Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- What's a happy life anyway? latest post by jem049 | 25 responses
- If we produce enough food to feed ever... latest post by compton | 162 responses
- Why do we lie to ourselves? latest post by Rhotick | 7 responses
- What life experiences could have inspi... latest post by wbm | 35 responses
- where do we come from & what we are do... latest post by thedoc | 14 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
Films
Profile of Irina Yasina
Irina Yasina:
It would be the right thing to say: After [...]
Irina Yasina: It would be the right thing to say: After capitalism there will be capitalism. The point is that the free market economy wouldn’t disappear. It has already proved its superiority as the most strong and natural self-regulating productive system. Another point is that there would be no such “wild” capitalism which existed in eighteen or nineteen centuries simply because society has to care more about ecology at least in order to survive. People should behave more humanly towards different problems, and thus a system would start to be autonomic. We already have no such destructive economical crises like those in times of wild capitalism in England or for example at the beginning of twentieth century in the United States. All these things are changing somehow. Post-industrial society is our future and the world should try to achieve it. Another question is that we would have sometimes some periods of agitation when everything would appear as wild and terribly and so on as before. But no experiments are necessary because believe me there is nothing more productive and self-regulating than the market economy. All attempts to create communism had the bitter end and were paid with a lot of blood. That’s why it is not only unproductive but it’s dangerous. Thank you.
In principle globalization should promote [...]
Irina Yasina: In principle globalization should promote the development of democracy and in principle it does it. But nowadays we see that at the same time dictatorships become stronger. This happens first all because the central authority in oil-extracting countries becomes stronger because of high oil-prices. And thus centralized power is reinforced and dominates the business world. We see it in Russia; we see it in Venezuela and in several other countries. It seems that it can't be helped. Globalization brings it about. But I think globalization will definitely lead us to democracy because strengthening of dictatorship is like rearguard fights, it is resistance of old structures, of old brains which is more important. Thus I think that globalization as system that gives everybody infinite freedom of movement, free exchange of information. Somehow or other it will lead to the development of universal human values and one of them is democracy.
If you continue to love and defend your [...]
Irina Yasina: If you continue to love and defend your country so you really love it! The fact that it treats you like an unwanted child doesn’t mean for you that you can stop loving it. It is difficult for me to reply to this question, because I have never been in such a situation. I am sorry but I will not answer this question.
Irina Yasina:
First of all it’s not true. We don’t produce [...]
Irina Yasina: First of all it’s not true. We don’t produce food enough to feed the whole humanity. Secondly, it’s one thing to produce and other thing to dispense. The point is that it’s impossible to feed people who don’t make anything and who don't produce anything. We would have then the unstable structure of the whole world. That's why only such an exchange is possible: somebody produces food, someone else produces machines, and somebody produces technologies or ideas. Therefore we should understand that if the world chooses some hungering people and simply starts to give them something to eat; we will just create corruption, larceny, and the same poverty because we should give people the fishing rod. Do you remember the old story, the old fairy story about what is better: to give someone a fish or to give him the fishing rod and to teach how to catch fish. I think that we human community should teach people who have serious lack of food and other necessary products how to produce it by themselves, because simply to feed means again and again corruption, stealing and poverty, poverty, poverty. Thank you.
The system is not inherently corrupt just [...]
Irina Yasina: The system is not inherently corrupt just because we have examples of countries where corruptness is very low. First of all it’s in countries of Northern Europethe case. If you just see corresponding ratings you'll agree. Usually, whether a system is corrupt ot not depends on the exactness of law formulations, the precision of formulations and the fact of respecting the law. That’s why every country can approximate to the ideal of reducing corruption to the minimal extent. Thus I don’t think that it is reasonable to reject or renounce the established system only because in some countries or places they didn’t succeed to make people respect the law which, as it turned out, had been approved by the same people. Still in Russia we have very high corruptness but we all inside of country know why it happens. It happens because there are a lot of loopholes, because laws are often written with the intention to let these loopholes. Besides, nobody is punished for breaking the law even if it is often unacceptable as said. It happens simply because there are many groups of people mostly in government, who they do not pass sentence on, and who do that in their own interests. The system is not to blame for this. People are to blame who use the system in their own interests.
It is a serious question, which to be honest [...]
Irina Yasina: It is a serious question, which to be honest is not clearly formulated, because economy comes in accordance with all this with its development, if it happens in a democratic society, because in a country whith normal democracy and normal parliament and where people can insist on their rights they bring their economic system into a reasonable form. We already answered the question about globalization: with the increasing globalization and in accordance with it, with development of the appropriate system when everybody can demand his rights, human rights will be respected and thus not only human rights but also animal rights and, as it is formulated in the question, “planet rights”. It’s because someone cares about those rights as if they were his own rights, that’s it. May be it appears as if I am an idealist but if there is a system of normal human right expression, a system when people demand their rights, with appropriate laws and freedom of speech there is no alternative for economic system as to come in agreement with it, there is no other way. But there should be democracy for that.
Yes, of course. And we see a lot of examples [...]
Irina Yasina: Yes, of course. And we see a lot of examples in what kind of communities it happens. It happens in great corporations, sometimes on the government and on the local community level. It is a strange question because there are many examples of it. Thank you.
In the modern world there is no necessity to [...]
Irina Yasina: In the modern world there is no necessity to hunt, fence, make physical efforts to provide food and therefore the role of s physically stronger man is reduced. We understand that. We just have a transitional stage but it appears to us that everything is already different while governmental systems are still the same. I cannot say that I believe in patriarchy. I don’t really think about it much. But the role of women will gain in importance and then there will be of course more harmony because responsibility is more typical of women than of men just because it is an instinctive sense. No woman could be irresponsible if she sees her own children and realizes that she could do harm to them. So I think that changes will happen mostly in the next decades. Therefore there is no reason to trouble much about it.
Well firstly nobody has proved that the [...]
Irina Yasina: Well firstly nobody has proved that the theory of Darwin is true. But it is just an introduction. Even if it is true it’s simply enough to explain this fact. There are in Africa a lot of conditions for the human being to do nothing, so that it relaxes him. The situation when one never feels cold, has always something to eat and even never has to dress has always relaxed people. In those countries where people have to be the productive power to survive they were constrained to do it. Now we can see the example of Russia how these things happen. Huge oil supply contributes to the situation when the state does nothing else but selling oil and actually doesn't produce or develop anything innovatively. That’s all. It happens when our treasures, resources and our wonderful conditions prove to be unfavourable at some stage. From the beginning there were all conditions in Africa for people being lazy. Maybe my answer would seem to be insulting, but I really think like that.
I understand absolutely why this question [...]
Irina Yasina: I understand absolutely why this question comes from the United States. Simply because one is in such a situation when everything is already going well and generally speaking nothing bothers one in the city Milwaukee, one can ask such unreasonable question. The question would be what to do instead? Don’t we need to produce any material goods only because somebody cannot produce any goods and distribute them? I don’t understand what the keystone of this question is. What is the alternative: non-producing or a kind of communistic distribution of goods according to people's needs. We’ve experienced all this in the former Soviet Union and nobody was happy with it. Therefore I can only say to Mr. Kent Keller that his question is caused by a kind of too comfortable living and by incapability to look around in a different way. Thank you
It's a complicated question. I think, that [...]
