is unloaded there – and indeed relies on its decision
algorithm for this kind of exceptional case. Strange and true. The fiction of reality
meets the reality of fiction.
We are suddenly faced with this paradigm shift: the abstract and disembodied
thought experiment now becomes a real choice to be made, and what is more, a
choice that is “implemented”, rolled out. In this new temporality, the fleeting or
elusive reflex moment (forerunner of the long run of regrets to be borne) is captured
in the analysis and deployed in anticipation in collective reflexivity7 (preliminary to

the abandonment – the moral disinvestment, the clearing, the disengagement – of the
moment of decision in the action).
We will delve further in the book into artificial intelligence and algorithmic
decision-making; here it is really about artificial wisdom, about algorithmic
morality.
How should these vehicles be programmed... Save the pedestrians? Sacrifice them to
save the passenger? Sacrifice the latter if it is in the interest of the greatest number?
Ethical dilemma.
“Auto-nomous” does not mean – at least not yet – that it is these cars that give
themselves their own rules. Upstream, these choices must be made. From the
moment it becomes possible to program the making of decisions on the basis of
moral choices in machines, will it be the particular interest or the common good that
prevails?
Social dilemma.
What happens now if we have some automatic vehicles programmed to protect
passengers (even if it means sacrificing pedestrians if need be) and others
programmed to protect the pedestrians (even if it means sacrificing passengers if
need be)?
Which vehicle would you buy for you and your family in this context?
It is important to note the following:
– if you are in a Tusla, your car is programmed to sacrifice pedestrians, if necessary;
– if you are in a Duce, your car is programmed to sacrifice passengers, if necessary.
Does this affect your choice?
How does it feel to be in such a position?
This book is a “book of which you are the hero”, a “choose your own adventure”
book: the choice is yours. You can change cars. Your choices have serious
consequences. You can change worlds.
What vehicle would you buy for you and your family in this context?
What world, what future, does this shape?
7. This collective reflexivity is this pause and return upon the ins and outs of such situations.
It is the reflexivity of the collective itself. It is the necessary public debate, the vast reflection
on the “societal” choices that will then be amenable to be cast into algorithms. Thus, beware:
this collective choice might not be collective at all. Beware the distribution of roles – the
division of labor – with regard to ethics.
Introductions 23
Economic disparities translated into unequal dignity. Thus, on the road to this world,
we are neither free nor equal, neither in dignity nor in rights.
Public policy dilemma.
What happens finally if: (a) automatic vehicles are prone to saving more lives than
any other form of urban transport; and (b) the potential users are only inclined to
adopt them if these vehicles are programmed to prioritize the people in the
passenger compartment. Should one then give up on (on the basis of a) saving lives,
sacrificed (by refusing b) on the altar of our values? Such is the question that a team
of researchers arrived at on the basis of opinion surveys about these ethical
dilemmas (Bonnefon et al. 2016).
Also at play here – “What’s wrong with this picture?” in the syllogism above as well
as in the trolley problem – is an interesting form of Epistemological Dilemma. To
put it simply and clearly: we can reverse all of this and refuse this succession of
restricted framings, of either-or’s into a funnel, which loses sight of – or puts out of
scope – other ways of thinking.
Thus it may be that the best ethical choice with regard to the dilemma is actually to
escape this frame, to place one’s choice outside the two lemmas of the dilemma. To
consider that neither of the two options is good, satisfactory, dignified, acceptable.
“To activate the switch or not, that is the question.” And yet... what if it wasn’t the
only or the best question?
But good grief what is this sordid violence that is being imposed on us here to
sordidly exercise? This marks the beginning of a perplexity (question,
embarrassment, recalcitrance, movement, reframing).
A first movement of reframing consists in moving from the “refusal of choice”

as a refusal to activate the switch to the “refusal of choice” as refusal of the dilemma
(refusal of this configuration of the problem). To refuse Sophie’s Choice and Isaac’s
Sacrifice. Refusing this Milgram experiment. Not playing this “game of chicken”.
Freeing oneself from this entrapment, from this Prisoner’s Dilemma.
A second movement consists in going from the refusal of this type of problem to
the refusal of this type of world.
No world of the illusion of all-powerfulness, of absolute control. No world where
pedestrians or passengers are put to death. No heavy burden. No sordid violence. No
children left on the side of the road.
In other words it is a matter here of changing the world, of transforming the
sociotechnical arrangements which constitute the “inhabiting” or “mobility”, of
improving trolleys’ brakes, limiting the speed of autonomous vehicles or putting
them in pipes. A world of mellow cars or soft transport.
*
* *
Estella: It’s remarkable, this book, these are exactly the kind of questions that
interest me, the governance of research and innovation – and also the very
concrete aspects of science and technology and values – in relation to the world in
which we live, to the world that is being shaped.
Sophy: I’m happy that it can meet your expectations.
Estella: But on some pages there are some references that are not familiar to me.
Here for example there are even more of them, it is really extreme. Sophie’s
Choice, Isaac’s Sacrifice, game of chicken, Milgram experiment, prisoner’s
dilemma, trolley problem. Some concepts are explained in detail in the book;
others are only evoked. Am I supposed to know everything already? Why is each
term not accompanied by a short encyclopaedic explanation?
Sophy: I could tell you that I know all about it all in that regard, but better look at
this side of the page, there are two annotations next to this passage. The first note
is here:
The Milgram experiment was an experiment conducted between 1960 and 1963 by
the American psychologist Stanley Milgram. This experiment sought to assess the
degree of obedience of an individual to an authority they consider legitimate, and
to analyze the process of submission to authority, in particular when submission
leads to actions that bring up twinges of conscience – moral dilemmas – for the
subject, when the order goes against the moral considerations of the person
executing it...
Sophie’s Choice is a novel by William Styron published in 1979, whose hero is a
young American writer, Stingo, who befriends Nathan Landau and his girlfriend
Sophie, a Nazi concentration camp survivor. At the heart of the novel, Sophie will
reveal to him her darkest secret, which she had buried deep inside herself: the day
she arrived in Auschwitz, a sadistic doctor made her choose between her two
children: which one would be killed immediately by gassing and which one could
live on...
The Binding of Isaac...
The prisoner’s dilemma...
That note is altogether erased, incomplete, one cannot read more of it, and it is the
second note that prevails:
Dear reader, let us be clear. Over the course of these pages, some concepts are
explained in a detailed manner, in depth and at length, whereas others are only
evoked. It behooves me to recognize and to name – to bring to light – this possible
Introductions 25
cause of disarray. Some of these references will be familiar, others will seem
strange. That is fine: you don’t need any knowledge here that you don’t already
have. Let’s imagine a path running through an orchard in a distant land. Some of
these fruits are familiar, others have names that one hears for the first time, and
still others do not. It is up to everyone, of course, to explore in greater detail what
will arouse their curiosity or captivate their interest, from the pomegranate fruit
to the Milgram experiment. But to be clear: there is no requirement to do so to
pursue the inquiry that is the book and to pursue its reading.
More precisely, everything that is needed to understand this book is explained in
the course of these pages.
*
* *
In this perspective, that of the change of world, ethical questioning cannot be

reduced to a utilitarian calculation (however complex the latter may be) or to an
experimental setup to see whether or not we must “activate the switch”.
Ethical inquiry extends to the worlds, to the construction of possible futures and of
future possibles or possibilities.
We can imagine a world where – thanks to the infrastructures of automated,

connected, autonomous vehicles – accidents and congestion are rare; mobility is no
longer a chore (so much can be done in an “auto” when there is no steering wheel to
hold); mobility requires fewer vehicles (used more effectively through “mobility as
a service” and “mobility on demand”) and, at the same time, it is opened up to more
users (of all ages and all abilities).
But… this could also lead to an increase in the number of vehicles, more congestion,
greater traveling distances and times, pollution and other externalities.
We can imagine new configurations of cities, requiring fewer roads and parking
spaces (if you can jump into a vehicle wherever and whenever, there is no need for
“your auto” to hang around all the time, day and night), freeing up public space.
But... there could also be a destructuring of cities, which lose much of their raison
d'être (or, more specifically, their reason to be like they were before) if this new
relationship to mobility reconfigures the space-time and proximity topographies that
give shape to cities.
Issues of vulnerability (from each of us and from our societies), of

interdependence and of forms of life.
What are the implications with regard to (cyber)security and surveillance, privacy
and data protection, civil and criminal liability?
Issues of coexistence and transition. Thus, closer to us, what becomes of all those
who make a living from “transporting” (from car manufacturers to truck drivers), on
the cusp of these new worlds? What “just transition for all”?
How would autonomous vehicles that are programmed to sacrifice their passengers,
if necessary, coexist with autonomous vehicles programmed to protect their
passengers at all costs?
How would autonomous vehicles (systems, infrastructures, sociotechnical
arrangements) coexist with those that are not?
Issues of solidarity, of justice and of dignity, of distribution of risks, costs,
responsibilities, benefits and uncertainties.
A reconstructive ethics that is also an ethics of transitions. That is what this book
draws.
Three important points remain to bring this story to a close.
Firstly, one could also imagine – and desire – a world where these choices (even
the trolley problems and Sophie's Choice) could be fully exercised; a world where I
could decide as a driver to sacrifice myself to save pedestrians, in the interest of the
greatest number (“for the greater good”, for the good cause if not for the general
interest or the common good); a world where this possibility of reflection, of ethical
reflexivity, is not taken away, where all this is not written off and decided in
advance for us and beyond our reach (programmed, taken out of scope into a
morality algorithm or another black box).
Secondly, this highlights ethical, societal and public policy choices, as well as
research questions. Ethical choices can be made by humans, but also by machines
(themselves programmed by humans or machines, and so on), arrangements where
humans and machines meet and mix. This moral capacity of the actors, this moral
agency, is not only the prerogative of humans. A thought finally for these other
actors, for the tramway of dilemmas, and for the vehicle of violence, for Desire and
Christine (the streetcar and the motorcar as they are named). A thought finally for
the “auto” itself, which itself carries out its very sacrifice.
Thirdly, and to conclude, this story shows, bears witness, allows us to see.
With the choice of how to program these autonomous vehicles systems, these
algorithms, it is a choice of world that opens up. What world do we want to live in
together?
A world where the affluent are protected and the less well-off are sacrificed? Or a
world that is fairer, more egalitarian, more equitable, more just?
Introductions 27
Here, the choice is palpable. The implicit moral decisions, the buried or unthought-
out ethical norms, must here be explicitly reflected upon and formulated.
Technologies are not neutral; they are engaged and they engage us.
This thought experiment is an eye opener, an unseeling intervention (separating the
attached eyelids, such as those of a falconry bird, sewn and to unstitch).
This thought experiment awakens us to the fact that everything in our world is in the
order of these choices, but that this is usually not explicit, not visible to the naked
eye. It is there, in front of us, translucent, transparent, imperceptible.
We must arm our sight, sharpen our senses, open the black boxes, lift the edges of
the veil of ignorance.
Choices have been made, choices are made. Choices of values, of “which values
preside over the way of the world”, over the rules of the game. These choices of
values, the world is full of them. The world is made of them.
I.4. Beginning of the awakening – Histories found (Return to the

