Category Archives: Family and Relationships

Medea and The Law of Gene Preservation

We all remember as children reading the great tragedy of Medea by Euripides. In a terrible tragedy, as her husband plans to leave her for another woman, the heroine Medea kills their two young sons in a fit of jealousy in the final scene. What inexplicable, unimaginable power could drive a mother to murder her own children?

From the numerous examples cited at the beginning of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”, we know that in nature, any mother, either among humans or the animal world, will sacrifice her own life without a moment’s hesitation, in order to save her child, her young.

What could compel a mother to overcome this fundamental law of nature, the Law of Gene Preservation? Or might the law be fallible?

Literature gives us many examples too of how the madness of love and passion can inspire a lover both either to achieve the greatest feat or commit the gravest crime:

  • Andriy from Gogol’s novel Taras Bulba betrays his father, brother and brothers in arms for the sake of his Polish lover.
  • The young man from Gorky’s fairy tale, “The Heart of a Mother,” who is in love agrees to take his mother’s heart, essentially agreeing to her murder, at the whim of his beautiful beloved.
  • The murder of a competitor (male or female) in love triangles is also a common theme, although, more often than not, even today murders committed in a fit of jealousy involve the object of the murderer’s passions, as was the case with Jose who killed Carmen.

The Law of Gene Preservation cannot be traced in any of these examples, except for the example in which the mother tears out her own heart for the sake of her son’s ‘happiness’.

Yet to kill one’s own children as Medea did? Recalling how early on in the play, Medea kills her own brother in order to delay her pursuers, I could just have put Medea down to being psychologically inadequate and leave it at that. Yet to take such an approach would be to underestimate the complexity of the issue. I decided to route through my memory to see if I could come up with an example I had witnessed in real life. Then I remembered something…

When I was young I had a friend. He was a handsome man, good humoured, always joking around. He had a beautiful voice, played the guitar and was brilliant at telling a good story. He was the life and soul of any party or company of men or women, a fighter and a gambler; in other words, a smooth operator. Naturally, he enjoyed great success with the “weaker” sex and was very responsive to any manifestation of their feelings.

But one day, he met his one and only and with the fiery passion that burned between them, they married in just the second month after having met. A year passed and they had a son, who was the copy of his father. All this time, my friend loved his wife although perhaps not quite as passionately as before, and he adored his son but was unable to fight his own nature and continued secretly visiting his former girlfriends ‘in arms’ as well as our boys’ nights.

When his son was older and going to school, my friend openly and more frequently went out, often not returning home until morning. Things continued in this vein for a couple of years and then one day he called his friends and in a grave voice asked them to stop inviting him to friendly get-togethers. After insistent demands for him to explain why, he gave in and revealed that every time he disappeared from the house, his wife beat their son. We never saw him after that.

I do not know how his family life unfolded, but I heard that he brought up his son, gave him a good education and that his son later married. In other words, he brought him up until he could stand on his own two feet and fulfilled the Law of Gene Preservation.

I could not help comparing my friend’s wife with Medea. Thank God we live in different times according to different customs and values.

Readers of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer” may remember that of all the conceivable and inconceivable questions posed in the Prologue, only one was left unanswered – the riddle of Love.

In saying that the foundations of the Law of Gene Preservation are to be found in Love, we only half answered the question. What we did not express is why Love is so selective, why a person in love can see no-one else in the entire second half of humanity except for the object of their love, their passion.

I imagine this second half of the riddle of Love to be like a dark matter that is capable of suppressing the Gene Preservation instinct and driving a person to commit the most horrific crimes possible in human nature; a dark matter, such as that which fills our Universe and continues to remain the cosmological mystery of our day.


Karmak Bagisbayev, professor of mathematics, author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”

Share on social media:

Parents and Children, Brothers and Sisters

No individual is capable of blindly loving their parents, brothers and sisters in the same way that they blindly love their own children.

The reason for this is simple: human beings do not carry out gene preservation via their parents, brothers and sisters. This is only possible via their own children.

Hence we reach the conclusion that blood is not always thicker than water! There can simply be any degree of affection for one’s parents, brothers and sisters (from a huge amount to none at all) which is developed via parenting and cohabitation over a long period of time.