Irina Yasina: It's a complicated question. I think, that in countries with dictatorships and where the law is not passed by the majority of voices and if not all representatives of the whole population could vote for it, such possibility exists. In the countries where laws are introduced in the democratic way, and therefore it is possible to say that interests of all groups are respected, such necessity should not arise at all. I do not exclude a possibility of breaking the law, if this law is stupid and serves only some special interests, and if it is created to oppress or to cheat people. Well, I’ll repeat myself, it happens at in dictatorships and there are some in the world.
It is a very good question. You know, [...]
Irina Yasina: It is a very good question. You know, universal human rights are more important and people might understand this I hope. Though now in Russia we can see a quite opposite process because universal human rights are trampled on and some wrong interpreted religious and national rules come on the surface. We’ll see. I don’t know when it happens but as I am an optimist I believe that in the near future we will realize that the world has changed. And everything will get better.
Business should be stronger than government [...]
Irina Yasina: Business should be stronger than government if we work in a democratic country in terms of business as producing structure or power, and the government as regulating power. With t his in mind industry is stronger, it produces. The government is stronger in the sense that it regulates. If both of them do their corresponding concerns then they are both strong. But we just don’t know what is better, and we cannot choose as it seems. Yet we should understand that if either business or politicts starts to do something it is not competent for, it weakens not one, but both of them. At least I have no examples of business interfering in politics. But if the government starts to interfere in business then it is very harmful and we see it happens Russia all the time. I just can say we cannot compare brnads and government because these are different powers. These are people and institutions that should exercise their own functions. If we are going to measure them and talk about who is stronger and who is weaker then it means that we are on the wrong way. We should change it. Let us try to do this. Business has to produce and it is stronger in this field while the government has to regulate and it is stronger in it. Thank you.
It’s a funny question, because people in [...]
Irina Yasina: It’s a funny question, because people in developed countries who criticize China for its rapid industrialization are actually afraid of it because it seems to them that China would take away some jobs and their production begins to collapse. These critics come from the fear. At the same time it testifies that these people in developed countries that criticise China just don’t understand that they are on the next development level, in the post-industrial society creating quite different advantages and moving forward. Industrializing China produces no new technologies. It is on catching-up development level that’s why it produces technologies which have been already invented. The Western World has to face up to this challenge. It simply has to develop faster, that’s all. People don’t like such challenges because it’s comfortable to be leaders. And when somebody starts stepping on the heels, one should just move faster. I mean that rapid industrialization of China is the way that Western countries passed several centuries ago, or decades ago, but nevertheless they have already passed it. And it’s necessary to accept it, that this great powerful country takes the same way of development. It is necessary to be happy about it and try to react adequately inventing, developing, producing more interesting things in the future.
I don’t quite understand the question. [...]
Irina Yasina: I don’t quite understand the question. That’s why I suppose that for example in Russia and India there are absolutely different educational systems. I can speak about my country. The educational system in Russian schools is still rather ok. After that there is too much of that things which don’t let children use their brains any more. It is very difficult to respond to this question because I am afraid the man from India [who has put this question] has just a vague idea how our children are educated. If he means general concepts of family education when children growing up in the family have their parents as an example and whether parents teach them enough or not… And I have no idea what else could it be. I cannot answer this question.
[…] because the wealth of so-called "Golden [...]
Irina Yasina: […] because the wealth of so-called "Golden Billion" i.e. developed countries depends first of all on their innovative orientation. Innovations and technologies on which the mankind’s development is based are created exactly in these countries. If at the same time normal industrial system will be created in the countries of the third world and these countries will start to develop normally, it will just lead to the fact, that the whole Earth becomes wealthier. There is no such dependence. To tell the truth I wouldn’t say this. We could say that it was so in the eighteenth century, but I think that it’s too much simplified, too much. “They became rich because they plundered”. It’s not true. Before they have started to plunder, they were already richer, they have already been more developed.
Irina Yasina:
There is no opposition between [...]
Irina Yasina: There is no opposition between macro-financing and micro-financing, therefore we can’t say what is better. The state should finance some big projects, it refers to as macro-financing, while the commerce and individual people should finance small business. People should finance their own projects, it refers to as micro-financing. The World Bank should help and realize the macro-financing, but it doesn’t cancel the necessity and individual initiative, which refers to as micro-financing. Well there is no opposition, that's why both of these systems and directions should exist.
First of all I don’t think that women are in [...]
Irina Yasina: First of all I don’t think that women are in a disadvantage, just because - to tell the truth I absolutely don’t feel like that. Apart from the East and the Muslim countries women are living life that they choose for themselves. We should understand that we women cannot be just like men just because the nature has given us a more interesting physiology, more important function: We can give birth to children. And certainly we have to be distracted from our jobs for this wonderful matter. I think that I am a successful woman who has succeeded in public life and in other things. But I think if I wouldn’t have my daughter I would be unhappy and all my public successes would not cost even a broken penny. Therefore there is no such problem, you know? First of all in my opinion the problem exists just in the female brain. It’s not necessary to feel oppressed. Our situation is simply so that anyway all we’d lose some time of our so called social- productive life that men don’t lose. Yet it happens just for the benefit and men actually men deprived of it. Therefore probably as they cannot have it they envy us somehow. Everything is in our brains. If a woman doesn’t consider her aggrieved or deprived, she is not in a disadvantage. Thank you.
Of course, the real problem are not drugs [...]
Irina Yasina: Of course, the real problem are not drugs but that drags are consequences of imperfect relations and some problems which…[audio ends]
There is no responsibility. Humankind is not [...]
Irina Yasina: There is no responsibility. Humankind is not responsible for AIDS in Africa nor for other diseases. That’s all. This question could be put to pathology, or God, or destiny, but not to the mankind. Thank you.
You know there is a very banal answer. Jesus [...]
Irina Yasina: You know there is a very banal answer. Jesus and many Christian preachers, and painters, writers and artists said something about it. And the answer is very simple. It is love, love and understanding. And it is impossible to invent something new but tolerance, -- because these very violence, anger and hatred have a rather too long living ability to reproduce themselves. But it is an open question whether we succeed to overcome them. And how could we defeat them? We can try but I don’t know if we succeed.
This problem exists in the whole world. And [...]
Irina Yasina: This problem exists in the whole world. And I think they are led to violence by the lack of education or/and unemployment. If we adults find a way to explain to them that everything is possible and that they can do something positive out of their lives like maybe some of their friends do, and if we will show them some positive simple examples, speak to them without insults and give them work, then maybe it would be successful. Another point is that this is a perfect example and it is very difficult to do this because there are no people with equal abilities. There are people more intelligent and they are less intelligent people as they are people who work more hard than other people. But however everybody can find his place in life. The most important thing is not to humiliate people because a humiliated person will take revenge. He will consider himself refuse of the society and thus he will find himself in the circle of violence. From earliest childhood it is necessary not to humiliate them but to educate a feeling of self-respect in children and then to communicate with young people and to give them work. Thank you.
The answer is very simple – to use this [...]
Irina Yasina: The answer is very simple – to use this money for the internet to give every nation and everybody free access to information and to teach people how to use it. If people have freedom of information and have a possibility to compare what they are told by their authorities with what really happens in the world it has a very good effect. You know I think that only this way you can use it. And of course it would be advisable to use some part of this money to finance medical research in order to combat existing incurable diseases. I think these two ways would be very constructive. Thank you.
There is no peace in the Middle East and it [...]
Irina Yasina: There is no peace in the Middle East and it is not to expect because every nation living there is convinced that no other nation should live in its neighbourhood. People there are not tolerant. And you can blame the creators of the state Israel for invading Arabic territory, or you can remind people of the two thousand years old story when Jewish people were dispersed all over the world and did lose their own state. But the problem is not what has happened. The problem is what is going to happen in the future. If people in the Middle East want to live there and to bring up their children they should learn to live with the fact that they should tolerate this neighbour, just tolerate first and then may be collaborate with him at least a little. Who knows? But without inner resignation about which people would speak a lot, and they would speak necessarily about it, nothing would go all right. War leads only to death and further war. That’s why I think that they would have to make peace, there is no other way. Or they would have to be prepared to see always, everyday and often unforeseen often blood, victims, death of children.
The only way to keep government from [...]
Irina Yasina: The only way to keep government from starting or continuing a war is to control your own government and to have a government which is democratically elected, to make government serve people. Then if some trouble occurs it is possible to demand that government should resign. If an unnecessary war would be started – and usually every war is unnecessary, it happens in hundred cases from hundred – government should resign, elections of new authorities would be called, and new government would be elected. If, however, we have a situation with an unchangeable government or president when people cannot substitute them, or with a president who chooses his successor himself then we can never ever do anything against war. And there are no other cases in history.
I don’t know actually. I have no response to [...]
Irina Yasina: I don’t know actually. I have no response to this question. What was regional and now have become global? I don’t know.
This question is put by someone who consider [...]
Irina Yasina: This question is put by someone who consider himself weak and that’s why he wants to be justified for use of terror. The problem is that it isn’t about the weak and the powerful who uses force. The powerful has a ligitimation; it is a state which you can negotiate with. And the weak is a single person in this case who has no obligations towards citizens of his country or citizens of other countries. Such substitution of words permits to play and to call for some pity, some compassion and thus leads to justification of terrorism. There is no justification for terrorism. It is possible to make armistice or peace with a state, or to negotiate over contributions or something like that. But it isn’t possible to negotiate with a terrorist, because he would lie anyway. That’s why not a weak is fearsome but the terrorist is. States are fearsome which use terrorism, and there are such states in the history. That is the most difficult problem, and we shouldn’t be taken in by such substitution of things. The powerful substitutes concepts too. They say for example “safety or freedom”, not “and”, but “or”, and thus people start to perceive safety as safety of their own children and freedom as freedom to be searched through in airports. And they choose of course safety; they permit freedom to be taken from them. But the point is it doesn’t end with searching through in airports. Then telephone conversations are taped, people are arrested without court’s decision, and other awful things happen. That’s why people have to pay attention to what they are saying and try not to be deceived by wrong used words.
What could I say? Why is it allowed? Why is [...]
Irina Yasina: What could I say? Why is it allowed? Why is it tolerated? Why they tolerate this? I think because people do not control their own government and do not know how to exert an influence on it; because they have no possibility to make a public protest and to change something. Let’s see the example of Russian war in Chechnya: It’s clear that when bombings happen not only aircrafts are destroyed and not only soldiers and officers die but also civil people. And nobody takes responsibility for that. Even courts can acquit from the charge those who carry out such terrible orders or, all the worse, on whose orders it happens. Why does it happen now, I mean technically? It happens because long ago they fired at their enemy or fenced with him, and nowadays when they bomb they destroy not only enemy but everything miles around him. And of course it is up to responsibility of people, of citizens, not only because among civilian population there could be their own relatives but because it is unacceptable according to so to speak civil ideals. They tolerate this because they don’t know how to control it, because they don’t take a lot of trouble to think about it. I always remember the example of the fight of Americans themselves against the Vietnam War. Thousands, ten thousands, hundred thousands, or millions of people were on demonstrations. They stopped the war. There is only this and no other way to do it. It is absolutely impossible to imagine all this in addition without freedom of the press, of television. People should have information and when they get the information they should be able to make use of it. This possibility they have to create by themselves. It is only democracy. Thank you.
This question is in my opinion the most [...]
Irina Yasina: This question is in my opinion the most important question of present time. They impose the opposition of freedom and safety on us. There is no such opposition because I don’t think it is violation of freedom that you have to take off your boots or shoes at the airport. This is a small thing, it is not about freedom. It is not a contradiction to freedom. Freedom means freedom of election, of speech, of movement and these basic liberties can by no means be restricted for reasons of safety. In the first place secret service often intentionally says that if we give it away our children will live safe. They have no proof for it, and they cannot guarantee this. Thus absolutely normal bureaucratic problems of secret service turn to the situation when they want to deprive us of some or other degree of freedom. Thus in Russia - again the example of Russia which is naturally because it is familiar to me, I was born and live in Russia all my life – after terrible awful terrorist action in Beslan where more than three hundred children died gubernatorial elections in Russia were cancelled. Fight against terrorism as justification should have covered this. Nobody asked Putin because there is no appropriate place neither in parliament nor on television to ask this question which connection does he see between gubernatorial elections and terrorist actions? He couldn’t answer. Besides our president has a habit to refuse pre-electoral debate as well as his party United Russia which is created by his circle. They couldn’t answer this question. There is simply no connection. That’s why we can say that it is an invented opposition. And exactly this invention we have to explain. It doesn’t exist; again, if we don’t consider simple safety measures at the airport violation of freedom. Neither taping telephones nor abolition of elections nor newspapers ban could have any connection with real safety.
It’s a good question. You know I think it [...]
Irina Yasina: It’s a good question. You know I think it happens because these people have not enough information about what really happens there, why Western countries want to spread their values and way of life widely. Why is it necessary? There is certainly propaganda of dictators within those countries who frighten people and people have no information about real intentions of Western countries. I don’t take the example of Bush and Iraq. It is exactly a topic on which I am not able to comment without having any answers. It is easier for me to speak about my country. I understand that now in Russia there are substantial anti-western attitudes. Such dispositions are stoked up by our authorities who intend to create the image of the only rescuers and defenders using those vast oil gains that they have got quite fortuitously, yet any way it is so. People fear, they are frightened and in addition people are naturally conservative. In every community you wouldn’t find a lot of people who would want their lives to be changed. Usually young educated people yet not all of them and not always would do that. The question why people in Africa and Asia don’t expect to be delighted with western way of life should be answered taking these points into consideration. They are used to something else. They are used to something else, and many years will go by till it happens but I actually think that values of freedom and responsibility are universally human. And I hope the Round Table would ascertain rather such situation. And how they agitate against you should come to Russia and switch on television and you will see. It is obvious, effective, and everyday.
The man is naive if he thinks that his [...]
Irina Yasina: The man is naive if he thinks that his government have self-serving interests, and that we have nothing to do with it. [inaudible] If you don’t like the president Bush but your citizens have elected him; I don’t like Putin but my fellow countrymen have elected him. That’s why what we have to do is not to negotiate between borders though it doesn’t exclude the possibility of having good time and creating a kind of supranational institution, but however to have as a primary goal on the national level as to speak with your neighbours and to ask them why they haven’t chosen a politician you like. You have democracy in your country and certainly you can manage to do it yourself. And it is rather possible to come to agreement on this after the elections even if it is not the best thing. If you try to come to an understanding with decent people in the world before it wouldn’t work because people in your country will do what they want and at the same time understand you. Of course you can consider these people indecent but it wouldn’t change anything, - people would consider you indecent. That’s all. It is very simple as it seems to me. Yet it is easy to say it and quite impossible to do. But it’s useful to try. Thank you.
Of course we should have this right. Of [...]
Irina Yasina: Of course we should have this right. Of course we could want to go fly to the moon and live there but there are no appropriate conditions for it and it is technically impossible. But within our planet why not? But we should understand that if we take a decision we should be responsible and realize that we will have to follow the laws of the country where we are going to live. We should understand that moral principles and traditions of that country should be important and acceptable. Besides we should work and not just hope that our so called new home country will provide for us. And if we are ready to accept such conditions then nothing should limit our freedom. Maybe it is idealism again, but I think so and I would like my daughter to live in such a world.
I don’t know. I think it would be the same. [...]
Irina Yasina: I don’t know. I think it would be the same. History knows no conditionals. I don’t think that Africa would be more developed and America would be less developed, but maybe I am wrong. Thank you.
It’s a simple question. What is better than [...]
Irina Yasina: It’s a simple question. What is better than democracy? What is it to choose from? If we have to choose between dictatorships, tyranny, and democracy or how it is in fashion to say in Russia “sovereign democracy” or some other no longer fresh democracies then there is nothing better than democracy. At least people haven’t invented anything else. Why is real, non- sovereign and non-manipulated democracy good? It is good just because it permits to correct one’s own mistakes in the very next cycle, because there is no feeling that one’s mistakes will continue without an end and this someone would insist on his wrong opinions: He will be corrected in the next electoral cycle. That’s why real democracy is the most appropriate system for modern developing society. Besides it is the society, I mean which is the real democracy, can respects rights of the weak and listen to representatives of opposition. Unfortunately in Russia it doesn’t happen nowadays but I hope I will see the day when we will have a real normal democracy. Besides it is impossible to impose democracy. Unfortunately it has to be achieved through suffering of people and grown up by citizens of the country where it exists. That’s why of course it is allowed to teach but it cannot be done in a violent way. This stuff can not be educated and grow under pressure.
To speak honestly I don’t understand this [...]
Irina Yasina: To speak honestly I don’t understand this question at all. Its meaning is unclear for me. To speak honestly I think that every war is bad and would like to refer you to my previous answer. Pay attention and don’t be misled by words because there is just a slight difference for everyone. That’s why I have no idea. I will not answer this question.
I think these are two different questions. [...]
Irina Yasina: I think these are two different questions. The second question is not a continuation of the first. Is there a way when change is happening gracefully and there would be no innocent victims? The way exists, but accidents are not excluded. Is there a way for America to lose its standing as the most powerful nation on this planet without that disrupting the entire planet? Yes, of course. I don’t think that America will chase after its leading position in the world if other emerging power centres wouldn’t be irresponsible, aggressive or inhuman. Nothing would happen. Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that American democracy is based on the fact that it takes into consideration interests of individuals. Who wants that his children die, and that the world doesn’t exist any more? Nobody does. That’s why the answer to the first question is yes, there is such a possibility but the accident could occur, and to the second question I say that yes, of course it will happen.
In my opinion nobody is profiting from [...]
Irina Yasina: In my opinion nobody is profiting from terrorism. People who think that they profit from it just measure time with minutes and days and not more, and they see just a tactical profit while the whole humanity loses. And you can win strategically only if you learn to negotiate with someone you don’t like. Thank you.
Courage means nowadays the same what it [...]
Irina Yasina: Courage means nowadays the same what it meant ten years or ten centuries ago. May be it is so. But what is courage? For me it is the ability to take important decisions, the responsibility while regarding interests of other people and to put these decisions into practice. This are such decisions like to protect the weak, or to defend justice despite what could happen to you because of this. But courage meant the same in former times what we read about in the same interesting books about courageous men and women when we were children. That’s why I think that nothing has changed and I hope it wouldn’t change in the future. This is such a short answer. It is a very important question for me and I think nothing should happen to the main human values, they should remain constant. Nothing should change: love has to be love; courage should be courage, parental care should be parental care and responsibility should remain responsibility. And how else could it be? There is no other way otherwise the humankind will some to an end.
The Iranian bomb is more dangerous than all [...]
Irina Yasina: The Iranian bomb is more dangerous than all above-mentioned bombs for one simple reason that first of all Iran didn’t assume any obligations of not using it. Secondly the present Iranian leader was very outspoken that one of the world countries should be destroyed namely Israel. It’s a regime of fanatics which doesn’t submit and will not obey any international regulations. That's why their bomb is more dangerous. Talking about French or American bombs, we can be absolutely sure that they are never going to be used. We have seen it during the Cold War that neither America nor the Soviet Union used something from their huge nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons were actually detaining. On the contrary, they contributed to the countries being extremely precautious. The situation of Iran is completely opposed. There can be no question of prudence. I’m afraid it would be blackmailing and then … well, I don't dare to think about what could happen then, but there would be blackmailing in full blast. Thank you.
Oh! But it is necessary all the same. You [...]
Irina Yasina: Oh! But it is necessary all the same. You know, there are no effective mechanisms to apply it now, but they will appear. One mustn’t reject such positive things that are worked out by the experience of the humankind. I don’t think it is right. Yet I think that on this stage it is of course possible to say that it is absolutely useless. However it is not the reason to reject it. No.
If a question is formulated like “Do you [...]
Irina Yasina: If a question is formulated like “Do you know…” we can answer “I haven’t heard about it, I don’t know” and that’s all. But if a question asks “Do you have experienced …” then it is a little bit another question. Nowadays in Russia the connection between politics and violence can be noticed every day. To say that someone doesn’t notice it you can only about someone who just doesn’t want to see it. The goals which were defined for our president, for himself and the elite around him, was the political goals to keep on power. And he achieves it using mere the way of violence in economics, for individual persons, and what is the most important, he achieves it violating human rights. I think that such situation is familiar to China, India and maybe, I don’t know, to the East. This is a difficult situation. But certainly each person cares about, what happens directly at home. At my home the connection between politics and violence becomes more and more obvious. It is actually a long lasting bad tradition that exists in Russia, but now in the 21st century we are again dipping into something we have been considering already the past. Thank you.
You know, there is no colonialism any more. [...]
Irina Yasina: You know, there is no colonialism any more. I can’t call it the modern version of globalisation because today we spoke about globalisation as a varied and positive process and not just a process of extracting mineral recourses on the soil of developing countries and what is important not at current prices. A developing country Venezuela can play on the oil market as it likes and though it will sell at the market price. Another developing country Russia can do the same. Is that colonial politics of the Unites States towards countries ОПЕК while the US is buying oil to very high prices? No, of course it is not. Imposing what and extracting what do we call colonialism? If someone would give me an answer to this question then we could speak about substances. Globalisation is not the modern version of colonialism. What else could substitute such colonialism? It is not colonialism if young talented people from the third world go to the more developed countries where there are excellent universities. It is not colonialism. It is not colonialism that they come back and work in their countries with those values which they became and to which they got used in the West. You know I think the problem of the modern world is terrorism and some opposition of “the golden milliard” and the third world countries yet these are not colonial relations. Colonialism is in fact in the past. Now we have to think about other problems. Thank you.
Freedom is without a doubt an absolute [...]
Irina Yasina: Freedom is without a doubt an absolute phenomenon. Freedom doesn’t mean that you can do any thing you want regardless interests of other people. Freedom is a possibility to take decisions within known limits. What do I mean? I mean limits and bounds of law. And this is exactly the problem of many countries. If we can usually agree that concerning our moral there are such universal principles as not to kill and not to steal and so on that exist almost everywhere, the situation with laws is completely different. Even if some wise laws exist somewhere it doesn’t mean that it is used in an appropriate way in which it should be to guarantee a person the necessary effect. Thus of course freedom depends on where you are. Freedom to keep dignity and to be kindly to others, to love and to bear children where you want to live up to the conditions of your country, - this freedom is often violated in many places of the world. And again I repeat myself that the only guarantee that your freedom wouldn’t be limited by force is the democratic way of governing the country. It doesn’t mean that people should bargain with ministers but they should go to elections and take important decisions. Thus they could keep their own freedom. Thank you.
Usually the line between freedom and [...]
Irina Yasina: Usually the line between freedom and responsibility fall inside of every human being. It depends on what his parents taught him in his childhood and what books did they read him. It is a basic condition. Besides there are some established rules and laws in the society. For example if in Russia they used to give the state the so called tenth of the earnings, but now I think everything what present rich give to the society is non their tenth on average. But however there is nothing to let them do it. So again it is up to books and parents and personal chose, established social traditions and laws. I think if there are laws, I repeat myself, democratic laws then people should care about them. That’s all. It’s simple. The most important answer to such questions is to start from one’s self, to listen to yourself and realize the way you do it and where your own line falls which you are asking about and where do you want it would fall. If someone wants one thing for himself and another for the rest of people then it is not right. I would like that people want the same for themselves and for other people. Then it would be social responsibility, personal freedom and all the rest. Thank you.
It is good that this question comes from [...]
Irina Yasina: It is good that this question comes from India where traditions of non-violent resistance are well developed. Of course it is better to resist in a non-violent way. Of course it is better to fight in parliaments, to write articles and of course it would be better if authorities would react to this. Of course it is excellent without a doubt if it is effective to mount a picket when people come out with a placard and the government is obedient and changes its behaviour. There can be no doubt about it. It is better to be healthy and rich than poor and ill. But maybe sometimes it doesn’t happen. I am not a supporter of violent resistance in any case and ever but I can imagine situations when there are no possibilities any more because all non-violent ways have already been used and none of them could help. I would say that in every situation it is useful to start with non-violent methods and try them as long as possible and afterwards God should decide how it is going to be. I don’t know what to say. We answered a question here if it could become necessary to break the law. It is possible if the law is made by some unwise and non-democratic dictatorial government. Then it is hypothetically allowed. Yet practically I would neither do it myself nor advise my friends or relatives to do this just because it is frightening. But I suppose that such situations could occur when it is necessary. Thank you.
You know, I’ve been thinking about this [...]
Irina Yasina: You know, I’ve been thinking about this question for a long time and first I thought about some historical figures and sometimes even literary characters. And then I thought no, I would tell it a different way. My heroes are honest, sincere, not self-interested, noble, courageous people who are able to forgive mistakes other people and to ask ask to be forgiven for their own mistakes. First of all it’s my own father. And I am proud, that he is such a man. Thank you.
It is a good question. I think that patent [...]
Irina Yasina: It is a good question. I think that patent law will die in the next decade because the possibilities of the internet which cannot be limited as they cannot prohibit the spreading of information will just make the patent laws ineffectual. That’s why the trend is understandable and clear and we will wait when it is going to happen. I don’t think that it is bad, because possibilities to unite creative potential of people will be less limited and it is super. Tnank you.
You just don’t know what it means to be [...]
Irina Yasina: You just don’t know what it means to be controlled and intimidated and what does the situation mean if you are manipulated. For example, people have television at home - I mean in Russia of course – and it has six or eight buttons but they are all controlled by the state. In the internet you have an absolute amount of information and an absolute amount of access. You can get an idea about every question and not only one but many ideas so that you have a chose. And this is in my opinion the most important thing. Thank you.
But it already happens partly. We visit [...]
Irina Yasina: But it already happens partly. We visit fitness centres trying to become more coordinated, sporty and to reduce weight instead of take a mower and cut the grass. At best we take the mower ourselves, and at the worst we employ someone to do it. We don’t use our hands to make mincemeat any more but a special machine does it for us. We don’t wash, run or we even don’t ride a horse: we use a car. God, there is an endless amount of examples. A man loses of course something. He becomes physically less active and that’s why his body becomes more vulnerable, but at the same time he becomes less vulnerable to virus, epidemic and so on. So in some way we lose but on the other hand we find something. At least human brains won’t permit to make them used to this or immobilize them. Maybe human body does permit it. But I think however we will find a way out of this situation. At least it is not in fashion to be obese that’s why I think we will get through. Thank you.
To speak honestly I think that to resist [...]
Irina Yasina: To speak honestly I think that to resist such technologies is at least immoral. I understand what people are talking about when they speak out against cloning or using human embryos to produce cells or something in order to find a medicine for heavy deceases. Ii seems to me that the possibility to help people is inherently more significant than the possibility to break some moral or religious taboos. People are alive and they are suffering. How many incurable deceases do we have on the Earth?! It is painful to speak about it. In the XXI century when we have developed technologies, go into the space and spend trillions on weapons and here we are and decide “Let them suffer! We will not try to help them.” Actually choosing not to use new technologies the potential threat or harm of which it is impossible to assess now, we do not try to help those people who need it. And I think that it is immoral. Thank you.
To be honest I am not at all a specialist of [...]
Irina Yasina: To be honest I am not at all a specialist of problems concerning genetically modified products and know a little about it but I think that – about three [hours] ago we had a question about why we cannot feed population of the whole planet. I suppose at least because of low productivity. I don’t know. I am not ready to give a concluding response, and I wouldn’t be able to express at least my own opinion.
I don’t know, I never thought about it.
Irina Yasina: I don’t know, I never thought about it.
No doubt that it can serve the social and [...]
Irina Yasina: No doubt that it can serve the social and ecological concerns I am not sure about political concerns – Yet indeed, the architecture of dictatorships comes into my mind for example the architecture of Stalin’s times or fascistic architecture in Berlin or Rom resemble each other. It is such a heavy grinding stile. It is hardly possible nowadays I suppose. Though we’ll see what new dictators would create if such would appear. Maybe they would create new cults of themselves also in architectural constructions. Yet I wouldn’t like to be such an architect who does it for dictators. Maybe such architects earn much but then however -- I don’t know, I just wouldn’t like to. And what about economical concerns I have no idea if architecture could serve the economy. Maybe it’s about more comfortable offices? Never [inaudible]. I don’t know. No doubt it can serve the social and ecological concerns. Thank you.
You know they usually put this question to [...]
Irina Yasina: You know they usually put this question to children when they are still little. “What do you like to do in the future?” and they start to fantasize. And their dreams are beautiful. Adults rarely fantasize. They think on the whole about what they can become practically and pass this off as their dreams. I am trying to imagine the future that I would like to have for my grandchildren. First of all I want to have some grandchildren: I want my daughter to live in the world where she would like to give birth to a child. I want my grandchildren to see the same flowers and animals as I saw them and as their great-great-grandmothers had seen. I want that flora and fauna of the Earth don’t change and there would be these sunrises and sunsets; that grass smells and the see laps with waves in the same way and that nothing changes. Everything in the nature should stay as before. There should be no wars. I wish that our countries live more peaceful and we elect a new president every four years and if we would like to we could chose the same president. I would like people to live in harmony with each other. It is the most important thing that they care not only about their own interests but also about their children, grandchildren and neighbours. I would like that they are responsible in every decision they make so that there would be less infantilism; that countries don’t behave like girls who are friends and get up to mischief and then hide their blame, their mischief from their mother and are scared to tell about it. I would like that we admit our errors and regret our sins; that everybody is healthy and that all incurable diseases are combated. Yet I don’t want that people are immortal because it is necessary to go away and to give space to a new generation and to die healthy in the dream. Thank you.
I don’t know when it can happen. I only [...]
Irina Yasina: I don’t know when it can happen. I only understand that then the situation would be quite ridiculous. Human mind controls machines and human body continues to burn fat on gym machines and in fitness centres and so 24 hours long. Thank you.
We come back to the beginning of our [...]
Irina Yasina: We come back to the beginning of our conversation. In my opinion democracy is necessary to do this so that everybody who would like to realize himself in his life could have an appropriate possibility. If in the community not everybody can participate in decision-making at least in an indirect way through voting then in such a society people cannot defend interests of their children. This is perhaps the answer to this question although it may seem banal. What about different countries it is of course easier for people born in America, or England, or Germany to put it into practice than for people born in Russia, or it would be even more difficult for people from somewhere in Africa. You know, humankind should become perfected shouldn’t it? And for that we need the internet and free exchange of information and again democracy. There is only this way. I don’t know how else it is possible. To be honest I would like it to happen tomorrow but I am afraid it wouldn’t go so swiftly. There is nothing to do about it. We are constrained to work through a rather long and difficult way of cognition and perfecting. And again I repeat myself it is important to be able to admit one’s errors.
Nadja-Nadja. When I was 21 I didn’t new at [...]
Irina Yasina: Nadja-Nadja. When I was 21 I didn’t new at all that a human being could be alone. I was always amidst many friends where I felt as a whole with them. You know, the loneliness comes actually from inside of a man and not from without. If a human being needs somebody or something, if he has no peace inside then he feels lonely. In my opinion everything is quite simple, maybe I’m wrong, perhaps everybody has his own feeling. I don’t feel lonely. I didn't feel it in my youth for some reasons nor do I feel so now for other reasons. I suppose that this is about a kind of adolescent play or it is because of big problems when people reach the adult age. It absolutely doesn’t depend on how many people you have around. You should have a world inside of you which goes with the world of someone else. It’s preferable but not obligatory.
Actually it happens in fact. I don’t know [...]
Irina Yasina: Actually it happens in fact. I don’t know about Brazil but young people in Russia who are connected to the internet not only watch some silly stuff but they also reed professional texts and get news and can communicate with the whole world. That’s why today, in the present world we can say with certainty regardless of a high or low income of a country that for the most part the development of the youth takes place thanks to the internet even if it happens not as swiftly as we would like. The simplest example is that this generation who use internet they all without exception know English. They don’t even need any textbooks. They’ve learned everything simply from [inaudible]. It is wonderful that they develop their minds, communication abilities then they become freer and more adaptive to cultures. Thank you.
You know I am not sure. May be it hardly [...]
Irina Yasina: You know I am not sure. May be it hardly depends on external circumstances. I should have some courage inside of me, some challenge inside and some additional wish which would induce me to change. It has already happened before. But it requires self-discipline. Yet I don’t think it’s about external circumstances though I have great respect for people who react to the external circumstances like this. They are capable to put themselves above their self, and they become superior than they have been before. I have met a lot of such people in my life. I don’t know if I am capable for this but …I really have no idea. Yet I suppose - and I repeat myself again – that this is a kind of challenge which is maturing inside of me: a wish to change. Thank you.
It’s impossible to compel the world to hear [...]
Irina Yasina: It’s impossible to compel the world to hear them. It's not possible to COMPEL to it! The world will hear them if it would like to. If these answers are clever they will be heard. If the answers are stupid people would leave the web page and will not visit it any more. But in any case people should want to open it. It is impossible to constrain somebody to it. And this is our credo: we can only awaken interest. Thank you.
It happens if questions are put seriously [...]
Irina Yasina: It happens if questions are put seriously and are not just playing with words which every language has more than enough. Thus if these questions are put seriously then simple questions have simple and not controversial answers. Questions are very precise: black or white, someone loves or doesn’t love, friend or enemy. These questions haver slways an unambiguos answer. Everything else is just wordplay. Thank you.
I don’t think that one piece of knowledge - [...]
Irina Yasina: I don’t think that one piece of knowledge - as you call it - which is expressed by one single person could be accepted by someone else without any doubts. Therefore I would never have the heart to preach something what I have realized and consider for some reason necessary for other people to know. To tell the truth it is so. I don’t know how to answer this question. I just don’t know what kind of knowledge could it be that could be imposed another free adult and thinking people who didn’t realize it by themselves yet. Thank you.
You know I am lazybones too. I like it very [...]
Irina Yasina: You know I am lazybones too. I like it very much to lie on the sofa and read and do nothing else. Then there is no stress in life. Though I haven’t been doing it for a long time but I can imagine that if one is lying one, two or three days it is also very difficult. One is doing nothing, technology is not developing and people are not thinking. We know all this. If we would live in the warm climate and had bananas and coconuts above our heads maybe then we could afford to do nothing and to be lazy. Afterwards don’t ask me why there are less developed and more developed continents or why there are countries which are parasitic on their own mineral recourses doing nothing and producing nothing while other countries make one technological progress after another in human life. This is actually the answer to your question because stress is a concomitant of activity and developed relations. The lack of stress is […] Of course there are exceptions of some people who live in harmony with themselves having no stress, but to speak honestly I don’t know such people. If you know tell me what kind of people they are. Perhaps they are people, who do not produce and in the best case who do the arts. There are no businessmen among them. Thank you.
I like such socialistic questions especially [...]
Irina Yasina: I like such socialistic questions especially if they come from America. What if we ask this Mister from Leechburg, Pennsylvania what else can move a man by the creation of new technologies? Do you really think that some social projects would develop technologies in the world in such a global way? Unfortunately never mind how dreamful we are but we cannot imagine this. And we have to accept that the market will always be there. Human laziness moves a man and he invent something in order to do less work himself and not to pay much. Laziness and greed if you want to know is the awful human, such a bad animal. But there is no other way, and we have to live with that all our life. And that’s why there is the market and the military and there is nothing terrible about it. If the humankind would invent other driving reasons then we could speak about that, but not now. Thank you.
Which kind of genetic engineering? It should [...]
Irina Yasina: Which kind of genetic engineering? It should be a responsible one. Every action of a man should be a responsible action. He shall take into consideration all advantages and disadvantages. Scientist, politician or businessmen and parents of course shall take into consideration advantages and disadvantages and if it is such a complicated question as of genetic engineering it is to do even more carefully. It should be a responsible and then I will trust it. Thank you.
Firstly it’s love, secondly it’s [...]
Irina Yasina: Firstly it’s love, secondly it’s responsibility, and thirdly it’s respect for another people. That’s all. It has no reason to explain why it’s so. I think it’s clear. Thank you. To continue with this topic I think that every child grown up [inaudible] whose parents show how responsible they are by taking different kinds of decisions about their life would be a normal person because children actually learn on the example of their parents. Of course there are simply exceptions yet children learn very quickly this way. But if you say something and then do the contrary I don't think that you will succeed. At least children realize everything very well and even if we lie and try to educate them with values we don't possess we wouldn't succeed.
The arts should talk about love, in the case [...]
Irina Yasina: The arts should talk about love, in the case that it should talk. Actually it does it since it exists: about love, about beauty, about the human being, about human relationships. Why? Because it’s the most important matter. Thank you.
What moves me? Desire to live in a better [...]
Irina Yasina: What moves me? Desire to live in a better world moves me, desire to defeat my own lacks, desire to make my parents happy and see them smiling for me, desire to communicate with people which […], desire that people like me, but not all people, just the people who I like. I think it’s enough. Thank you.
You know, I think that religion is [...]
Irina Yasina: You know, I think that religion is [sadness]. You can say it another way, you can say that there is love in religion. Nobody can explain it, but without doubt this is the [sadness].
It’s difficult to name all these books and [...]
Irina Yasina: It’s difficult to name all these books and films which they should see. One day would be not enough to read the whole register. They absolutely have to get to know people who succeed to overcome themselves, to defeat their own laziness, diseases, passivity and thus are the example for these young people. They should see people, who respect each other, and absolutely they should grow up in love and then they will succeed in what they are doing and get some idea and put it into practice. But the most important thing is that they should be surrounded with love and warmness.
We’ll just save money and gasoline. We won’t [...]
Irina Yasina: We’ll just save money and gasoline. We won’t buy tickets to fly or we won’t drive but we will communicate using the internet and it will be the full-value exchange of opinions which will take place more often because it will be cheaper and which will be more effective. And we will become better. Thank you.
First of all it is better to put this [...]
Irina Yasina: First of all it is better to put this question to people on television. Maybe they can answer better than we. However it seems to me that information that we consider irrelevant matters for something: maybe they camouflage something with it, or maybe they let something unsaid or they don’t want to discuss something with us. I always use the example of the present situation of television in Russia. It is under control of the state and serves as “debilitating of the population”: it transmits such stupid programmes. They don’t give people food for thought, and even worse, they make people do anything but think. They discuss no important problems with people, and people always watch television. It is such a low level, God knows. It is the result of such political instruction. To speak honestly I don’t know how the situation is in other countries. I think that it is also the problem of choice because if in the country television offers many channels there are channels among them that give unimportant information, but there are also some channels that correspond to people’s high intellectual level. But they have an alternative and can switch over to what they what to see. If there is no alternative then it is the time to think about why all channels spread such unimportant information. If only some do it, [it is not so bad].
It depends on what mass media are we talking [...]
Irina Yasina: It depends on what mass media are we talking about. If it is a free mass media which is under no other control but the control of a professional sense of duty and professional critics then it is a plus point. If it is the mass media which [inaudible] dissect, prepare information and wait at table as “the powers that be” wish, then it is a minus. We say in Russia to “mass media” “SMI” which is “means of information” and not “of disinformation”, and this is the principle of it. That’s what I would like to say first. And secondly, modern possibilities of the internet give completely different characteristics and create different features to the activity of SMI, I mean of the mass media (I don’t like the Russian abbreviation SMI, it has queer declination forms). So what people in the whole world write in their diaries, so called blogs is in my opinion as professional journalist the future of journalism. And my colleagues and I would have to compete a lot with those who write about what he has seen and makes pictures or videos and show it on the internet even not being a professional journalist but doing his work honestly and objectively. And the presence of such people is exceedingly positive in my opinion.
It’s a very right and good question. I think [...]
Irina Yasina: It’s a very right and good question. I think that this “consumer mass culture” as they call it in Russia is destiny of young people who have no own opinions at all or of people who don’t want to think. There are a lot of such people. I think that in every country only 15-20 percent of population really want to reflect and the rest of people live quietly, go to work every day, give birth to children, meet relatives and neighbours, eat, sleep and that’s all. Actually they don’t need anything else, and it is normality. But people who consider intellectual work engine of their own development and thus of progress cannot be content with consumer culture. And again I say you can switch over and not watch, and this is the truth of life: it isn’t necessary to constrain people to read [inaudible] Hermann Hesse or Kafka as they shouldn’t constrain a man with two university degrees to read cheap detective stories. To each his own. That’s all. And what about resistance I think if there is the inner wish and will then people resist voluntarily. I think it doesn’t catches to such people, and if it does the events of their own life would change them. We shouldn’t demonize consumer culture, it is not very talented. And if people want to dress well and to have holidays in known spa maybe those cloths are really better and the sea in those places is more beautiful and clean. We could try and then make our chose.
You know there are such places on the Earth [...]
Irina Yasina: You know there are such places on the Earth that teach by their own example how not to do, e.g. Russia. Great Russian philosopher Chaadaev wrote at the beginning of the 19th century that Russia exists to be for other nations the example how they have not to do. As I have grown up and live in Russia I realize that all our experiments on ourselves should have been examples not to be followed. Africa is sometimes like that. Many African countries had a lot and put a lot at risk and lost a lot, and they are examples of how not to do. But of course there are some positive aspects. For example I have bought special shoes for my parents because my mother has troubles with her feet and my father is not young any more too. These shoes are created according to a technology that they have learned by the Massai tribe. These tall, strong and beautiful people walk on the very hard ground their whole life. And they have such a special feet form that scientists have studied this phenomenon and created very comfortable shoes for people who have problems with their feet. But it is only one little example. I think it is possible to learn a lot of things if studying carefully African culture and traditions. I have been only in few places in Africa. I have been to Egypt and this is still Africa even if only according to its geographical location on this continent. But however the whole European civilisation started there. So you decide it.
You know, a lot of my answers I gave today [...]
Irina Yasina: You know, a lot of my answers I gave today are similar. But it is my life credo that it is not necessary to constrain someone to something. If you try to force people to keep their national culture against their will they won’t want to become members of the word community and so on. If you prohibit them to keep their national culture they will unite together in their traditions and continue them in their evenings at home and they will win anyway. My deep conviction in life is that everything should be done voluntarily by one’s own choice. If a nation wants to be a nation nobody can make it disappear. Because let’s see the example of Jewish who were dispersed two thousand years ago and managed to keep their specific character and remain a nation as it was at the time of their dispersion. And using example in the United States we can see that all nations, a lot of people from all over the world keep their identity if they want to, and if they don’t want to keep it they assimilate. In this context I wonder about Russian people who come to America. Unlike other nationalities: Italians, Chinese, Japanese or Mexican they try to dissolve in the mass as soon as possible and not to feel like Russian any more. Why is it like that? I don’t know. I don’t know but however it is the question which requires a constant discussion. I think it is very important. Perhaps they have been constrained to something too long like to feel themselves Soviet people against their will. Thank you.
