He trembled as he thought of what women like her and men like Nicolas Zarratoff would be able to undertake. In order for this to come about it was necessary for the task he was embarking on to be successful. It would be. Fawell swore this to himself and leaned forward on his desk.
7.
It was O’Kearn’s genius which gave definitive shape to the project for a world government and established the process of selecting its members. He received the delegation of the young scholars with the benevolence that was customary with him, except when he found himself faced with scientific heresy, in which case he could become fierce. Fawell’s three companions were not unknown to him. There was a brief introduction to the matter in hand. Realising that a visit so early in the day could only concern some important matter, he asked his former assistant to get straight to the point in his explanation. When the latter had done this in a few brief words, the great scholar showed no sign of surprise and did not protest.
‘I have often considered this eventuality,’ he said. ‘For my part, I have always thought that a world government would be necessary in the near or distant future. It was Einstein’s opinion and it is that of all wise men. But I visualised it growing out of the ruins of a war, when it would become the only chance for the world to escape death, as Wells had foreseen. You want to bring about a peaceful revolution. I could not ask for anything better. At any rate it is clear that such a government can only be trusted to the best brains, which have been developed by science. But have you anticipated the clamour that will arise as soon as you talk about abolishing separate nations?’
‘Science has already suppressed them.’
‘Certainly, but public opinion is not scientific. It’s not the first time, as you well know, that a project of this kind has been proposed. Well, all those people who have used expressions of this kind, such as world administration or world federation, whatever their merit, from Garry Davis to Einstein, all of them, without exception, were immediately regarded as visionaries, as dreamers and utopians. Even in the case of limited attempts at local concentration and coordination, on a modest scale, as was the case with Europe, there was an explosion of critical and sarcastic remarks. What’s it going to be like if you start talking about a world government?… I think that Mrs Han does not agree with me. Don’t hesitate to give me your opinion.’
‘I just want to make the comment,’ said Betty, who had not been able to repress a gesture of protest, ‘that all such criticisms were made in the name of realism. A want of realism is the usual criticism made of those who invoke the natural law of concentration and suggest speeding up the effects. The insult that they were lacking in realism was hurled contemptuously at all the supporters of a European federation. Well, I ask you Master, how could one maintain such an argument when we propose that the central administration should be entrusted to the most obvious realists in our world, that is to say, the scholars?’
‘Certain people would maintain that argument all the same, but your reasoning is valid.’
‘I think that Betty is right, Master,’ said Yranne. ‘If it is necessary, such theorists as myself could be regarded as visionaries, but not those physicists who spend their lives digging into matter and analysing it, and penetrating as deeply as possible into the very heart of matter.’
‘Nor should those,’ added Betty, ‘who scrutinise the cells of life every day.’
O’Kearn’s face became sombre.
‘Am I to understand that you also want to make an appeal to the specialists of the so-called natural sciences… to biologists and to physiologists?’ he asked with evident disdain.
‘Upon reflection, it seemed indispensable to us.’
It was obvious that the Nobel physicist did not like this prospect.
‘I believe, like Pythagoras and Einstein, that truth is independent of Man,’ he said. ‘Well, isn’t truth the purpose of scientific study?’
‘That’s what I think too,’ murmured Zarratoff.
‘And that’s what I believe as well, Master,’ pleaded Fawell. ‘But the conquest of truth is known as knowledge. And at the current stage of evolution and on our Earth at least, this knowledge needs the human brain.’
‘Without Einstein or a man of his genius,’ Betty insisted, ‘the truth which his theories embody would still be hazy.’
‘But it would nevertheless exist,’ grumbled O’Kearn.
Yet, after having thought about it, the scholar admitted half-heartedly that they might well be right and that a government of any kind should also be concerned about mankind. Moreover, with biologists and medical experts their realism would be unassailable.
‘Fine,’ he said. ‘I find your plan reasonable and I am prepared to help you as far as my means allow. But I am old. I am no longer a man of action and I foresee that it will require a lot of energy and authority to govern the world. I feel I am not capable of doing it.’
So Fawell explained to him the conclusion which they had reached: that the support of the Nobels was necessary. Only all the Nobels as a body could guarantee the success of the operation.
‘Whose idea was this?’ the scholar asked.
It was indicated to him that it was the Chinese psychologist.
‘That doesn’t surprise me,’ he said, leaning forward. ‘It’s an intelligent idea.’
He was nodding his head in an approving way, when suddenly his brow acquired a sombre expression.
‘Among us there are only scholars,’ he said. ‘Assuming that we grant this honour also to physiologists, there are still the literary Nobels. Is it your intention to seek the support of novelists and poets?’
The four ambassadors looked at each other in somewhat embarrassed silence.
Finally Fawell said, ‘I confess that we have not yet considered this question. What do you think, Betty?’
‘It is necessary to have the patronage of all the Nobels without exception,’ she replied without hesitation. ‘We have to make an appeal to the literary Nobels, which will reassure the aesthetes, and also to the Nobels for peace, who will provide us with an essential element: peace will be an asset of the first order for us, which we must emphasise.’