roots)8
At the heart of this tangled web of stories, of this tangled reflection on our
relationship with stories, there is a very personal question, and it is important that I
share it with you.
It is important that I share it with you because it is, precisely, the question of sharing
with you. It is the question of the shared responsibility (common but differentiated)
of those who tell a story and those who are given it to share and thus become its
witnesses, agents, authors in turn. It is them who make it come into being, who bring
it to its ways of being in the world as a story.
This question (this quest) is all the more crucial as it relates – stories and history and
herstory – to the practices and institutions of construction of the future, and thus to
the human condition as such.
The question can also take a very concrete form: What stories do we have to
cultivate, what stories do we want to be the authors of, the bearers of, the actors of?
8. I draw attention to the presence, in some of the titles and subtitles, of several proposals side
by side. In brackets, these are not typographical or printing errors. It is on purpose, revealing
the process of creation, the multiple and processual character of the work to be done, the
groping and hatching and ligne claire, the intertextuality of the perspectives. It is also a
permanent invitation to take possession of the text, to invest it and subvert it, to rethink it.
Celebrations and healing balm, riant stories of resistance and success? Or critique
and denunciation, alarms ringing and whistles blowing, stories of injustice and of
suffering? Stories that perpetuate the tutelary schemes and their institutions (temple,
capitalism, work, family, fatherland) by aligning with or contending with them; or
stories that crack them open with a hammer, like that of a sculptor, breaker or
philosopher, with inventiveness, blow by blow.
It is a real question: Which stories are important for you? What are the stories
that have been told to you and that have marked your life, your conception of the
world?
The book will continue afterwards, but not without them.
Close your eyes, take as much time as you need. Perhaps there will be one or two or
more that you give special attention.
Start writing them here, if only a title or a few words.
The space is open for them.
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
As for me, in addition to the stories I have lived and the family stories that
parents and grandparents have told me, I have always been interpellated by a
particular modality of stories... From “Hercules and the Milky Way” to How the
Leopard Got His Spots, as much as with “The Two Brothers and the Temple”, I
have cultivated a particular perplexity around these stories that give account of the
foundations, of the resistances and ruptures, of the why and how of the institution of
the reality of worlds.
This is how Lambros Couloubaritsis designates the myth: “a complex discourse on a
complex reality”.
And among all these treillages of stories, these branches and roots, some can be
found that are even more stupefying – those related to this: Why is it that a society is
organized as it is?
Many scholarly disciplines – philosophy, anthropology, sociology, political science,
history, organizational theory, science and technology studies – have set out to
address this question.
Let’s take the case of one of the societies that one calls “democracy”, or “market
economy”, or “advanced industrial society”. By a momentary Americanism, evoked
in tempore non suspecto, let us refer to it here as the “Trump society”.
Each specific question calls for answers: How is it conceivable that there is no real
cap on presidential election campaign spending in the United States? A study by
Introductions 29
Hilary Robinson (Robinson 2016) sheds valuable light on the historical confluences
that have led to this perfectly un\expected situation. How did women’s right to vote
become an integral part of “universal suffrage” (after not having been so!)? How did
the various forms of representative democracy get institutionalized (cast in
institutions) in the course of mutual learnings, institutional mimesis, struggles,
concessions, gerrymanders9, experimentations, package deals and linkages (with the
tutelary figures of Rousseau, Jefferson, Thoreau, Jaurès, Senghor, notably, but one
ought to think as well of the suffragettes such as Fawcett and Pankhurst, of the
Roman Servile Wars, of the Haitian revolution, of the civil rights movements)
between political theory and practice.
Through and against the intertwined layers of stories, of the specific questions
and specific answers, we come to an underlying questioning: that of the origins, the
foundations (metaphysical or practical), or also the patterns, constants, teleological
dimensions and evolutions, cyclical movements and Zeitgeist.
This leads to this curious mix of history and stories. This hybridization questions
and thwarts the opposition between history (as an institution, as a science, as a
recension of the past in its facticity) and stories (as weaves of meaning, of
imaginaries, of memories rooted in the lived world and other stories).
A remarkable – and founding – example of this search for foundations in, of and
through history is the account of the Social Contract, of which Hobbes and Locke, as
well as Spinoza and Rousseau, laid out important milestones. It is important to note
here that “the name social contract (or original contract) often covers two different
kinds of contract, and, in tracing the evolution of the theory, it is well to distinguish
them. Both were current in the 17th century and both can be discovered in Greek
political thought. ... [The first] generally involved some theory of the origin of the
state. The second form of social contract may be more accurately called the contract
of government, or the contract of submission.” (Gough 1936, p. 2–3). In other
words, the first pertains to the genesis of the State while the second, which is closely
linked to it, pertains to the contract – the modus vivendi – between the governed and
the governing overlords, between rulers and the ruled.
Another remarkable undertaking in this search for the backward foundations of

history is the story of the Malencontre of La Boétie. It questions the legitimacy of
any authority exercised over a population, as well as the reasons for the submission
9. This evocative term was coined in the United States in 1811 when Elbridge Gerry, the
Governor of Massachusetts, was accused of having circumscribed a tortuous electoral district
in order to favor his party. It is a portmanteau combining the name of the governor, Gerry,
and the word salamander, in reference to the quirky shape of this precinct which had thus
been custom-designed.
– the voluntary servitude – of the latter to the former. La Boétie postulates this
original moment of change, the Malencontre, where men gave up their freedom.
Though he does not explain it, he does however endeavor to explain how the
renunciation of freedom can be sustainable, how inequality is relentlessly
perpetuated.
The time has now arrived to advance both sources...
The starting point of all of this is indignation – for those most inclined to
ataraxia: a philosophical perplexity – in the face of the terrible inequalities and
injustices that characterise our world. Another point marks the wonderment – a
jubilant fascination – in regard to the medical, poetic, pictorial, technological and
humanitarian feats, which can be as many sources of hope or contentment. The third
of these three suspension points is the infinitely intimate experience (so simple and
so strong, so comforting and moving) of an instant shared with a friend, a loved one,
a traveling companion, a fellow human whom one meets for the first time and who
in this moment of distress extends a helping hand and smile.
Unless they do no such thing.
The time has come to advance that which an ancient parable, now forgotten,
would have taught us: that human history in its entirety can be understood according
to two schemes of equal and unequalled interpretative power, second to none but to
each other, two schemes that are irrefragable as well as antithetical. Two readings,
two schemes as follows.
I.5. The two sources (seeds, seedlings, schemes)
History is a weaving and a thread; it is search for meaning and that which gives
meaning; it is hegemony perpetuated and spirting of twists and twirls. The hand that
holds the pen; the hand that rocks the cradle. It is the most masterly and defamatory
colonial consecration (the colonization of time, of relationships with temporalities,
with memories, with imaginaries) and yet it is also a diasporic multiplicity, a
pending recovery, an interlacing of accounts that holds and calls us to account.
Then what of the constants and recurrences, the patterns and driving forces that
trace these lines of meaning in the adventure of humanity, how does the construction
of the future proceed and what about the human adventure, the human condition as
such?
Introductions 31
I.5.1. The first source
Admittedly the situation is very imperfect, but how is it that we have made so
much progress, that humanity has been able to rise and accomplish so many feats,
deciphering even up to the secrets of matter and the cosmos?
The adventure of humanity is a story of stories and a team-spirit spiritualization; in
other words, an adventure of communication and of cooperation. From
palaeoanthropology to historical linguistics to sociology, and continuing through to
this time, everything testifies to this: what makes the peculiarity of humankind is
this double story. Double...
On the one hand: the development of forms and means of communication, the
languages, the cave paintings, the postures and the gestures, the hand and the tool. It
is in this relationship with the other – in this call for help, in this exchange of
experience, in this stage-setting and story-telling – that humanity makes sense and
becomes one, triumphing over adversity.
On the other hand: the development of an increasingly wide inclusion

(inclusivity, sharing, community), undergirded by mutual learning of know-hows
and knowledges. The individual, the couple, the family, the group. It is in this
sharing, this solidarity, this altruism, that the individual is linked with the collective,
the human with humanity and with the more-than-human. We are stronger (and
more intel-ligent, inter-legend) together.
These two axes – communication and cooperation – are intimately linked, linked
also to the love dimensions and to the dimensions of culture and learning, leading to
burgeoning and to posterity.
Such is the key to the organization of human societies, as well as to scientific and
technological advances. Such is the recurrence, the coherence, over the course of
tens of thousands of years. Whence the two Sapiens of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Such are the leitmotiv of history, the peculiarity of the human condition, the engine
of the construction of the future. This is the case from the dawn of humanity to the
present day: history of communication and pooling, of collective intelligence and
mutual learning, of extending the limits of cognizance and of community.
And to end on a favorable note: these two pillars – communication and cooperation
– have now reached a level of potentialities that was previously inaccessible.
PROTAGORAS10 (addressing the assembly): Yes this is indeed the case. This is what
has enabled us to survive and develop as we have done in the course of prehistory
and history, and this scheme of comprehension is even more remarkable right now:
the new information and communication technologies as such constitute a
formidable democratization which offers unmatched opportunities for participation
and cooperation.
MY MOTHER (addressing me): Sapiens, Sapiens, that word is never off their lips!
But my son you cannot ignore that we are Sapiens and Neanderthal, we are the story
of an encounter. Have you already forgotten your wise considerations about history,
always that of the winners, losing the memory of those who no longer have their
say?
ME (in the guise of a third character in this dialogue, VLADIMIR): But wait,
hadn’t he announced that there were two schemes, that there was a second scheme,
and with an interpretative power equalling the acuity of the first?
I.5.2. The second source
Yes, “pervasive and ubiquitous” sociotechnical arrangements such as the