Every person has his own untold story. [...]
Irina Yasina: Every person has his own untold story. Someone considers one topic important, and someone else considers another one more important. And what is important for you? You have to define it yourself. I would like to know what the origin of the human being was, what exactly caused the humans to appear. The theory of Darwin says that it was the ape, and priests say that it was God’s decision. And we don’t really know and will hardly ever know but I would like to. I know a young woman who says she doesn’t want to know it. She prefers to know that there are some mysteries on the Earth which would stay untold and thus she would hope for miracles. Being over 40 years old, I don’t hope for any miracles any more and I don’t want to hope. I want to know the truth and to base my decisions on what really has happened so that I could calculate my steps in a way to avoid mistakes and not to hope but to know. I think this is the answer to this question. But I would like to repeat again that everybody has his own story he would like to know. Someone is interested in one topic and someone else in another. For someone global problems are important and someone consider trivial things important but all these things are equally important.
This question is easy to answer. Is it [...]
Irina Yasina: This question is easy to answer. Is it possible to remain decidedly national in the 21st century? Is it possible not to develop with the tendency that the whole humanity generally follows? Look at North Korea. It is an absolutely unique creation. Look at China. China is modernizing and in some way it is westernising keeping its decidedly national identity. Yet it adopts a lot of those positive achievements of the Western industrial world which it doesn’t have. Japan and South-Eastern Pacific countries follow the same way. And it seems to me that it is the very right way. Those hold up their own development who tries to be nothing but them in the 21st century. Closing borders, forbidding foreign cultures the entrance and leaving people no alternatives aren’t natural methods nowadays. I think this is the answer to the question though I realise that I repeat myself again on the whole.
It is an interesting question. It is [...]
Irina Yasina: It is an interesting question. It is interesting simply because it seems to me – I very often repeat these words but I really think so – it seems to be quite obvious that everyone produces and filters the truth for himself. Everybody chooses and creates selected facts for him or herself. You can compare what you consider facts with what other people think about it. If you are in the absolute minority then think about whether you perceive the reality in the right way. It concerns not only particular individuals but also [values]. If it appears to you that you have only enemies around you but all surrounding people don’t think so or on the contrary they think that you are searching for enemies while nobody want to hurt you, maybe then you should look at yourself “from without”.
People have had enough of myth producing. [...]
Irina Yasina: People have had enough of myth producing. The mankind should learn to look at its own mirror to see its imperfection, work to remedy its faults and be able to say “yes, I am better now” or “yes, I get worse”. We have had myths all our life. It’s enough. I give the example that is the story or actually it’s a Greek myth about how the gods put the Pandora’s Box on the earth. The box was full with different disasters and the gods prohibited opening it. I am sorry I cannot remember who exactly but someone, maybe a woman was curious and opened it and various disasters felt out from the box. They continued to drop out: people had diseases, wars, catastrophes, and finally it turned out that at the bottom of the box the hope was laying. So thus someone perceives the story in the way that the hope gives us [inaudible], it is what allows us to learn living with the terrible, perhaps unpleasant and destructive reality. And someone else says that hope is the worst of the evils because it disorientates us making us believe in miracles and not in what could really happen. Hope doesn’t let people work to improve; it gives them hope for something indefinite instead. These are two completely different interpretations of the same myth. But the second one is nearest to me. I think that one should not hope especially one shouldn’t count on myths. People have to rely on their own strength and abilities and educate their own children to men they would not be ashamed of.
It is so because we all are conservatives [...]
Irina Yasina: It is so because we all are conservatives and that’s why we look more at the national aspects and believe more in national than in universally human factors. If we recalled the development of the human history we would realize that there were times when people didn’t believe in nationality. There wasn’t such a definition as “nationality”. People believed in their families, tribes, towns, then in their principality. Than this principality grew and became the state. People felt themselves a nation. The humankind broadens its horizons from tribes to cities, from cities to principalities, and from principalities to a state. The part of Europe already lives not only in national dimensions but also according to the criterions of the European Union. I hope that someday the world will change so much that everybody, almost every human being living in that world would consider universal human values more important, and that between these values and the values of one’s neighbour abroad there would be no difference at all. Thank you.
You know, if a city is rich and wealthy and [...]
Irina Yasina: You know, if a city is rich and wealthy and successful people live there, then these people start to care about their city. Poor cities resemble each other. I think that the development of the economy, of wealth leads to the fact that cities become very different from each other. I was in Glasgow recently. This city is in registered in some list of UNESCO as converted from being an industrial city into a cultural centre. You know, Glasgow is absolutely unique. It has no such beautiful architecture as New-York or London but despite that there are excellent creations of designer Charles Rennie Macintosh, or wonderful museums, beautiful monuments in honour of great citizens of Glasgow. All this makes the city absolutely unique. This city has enough means to pay for its own identity. It is useful not to get upset, but to find some supplementary means to have one’s own identity. As I believe that we humanity have the future that wouldn’t be bad, I also believe that Paris will stay Paris, and Peking will stay Peking, Moscow will be Moscow as Seoul will be Seoul and New-York will be New-York. What else?
I think that first of all the most important [...]
Irina Yasina: I think that first of all the most important thing is how the man defines him himself. If it's important to him that his origins are African he can call himself African, Afro-American, Afro-European or Afro-Russian or as he likes it. If he doesn’t feel it nor has any connections to his origins so it is his problem and it’s absolutely irrelevant. It seems to me that what matters first is the self-identification of a human being. You know, I have myself a Russian mother and a Jewish father and my self-identification changed all the time in my life because when I was among Jewish and if they laughed at Russian I immediately defended the nation of my mother. As soon as Russian started to laugh at Jewish, and I have to say it happened much more often, and as soon as they started to tell some ugly stories about them I immediately defended the nation of my father and felt like I was a part of it. That’s why I ask, is it really so important? I ask you to hold on how you feel about it. You are who you think that you are.
I absolutely do not agree with the given [...]
Irina Yasina: I absolutely do not agree with the given statement, because in my opinion egoism is in many ways a reason for human progress. There is even a funny saying: laziness is an engine for progress; egoism is, too. Because when a person wants to make something for himself, he begins to produce, he tries to become something else, to change, etc. Yet another question, and I think this is what Mr. Appel meant, is that people do not want to share. But this is already not a question of egoism. This is already a question of taxation system. It is impossible to make people pay more than they want, because then they will either move to another place or simply stop paying. That is why egoism is in a way a measurement, if you wish, which allows the authorities to figure out what they can expect from this person, from this society, make sure they do not cross the line, do not contradict this natural feeling. Because egoism... one should not think that egoism is only negative: this is also a positive feeling, it is a desire to close up your own Good and not let in the destruction. That is why I invite you to look at things more optimistically.