‘To have a man of letters join a scientific government seems impossible to me,’ murmured Fawell. ‘A man of letters writes in a way imposed on him by contemporary taste. He never makes any innovations in the spiritual realm. Our government, which focuses on the discovery of the unknown, must, by contrast, be indifferent to taste. Wells once expressed it very well: “Aesthetic life is conditioned by the times, science conditions the times.”’3
‘There’s no question about it!’ exclaimed O’Kearn, striking his table.
The visitors had attained their first goal. The scholar had been won over to their plan, to the point of considering it his own. His brain had been working actively over the past few minutes and started to put together a plan which could be carried out in practical terms.
‘No Nobel must be part of this government,’ he asserted in a peremptory tone. ‘Their support will only have more weight. What is more, most of them, like me, are too old to be men of action.’
‘But if they support us, they will demand that they should take part.’
‘It must not happen at any price. Can you really see that incompetent old fool Alex Keene running and leading the world? He would be more certain to lead it into the abyss than the present leaders.’
Sir Alex Keene was the general leader of the Nobels of biology. A specialist in bacteriology, he had made himself famous by his works on micro-organisms. He was O’Kearn’s great rival, with a little less notoriety than him.
‘And they will demand nothing at all, if we arrange some honorary functions for them which flatter their pride, while avoiding giving them the least responsibility. I think I may say that I know my colleagues and fellow Nobels.’
So O’Kearn developed the plan which he had just conceived and which was finally put into practice along his general lines: the Nobels would lend th
eir moral support to the project. Then they would be the ones to designate the members of the government, after a competition for which they would be the examiners.
‘And I give you my word that none of them will have any desire to take this exam,’ the scholar declared, his eyes gleaming with malice.
‘Why is that?’
‘Because almost all of them would fail. Just imagine Alex Keene trying to solve the problems of nuclear physics! He doesn’t even know what an atom is!… For it should be generally understood that this exam will be very difficult and will require very extensive scientific knowledge. Only men and women who are still young like you would have the courage and endurance to carry out the work of intense preparation… Ah, my children,’ O’Kearn continued in a more familiar tone, rubbing his hands together, ‘so you aspire to governing the world? You must show yourselves worthy of doing it. For my part, I can already visualise the type of problems which I’m going to compose for you.’
Satisfied at seeing their project taking shape, the four ambassadors took their leave of the scholar with his firm promise. He immediately went and wrote a confidential letter to all living Nobels, making it clear to them the importance of the decisions which were expected of them, and to set up a general meeting.
‘I can imagine them already,’ said O’Kearn, whose caustic humour was often applied at the expense of his colleagues. ‘They’ll turn up wriggling with curiosity and inflated with their own importance. The rest is up to me. Let me deal with it.’
As he walked them back, he whispered into Betty’s ear:
‘Mrs Han, you were right a hundred times over. It is necessary to have all the Nobels, especially the peace ones. Do you know why?’
‘To inspire confidence in those people who yearn for universal peace.’
‘Certainly, but also to maintain some agreement among my colleagues. Did you think about that?’
‘Sir,’ Betty replied, screwing up her eyes in a smile, ‘that was not my main argument, but this detail had also been considered from a psychological point of view.’
8.
‘Honoured Presidents…’
Thus began the letter which the Nobels addressed to every head of state on the Earth, after having decided to give their support to the project of a scientific world government during the conference they held at O’Kearn’s instigation.
This conference was a success. The great physicist made his colleagues swear themselves to secrecy, and then informed them about the project and explained to them what was expected of their celebrity, authority and ability, if they approved of it. It did not take much to develop arguments which were convincing enough to obtain their unanimous agreement. For a long time they had all deplored the blindness of present governments, which granted derisory funds to their work, whenever they were of no direct interest to national defence. All of them suffered deeply when they saw the Earth’s heritage being squandered on dangerous, frivolous or simply useless expenditure, while pure science had to go begging.
O’Kearn had not finished his address when enthusiastic applause interrupted his words. For once all the Nobels were unanimous and prepared to take action. It only remained to clarify the steps that needed to be followed in order for the scholars to assume power. This was the aim of the discussions which were immediately organised, whether in small groups, or in plenary sessions and which lasted two weeks. After these deliberations, a letter was drafted, addressed to the heads of state of all nations, published the same day in the press all over the world, and broadcast on all wavelengths, creating everywhere a considerable sensation and feverish over-excitement in everybody’s minds. The draft of the letter was as follows:
Honoured Presidents,
Before coming to the essential point of this message, we would like to remind you of the following facts, known to all, and undeniable by any judge with a sense of objectivity:
The contemporary world, both the spiritual and the material world, has been shaped by Science. Without it there would be nothing but a jungle providing a habitat for animals. It has provided two essential elements, the radiant poles of all rational human beings:
1) Knowledge
2) Power
Concerning Knowledge: Everything that is known by mankind about the universe as it exists was discovered and taught by us, men of science, a lineage from which we will cite only a few of its especially brilliant stars: Leucippus, Pythagoras, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Pavlov, Einstein, and others who are still living whose modesty we protect. Thanks to them (and, we dare to assert, thanks to us as well who are their heirs and disciples, and who know at least how to understand and interpret their genius) the world today knows the following facts:
That matter consists of atoms.
