pict rider #290788507

Stupid question for a chemist: Does it make sense to break “bonds”?
We, of course, force such breakages each and every day. It simply is the basis of our profession. It is regarded as being positive and beneficial.

But there also is wider aspect:
These days – more than probably ever before – thinking about – and valuing of – „bonds“, ties, connections, networks, organisations, alliances becomes more and more important. Is there also a sense in “breaking” connections of any kind?

Yes, I am a chemist and as such “bonds” mean anything between Schrödinger’s equations, orbitals, atom distances, energy levels, reactivity and symmetry – but I am also (in the first instance) a human being.

“Bonds” in this regard refer to connections, interactions, communications, friendships, relations – even emotions - between family members, partners, neighbours, colleagues, nations and any other category of people. Even in a wider context, Schrödinger’s equations do not come into normal people’s mind when thinking about “bonds”: There are trade connections, cultural and historical links, ties between generations, artists, scientists and – yes – also nations, religions and races.

And, exactly with these meanings, I stumbled across this question:
Does it make sense to break “bonds” generally? Is there any precondition required to get a positive result from cutting off an existing tie, relation, bond?

As we all do know, these more general types of bonds get regularly questioned by single “leaders” of communities – such as the Taliban chiefs, Brexiteers, Trump, Putin, Victor Orban, Marie Le Pen and Kim Jong-un to name just a few still alive – and such as Hitler, famous inquisition popes, Stalin, Mao, crusade leaders, South Africans Francois Malan or brutal Roman emperors to refer to examples who have already passed away. The main objective of such leaders is (was) to break as many external bonds as possible, to separate, to shield, to exclude.

The results of breaking such bonds - are, observed from some distance with the will to be as objective as possible, not impressing.

Quite the opposite seems to be true: Such ventures of disconnections, of shielding, exclusion, separation, apartheid, unification and imposing narrow-minded ideas always result(ed) in suppression, pain, hunger, despair, economic weakness, scientific and cultural droughts and finally thousands of political victims (“witches” and “heretics” at former days and “prisoners” today). More often than not, they end in military intimidating gestures - in the best case - and brutal war, in the worst.

First question: Is this observed negative outcome of disconnecting really kind of a “natural law”? Are not “changes” regarded as being progressive? The intended rupture of a chemical bond normally results in something beneficial, positive, better. What advantage do chemists have with their bond breaking compared to the leaders mentioned above?

At this point a rough idea of a reason came to my mind: Chemists do not intend to break bonds as such but they use it as means to form new, better, more stable bonds!

The status of broken bonds is intermediary, short living, chaotic and full of energy! Already the names of some of such reactive intermediates- like “radicals”, “lonely electrons”, “frustrated electron pairs”, “transition state” - sound hostile, frightening - in any case negative and they definitely do not encourage to conserve them. If we (chemists) force the rupture of a bond – we only do that to give birth to new, more stable ties!

And the bond-breaking leaders of social groups? They just disconnect with no intention to build new, more, better ties. The results are different and disastrous.

And – I am sure, this is a natural law: Everyone who has studied history, social sciences, politics (and even natural sciences as we just have learned) knows that the perception of gaining advantages by just breaking bonds is (absolutely!) wrong.

The fact that some of such non-connected (and sometimes really powerful) systems do exist at any time (for a limited period of time) is no counterevidence to the finding that they always are destined to decline: There is a constant process of forming new such communities – despite all lessons of history.

On the other hand, isolated, shielded, narrow-minded, closed, ideologically fixed, homogenous, autocratic communities always! decline (the later Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, any other kind of illiberal “Empire” (Ottoman, British, Persia…), the communist Soviet Union, researchers isolated from international communities, apartheid systems, inbred royal houses, companies artificially shielded from competition …).

What is wrong with societies who allow a very, very tiny group of obviously wrongly educated or psychologically ill members to lead them into such a “non-connected”, hence, “dead-end”, future?

If one looks deeper into this issue, it becomes clear, that in no case a majority of such a society actively has selected, promoted and supported such leaders but they simply did not prevent them from gaining power. They underestimated the danger. They passively tolerated these busy, ambiguous, narcissistic egomaniacs. But this doesn’t make things easier.

What went wrong if bonds between nations, cultures, states and even family members are that weak, human beings are left alone, get isolated, separated, down-graded, humiliated and even killed? What happened to mankind, to the social being “Homo Sapiens” that they have forgotten the basis of their existence: collaboration, share of work and burdens but also of values, harvests, resources, pain and joy – merely their countless, mainly invisible but permanently deceivable and vital bonds?

In the light of such a fundamental question, all aspects of considering the differences between a chemical triple and single bond are ridiculously irrelevant. Seems to be so. Doesn’t need to be explained. Is quite obviously true.

However (and our experience tells us, there is always a “however”) - however, this is not the entire truth:

When scientists venture to consider the nature of forces between small, apparently non-living, tiny fractions of our world; forces between so called “atoms”, then they only seem to act in two completely different worlds: that of microscopically small and mutually interfering matter fractions on the one hand and those of the macroscopic, interacting scientific community on the other hand. A more closer look reveals that these “worlds” are in fact just one: Everything is bonded and connected to everything else: energy to matter, speed to light, matter to anti-matter, cells to cells, our brains to cells, thoughts to the brain, thoughts to energy – and, yes: atoms to atoms, mediated by electrons, by energy levels, by Schrödinger’s findings. And here, we as mere chemists, have got our humble play-field of activity.

What I am trying to say is – that dealing with chemistry, with natural sciences doesn’t make us another isolated species compared to non-scientists or social scientists. Our findings in their very core are identical to the results of arts and politics. They are in alignment with everyone’s feelings and experiences:

• There are bonds everywhere, nothing and nobody can get isolated and survive in the long term.
• If one voluntarily breaks a bond – this is only justified and promising if one intends to form a new (better) bond at the same time.

The latter point seems to be the difference between chemists (who only break bonds as to form new ones) and the communities leaders who went astray and try to benefit from just breaking bonds with no intention to form newer, better stronger ones!

In other words: If we translate our narrow chemist’s observation into macroscopy, to social science, to our everyday life – the message is clear:

There is no sense in trying to isolate groups of people, to disconnect nations, organisations, races, religions. Such ventures may work for a limited time and at very high costs – but this never has - and never will - result in anything stable, superior or great. There is no one discriminating religion or one racist, elite, apart, separating idea that managed to successfully materialize and flourish for longer than a blink of an eye in human’s history.

Whenever this is tried – despite better knowledge – two lessons (at least) can teach the chemist to the society:

• This state is “intermediary” and will not last for long – and perhaps, more importantly, more optimistically:
• After a short but often painful period these activities will finally result in an even more connected, more stable situation contributing to an even better bonded, inter-connected world.

Doesn’t that sound encouraging? So, yes, please continue to break bonds – but only for the sake of new, better and more intense ones.

Perhaps something to think about when you start the next intentional rearrangement of bonds in you reaction flask – and something, a “stupid” chemist can contribute from the lab to back identical findings of social sciences.