The reason for the development of amicable relationships between brothers and sisters is also simple: it is a way for parents to maximise gene preservation. The closer children are when growing up, the greater the chance that they will preserve their own genes, and, by consequence, the genes of their parents. This is why the majority of parents try to create a warm atmosphere in the family, fostering friendship and mutual support between their children.

Despite expectations built on myth and literature, when children grow up living in separate homes, adult meetings between brothers and sisters are often unsuccessful. The same goes for meetings between biological parents and children brought up in children’s homes. There is a reason for the Kazakh saying that goes: ‘I didn’t see you being born, and I won’t cry when you die’.

In the majority of cases, the love that a person feels for their own children is ‘blind’ and limitless because it is based on gene preservation. This is why parents can love their children their entire lives without getting anything back, even if their children do not love them in return.


Alanbek Yussupov, based on “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer

Share on social media:

What is childfree all about – mutation or extreme Freedom of Choice?

In recent years, in some streams of Western media and throughout the world, articles have appeared that some conservative-minded segments of the population have found disturbing. The subject of these articles are the ‘childfree’, adults and often couples who voluntarily choose not to have children of their own.

The question instantly arises, “What kind of a phenomenon is this? Is it possible to deliberately suppress the Gene Preservation instinct inherent in all living nature?”

Statistics show that childfree adults are most common among highly educated, urban, successful, well-off and less religious portions of the population above the average childbearing age. Following the principles of The Last Faith, I would say that the ‘childfree’ are among those with higher than average levels of Freedom of Choice.

Without doubting the original statistics, I would be inclined to interpret them differently.

According to my personal observations, the majority of these people originally come from a relatively poor background, are aware of high standards in life and when they were younger, dreamt of being able to provide these standards of living to their own children in the future.

Devoting themselves entirely to the achievement of a successful career, they do not notice how quickly time passes and by the time they have achieved success after 45-50 years, they face the real threat of not having enough time left to bring their own children up until they are old enough to stand on their own two feet.

Moreover, by this age they are drained by the fear that having children will mean that they will lose the comforts of life to which they are now accustomed, i.e. they develop that well-known phenomenon: age-egoism.

Now they simply find themselves having to explain their situation and so they tell others that their decision not to have children is deliberate, i.e. that they are childfree.

In my opinion, the situation is in fact exactly the opposite, i.e. in their youth, these people experienced an over-inflated sense of responsibility for their future children. In other words, for the Law of Gene Preservation. Their claims that they are satisfied by relationships with their favourite pets, or at best, with their nieces and nephews, are not entirely convincing.

It brings to mind a story from many years ago published in the Russian ‘Literary Magazine’ about two students from the same university who were in love but then argued and split up over some trivial thing. To prove himself to his love, the young man devotes himself to science, in the end becoming a well-known scientist, academic, and winner of all kinds of awards. And then one day, once he had retired, he was walking through a square and came across an elderly lady, surrounded by a bunch of merry grandchildren and recognised that she was the girl he had loved in his former university days many years ago. They gave each other a hug, sat down and began to reminisce about the past. When it came to parting, the academician gave a sad sigh and said: “How gladly I would give up all my titles and rewards for all these charming little ones to be our grandchildren.”

Of course, among the childfree there are those genuine individuals who decided not to have children at a young age. There are even so-called ‘childhaters’.

Returning to the main question however: ‘what makes a person suppress their natural instinct, mutation or extreme Freedom of Choice?’, I am of the opinion that the question is something for geneticists. I am sure that genetic studies are already being carried out in this area, just as once studies were made of homosexuals.

Either way, the more conservatively minded portion of the population can rest assured – the childfree phenomenon by definition, cannot be passed on genetically.

P.S. During the period 1960-70, ethologist J.Calhoun conducted experiments on rodents placed in artificial, ideal living conditions with food provided. In the case of rodents, these conditions led to the cessation of reproduction, however, the transfer of these results to equivalent behaviour in human beings raises great doubts. We all know that couples who are already rich or become wealthy at the peak of childbearing age almost always have many children.


Karmak Bagisbayev, professor of mathematics, author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”

Share on social media:

The Myth of Male Polygamy and Female Monogamy

We often hear natural male polygamy and female monogamy being referred to in the context of scientific fact. This myth, which has no biological foundation at all, was thought up by men back in the day of patriarchy and continues to be supported by men for obvious reasons. No species whose breeding strategy differs among its male and female representatives can ever survive! Nature has no examples of a species in which the males are polygamous and the females monogamous or vice verse. Either both sexes are polygamous or both are monogamous. Contrary to widespread assumptions, all ‘harem-forming’ species are totally polygamous i.e. polygamy is evident in both the males and the females. When a lioness is on heat, she will mate with any other male in the absence of the harem leader. The opposite example can be seen among wolves, swans and some other animals, where both male and female are monogamous.