digitization of everything, the Internet of Things and of bodies, the new social
networks and the app-culture could be a resource and an extension framework for
democratic participation, for a renewal of life in common(s) and of solidarity.
No, they have not been.
Let us consider the more general framework, that of the Promise. What is this
Promise? It is the promise of the myth of progress, the one of Prometheus and
Schumpeter, the one upon which even Hobbes and Boyle come to an agreement, the
one of modernity and of contemporaneity: it is the promise that technology plus the
rule of law plus economic freedoms (read today: globalization and liberalization; or
at the dawn of modernity: the School of Salamanca) will lead to a greater prosperity
for everyone and for all. And let us not forget that human rights, dignity and
10. No need to know Protagoras to read and grasp what he says. It is the name of a character
in this book, who appears here.
Moreover, throughout the book, great care has been taken to ensure that references (both for
names of people or places and for examples and enumerations as well as bibliographical
references) are not obstacles to reflection (“if you know not, you shall not pass”) but rather
enrichments and empowerments (“here you are, you are welcome”).
Protagoras was a sophist thinker anterior to Plato and the latter, in his eponymous dialogue
(the Protagoras or The Sophists), set him to music and to stage, reporting notably the famous
teaching of Protagoras: Man is the measure of all things.
Introductions 33
democracy are also part of this luminous promissory equation, either on the side of
the prerequisites or – as a second chance – on the side of the trickle-down effects.
Yet it turns out that this promise is not kept; better still, it turns out that this promise
has never been held; that it does not hold up.
Technological innovation plus liberalization plus globalization have not led to
greater prosperity and greater empowerment for everyone. On the contrary, they
have empowered the few and disempowered the others.
NOTE. While the notion of empowerment is mobilized in this book in its

dimensions of emancipation and agency (within the framework of the second
source as well as outside), it is important to pay attention also to the darker sides
and contradictions that it carries within it.
The notion of empowerment is polysemic. It emerged in the early 20th century in
the United States in a context of women’s rights struggles, in Saul Alinsky’s
“community organizing” methods in the 1930s, then in the civil rights movement
in the 1960s. First understood as a struggle for – and gain in – power in the face
of a dominant system or group, the notion has gradually been used in a broader
and blurrier way, related to participation, as well as in contexts of individualistic
and neo-liberal vision (notably in the development policies of the World Bank).
It is also illuminating to consider how it is variously translated in other languages
through notions of autonomization, habilitation, emancipation, responsibil-
ization, capacitation, potentialization and agency.
The idea here is not to opt for one option or aspect by disqualifying others, but to
bring to light – to think of and through – this diversity of meanings.
Empotentialment, to avoid getting stuck in the power game from which we were
precisely trying to extricate and emancipate ourselves (to avoid... “power, I too
want more of it; it is mine; I want to take it; I want the authority to give it to
me”).
Empowerfulment, to recognize the existence and effects of inequalities and
power relations, not to act as if nothing is happening and as if nothing is amiss,
not to give up all ground by withdrawing from it (to avoid... “this power I don’t
care about it; I ignore it; I leave it all to you”).
Either way: resisting, building, also in relation to the collective, cultivating the
potentia, the potentialities, the possibilities, the possibles. Empowerment.
But we must pay attention to the long term. Human history is the overwhelming
chronicle of exploitation, subjugation and accumulation. It is the story of the growth
and consolidation of inequities, inequalities and abuses of dominant positions.
“Masters and possessors”, but not only of nature. The social contract is a contract of
exploitation. Intraspecies and interspecies.
The history of institutional arrangements is an evolution in the consolidation
(interspersed with contestations) of differences in power and knowledge. The mutual
learning and the knowledge sharing cannot hide the scheme at work here: the
appropriation (private property, commodification, ownership) extended to
knowledge, the exploitation of differentials in the distribution of knowledge and in
the ability to produce and validate knowledge. Kleptocracy.
What do the rapprochements between human and digital promise us now, against a
backdrop of vitalization of the machinic and of digitization of the living? What do
innovations in robotics and artificial intelligence as well as in synthetic biology,
stratified/personalized/predictive medicine and genetic engineering promise us now?
In the framework of “progress”, can technological “advances” only further
strengthen alienations and disparities?
With the new genome modification/editing technologies, could we go so far as to
imagine that some human castes – of “Übermensch” – would live longer, richer and
healthier lives, with more possibilities and competencies and properties than
others?11
But wait a moment: isn’t that already the case even without these latest technological
innovations?
“The substance of the weak is always used for the profit of the powerful” (Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, Les Rêveries du promeneur solitaire, Cinquième promenade;
Rousseau 2012).
The sentence without appeal opens onto two questions:
On the one hand: How is it possible? How to explain this inexplicable voluntary
servitude?
On the other hand: How to resist?
11. This transformation of socio-economic inequalities and injustices into genetic and
biopolitical divergence, in other words into multi-speed (trans-)humanity, is analysed in my
work with Éléonore Pauwels. See Dratwa and Pauwels (2015a) (How Identity Evolves in the
Age of Genetic Imperialism), available at: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-
blog/how-identity-evolves-in-the-age-of-genetic-imperialism/; 13 March 2015) and Dratwa
and Pauwels (2015b) (Personalized Medicine: A Faustian Bargain ? available at: https://
blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/personalized-medicine-a-faustian-bargain/; 10
December 2015).
Introductions 35
I.5.3. Sowing and harvesting (The wheat from the chaff)
All through the world there are shadows and lights, a variegated kaleidoscope.
And in each of us.
To what extent does the building (and changing) of oneself coincide with the
building (and changing) of the world? Composing with everything there is, without
denying the shadow cast. Without denying our perplexities, our fears and wounds,
our histories and their dark sides.
No sleep merchants, no slumlord nor sandman, no pipe dream merchants, no fool’s
gold nor fool’s bargain.
*
* *
It is necessary to underscore, with regard to these two schemes, these two

sources, the symmetry as well as the asymmetry. Symmetry in the sense that they
are of equal robustness; both bring to light what characterizes our history as well as
the human condition and the construction of the future; for both, moreover, their
import is of the highest topicality facing the emerging transformations. Asymmetry
as the second scheme traces in pain Orwell’s byword, “If you want a vision of the
future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever”, the alienating human
condition from which to emancipate, whereas precisely the first scheme reconnects
us with – or invokes – a dimension of our being-in-the-world which resists the
second. To take, and take on, the risk of simplicity: the first is luminous and
delectable. Exhilarating. The second is repugnant and tenebrious. Unbearable.
Moving from the second scheme to the first: could this be Transition?
It is also necessary to speak the stories of resistance, the suffering and the
struggles, the arrows of freedom and the happinesses.
Finally what must be spoken are the questions and the doubts, the unspeakable
and the undecidable, the in-between-the-two which overflows the one and the
multiple.
No such thing here as “all is in all” and “anything goes” and the “golden mean”.
Thus the triangular trade, the final solution, the takeover of the media by heads
of state or government (be it in the 21st century, be it in European countries), are
more akin to the second scheme. But what about the first scheme?
The Westphalian state and then the democratic state (constitutional monarchy,
census vote, soft money, SpeechNow, cash-for-peerages, investor-state dispute
settlement, etc.) evolve in the in-between.
What if we could find – and closely examine – experiments in constructions of

worlds based on, or counting on, the preeminence of the first scheme?
That is precisely what we will do in this book. The experiments we will examine
herein are the European project and the ethics project.
On the one hand, the European project: project of peace and fraternity confronted
with the trials of sovereignty and of solidarity; project of ruling castes that recounts
itself as – and could be – project of all.
On the other hand, the ethics project: project of “our common values” and of the
incommensurability of pluralities; aegis of dignity and justice also sheltering the
institutionalizations of iniquities and the confiscations of reflexivity.
*
* *
Such is the human condition: to believe in the first source, to bathe in

it, to make it spring, transpire and betide, to make it come to life and
to pass.
Such is the human condition: to deal with the second source, to

receive it or resist it, to incorporate or ignore it, to hold one’s – or
it’s – breath.
’Tween dog and wolf. Two waters be, ’tween hares and hounds.
No half measures. The empty glass remains no less full.
All the way to the lees, to the mort. Silt of the waters, salt of the
earth. Haystack and final straw. Cup which runneth over, drop by
drop.
Dowser’s rod, pilgrim’s staff.
Making one’s bed of rivers. Dream of the strands. Binding.

Birth of the waters. Yester dust.
Here, after. Are.
I.5.4. What is the future?
The future is that of which nothing can be known with certainty.
But still: if this perfectly spherical lead ball is dropped from this point here at
time T, the present moment, I know that it will have reached that point there at time
T+1, in the future!
It is not so obvious: so many things can happen. It may be that some terror attack
baffles it, that it happens just after the ball has been dropped and that it deviates or
Introductions 37
interrupts its course. Or that gravitational waves disturb it. Or that the universe
suddenly ceases to exist. Or, more down to earth, that someone stops the ball – like
this! Well well, are you sure it is spherical?
Well, one cannot “know” anything of the future, but one can speculate, conceive,
hope, anticipate, relate. And imagine. Better still: no limits in this respect, as we
have just seen!
The future, it is what we make of it!

The future, it is ours.
It is ours to make good on, ours to make the best of, ours to take care of.
This is where the question of the “we” and “ours” and the question of the choice,
of who participates in the choices, highlighted above, come into play.
It depends on how the world is conceived. It depends on what story you are in.
The reading grids fed by the stories of the past trace the outlines of the futures that
are visible, readable, possible.
And so many efforts are deployed to give form to these grids and these imaginaries
and these future possibles. To determine them.
It is an “engineering of determinism”, which puts all free will through the mill. And
it is accompanied by an “engineering of the desirable”, it too guiding the path and
the gaze.
Here we touch on the question of the Good – or of the better, of the right, of the just.
This is where Book I opens.
Almost.
*
* *
I.6. Far and wide open book
I.6.1. Can do better
I.6.1.1. In the state
At the time – the beginning of the book, the beginning of the third millennium –
when a dramatization ought to be performed, as we shall see in the following
chapters, by drawing attention to the conceivable precipices and the catastrophes to
come, what I put forth is of a different nature: here and now, the nightmare as much
as the dream is already reality. It is up to us to live in it, to resist it, to get through it
now.
In Hamlet, the guard Marcellus addresses his philosopher comrade Horatio in

these terms: “something is rotten in the state…”. Rotten can mean foul, bad or
corrupt, problematic or troubling. It is also a marker of decomposition and
recomposition.
In the state…
From the use of subcutaneous microchips to track workers (yes, yes, this is already
being used!) through to atomic bombs, from genetic drives using genome editing
techniques to modify and eradicate certain species from top to bottom (yes, yes, we
are already at this point! But we don’t know exactly what effects this will have, of
course) through to the algorithmic setups of artificial intelligence to alter voting
intentions, there is something rotten – troubling, problematic – with the systems and
the choices regarding scientific and technological innovations.
From the Agusta-Dassault case to Publifin and to the Kazakh-gate transactions, from
the fictitious jobs at the Paris City Hall (“embezzlement of public funds”, “illegal
taking of interest”, “misuse of assets”) to the Fillongate12, without forgetting for a
moment the situation in the United States, in the United Kingdom, Israel, Turkey,
Syria, Russia, Hungary, Poland, China, Congo, Haiti, Tonga, in Antarctica and
underwater and around the world, there is something rotten – troubling, problematic
– with the systems and the choices regarding democracy and public (or private)
policy.
These are two sets of examples, but this is not intended to act as a separation. It is
not that the res publica, life in common(s), and research and innovation are
inherently distinct. Quite the contrary.
The nightmare is that of a commodification increasingly extended to all, through

to the human, to life, to consciousness, to the supplément d’âme, to feelings and to
values even.
The nightmare of a plutocratic, hierocratic, genocratic society.
The nightmare of a small number (of states, of companies, of individuals, of entities
or conglomerates) taking over the resources, rights, lives, modes of action and
thinking of all the others.
In short, the nightmare of hegemony, of commoditization and of machinization.
12. These are examples (important to me and accompanying the writing of the book) of
“scandals” – figures of abuse of dominant position and genre confusion –the most remarkable
feature of which is how they initially appeared to be precisely unscandalous in the eyes of
decisionmakers of “democratic” regimes such as those of Belgium and France.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
El cuarto gobierno, que comprendía solo los cilicios, además de 360
caballos blancos que salían a uno por día,[290] pagaba al rey 500
talentos de plata, de los cuales 140 se quedaban allí para mantener la
caballería apostada en las guarniciones de Cilicia, y los 360 restantes
iban al erario real de Darío.
XCI. El quinto gobierno, cargado con 350 talentos de imposición
empezaba desde la ciudad de Posideo,[291] fundada por Anfíloco, hijo
de Anfiarao, en los confines de los cilicios y sirios, y llegando hasta e
Egipto, comprendía la Fenicia entera, la Siria que llaman Palestina, y la
isla de Chipre, no entrando sin embargo en este gobierno la parte
confinante de la Arabia, que era franca y privilegiada. El sexto gobierno
se componía del Egipto, de los libios sus vecinos, de Cirene y de
Barca, agregadas a este partido, y pagaba al erario real 700 talentos, y
esto sin contar el producto que daba al rey la pesca del lago Meris, n
tampoco el trigo que en raciones medidas se daba a 120.000 soldados
persas y a las tropas extranjeras a sueldo del rey en Egipto, que
suelen estar de guarnición en el fuerte blanco de Menfis. En el séptimo
gobierno estaban encabezados los satágidas, los gandarios,[292] los
dadicas y los aparitas que contribuían todos con la suma de 170
talentos. Del octavo gobierno, compuesto de Susa y de lo restante de
país de los cisios, percibía el erario 300 talentos de contribución.
XCII. Del nono gobierno, en que entraba Babilonia con lo restante
de la Asiria, sacaba el rey 1000 talentos de plata, y además 500 niños
eunucos. Del décimo gobierno, compuesto de Ecbatana con toda la
Media, de los paricanios y de los ortocoribantios, entraban en las
rentas reales 450 talentos. El undécimo gobierno componíanlo los
caspios, los pausicas, los pantimatos y los daritas, pueblos que unidos
bajo un mismo registro tributan al rey 200 talentos. Del duodécimo
gobierno, que desde los bactrianos se extendía hasta los eglos, se
sacaban 360 talentos.[293]
XCIII. El decimotercio gobierno, formado de la Páctica, de los
armenios, y gentes comarcanas hasta llegar al ponto Euxino, redituaba
a las arcas del rey 400 talentos. Del decimocuarto gobierno, al cua
estaban agregados los sagartios, los sarangas, los tamaneos, los
utios, los micos y los habitantes de las islas del mar Eritreo, en las
cuales suele confinar el rey a los reos que llaman deportados, se
percibían 600 talentos de contribución. Los sacas y los caspios
alistados en el gobierno decimoquinto, contribuían con 250 talentos a
año. Los partos, los corasmios, los sogdos y los arios, que formaban e
decimosexto, pagaban al rey 300 talentos.[294]
XCIV. Los paricanios y etíopes del Asia empadronados en e
decimoséptimo gobierno pagaban al erario real 400 talentos. A los
matienos, a los saspires y a los alarodios, pueblos unidos en e
gobierno decimoctavo, se les había impuesto la suma de 200 talentos
A los pueblos del decimonono, moscos, tibarenos, macrones
mosinecos y marsos, se impusieron 300 talentos de tributo. E
gobierno vigésimo, en que están alistados los indios, nación sin
disputa la más numerosa de cuantas han llegado a mi noticia, paga un
tributo más crecido que los demás gobiernos, que consiste en 360
talentos de oro en polvo.[295]
XCV. Ahora, pues, reducido el talento de plata babilónico al talento
euboico, de las contribuciones apuntadas resulta la suma de 9880
talentos euboicos. Multiplicado después el talento de oro en grano po
13 talentos de plata, dará esta partida la suma de 4680 talentos: as
que, hecha la suma total de dichos talentos, el tributo anual que
recogía Darío ascendía a 14.560 talentos euboicos, y esto sin inclui
en ella las partidas de quebrados.
XCVI. Estos eran los ingresos que Darío percibía del Asia y de
algunas pocas provincias de la Libia. Corriendo el tiempo, se le añadió
el tributo que después le pagaron, así las islas del Asia menor, como
los vasallos que llegó a tener en Europa, hasta la misma Tesalia. E
modo como guarda el persa sus tesoros en el erario, es derramar e
oro y la plata derretida en unas tinajas de barro hasta llenarlas, y
retirarlas después de cuajado el metal; de suerte que cuando necesita
dinero va cortando de aquellos pilones el oro y plata que para la
ocasión hubiere menester.
XCVII. Estos eran, repito, los gobiernos y las tallas de tributo
ordenadas por Darío. No he contado la Persia propia[296] entre las
provincias tributarias de la corona, por cuanto los persas en su país
son privilegiados e inmunes de contribución. Hablaré ahora de algunas
otras naciones, las cuales, si bien no tenían tributos impuestos
contribuían al rey, sin embargo, con sus donativos regulares. Tales
eran los etíopes, confinantes con el Egipto, que tienen su domicilio
cerca de la sagrada Nisa, y celebran fiestas a Dioniso, los cuales
como todos sus comarcanos, siguiendo el modo de vivir que los indios
llamados calantias, moran en las habitaciones subterráneas. Habiendo
sido conquistados por Cambises dichos etíopes y sus vecinos en la
expedición emprendida contra los otros etíopes macrobios
presentaban entonces cada tercer año y presentan aún ahora sus
donativos, reducidos a dos quénices de oro no acrisolado, a 200
maderos de ébano, a cinco niños etíopes, y a veinte grandes dientes
de elefante.[297] Tales eran asimismo los colcos, que, juntamente con
sus vecinos hasta llegar al monte Cáucaso, eran contados entre los
pueblos donatarios de la corona, pues los dominios del persa terminan
en el Cáucaso, desde el cual todo el país que se extiende hacia e
viento Bóreas en nada reconoce su imperio. Los colcos, aun en el día
hacen al persa sus regalos de cinco en cinco años, como homenajes
concertados, que consisten en cien mancebos y cien doncellas. Tales
eran los árabes, finalmente, que regalaban al rey cada año mil talentos
de incienso: y estos eran, además de los tributos, los donativos
públicos que debían hacerse al soberano.
XCVIII. Volviendo al oro en polvo que los indios, como decíamos
llevan al rey en tan grande cantidad, explicaré el modo con que lo
adquieren. La parte de la India de la cual se saca el oro, y que está
hacia donde nace el sol, es toda un mero arenal; porque ciertamente
de todos los pueblos del Asia de quienes algo puede decirse con
fundamento de verdad y de experiencia, los indios son los más vecinos
a la aurora, y los primeros moradores del verdadero oriente o lugar de
nacimiento del sol, pues lo que se extiende más allá de su país y se
acerca más a Levante es una región desierta, totalmente cubierta de
arena.[298] Muchas y diversas en lenguaje son las naciones de los
indios; unas son de nómadas o pastores, otras no; algunas de ellas
viviendo en los pantanos que forman allí los ríos, se alimentan de
peces crudos que van pescando con barcos de caña, pues hay all
cañas tales, que un solo canuto basta para formar un barco. Estos
indios de las lagunas visten una ropa hecha de cierta especie de junco
que después de segado en los ríos y machacado, van tejiendo a
manera de estera, haciendo de él una especie de petos con que se
visten.
XCIX. Otros indios que llaman padeos y que habitan hacia la
aurora, son no solo pastores de profesión, sino que comen crudas las
reses, y sus usos se dice son los siguientes: Cualquiera de sus
paisanos que llegue a enfermar, sea hombre, sea mujer, ha de
servirles de comida. ¿Es varón el infeliz doliente? Los hombres que le
tratan con más intimidad son los que le matan, dando por razón que
corrompido él con su mal llegaría a corromper las carnes de los
demás. El infeliz resiste y niega su enfermedad; mas ellos por eso no
le perdonan, antes bien lo matan y hacen de su carne un banquete
¿Es mujer la enferma? Sus más amigas y allegadas son las que hacen
con ella lo mismo que suelen los hombres con sus amigos enfermos
Si alguno de ellos llega a la vejez, y son pocos de este número
procuran quitarle la vida antes que enferme de puro viejo, y muerto se
lo comen alegremente.
C. Otros indios hay cuya costumbre es no matar animal alguno, no
sembrar planta ninguna, ni vivir en casas. Su alimento son las hierbas
y entre ellas tienen una planta que la tierra produce naturalmente, de la
cual se levanta una vaina, y dentro de ella se cría una especie de
semilla del tamaño del mijo, que cogida con la misma vainilla van
comiendo después de cocida. El infeliz que entre ellos enferma se va a
despoblado y tiéndese en el campo, sin que nadie se cuide de él, n
doliente ni después de muerto.
CI. El concúbito de todos estos indios mencionados, se hace en
público, nada más contenido ni modesto que el de los ganados. Todos
tienen el mismo color que los etíopes: el esperma que dejan en las
hembras para la generación no es blanco, como en los demás
hombres, sino negro como lo es el que despiden los etíopes. Verdad
es que estos indios, los más remotos de los persas y situados hacia e
Noto, jamás fueron súbditos de Darío.
CII. Otra nación de indios se halla fronteriza a la ciudad de
Caspatiro y a la provincia Páctica, y situada hacia el Bóreas, al norte
de los otros indios, la cual sigue un modo de vivir parecido al de los
bactrianos; y estos indios, los guerreros más valientes entre todos, son
los que destinan a la conducción y extracción del oro citado.[299] Hacia
aquel punto no es más el país que un arenal despoblado, y en él se
crían una especie de hormigas de tamaño poco menor que el de un
perro y mayor que el de una zorra, de las cuales cazadas y cogidas all
se ven algunas en el palacio del rey de Persia. Al hacer estos animales
su hormiguero o morada subterránea, van sacando la arena a la
superficie de la tierra, como lo hacen en Grecia nuestras hormigas, a
las que se parecen del todo en la figura. La arena que sacan es oro
puro molido, y por ella van al desierto los indios señalados, del modo
siguiente: Unce cada uno a su carro tres camellos: los dos atados con
sogas a los dos extremos de las varas son machos, el que va en
medio es hembra. El indio montado sobre ella procura que sea madre
y recién parida y arrancada con violencia de sus tiernas crías, lo que
no es extraño, pues estas hembras son allí nada inferiores en ligereza
a los caballos y al mismo tiempo de robustez mucho mayor para la
carga.
CIII. No diré aquí cuál sea la figura del camello por ser bien
conocida entre los griegos; diré, sí, una particularidad que no es tan
sabida; a saber, que el camello tiene en las piernas de detrás cuatro
muslos y cuatro rodillas, y que sus partes naturales miran por entre las
piernas hacia su cola.
CIV. Uncidos de este modo al carro los camellos, salen los indios
auríferos a recoger el oro, pero siempre con la mira de llegar al luga
del pillaje en el mayor punto de los ardores del sol, tiempo en que se
sabe que las hormigas se defienden del excesivo calor escondidas en
sus hormigueros. Es de notar que los momentos en que el sol pica
más y se deja sentir más ardiente, no es a medio día como en otros
climas, sino por la mañana, empezando muy temprano, y subiendo de
punto hasta las diez del día, hora en que es mucho mayor el calor que
se siente en la India que no en Grecia al medio día, y por eso la llaman
los indios hora del baño. Pero al llegar al medio día, el calor que se
siente entre los indios es el mismo que suele sentirse en otros países
Por la tarde, cuando empieza el sol a declinar, calienta allí del mismo
modo que en otras partes después de recién salido; mas después se
va templando de tal manera y refrescando el día, que al ponerse el so
se siente ya mucho frío.[300]
CV. Apenas llegan los indios al lugar de la presa, muy provistos de
costales, los van llenando con la mayor diligencia posible, y luego
toman la vuelta por el mismo camino, en lo cual se dan tanta prisa
porque las hormigas, según dicen ellos, los rastrean por el olor, y luego
que lo perciben salen a perseguirlos, y siendo, como aseguran, de
ligereza tal a que no llega animal alguno, si los indios no cogieran la
delantera mientras ellas se van reuniendo, ni uno solo de los
colectores de oro escapara con vida. En la huida los camellos machos
siendo menos ágiles, se cansan antes que las hembras, y los van
soltando de la cuerda, primero uno y después otro, haciéndolos segui
detrás del carro, al paso que las hembras, que tiran en las varas con la
memoria y deseo de sus crías, nada van aflojando de su corrida. Esta
en suma, según nos lo cuentan los persas, es la manera con que
recogen los indios tanta abundancia de oro, sin faltarles con todo otro
oro, bien que en menor copia, sacado de las minas del país.
CVI. Advierto que a los puntos extremos de la tierra habitada les
han cabido en suerte las cosas más bellas y preciosas, así como a la
Grecia ha tocado la fortuna de lograr para sí las estaciones más
templadas en un cielo más dulce y apacible. Por la parte de Levante, la
primera de las tierras habitadas es la India, como acabo de decir, y
desde luego vemos allí que las bestias cuadrúpedas, como también las
aves, son mucho mayores que en otras regiones, a excepción de los
caballos, que en grandeza quedan muy atrás a los de Media llamados
niseos.[301] En segundo lugar, vemos en la India infinita copia de oro, ya
sacado de sus minas, ya revuelto por los ríos entre las arenas, ya
robado, como dije, a las hormigas. Lo tercero, encuéntranse allí ciertos
árboles agrestes que en vez de fruta llevan una especie de lana, que
no solo en belleza sino también en bondad aventaja a la de las ovejas
y sirve a los indios para tejer sus vestidos.[302]
CVII. Por la parte de mediodía, la última de las tierras pobladas es
la Arabia, única región del orbe que naturalmente produce el incienso
la mirra, la casia, el cinamomo y lédano, especies todas que no
recogen fácilmente los árabes, si se exceptúa la mirra. Para la cosecha
del incienso sírvense del sahumerio del estoraque, una de las drogas
que nos traen a Grecia los fenicios; y la causa de sahumarle al irlo a
recoger es porque hay unas sierpes aladas de pequeño tamaño y de
color vario por sus manchas, que son las mismas que a bandadas
hacen sus expediciones hacia el Egipto, las que guardan tanto los
árboles del incienso, que en cada uno se hallan muchas de ellas, y son
tan amigas de estos árboles que no hay medio de apartarlas sino a
fuerza de humo del estoraque mencionado.
CVIII. Añaden los árabes sobre este punto, que todo su país
estuviera a pique de verse lleno de estas serpientes si no cayera sobre
ellas la misma calamidad que, como sabemos, suele igualmente
suceder a las víboras, cosa en que deja verse, según nos persuade
toda buena razón, un insigne rasgo de la sabiduría y providencia
divina, pues vemos que a todos los animales tímidos a un tiempo po
instinto y aptos para el sustento común de la vida, los hizo Dios muy
fecundos, sin duda a fin de que, aunque comidos ordinariamente, no
llegaran a verse del todo consumidos; mientras los otros po
naturaleza fieros y perjudiciales suelen ser poco fecundos en sus
crías.[303] Se ve esto especialmente en las liebres y conejos, los cuales
siendo presa de las fieras y aves de rapiña, y caza de los hombres
son una raza con todo tan extremadamente fecunda, que preñada ya
concibe de nuevo, en lo que se distingue de cualquiera otro animal; y a
un mismo tiempo lleva en su vientre una cría con pelo, otra sin pelo
aún, otra en embrión que se va formando, y otra nuevamente
concebida en esperma. Tal es la fecundidad de la liebre y del conejo
Al contrario, la leona, fiera la más valiente y atrevida de todas, pare
una sola vez en su vida y un cachorro solamente, arrojando
juntamente la matriz al parirlo; y la causa de esto es porque apenas
empieza el cachorrito a moverse dentro de la leona, cuando sus uñas
que tiene más agudas que ninguna otra fiera, rasga la matriz, y cuanto
más va después creciendo, tanto más la araña con fuerza ya mayor, y
por fin, vecino al parto, nada deja sano en el útero, dejándolo
enteramente herido y destrozado.
CIX. Así que si las víboras y sierpes voladoras de los árabes
nacieran sin fracaso alguno por su orden natural, no quedara hombre a
vida en aquel país. Pero sucede que al tiempo mismo del coito, cuando
el macho está arrojando la esperma, la mala hembra, asiéndole de
cuello y apretándole con toda su fuerza, no le suelta hasta que ha
comido y tragado su cabeza. Muere entonces el macho, mas después
halla la hembra su castigo en sus mismos hijuelos, que antes de nacer
como para vengar a su padre, la van comiendo las entrañas, de modo
que para salir a luz se abren camino por el vientre rasgado de su
misma madre. No sucede así con las otras serpientes, en nada
enemigas ni perjudiciales al hombre, las que después de poner sus
huevos van sacando una caterva sin número de hijuelos. Respecto a
las víboras, observamos que las hay en todos los países del mundo
pero las sierpes voladoras solo en Arabia se ven ir a bandadas, lo que
las hace parecer muchas en número, y es cierto que no se ven en
otras regiones.
CX. Hemos referido el modo como los árabes recogen el incienso
he aquí el que emplean para recoger la casia. Para ir a esta cosecha
antes de todo se cubren no solo el cuerpo sino también la cara con
cueros y otras pieles, dejando descubiertos únicamente los ojos
porque la casia, nacida en una profunda laguna, tiene apostados
alrededor ciertos alados avechuchos muy parecidos a los murciélagos
de singular graznido y de muy gran fuerza, y así defendidos los árabes
con sus pieles los van apartando de los ojos mientras recogen su
cosecha de casia.
CXI. Más admirable es aún el medio que usan para reunir e
cinamomo, si bien no saben decirnos positivamente ni el sitio donde
nace, ni la calidad de la tierra que lo produce; infiriendo solamente
algunos por muy probables conjeturas que debe nacer en los mismos
parajes en que se crió Dioniso. Dícennos de esta planta que llegan a
Arabia unas grandes aves llevando aquellos palitos que nosotros
enseñados por los fenicios llamamos cinamomo, y los conducen a sus
nidos formados de barro encima de unos peñascos tan altos y
escarpados que es imposible que suba a ellos hombre nacido. Mas
para bajar de los nidos el cinamomo han sabido los árabes ingeniarse
pues partiendo en grandes pedazos los bueyes, asnos y otras bestias
muertas, cargan con ellos, y después de dejarlos cerca del lugar donde
saben que está su manida, se retiran luego muy lejos: bajan volando a
la presa aquellas aves carniceras, y cargadas con aquellos enormes
cuartos los van subiendo y amontonando en su nido, que no pudiendo
llevar tanto peso, se desgaja de la peña y viene a dar en el suelo
Vuelven los árabes a recoger el despeñado cinamomo, que vendido
después por ellos pasa a los demás países.
CXII. Aun tiene más de extraño y maravilloso la droga del lédano
o ládano como los árabes lo llaman, que nacida en el más hediondo
lugar es la que mejor huele de todas. Cosa extraña por cierto; va
criándose en las barbas de las cabras y de los machos de cabrío, de
donde se le extrae a la manera que el moho del tronco de los árboles
Es el más provechoso de todos los ungüentos para mil usos, y de é
muy especialmente se sirven los árabes para sus perfumes.
CXIII. Basta ya de hablar de estos, con decir que la Arabia entera
es un paraíso de fragancia suavísima y casi divina. Y pasando a otro
asunto, hay en Arabia dos castas de ovejas muy raras y maravillosas
que no se ven en ninguna otra región: una tiene tal y tan larga cola
que no es menor de tres codos cumplidos,[304] y es claro que si dejaran
a estas ovejas que las arrastrasen por el suelo, no pudieran menos de
lastimarlas con muchas heridas; mas para remediar este daño, todo
pastor, haciendo allí de carpintero, forma pequeños carros que
después ata a la gran cola, de modo que cada oveja arrastra la suya
montada en su carro: la otra casta tiene tan ancha la cola, que tendrá
más de un codo.
CXIV. Por la parte de poniente al retirarnos del mediodía sigue la
Etiopía, última tierra habitada por aquel lado, que tiene asimismo la
ventaja de producir mucho oro, de criar elefantes de enormes dientes
de llevar en sus bosques todo género de árboles y el ébano mismo, y
de formar hombres muy altos, muy bellos y vividores.[305]
CXV. Tales son las extremidades del continente, así en el Asia
como en la Libia; de la parte extrema que en la Europa cae hacia
poniente, confieso no tener bastantes luces para decir algo de positivo
No puedo asentir a lo que se dice de cierto río llamado por los
bárbaros Erídano, que desemboca en el mar hacia el viento Bóreas, y
del cual se dice que nos viene el electro,[306] ni menos saldré fiador de
que haya ciertas islas llamadas Casitéridas de donde proceda e
estaño; pues en lo primero el nombre mismo de Erídano, siendo griego
y nada bárbaro, clama por sí que ha sido hallado y acomodado po
alguno de los poetas; y en lo segundo, por más que procuró averigua
el punto con mucho empeño, nunca pude dar con un testigo de vista
que me informase de cómo el mar se difunde y dilata más allá de la
Europa, de suerte que a mi juicio el estaño y el electro nos vienen de
algún rincón muy retirado de la Europa, pero no de fuera de su recinto.
CXVI. Por el lado del norte parece que se halla en Europa
copiosísima abundancia de oro, pero tampoco sabré decir dónde se
halla, ni de dónde se extrae. Cuéntase que lo roban a los grifos los
monóculos arimaspos;[307] pero es harto grosera la fábula para que
pueda adoptarse ni creerse que existan en el mundo hombres que
tengan un ojo solo en la cara, y sean en lo restante como los demás
En suma, paréceme acerca de las partes extremas del continente, que
son una especie de terreno muy diferente de los otros, y como
encierran unos géneros que son tenidos acá por los mejores, se nos
figura también que allí son todo preciosidades.
CXVII. Hay en el Asia, pues tiempo es de volver a ella, cierta
llanura cerrada en un cerco formado por un monte que se extiende
alrededor de ella, teniendo cinco quebradas. Esta llanura, estando
situada en los confines de los corasmios, de los hircanios, de los
partos, de los sarangas y de los tamaneos, pertenecía antes a los
primeros; pero después que el imperio pasó a los persas, pasó ella a
ser un señorío o patrimonio de la corona. Del monte que rodea dicha
llanura nace un gran río, por nombre Aces,[308] que conducido hacia las
quebradas, y sangrado por ellas con canales, iba antes regando las
referidas tierras, derivando su acequia cada cual de aquellos pueblos
por su respectiva quebrada. Mas después que estas naciones pasaron
al dominio de los persas, se les hizo en este punto un notable perjuicio
por haber mandado el rey que en dichas quebradas se levantasen
otras tantas presas con sus compuertas; de lo cual necesariamente
provino que, cerrado todo desaguadero, no pudiendo el río tene
salida, se difundiera por la llanura y la convirtiera en un mar. Los
pueblos circunvecinos, que solían antes aprovecharse del río
sangrado, no pudiendo ya valerse de su agua, viéronse muy pronto en
la mayor calamidad, pues aunque llueve allí en invierno como suele en
otras partes, echaban de menos en verano aquella agua del río para i
regando sus sementeras ordinarias de panizo y de ajonjolí. Viendo
pues, aquellos que nada de agua se les concedía, así hombres como
mujeres fueron de tropel a la corte de los persas, y fijos allí todos a las
puertas de palacio, llenaban el aire hasta el cielo de gritos y lamentos
Con esto el rey mandó que para aquel pueblo que mayor necesidad
tenía del agua, se les abriera la compuerta de su propia presa, y que
se volviera a cerrar después de bien regada la comarca y harta ya de
beber; y así por turno y conforme a la mayor necesidad fueran
abriéndose las compuertas de las acequias respectivas. Este, según
oigo y creo muy bien, fue uno de los arbitrios para las arcas reales
cobrando, además del tributo ya tasado, no pequeños derechos en la
repartición de aquellas aguas.
CXVIII. Pero dejando esto, volvamos a los septemviros de la
célebre conjuración; uno de los cuales, Intafrenes, tuvo un fin bien
desastrado, a que su misma altivez e insolencia le precipitaron. Pues
habiéndose establecido la ley de que fuera concedido a cualquiera de
los siete la facultad de presentarse al rey sin preceder recado, excepto
en el caso de hallarse en el momento en compañía de sus mujeres
Intafrenes quiso entrar en palacio poco después de la conjuración
teniendo que tratar no sé qué negocio con Darío, y en fuerza de su
privilegio, como uno de los siete, pretendía entrada franca sin
introductor alguno; mas el portero de palacio y el paje encargado de
los recados se la negaban, alegando por razón que estaba entonces e
rey visitando a una de sus esposas. Sospechó Intafrenes que era
aquel uno de los enredos y falsedades de los palaciegos, y sin más
tardanza saca al punto su alfanje, corta a entrambos, al paje y a
portero, orejas y narices, ensártalas a prisa con la brida de su caballo
y poniéndolas luego al cuello de estos, los despacha adornados con
aquella especie de collar. Preséntanse entrambos al rey, y le declaran
el motivo de su trágica violencia en aquella mutilación.
CXIX. Receló Darío en gran manera que una tal demostración se
hubiese hecho de común acuerdo y consentimiento de los seis
conjurados, y haciéndolos venir a su presencia uno a uno, iba
explorando su ánimo para averiguar si habían sido todos cómplices en
aquel desafuero. Pero viendo claramente que ninguno había tenido en
ello participación, mandó que prendieran no solo a Intafrenes, sino
también a sus hijos con todos los demás de su casa y familia
sospechando por varios indicios que tramaba aquel con todos sus
parientes alguna sublevación,[309] y luego de presos los condenó a
muerte. En esta situación, la esposa de Intafrenes, presentándose a
menudo a las puertas de palacio, no cesaba de llorar y dar grandes
voces y alaridos, hasta que el mismo Darío se movió a compasión con
su llanto y dolor. Mándale, pues, decir por un mensajero: «Señora, en
atención y respeto a vuestra persona, accede el rey Darío a dar e
perdón a uno de los presos, concediéndoos la gracia de que lo
escojáis vos misma a vuestro arbitrio y voluntad». «Pues si el rey
respondió ella después de haberlo pensado, me concede la vida de
uno de los presos, escojo entre todos la vida de mi hermano»
Informado Darío y admirado mucho de aquella respuesta y elección, le
hace replicar: «Señora, quiere el rey que le digáis la razón por que
dejando a vuestro marido y también a vuestros hijos, preferís la vida de
un hermano, que ni os toca de tan cerca como vuestros hijos, ni puede
serviros de tanto consuelo como vuestro esposo». A lo cual contestó la
mujer: «Si quieren los cielos, ¡oh señor!, no ha de faltarme otro marido
del cual conciba otros hijos, si pierdo los que me dieron los dioses
Otro hermano sé bien que no me queda esperanza alguna de volver a
lograrlo, habiendo muerto ya nuestros padres;[310] por este motivo me
goberné, señor, en mi respuesta y elección». Pareció tan acertada la
razón a Darío, que prendado de la discreción de aquella matrona, no
solo le hizo gracia de su hermano que escogía, sino que además le
concedió la vida de su hijo mayor, por quien no pedía. A todos los
demás los hizo morir Darío, acabando así con todos sus deudos
Intafrenes, uno de los siete grandes de la liga, poco después de
recobrado el imperio.
CXX. Volviendo a tomar el hilo de la historia, casi por el mismo
tiempo en que enfermó Cambises sucedió un caso muy extraño
Hallábase en Sardes por gobernador un señor de nación persa, po
nombre Oretes, colocado por Ciro en aquel empleo, y se empeñó en
ejecutar el atentado más caprichoso e inhumano que darse puede
cual fue dar muerte a Polícrates el samio, de quien, ni de obra ni de
palabra había recibido nunca el menor disgusto, y lo que es más, no
habiéndole visto ni hablado en los días de su vida. Por lo que mira a
motivo que tuvo Oretes para desear prender y perder a Polícrates
pretenden algunos que naciese de lo que voy a referir. Estaba Oretes
en cierta ocasión sentado en una sala de palacio en compañía de otro
señor también persa, llamado Mitrobates, entonces gobernador de la
provincia de Dascilio,[311] y de palabra en palabra, como suele, vino la
conversación a degenerar en pendencia. Altercábase en ella con calo
acerca de quién tenía mayor valor y méritos personales, y Mitrobates
empezó a insultar a Oretes en sus barbas, diciendo: «¿Tú, hombre, te
atreves a hablar de valor y servicios personales, no habiendo sido
capaz de conquistar a la corona y unir a tu satrapía la isla de Samos
que tienes tan cercana, y es de suyo tan fácil de sujetar que un
particular de ella con solos quince infantes se alzó con su dominio en
que se mantiene hasta el día?». Pretenden algunos, como dije, que
vivamente penetrado Oretes en su corazón de este insulto, no tanto
desease vengarle en la persona del que se lo dijo, cuanto borrarlo con
la ruina de Polícrates, ocasión inocente de aquella afrenta.
CXXI. No faltan otros con todo, aunque más pocos, que lo refieren
de otro modo. Dicen que Oretes envió a Samos un diputado para pedi
no sé qué cosa, que no expresan los narradores, a Polícrates, que
echado sobre unos cojines en su gabinete estaba casualmente
entreteniéndose con Anacreonte de Teos.[312] Entra en esto el diputado
de Oretes y empieza a dar su embajada. Polícrates entretanto, ora a
propósito quisiera dar a entender cuán poco contaba con Oretes, ora
sucediese por descuido y falta de reflexión, vuelto como estaba e
rostro a la pared, ni lo volvió para mirar al enviado, ni le respondió
palabra.
CXXII. De estos dos motivos que suelen darse acerca de la
muerte de Polícrates, adopte cada cual el que más le acomode, nada
me importa. En cuanto a Oretes, como viviese de asiento en
Magnesia, ciudad fundada en las orillas del río Menandro, y estuviese
bien informado del espíritu ambicioso de Polícrates, enviole a Samos
por embajador a Mirso, hijo de Giges y natural de Lidia. Sabía Oretes
que Polícrates había formado el proyecto de alzarse con el imperio de
mar, habiendo sido en este designio el primero de los griegos, a
menos de los que tengo noticia. Verdad es que no quiero en esto
comprender ni a Minos de Cnoso, ni a otro alguno anterior, si lo hubo
que en los tiempos fabulosos hubiese tenido el dominio de los
mares;[313] solo afirmo que en la era humana, que así llaman a los
últimos tiempos ya conocidos, fue Polícrates el primer griego que se
lisonjeó con la esperanza de sujetar a su mando la Jonia e islas
adyacentes. Conociendo, pues, Oretes el flaco de Polícrates, le envía
una embajada concebida en estos términos: «Oretes dice a Polícrates
Estoy informado de que meditas grandes empresas, pero que tus
medios no alcanzan a tus proyectos. Si quieres, pues, ahora seguir m
consejo, te aseguro que con ello conseguirás provecho, y me salvarás
la vida; pues el rey Cambises, según sé ciertamente, anda al presente
maquinándome la muerte. En suma, quiero de ti que vengas por mí y
por mis tesoros, de los que tomarás cuanto gustares, dejando el resto
para mí. Ten por seguro que por falta de dinero no dejarás de
conquistar la Grecia entera. Y si acerca de los tesoros no quisieres
fiarte de mi palabra, envíame el sujeto que tuvieres de mayo
satisfacción, a quien me ofrezco a mostrárselos».
CXXIII. Oyó Polícrates con mucho gusto tal embajada, y determinó
complacer a Oretes. Sediento el hombre de dinero, envió ante todo
para verlo a su secretario, que era Menandrio, hijo de Menandrio, e
mismo que no mucho después consagró en el Hereo[314] los adornos
todos muy ricos y vistosos que había tenido Polícrates en su mismo
aposento. Sabiendo Oretes que aquel explorador era un personaje de
respeto, toma ocho cofres y manda embutirlos de piedras hasta arriba
dejando solo por llenar una pequeña parte la más vecina a los labios
de aquellos, y después cubre de oro toda aquella superficie; ata muy
bien sus cofres, y los deja patentes a la vista. Llegó poco después
Menandrio, vio las arcas de oro, y dio cuenta luego a Polícrates.
CXXIV. Informado este del oro, a pesar de sus privados que se lo
aconsejaban, y a pesar asimismo de sus adivinos que le auguraban
mala suerte, no veía la hora de partir en busca de las arcas. Aun hubo
más, porque la hija de Polícrates tuvo entre sueños una visión infausta
pareciéndole ver en ella a su padre colgado en el aire, y que Zeus le
estaba lavando y el Sol ungiendo. En fuerza de tales agüeros
deshaciéndose la hija en palabras y extremos, pugnaba en persuadir a
padre no quisiera presentarse a Oretes, tan empeñada en impedir e
viaje, que al ir ya Polícrates a embarcarse en su galera, no dudó en
presentársele cual ave de mal agüero. Amenazó Polícrates a su hija
que si volvía salvo tarde o nunca había de darle marido. «¡Ojalá
padre, sea así!, responde ella; que antes quisiera tarde o nunca tene
marido, que dejar de tener tan presto un padre tan bueno».
CXXV. Por fin, despreciando los consejos de todos, embarcose
Polícrates para ir a verse con Oretes, llevando gran séquito de amigos
y compañeros, entre quienes se hallaba el médico más afamado que a
la sazón se conocía, Democedes, hijo de Califonte, natural de Crotona
No bien acabó Polícrates de poner el pie en Magnesia, cuando se le
hizo morir con una muerte cruel, muerte indigna de su persona e
igualmente de su espíritu magnánimo y elevado, pues ninguno se
hallará entre los tiranos o príncipes griegos, a excepción solamente de
los que tuvieron los siracusanos, que en lo grande y magnífico de los
hechos pueda competir con Polícrates el samio.[315] Pero no contento e
fementido persa con haber hecho en Polícrates tal carnicería que de
puro horror no me atrevo a describir, le colgó después en un aspa
Oretes envió libres a su patria a los individuos de la comitiva que supo
eran naturales de Samos, diciéndoles que bien podían y aun debían
darle las gracias por acabar de librarlos de un tirano; pero a los criados
que habían seguido a su amo los retuvo en su poder y los trató como
esclavos. Entretanto, en el cadáver de Polícrates en el aspa íbase
verificando puntualmente la visión nocturna de su hija, siendo lavado
por Zeus siempre que llovía, y ungido por el sol siempre que con sus
rayos hacia que manase del cadáver un humor corrompido. En suma
la fortuna de Polícrates, antes siempre próspera, vino al cabo a
terminar, según la predicción profética de Amasis, rey de Egipto, en e
más desastroso paradero.
CXXVI. Pero no tardó mucho en vengar el cielo el execrable
suplicio dado a Polícrates en la cabeza de Oretes, y fue del siguiente
modo: Después de la muerte de Cambises, mientras que duró e
reinado de los magos, estuvo Oretes en Sardes quieto y sosegado, sin
cuidar nada de volver por la causa de los persas infamemente
despojados del imperio por los medos; antes bien, entonces fue
cuando, aprovechándose de la perturbación actual del estado, entre
otros muchos atentados que cometió, quitó la vida no solo a
Mitrobates, general de Dascilio, el mismo que le había antes zaherido
por no haberse apoderado de los dominios de Polícrates, sino también
a Cranaspes, hijo del mismo, sin atender a que eran entrambos
personajes muy principales entre los persas. Y no paró aquí la
insolencia de Oretes, pues, habiéndole después enviado Darío un
correo, y no dándole mucho gusto las órdenes que de su parte le traía
armole una emboscada en el camino y le mandó asesinar a la vuelta
haciendo que nunca más se supiese noticia alguna ni del posta ni de
su caballo.
CXXVII. Luego que Darío se vio en el trono, deseaba muy de
veras hacer en Oretes un ejemplar, así en castigo de todas sus
maldades, como mayormente de las muertes dadas a Mitrobates y a
su hijo. Con todo, no le parecía del caso enviar allá un ejército para
acometerle declaradamente desde luego, parte por verse en e
principio del mando, no bien sosegadas las inquietudes públicas de
imperio, parte por considerar cuán prevenido y pertrechado estaría
Oretes, manteniendo por un lado cerca de su persona un cuerpo de mi
persas, sus alabarderos, y teniendo por otro en su provincia y bajo su
dominio a los frigios, a los lidios y a los jonios. Así que Darío
queriendo obviar estos inconvenientes, toma el medio de llamar a los
persas más principales de la corte y hablarles en estos términos
«Amigos, ¿habrá entre vosotros quien quiera encargarse de una
empresa de la corona, que pide maña o ingenio, y no ejército n
fuerza? Bien sabéis que donde alcanza la prudencia de la política, no
es menester mano armada. Hágoos saber que deseo muchísimo que
alguno de vosotros procure presentarme vivo o muerto a Oretes
hombre que además de ser desconocido a los persas, a quienes en
nada ha servido hasta aquí, es al mismo tiempo un violento tirano
llevando ya cometidas muchas maldades contra nos, una la de habe
hecho morir al general Mitrobates, juntamente con su hijo, otra la de
haber asesinado a mis enviados que le llevaban la orden de
presentársenos, mostrando en todo un orgullo y contumacia
intolerables. Es preciso, pues, anticipársele, a fin de impedir con su
muerte que pueda maquinar algún atentado mayor contra los persas».
CXXVIII. Tal fue la pregunta y propuesta hecha por Darío, al cua
en el punto mismo se le ofrecieron hasta 30 de los cortesanos
presentes, pretendiendo cada cual para sí la ejecución de la demanda
Dispuso Darío que la suerte decidiera la porfía, y habiendo recaído en
Bageo, hijo de Artontes, toma este desde luego un expediente muy
oportuno. Escribe muchas cartas que fuesen otras tantas órdenes
sobre varios puntos, luego las cierra con el sello de Darío, y con ellas
se pone en camino para Sardes. Apenas llegado, se presenta a
Oretes, y delante de él va sacando las cartas de una en una, dándolas
a leer al secretario real pues entre los persas todo gobernador tiene su
secretario de oficio nombrado por el rey.[316] Bageo, al dar a leer y a
intimar aquellas órdenes reales, pretendía sondear la fidelidad de los
alabarderos, y tentar si podía sublevarlos contra su general Oretes
Viendo, pues, que llenos de respeto por su soberano ponían sobre su
cabeza las cartas rubricadas y recibían las órdenes intimadas con toda
veneración, da por fin a leer otro despacho real concebido en esta
forma: «Darío, vuestro soberano, os prohíbe a vosotros, persas, servi
de alabarderos a Oretes». No bien se les intimó la orden, cuando dejan
todos sus picas. Animose Bageo a dar el último paso, viendo que en
aquello obedecían al rey, entregando al secretario la última carta en
que venía la orden en estos términos: «Manda el rey Darío a los
persas, sus buenos y fieles vasallos en Sardes, que maten a Oretes»
Acabar de oír la lectura de la carta, desenvainar los alfanjes los
alabarderos y hacer pedazos a Oretes, todo fue en un tiempo. Así fue
como Polícrates el samio vino a quedar vengado del persa Oretes.
CXXIX. Después que llegaron a Susa, confiscados los bienes que
habían sido de Oretes, sucedió dentro de pocos días que al bajar de
caballo el rey Darío en una de sus monterías, se le torció un pie con
tanta fuerza que, dislocado el talón, se salió del todo de su encaje
Echó mano desde luego para la cura de sus médicos quirúrgicos
creído desde atrás que los que tenía a su servicio traídos del Egipto
eran en su profesión los primeros del universo. Pero sucedió que los
físicos egipcios, a fuerza de medicinar el talón, lo pusieron con la cura
peor de lo que había estado en la dislocación. Siete días enteros
habían pasado con sus noches en que la fuerza del dolor no había
permitido al rey cerrar los ojos, cuando al octavo día, en que se hallaba
peor, quiso la fortuna que uno le diese noticia de la grande habilidad
del médico de Crotona, Democedes, de quien acaso había oído habla
hallándose en Sardes. Manda al instante Darío que hagan venir a
Democedes, y habiéndolo hallado entre los esclavos de Oretes, tan
abyecto y despreciado como el que más, lo presentaron del mismo
modo a la vista del rey, arrastrando sus cadenas y mal cubierto de
harapos.
CXXX. Estando en pie el pobre esclavo, preguntole el mismo
Darío en presencia de todos los circunstantes si era verdad que
supiera medicina. Democedes, con el temor de que si decía
llanamente la verdad no tenía ya esperanza de poder volver a Grecia
no respondía que la supiese. Trasluciéndose a Darío que aque
esclavo tergiversaba, hablando solo a medias palabras, mandó a
punto traer allí los azotes y aguijones. La vista de tales instrumentos y
el miedo del inminente castigo hizo hablar más claro a Democedes
quien dijo que no sabía muy bien la medicina, pero que había
practicado con un buen médico. En una palabra, dejose Darío en
manos del nuevo médico, y como este le aplicase remedios y fomentos
suaves, después de los fuertes antes usados en la cura, logró primero
que pudiera el rey recobrar el sueño perdido, y después de muy breve
tiempo le dejó enteramente sano, cuando Darío había ya desconfiado
de poder andar perfectamente en toda su vida. Al verse sano el rey
quiso regalar al médico griego con dos pares de grillos de oro macizo
y al irlos a recibir, pregúntale con donaire Democedes, si en pago de
haberle librado de andar siempre cojo, le doblaba el mal su majestad
dándole un grillo por cada pierna. Cayó en gracia a Darío el donaire
del médico, y le mandó fuese a visitar sus esposas. Decían por los
salones los eunucos que le conducían: «Señora, este es el que dio
vida y salud al rey nuestro amo y señor». Las reinas, muy alegres y
agradecidas, iban cada una por sí sacando del arca un azafate lleno
de oro, y el oro y el azafate del mismo metal todo lo regalaban a
Democedes. La magnificencia de las reinas en aquel regalo fue tan
extremada, que un criado de Democedes, llamado Escitón, recogiendo
para sí únicamente los granos que de los azafates caían, juntó una
grandiosa suma de dinero.
CXXXI. El buen Democedes, ya que de sus aventuras hacemos
mención, dejando a Crotona su patria, como referiré, fue a vivir con
Polícrates. Vivía antes en Crotona en casa de su mismo padre
hombre de condición áspera y dura, y no pudiendo ya sufrirle por más
tiempo, fue a establecerse en Egina. Allí, desde el primer año de su
domicilio, aunque se hallaba desprovisto y falto todavía de los hierros e
instrumentos de su profesión, dejó con todo muy atrás a los primeros
cirujanos del país; por lo que al segundo año los eginetas le
asalariaron para el público con un talento, al tercer año le condujeron
los atenienses por cien minas, y Polícrates al cuarto por dos
talentos:[317] por estos pasos vino Democedes a Samos. La fama de
este insigne profesor ganó tanto crédito a los médicos de Crotona, que
eran tenidos por los más excelentes de toda la Grecia; después de los
cuales se daba el segundo lugar a los médicos de Cirene. En la misma
Grecia los médicos de Argos pasaban a la sazón por los más hábiles
de todos.
CXXXII. De resultas, pues, de la cura del rey, se le puso a
Democedes una gran casa en Susa, y se le dio cubierto en la mesa
real, como comensal honorario de Darío, de suerte que nada le
hubiese quedado que desear, si no le trajera molestado siempre e
deseo de volver a su querida Grecia. No había otro hombre ni otro
privado como Democedes para el rey, de cuyo favor se valió
especialmente en dos casos; el uno cuando logró con su mediación
que el rey perdonase la vida a sus médicos de Egipto, a quienes po
haber sido vencidos en competencia con el griego había condenado
Darío a ser empalados; el otro cuando obtuvo la libertad para cierto
adivino eleo, a quien veía confundido y maltratado con los demás
esclavos que habían sido de la comitiva de Polícrates.
CXXXIII. Entre otras novedades no mucho después de dicha cura
sucedió un incidente de consideración a la princesa Atosa, hija de Ciro
y esposa de Darío, a la cual se le formó en los pechos un tumor que
una vez abierto se convirtió en llaga, la cual iba tomando incremento
Mientras el mal no fue mucho, la princesa lo ocultaba por rubor sin
hablar palabra; mas cuando vio que se hacía de consideración se
resolvió a llamar a Democedes y hacer que lo viese. El médico le dio
palabra de que sin falta la curaría, pero con pacto y condición de que
la princesa jurase hacerle una gracia que él quería suplicarle
asegurándola de antemano que nada le pediría de que ella pudiera
avergonzarse.
CXXXIV. Sanada ya Atosa por obra de Democedes, estando en
cama con Darío, hablole así, instruida por su médico de antemano
«¿No me diréis, señor, por qué tenéis ociosa tanta tropa sin emprende
conquista alguna y sin dilatar el imperio de Persia? A un hombre
grande como vos, oh Darío, a un príncipe joven, al soberano más
poderoso del orbe, el honor le está pidiendo de justicia que haga ver a
todos, con el esplendor de sus proezas, que los persas tienen a su
frente un héroe que los dirige. Por dos motivos os conviene obrar así
por el honor, para que conozcan los persas que sois un soberano
digno del trono que ocupáis; y por razón de estado, para que los
súbditos afanados en la guerra no tengan lugar de armaros alguna
sublevación. Y ahora que os veo en la flor de la edad quisiera miraros
más coronado de laureles, pues bien sabéis que el vigor del espíritu
crece con la actividad del cuerpo, y al paso que envejece el último
suele aquel ir menguando hasta quedar al fin ofuscado o del todo
extinguido».[318] En esta forma repetía Atosa las lecciones de su
médico. «Me hablas, Atosa, responde Darío, como si leyeras los
pensamientos y designios de mi espíritu; pues quiero que sepas que
estoy resuelto ya a emprender una expedición contra los escitas
haciendo a este fin un puente de naves que una entre sí los dos
continentes de Asia y Europa; y te aseguro, mujer, que todo lo verás
en breve ejecutado». «Meditadlo antes, señor, le replica Atosa; dejad
por ahora esos escitas, que ni son primicias convenientes para
vuestras armas victoriosas, y son víctimas seguras por otra parte
siempre que las acometáis. Creedme, caro Darío; acometed de prime
golpe a la Grecia, de la cual oigo hablar tanto y decir tales cosas, que
me han dado deseos de verme pronto rodeada aquí de doncellas
laconias, argivas otras, unas áticas, otras corintias. Y no parece sino
que lo disponen los dioses, que os han traído un hombre el más apto
de todos para poder iros informando punto por punto de todas las
cosas de la Grecia, el buen médico que tan bien os curó el pie
dislocado». «Mujer, respondió Darío, si te parece mejor acomete
antes a la Grecia, creo sería del caso enviar delante nuestros
exploradores conducidos por el médico que dices, para que
informados ante todo y aun testigos oculares del estado de la Grecia
puedan instruirnos después, y con esta ventaja podremos acomete
mejor a los griegos».
CXXXV. Dicho y hecho, pues apenas deja verse la luz del día
cuando Darío llama a su presencia a quince de sus persas, hombres
todos de consideración, y les ordena dos cosas: una, ir a observar las
costas de la Grecia conducidos por Democedes; otra, que vigilen
siempre para que no se les escape su conductor, al cual de todos
modos manda lo devuelvan a palacio. Instruidos así los persas, hace
Darío venir a Democedes y pídele que después de haber conducido
algunos persas alrededor de la Grecia, sin dejar cosa que no les haga
ver, tenga a bien dar la vuelta a la corte. Al mismo tiempo le convida a
cargar con todos sus muebles preciosos para regalarlos a su padre y
hermanos, en vez de los cuales le daría después otros más numerosos
y mejores, para lo cual le cedía desde luego una barca bien abastecida
de provisiones, que cargada con aquellos presentes le fuese siguiendo
en su viaje. Soy de opinión que Darío hablaba de este modo con
sincero corazón, aunque el hábil Democedes, recelándose de que
fuese aquella una fina tentativa de su fidelidad, anduvo con
precaución, sin aceptar desde luego las ofertas de su amo, antes
cortésmente le replicó que su gusto sería que su majestad le
permitiera dejar alguna parte de sus alhajas para hallarlas después a
su vuelta, y que aceptaría con placer la barca que su majestad tenía la
bondad de ofrecerle para cargar en ella los regalos para los suyos
Tales, en suma, fueron las órdenes con que Darío le envió con sus
compañeros hacia el mar.
CXXXVI. Habiendo, pues, bajado a Fenicia y llegado a Sidón, uno
de los puertos de aquel país, equiparon sin pérdida de tiempo tres
galeras, y cargaron de todo género de bastimentos una nave, en que
embarcaron asimismo varios y preciosos regalos. Abastecidos de todo
siguieron el rumbo hacia la Grecia, que fueron costeando y sacando
los planos de sus costas, sin dejar nada que notar por escrito, y
practicada esta diligencia con la mayor parte de los lugares, y en
especial con los más nombrados, llegaron por fin a Tarento en las
playas de Italia. Aristofílides, rey de los tarentinos, a quien Democedes
logró fácilmente sobornar, le complació en sus dos solicitudes, de
quitar los timones a las naves de los medos, y de arrestar por espías a
los persas, echando voz de que lo eran sin duda. Mientras se irrogaba
este daño a la tripulación, Democedes llegó a Crotona, y una vez
refugiado ya en su patria, suelta Aristofílides a sus prisioneros
restituyendo los timones a sus naves.
CXXXVII. Hechos a la vela otra vez los persas, parten en
seguimiento de Democedes, y como llegados a Crotona le hallasen
paseando por la plaza, le echaron mano al momento. Algunos de los
vecinos de Crotona a quienes el nombre y poder de los persas tenía
amedrentados, no mostraban dificultad en entregarles el fugitivo; pero

