To open towards others, to come to their aid is the only possible way to give the meaning of our life. In the past, a scientist, and now – the Buddhist monk gives scientific evidence against the position “everyone for himself”.

Mathieu Ricard (Matthieu Ricard) – Biologist, geneticist, in 1972 abandoned his scientific career and settled in India and Nepal, where he completely devoted himself to the study of Tibetan Buddhism. Monk, philosopher, personal translator of the Dalai Lama, author of several books, including “The Art of Meditation”, “Speech in Defense of Altruism”.

Psychologies: Why did you decide to write about altruism?

M. R.: It all began with an obvious impossibility to combine three temporary prospects: short -term, medium -term and long -term

, which correspond to three main axes of life – economics, searching for happiness and preserving the environment. And I wondered what approach could unite them. Altruism seemed the only suitable for me.

As soon as you have more attention to other people, you stop playing with other people’s money, you strive to achieve an acceptable quality of life in society and take care of the state of the planet that you will inherit for the children so that it does not worsen.

That is, you offer society a new moral?

M. R.: No, after all, altruism is not only value from the field of morality, it is very useful for practically! It is much more corresponding to real life than selfishness. The egoist cuts himself off from reality, imagining that he is an autonomous unit, that he is able to live on its own, without caring for others.

Meanwhile, from the point of view of the evolution of species, it is clear that cooperation of individuals has always led to higher levels of complexity and greater progress than their competition. So there are many practical arguments proving that altruism is not a luxury, but a necessity.

And this is also true because it corresponds to the deep property of human nature, namely the need to open to other people.

If altruism is such an almost useful and natural model of behavior, why it did not prevail?

M. R.: Of course, we still have a long way, but why do you say that he did not prevail? The philosopher Hannah Arendt spoke of the “banality of evil”, but we can even more reasonably talk about the “banality of good”.

Ten people who work together and cooperate during the day, do not surprise anyone. But if someone alone makes the theft, everyone is talking only about it. The passion for deviations, in particular to crimes, leads to the fact that we cease to pay attention to what makes up the fabric of our existence – namely, to good deeds, to manifestations of the partnership.

Every aggressive or selfish act shocks us precisely because it is “not banal”!

You travel around the world, see poverty, violence, wild capitalism – which makes you believe in a good future?

M. R.: A biting dog causes more evil than a hundred peaceful dogs. The minority of enterprises, being selfish, but powerful, can have a detrimental effect. But I am encouraged by the fact that I can “measure the intellectual temperature” in areas such as economics, psychology and natural sciences, and I can state that interest in the values of cooperation is growing everywhere.

It is enough to listen to the psychologist Ekman, who devoted his life to the study of emotions;He once told me: “Now only one thing takes me-how to find a way to spread the ideas of altruism and compassion among people”.

Or to read the famous economist Dennis Snower, who is sure that the path of care should go near the road of reason (English. Care). Or to observe how we, together with the physician, professor John Kabbat-Zin and neurobiologist Richard Davidson, set out our vision to economists, generals and advisers from the nearby US President during the “brainstorming”.

All this, multiplied by the rapidly developing activities of hundreds of thousands of NPOs or institutes such as the Khan Academy, gives me an occasion to believe that a real cultural shift is happening.

You are constantly invited to speak to politicians, but are in no hurry to embody your ideas. This does not repel you a desire to change society?

M. R.: I must admit that the implementation of any idea takes time. In the 1960s, wrestlers for ecology (and I was one of them) were perceived by society as complete marginals. Today they hold posts in all governments.

As the civilization used to be asked by questions about slavery or equality of sexes, so now it is interested in the possibility of realizing those human virtues that are laid down in us. This inspires me and allows you to hope for the best.

As Viktor Hugo said, there is nothing stronger than the idea, the time of which came. The time of altruism occurs, it is obvious. After all, in any case, we have no other choice.