That atoms themselves are composed of particles which behave in a strange way, but whose laws we are beginning to penetrate.
That the human body, our bodies, your bodies, Honoured Presidents, is composed of cells.
That blood circulates in the body under the influence of a muscle which acts like a pump. That this human heart can be repaired and even replaced when it is out of order.
That atoms sometimes combine to form molecules. That these molecules, by a process whose mystery we are beginning to perceive, bind together in their turn to form the cells of organic matter.
That the Earth revolves. That it is not the centre of everything but a minute grain of dust, like the billions of other planets which are satellites of the billions of stars, sisters of our own sun. That these stars are grouped in galaxies, themselves combined in groups of galaxies, forming a spatiotemporal universe, the dimensions of which some of us are beginning to calculate (while others among us maintain that this is not possible), to study its birth (which some deny), how it has aged and to foretell its demise (which others contest)…
Each phrase of this paragraph yielded subsequent discussions, as the scholars were not in complete agreement with certain assertions. When she became aware of the letter (the editing of it was conducted by the Nobels alone and it was kept secret until it was distributed), Betty bet the price of a dinner with Fawell that the phrases between parentheses had been added. The psychologist won her bet. As O’Kearn confirmed to her subsequently, they had been demanded by a minority which was fiercely opposed to the generally accepted theories about the nature of the universe.
The letter continued as follows:
That mankind is the result of a long evolution via various animal forms, the links between which we have almost reconstructed.
That the universe does not obey Euclidean geometry.
That the laws of statistics play a dominant role in the organisation of the material universe…
In this document composed by the most illustrious scholars in the world, and in which each expression had been weighed and analysed, it was quite remarkable that no logical order had been observed. This long list gave the impression of ideas jotted down on paper rather haphazardly, as they came into their minds.
It was nothing of the sort. This apparent disorder was the effect of meticulous calculation and a desperate attempt on the part of the peace Nobels to satisfy all the different specialists, who insisted that all the acquisitions of their specific scientific field should be mentioned before the others.
For, throughout the conference rivalries between the two big classes of scientific Nobels had manifested themselves, on the one hand the physicists and on the other the physiologists and the medical experts. The chemists aligned themselves under the banner of one group or the other, according to their tendencies. Besides their metaphysical differences, as O’Kearn, their acknowledged leader had so eloquently expressed it, the former group were interested in the universe while putting aside mankind and even life itself. The rest, on the other hand, considered the study of the miraculous life on Earth to be the only science worthy of the name. Sir Alex Keene, the famous bacteriologist, the standard-bearer of this group, smiled with derision every time the works of O’Kearn were
mentioned in his presence.
The physicists, who considered themselves the only valid scientific authorities, had started to draft the first articles in the letter mentioning only knowledge acquired in the field of inorganic matter. At first, a discussion had arisen at the heart of their own clan. One of them, a nuclear specialist, tended to give precedence to the microscopic world of the atom. Another, who only had a passion for huge coordinates, and was the author of an original theory of cosmology, persisted in giving priority to his macroscopic vision of the universe. The retorts became heated. Words like nucleon, meson, neutrino, antiparticle on the one side, and nebulae, spirals, galaxies and quasars on the other were exchanged like bullets, until Sir Alex Keene, indignant and exasperated by this gibberish, interrupted dramatically and hurled out the following remark in a furious tone:
‘And what, gentlemen, of physiology?’ without suspecting that he was thereby parodying a famous reply.
This outburst cast a chill over everyone, until one of the literary Nobels, remembering that he had read a similar phrase in his youth, conducted some research on it, discovered the analogy and informed his colleagues about it. So a good mood was restored for a moment among the scholars, but then it was the turn of the group of biologists, their energy rekindled, to demand priority in the list of humanity’s fundamental scientific advances.
Voices were raised. The discussion degenerated into a violent quarrel, during which some thought they heard the supreme insult, anthropocentrist, uttered with contempt by O’Kearn at Sir Alex Keene. The latter went pale with anger, and heaven knows what excesses they might have indulged in if the peace Nobels had not hurriedly intervened. In the face of their entreaties, the physicist swore that he had never uttered the word, and thanks to the peace Nobels, gradually everyone started thinking more calmly. Going from one group to another they strove to think of solutions which would be acceptable to both camps, and finished by obtaining their agreement to a version of this paragraph on fields of knowledge by presenting them with a very slightly modified draft. The result was an awful mishmash, which Fawell deplored and concerning which O’Kearn, always benevolent towards his colleagues, exercised his sarcastic eloquence.