Ethics Of Transitions What World Do We Want To Live In Together Jim Dratwa full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics Of Transitions What World Do We Want To Live In Together Jim Dratwa full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics of Transitions: What World Do

We Want to Live in Together? Jim

Manipulation Black Book - How How To Make People Do

What Do We Mean When We Talk about Meaning? Steven

How Do We Survive Together? (Irish Roulette Book 5) Ki

The Extremely Busy Woman's Guide to Self-Care : Do

We, Together The Social Ontology of Us Hans Bernhard

We, Together: The Social Ontology of Us Hans Bernhard

Hepatic and gastrointestinal involvement in coronavirus

How to Persuade: The Skills You Need to Get What You

ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

© ISTE Ltd 2022

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022932441

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Inter-section 1. What is Ethics of Sciences, Technologies,

Book I. Living Your Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

1.4. At the roots of violence

Book II. European Constructions of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Inter-section 3. The Other Europes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Book III. Institutions and Innovations of Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Inter-section 4. For Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Book IV. We Have Never Been Human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Table of Epigraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

It is a work of peace and transformation, about Europe, the other,

It is a philosophical novel on the question of ethics and of

Particular attention is paid to the particular form – to the multiplicity of

To read it: take something to write with!

This is to note throughout the text the comments and suggestions,

Indeed at this stage it is not finished, it is ‘under construction’,

The notion of responsibility, full and complete, as well as its exercise,

Accustomed as we may now be to hypertextual navigation, we will be immersed

Ethics of Transitions: What World Do We Want to Live in Together?,

That writing elaboration is particularly well suited to philosophical reflection.

While other books on responsibility and innovation address the importance of

Here is a book to be experienced, a book-experience. Let us hope that this book-

Before the first evening

We are the builders of the worlds we inhabit.

José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission,

Reopening ethics in the digital and genetic age; repopulating democracy;

Not without stories

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission,

This is how we arrive at the question of Transitions.

It is important to note the polysemy of Transition, emanating from a wide

For the road

gleaning accompanying a work of the earth, swarming and cross-pollination. It is an

If sooner or later you find yourself perplexed, lost, disoriented here, I

European project, and finally the particular forms of institutionalization of ethics in

days when everything surprised me, when everything could arouse in me

I.1. First evening – First story

In me there rages a terrible struggle.

One is fear, hatred, jealousy and wrath.

Two trees in me are waging a terrible struggle.

“But then: the two trees, the struggle,

The one that you water.

I.2. Second evening – Second story

Yes, to think the collective elaboration of decisions as well as meaningful

I.3. Third evening – Ultimate story

Take a moment to consider this dilemma. It is an ethical dilemma. It pertains to

The moral dilemma of this “trolley problem” is a thought experiment in ethics as

Everything is in order now, you are sitting comfortably. No steering wheel. No

in the analysis and deployed in anticipation in collective reflexivity7 (preliminary to

A first movement of reframing consists in moving from the “refusal of choice”

In this perspective, that of the change of world, ethical questioning cannot be

We can imagine a world where – thanks to the infrastructures of automated,