The human species is decidedly polygamous. In modern society, both men and women tend to have more than 5 sexual partners throughout their lifetime and more than 40% have children with different sexual partners. Biologically speaking, men and women are completely equal and have similar rights to gene preservation.

Throughout the history of humankind, we as a species have adopted various types of mating systems depending on environmental and demographic circumstances: polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, monogamy. It should be noted that in every circumstance both men and women stuck to the same mating system and were equally maximising their chances of gene preservation.

The immediate question that comes to mind is how we ended up with a prevalence of monogamous marriage? The answer is simple. Monogamous marriage maximises the chances of gene preservation for both men and women in civilised society.

Humans are the most advanced social animals with the largest brain size in relation to the body. Our babies are born relatively undeveloped and weak compared to other mammals and require the longest fostering period (among all animals) before they are mature enough to take care of themselves and pass on their own genes.

With the development of civilisation and the increasing complexity of society, the fostering period we give our children has also grown. If previously 12-14 year-olds were working or protecting their tribe on an equal footing with their parents, nowadays maturity and independence come in a young person’s early 20s upon graduation from university.

Monogamous marriage maximises a child’s chances to successfully reach the necessary maturity and level of social development required to find a partner and pass on their genes to the next generation.

It should, however, be noted, that monogamous marriage in its strictest sense is a very rare occasion among both humans and animals. In reality, the majority of partners stick to social monogamy while remaining sexually polygamous, both in males and females equally.

Some may claim that men are more prone to adultery than women, but every sexual relationship a man develops outside of marriage usually involves an equally ‘adulterous’ woman.


Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson

Share on social media:

The Power of the Law of Gene Preservation

Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson

An employee of a registry office once told me of a tragicomic story she had encountered in her work.

One day an old man and woman in their seventies came into the office supporting one another by the arm. They had come for a divorce. Perplexed, the registrar asked them why they had not come earlier when the greater parts of their lives would still have lain before them, and surely, having come this far, could they not spend the rest of their days together, to which they replied:

“We realised almost straight away that we weren’t meant for each other but then the children arrived and we had to make sure they could stand on their own two feet.”

“And after that?”

“Then the grandchildren arrived and we had to help them stand on their own two feet. Now though, we are free!

Share on social media:

Applying the Principles of The Last Faith to Parenthood

Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson

In decision-making processes related to the upbringing of children, you can ask yourself one simple question: “Do the child’s actions inhibit Gene Preservation in another or restrict another person’s Freedom of Choice?”

If the answer to this question is yes, then you can safely impose an absolute ban on the child’s actions. If the answer is no, there is no need to place any restrictions on the child at all. They must simply be helped to understand the situation and then make their own decisions.

Here are some practical examples of the classical instructions we give to children:

“Share your toys”. No child is obliged to share their toys with anyone else. The child should decide for themselves who they wish to share their toys with based on how they get on with the other children around them.  If a child does not want to share then he or she won’t share with these children either. Beyond that, it is preferable to let the child make their own decision. Naturally, a child’s parents can help clarify the situation but the decision must remain the child’s prerogative.

“Don’t tease or kill animals”. There must be an absolute ban placed on this kind of behaviour because it undermines the realisation of Gene Preservation in animals. The ban does not apply to the cases where a child needs to preserve his/her own gene, e.g. eating meat or killing an animal which attacks a child.

“Don’t fight or hit other children”. It all depends on the situation. If a child beats another motivated solely by aggression then this behaviour must be stopped totally because it contradicts Gene Preservation (and/or Freedom of Choice) in the case of the other child.  A child has the right to hit another when provoked in defence of individual Gene Preservation (and/or Freedom of Choice).

“Be obedient”. No child is obliged to be obedient to their parents in everything. According to rules of communal living, the child and parents need to establish cooperative relationships so that the child understands what kind of behaviour is totally prohibited and why (it is the parents’ task to explain the reason for a boundary, preferably by applying the principles of The Last Faith). Parents may advise their child to act one way or another, but should never force them to act in a certain way.

“Be tidy and diligent”. It all depends on the situation. For example, in their own rooms children should be allowed to arrange their toys and belongings however they like. In communal rooms, in accordance with the basic rules of communal living, the child should take into account the wishes (freedoms of choice) of his or her parents, brothers and sisters.

“Don’t be indifferent”. A child must choose for themselves whether a particular situation causes them concern or not. No child is obliged not to be indifferent.

“Respect the elders”. No child is obliged to respect the elders simply because they happen to be greater in years. Respect must result from a child’s Freedom of Choice.

“Love your parents”. A child is in no way obliged to love their parents. This is entirely a matter of Freedom of Choice. One may simply hope that during the early years of life that a child spends living together with its parents, close affectionate relationships will be formed that will last throughout the child’s life.

It should be noted that the parents mostly have no Freedom of Choice about whether they love their children or not because parental love has its foundation in Gene Preservation.  This explains why some parents spend their entire lives loving their unloving children.

Share on social media:

On the mystery of Love

Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson

Of all the questions posed in the prologue there is just one question to which The Last Faith is unable to provide an answer, or to which it has only provided 50% of an answer. This question concerns the mystery of Love. For clarity’s sake, here we are talking only about the natural form of love that occurs between a man and a woman. The Gene Preservation instinct undoubtedly lies at the root of this kind of love. In a sense this fact might serve as an appropriate answer to the question and yet, it still only goes halfway towards a full answer because Gene Preservation instinct cannot explain why love is so supremely selective. Why does a man or woman in love, long to preserve their genes exclusively with one sole representative of the entire second half of humanity? Even if we cannot provide a rational answer to this question, we can at least look at it more closely.

At the outset, I deliberately avoid attempting to define love in the context of strange, sublime, mystical speculation, leaving that rather to poets and preachers because such definitions cannot be subjected to experimental verification. Neither can I adopt the definition of Love offered by materialists based on medical research such as the biochemical meeting of perfectly opposite pheromones. After all, sometimes people fall in love at first sight, even in the winter when they are wearing thick clothes impervious to pheromones! People can even fall in love through a movie screen! Michael Jackson and Elizabeth Taylor or Vladimir Vysotsky and Marina Vlady are prime examples of this. And how are we to understand one-sided, unrequited love? For that too is love, oh and what love it is! This type of love occurs more frequently than mutual love, it is just that we hear of it less often and sadly, only when there is a tragic outcome.

Attempts to explain the concept of love based solely on the striving to protect and pass on one’s genes hold no water at all.  The ideal solution and best means of protecting and passing on one’s genes is found in the classical form of monogamous marriage based on mutual attraction and shared interests and views on life. As we know, marriages which are not based on passionate love are fragile and undermined by the hyper-critical attitude of the lovers to each other, the virulent need to squash their partner’s Freedom of Choice and desire to have possession of the soul of the object of their love. Marriages of this kind will only last if over the years passionate love is transformed into mutual affection.

Neither can love be explained exclusively by Freedom of Choice. Has anyone really ever chosen with whom they will fall in love? In many languages the Russian word ‘vlyubitsa’ is literally expressed as ‘falling and tumbling into love’. For example, in English the equivalent expression is ‘fall in love’ and in French ‘tomber amoureux’.  How on earth can one speak of choice, moreover of free choice. I had a friend who lived to the age of forty something and all his short life he saw no meaning to life without love. He was always ‘tumbling into love’, spending the night in the entrance hall to the flat of his beloved so that in the morning he could meet his ‘goddess’ with a bunch of flowers. When he came into easy money he would hire restaurants and the orchestra would sing and play especially for his love. I have to say, that very few objects of his passion were able to resist such an onslaught of attention, even in the case of married women from respectable families who had wealthy, influential husbands. In contrast I have known both men and women who have loved no-one but themselves their entire lives. There is nothing interesting I can say about them.

With that, we may have excluded various erroneous attempts to explain what love is but have made no progress in our own search for an answer to this question. Perhaps this is why we have lyrics of love to feed poetry, music, paintings, literature, film and theatre which make up such a large and important part of human life. Any form of art related to amorous poetry represents the conscious or unconscious striving to answer to the question: “Why does love exist?” And the day that a rational explanation of love is found, lyrics of love will breathe their last. Something tells me though, that we will not be seeing this day for a long time to come.

Share on social media: