A nation's constitution is a set of instructions that people follow in order to become a united team. The instructions set up a leadership hierarchy (a government), and provide the people with rules to follow.

The constitution of a nation is similar to the set of instructions that all other organizations use. For two examples:

   • A zoo.

   • A factory.

All constitutions are sets of instructions that a group of people follow. All constitutions could be described as "software programs for the human mind". The only significant difference between the constitutions of a nation, factory, and zoo is their purpose. One of them organizes people into a nation, another organizes people into a team to create material items, and another organizes people into a team to maintain exhibits of animals.

If a group of people are not organized into a hierarchy, or if they are not following the same set of rules, then they are independent people, not a united team. They are analogous to an unorganized group of cats that do whatever they please.

In order for people to form an organization, they need a leadership hierarchy, and they need rules to follow. That hierarchy and those rules could be described as the "constitution of the organization".

A group of people become an organization only when they have a hierarchy and rules. Therefore, every organization, including a family, could be described as having a constitution. However, families and small organizations rarely create written constitutions.

As with prehistoric tribes, the families and small organizations have such a simplistic hierarchy and such informal rules that they rarely bother describing any of it in documents.

There are only a few families who have bothered to write some of the rules on chalkboard or sheets of paper, as in the photo to the right. The instructions in that photo could be described as "a portion of the family's constitution."

A constitution is nothing more than an intangible set of instructions for the minds of a group of people. There is no correct form for those instructions. For example, the instructions can be written with a feather on sheets of sheepskin parchment, or they can be in the form of PDF or HTML documents that remain on a computer. Primitive tribes and families pass the instructions to one another with their voice.

The constituteproject.org site has a list of every nation's constitution. The majority of people have no need to look at this site, but government officials should want to look at it so that they can learn from other nations.

It might help you to understand this concept if you consider how it applies to material items. Imagine if every nation had the economic system that I propose in which businesses cannot keep their technology a secret, or copyright or patent anything. In that type of economy, the engineering diagrams for all material items, and the source code for all computer software, would be freely available to everybody.

With that type of economic system, an engineer who wants to design a better refrigerator would be able to look through the diagrams of other refrigerators, and that would allow him to learn from the other engineers. He would be able to take the good aspects of the other refrigerators, avoid the mistakes that the other engineers have made, and build upon their work to create a better refrigerator.

If there was a site that held all of the diagrams for all of the refrigerators of the world, we would notice that there are only a few subtle differences between the refrigerators made by Samsung, Westinghouse, and other companies around the world. The reason is because most scientists and engineers are already in the habit of looking at one another's achievements and failures, and trying to learn from one another.

As a result of this attitude, when a business develops some new technology that turns out to be beneficial, the engineers in other businesses, and in other nations, will soon learn about the achievement, and they will use that information to improve their own products. The engineers built upon the work of one another.

The aspect of this behavior that I want you to be aware of is that by learning from one another, the scientists and engineers "equalize" the technology of all businesses and nations. To rephrase this, it is impossible for one business or one nation to develop significantly more advanced refrigerators, cell phones, or robots when the other businesses and nations are learning from each other. This allows even the most primitive nations to have modern refrigerators, cell phones, and bicycles. Unfortunately, it also allows them to have modern weapons.

A good way to understand the significance of this is to imagine what the world would be like if the engineers refused to learn from one another. In such a case, the engineers who design refrigerators for General Electric would never look at the refrigerators produced by RCA, Samsung, or other businesses. This would cause the refrigerators of different businesses and nations to slowly diverge from one another, like animals evolving into different species.

By comparison, when the engineers learn from one another, they produce refrigerators that are always somewhat equal to one another. The refrigerators "evolve" through the years, but they don't diverge into different, incompatible "species".

The situation with culture is the opposite. There are no government officials who analyze the culture of other societies in order to learn from them. No government is even interested in experimenting with improvements to their culture. Instead, every society promotes the attitude that their culture is perfect, and they ignore or insult other cultures.

Our primitive attitude towards culture is causing "cultural isolation". This is preventing us from improving our culture, and learning from other people. The Asians, for example, will not look seriously at the European culture, or look critically at their own culture. They refuse to consider the possibility that knives and spoons are superior to chopsticks, or that the European languages are superior to the Asian languages.

By ignoring the achievements of other societies, our culture has diverged into different "species". We have significantly different languages, religions, clothing styles, holiday celebrations, eating utensils, and government systems.

By comparison, most of our sports activities have become identical to one another. For example, football, baseball, gymnastics, and many other sports are almost the same in most nations. The reason is because businesses are trying to profit from sports, so they put pressure on all nations to follow the same set of sports instructions.

If businesses could make profit by having all nations speak a common language, then they would put pressure on everybody to learn a common language. Unfortunately, businesses make more profit when people speak different languages, such as by providing translation services.

The English language dominated the software and Internet documents in the 1980s, so that would have been a good opportunity to pressure all nations to start teaching English to their children. If all nations had begun teaching English to their children during the 1980s or 1990s, the world today would have a generation of young adults who could communicate with one another. And if the American children had been forced to learn the metric system at that same time, then all of the young adults today would use the same measurement system, also.

Unfortunately, instead of pushing one language on everybody, the computer programmers were told to translate their software, and to allow the HTML documents to support non-alphabetic languages. The computer programmers were pushed into using Unicode in order to support the primitive Asian languages, rather than telling the Asian nations to switch to an alphabetic language. And the Americans were allowed to continue using the Imperial measurement system.

If government leaders had the attitude of engineers, then instead of boasting that their culture is the best, they would try to learn from other nations. That attitude would cause every nation to slowly find improvements to their school system, work environment, city design, flood control system, and other culture. It would also cause every nation's culture to become more similar to one another because everybody would be taking the good aspects of other people's culture.

Some people are willing to learn from the food recipes of other cultures, but we tend to ignore or insult most other aspects of other people's culture. As a result of our cultural isolation, the cultural differences between nations are much greater than the differences in our refrigerators, bicycles, and cell phones.

Another way to look at culture that might be helpful is to imagine what we would do if we had to purchase culture from businesses rather than pick it up during our childhood. In such a case, the markets would sell such things as languages, sports activities, clothing styles, and hairstyles.

The Chinese language would be so complicated that it would have a much higher price tag than the English language, and it would have an instruction manual that was gigantic by comparison. Furthermore, if you selected the Chinese language, you would have to ensure that all of the products you want to purchase used the Chinese language also, such as a computer, cell phone, and software.

Would you choose the Chinese language for yourself or your children? Even if all languages were the same price, who would want to impose the burden of learning that language on themselves or their children?

Businesses are under pressure to produce products that are easy to use and understand, and at a low price. If the businesses were providing us with languages, they would be under pressure to create a language that is low in price, and very easy to use and understand. Only a few hobbyists would want to purchase Egyptian hieroglyphics, or one of the Asian languages.

By comparison, nobody cares whether their culture is efficient, orderly, or even useful. Nobody cares how worthless their government system is, or how expensive or worthless their school system is. They don't even care if they are wearing shoes that are deforming their feet and causing unnecessary sores, bunions, and crooked toes. There is no pressure on any society to analyze their culture and look for improvements to it.

The list of constitutions makes it easy to see that some nations have a government system that is extremely primitive. For example, the constitution of Denmark was written in 1953, but it appears to have been written during the Middle Ages. For example, it has such remarks as:


Incidentally, you might find it entertaining to imagine how the millions of American citizens who are furious at President Trump would react if the U.S. Constitution stated:

Or imagine if a business announced that the top executive was sacrosanct, or if a police department announced that the policemen shall not be answerable for their actions.

Imagine if the material items in Denmark were as primitive as their government. For example, consider that imaginary scenario I mentioned earlier in which there is a site that has all of the engineering diagrams for all material items. Imagine looking at the entry for Denmark and discovering they don't have diagrams for refrigerators, airplanes, or other modern items. Instead, they have diagrams that were created during the Middle Ages or earlier. Imagine that the engineering diagram for the wheelbarrel they use in 2020 was created in the year 964, and it creates the type of wheelbarrel that is shown in the painting below.

What is the difference between:

The difference is that everybody would refuse to use a primitive wheelbarrow, but most people proudly boast about using a primitive government system. And they also boast about using primitive chopsticks, primitive religions, primitive languages, and other primitive culture.

The Danish people should be embarrassed of their crude and stupid Constitution, but most people are either too ignorant to realize that they should look critically at their culture, and/or they don't have enough self-control to be critical of their culture. As a result, we are usually only critical of other people's culture.

I have frequently criticized the U.S. Constitution as being vague and confusing, but my criticisms are not to imply that other nations are superior. Rather, I am an American, and I would like to see the nation improve itself, and so I provide what I consider to be "constructive criticism", and suggestions for improvement.

Compared to other nations, I actually think the U.S. Constitution is superior. For example, I would describe the constitution of Denmark as being so stupid that it should be discarded and rewritten.

The United Kingdom never created a constitution. Instead they have been collecting various laws and regulations from the Magna Carta onward. It reminds me of how homeless people gather clothing, shopping carts, discarded food, and other items (such as the woman in the photo to the right).

The Swiss constitution was written in 1999, which was a few decades after the Danish constitution, and it was revised in 2014. That would make it a "modern" constitution, but I would not describe it as an improvement over the Danish constitution, or the U.S. Constitution.

I have repeatedly criticized the U.S. Constitution for lacking detail, thereby creating endless arguments over the meaning of many of its remarks, but the Swiss constitution is not an improvement, even though it was written centuries later.

To be fair to the Swiss constitution, I don't speak the language it was written in, so the English translation could be slightly inaccurate, but take a look at Article 7, which is one brief sentence:

What does that mean? There is no explanation. If you were a government official, or a policeman, and you were told that your job is to "ensure that human dignity is respected and protected", how would you enforce that law? What does a person have to do to violate that law?

Or imagine that you were arrested because somebody accused you of violating Article 7. How would you prove that you were innocent of that "crime"?

The Swiss constitution has the type of vague remarks that I expect in a political advertisement, and for the purpose of making us feel good. Those remarks do not belong in a serious document that is providing us with instructions on how to set up and operate a modern society.

There has been a tremendous amount of technical progress during the past thousand years, but our constitutions, governments, schools, economic systems, and other culture has not improved much.

A constitution is analogous to the set of instructions that explain how to create and operate a zoo for animals. Imagine that you are an employee of a zoo, and you find this remark among the instructions on how to take care of the animals:

Animal dignity must be respected and protected.

What is animal dignity? How do we protect it? Do animals even have dignity? If not, when during the history of the development of humans did our ancestors develop dignity? Is dignity a genetic characteristic, or something we pick up from our environment? Do all people have it equally? Do children have it? If not, at what age does a person acquire it?

Today we have so much knowledge about animals that a scientist can provide zoo employees with a very detailed list of instructions on how to take care of animals. By comparison, the documents that we create to supervise a human society are vague, stupid, and confusing.

IBM posted this document that could be described as "the IBM constitution", and this section about "global employment standards" has a resemblance to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

The IBM Constitution is an example of how a constitution can be in any format we please. The IBM Constitution does not resemble any nation's constitution, or any legal document.

Rather, it resembles the documents that businesses create for their employees and customers.

For example, it uses "ordinary" words that are commonly used by the majority of people, and the sentences are also ordinary, rather than as lawyers often create them; namely, extremely long, with lots of semicolons.

Furthermore, it is an HTML document with a photo and links to other documents, just like lots of other "ordinary" documents on the Internet. And, as is typical of HTML documents, as of 15 Nov 2020, at least one of the links did not work. (The link to their "nine IBM practices" in the Quality section.)

The authors wrote that document in a manner that would allow the "ordinary" employees to understand the rules of IBM, and to ensure that every employee interprets the rules in exactly the same manner.

This brings me to an important concept that I will emphasize in this document. Specifically, the most important aspect of our Constitution is that people understand it and agree on its meaning.

Every organization needs some type of leadership hierarchy, and they need rules for their members to follow. This is true regardless of whether the organization is a business that manufactures a product, or whether they are a nation, or whether they are an orchestra.

Every organization can be considered to have a constitution, but the constitutions of most organizations are so much more advanced that they don't resemble the constitution of a nation. An example is the constitution created by the sports organization that arranges for bicycle races in the USA. Its name is USA Cycling.

The sports organizations are providing us with entertainment, so they are not vital for our survival, as are the organizations that provide us with food and other necessities. Furthermore, some of the sports organizations are so small that only a tiny percentage of the population is aware of or involved with them, which makes them insignificant to the nation.

The USA Cycling group is such a small organization, and has so little significance to our nation, that they could disappear tomorrow without many people noticing or caring. However, despite their insignificance, they have a rulebook that is more extensive, advanced, and detailed than every nation's constitution.

This site has the rules that the athletes and judges must follow. They provide the rules in the form of a PDF file. It has 10 chapters, appendices, a glossary, and an index, for a total of 210 pages. It is mostly words, but there are some diagrams.

They also have links to 3 additional documents of "UCI Regulations".

In addition, they have links to 15 more documents that they refer to as "Additional Rules, Policies & Regulations".

One of those 15 additional documents has the title "Nepotism".

The athletes and judges who are involved with bicycle racing have a set of rules that is much easier to read and understand, and has a lot more detail, than what the U.S. Constitution provides the American people. Furthermore, the USA Cycling group has created rules to deal with problems that the U.S. Constitution doesn't even acknowledge, such as nepotism.

Even more important, the USA Cycling group has this document about "Conflicts Of Interest". By comparison, the U.S. Constitution doesn't care about conflicts of interest. For example, as I pointed out here, government employees should not be allowed to vote because they have a conflict of interest in the election.

A more complex conflict of interest that the U.S. Constitution does not acknowledge is that there are a lot of Jews in the USA who are members of a Zionist organization, and who have relatives in Israel, and who have dual citizenship with Israel. We could describe them as having a conflict of interest, and that they should be prohibited from influential positions, such as government officials, journalists, and FBI officials.

The USA Cycling group has a more advanced and detailed set of rules than the U.S. Constitution. This ought to be considered an embarrassment because our government should be more advanced than a meaningless entertainment activity.

I have not bothered to look at the rules for the sport of "competitive eating", but I suspect that it also has a more advanced set of rules than any nation. I doubt that they have a rule that states something like:

Josh Weinstein, who was involved with producing The Simpsons television program, posted images of two pages of the "Style Guide" that was created around 1990.

The "Simpsons Style Guide" could be described as "the constitution of the Simpsons television program" because it is similar to a nation's constitution.

Specifically, it is a set of instructions that a group of people follow in order to become a united team. The instructions tell the people how to draw the characters, which colors to use, what is prohibited, etc.

On some of the pages, they refer to the instructions as "Simpson No-No's", but it doesn't matter whether we refer to an instruction as a "No-No", law, or rule. Regardless of what we call it, it is an intangible instruction that a group of people must follow in order to control their behavior. It is a restriction of their freedom. Its purpose is to convert a group of independent people into a united team with a common goal.

The only important difference between The Simpsons Style Guide and the US Constitution is the purpose of the instructions. Specifically, one set causes a group of people to produce a cartoon program with multiple episodes, and the other set causes the people to form a nation.

The Simpsons cartoon is entertainment, not something important. However, its style guide has nearly 500 pages, which makes it more detailed than any nation's constitution.

What would you think if the Simpson No-No's were so vague and confusing that the artists were routinely arguing with each other over what they meant? And what would you think if the managers ignored the arguments and allowed the artists to interpret the No-No's in a different manners?

The documents created by USA Cycling could be described as their "constitution" because they set up a leadership hierarchy and provide rules for the members to follow. It should be noted that when the USA Cycling was first created, they had a slightly different set of rules. They have edited their original documents.

As with most other organizations, they try to improve their constitution, rather than stand on a pedestal, wave flags, and boast that they have created the greatest set of rules. They did not put their original constitution in a display case and promote it as the ultimate set of rules for bicycle races. Instead, they have continuously looked for ways to improve their organization, the contests, and the rules.

The people involved with the USA Cycling group do not have the attitude towards their organization that citizens have towards their nation. For two examples:


The IBM constitution also shows this superior attitude. For example, it has several remarks scattered around it that are similar to this:

There are no remarks like that in the U.S. Constitution, and probably not in any other nation's constitution. That remark shows that the people at IBM are willing to update and replace portions of their constitution. This is equivalent to updating and replacing the second amendment of the American constitution with a more detailed and modern policy.

The people who created the IBM constitution realize that it is just set of instructions that is intended to accomplish a task; specifically, to organize a group of people into a team. The IBM managers do not regard the words in their constitution as "precious". As a result, they are willing to edit those words in order to improve the clarity of the instructions. They are also willing to update their constitution so that it can deal with changes in technology and culture. They are willing to discard portions of their constitution and replace them with a new and improved version.

A person is able to suggest a change to the IBM constitution without fear of being insulted as a "traitor to IBM", or a "radical extremist".

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) created a constitution to organize and supervise football games. As with the USA Cycling group, they are a sports organization of no importance to the human race, but they have a much more advanced constitution than any nation, and their constitution shows an attitude that is far superior to what we find in our government officials.

Their constitution has a lot of photos, diagrams, and videos to help explain the concepts that the words represent. It should be noted that some of their photos are "unnecessary" because they don't actually clarify anything in the document, but the human mind prefers to look at photos or diagrams rather than words. Therefore, we can make large blocks of text more pleasant by scattering photos throughout the document.

They designed their constitution so that we want to read it, and so that we can understand it easily. It is not intended to be used only by some lawyers.

It should also be noted that they created this HTML document (a portion is below) to provide a history of their laws.

The leaders of the IFAB are aware that they must improve and update their laws once in a while, and they have documented the history of the changes to help people understand how the sport evolved into what it is today.

The document of their history shows an attitude that we don't see among most government officials. Specifically, they are willing to rewrite their entire constitution. The entry for 2016 has this remark:

What they refer to as the "Laws of the Game" could be described as their "Constitution". The difference between their "Laws of the Game" and a nation's Constitution is the purpose of the instructions. Specifically, the IFAB organizes people for just one, particular sports activity, whereas a nation's constitution organizes people into a nation.

The IFAB realizes that the words in their "Laws of the Game" are not precious, and do not need to be protected. Therefore, they are willing to edit the words, and discard thousands of words, in order to make those concepts less confusing, make the laws easier to read, and make the laws "less subject to contradicting interpretation".

If we had government officials with that attitude, they would be willing to discard the entire constitution and rewrite it to make it less confusing and easier to read. 

Our government officials should have the attitude that we see among the leaders of the IFAB. For example, their introduction has such remarks as:

Those remarks show that the leaders of the IFAB:

Imagine if we had government officials with that attitude. In such a case, we would have officials who consider our suggestions on how to improve our nation, and who have the courage to experiment with potential improvements.

Nobody should be afraid of being fired, arrested, or insulted for pointing out problems with a constitution, any aspect of our culture, or for suggesting changes to our culture. The people who find ways to improve the clarity of a law, or who find ways of improving government agencies, school systems, museums, recreational activities, wedding ceremonies, or social affairs, should be regarded as creative, talented, and valuable.

Although most organizations have constitutions that are much more advanced than those of the nations, organizations are not designing their constitutions properly. The reason is because a free enterprise system causes the organizations to compete for the attention of the public and investors. As a result, the organizations want their constitutions to impress potential investors and customers.

The free enterprise system causes businesses, charities, and other groups to pander to the public, which in turn causes their constitutions to resemble political advertisements. Specifically, instead of being as serious as they should be, they tend to create lots of boastful remarks; make promises of how wonderful our lives will be as a result of their products or services; and have lots of photos of customers and employees who are smiling to an unrealistic extreme.

The sports organizations also pander to us, and stimulate us with praise. For example, the IFAB has this "Introduction" to football, and the first sentence is:

That remark should be considered as deceptive, manipulative, worthless, and unacceptable as when a political candidate announces to an audience:

The IFAB leaders also pander to feminists, which is why they wrote:

Ideally, our leaders would realize that every language has been developing haphazardly. No society has yet bothered to take control of their language and make it orderly. It is senseless for a few people to make a few changes to our language simply to appease some feminists. We should acknowledge that our languages are just an accumulation of monkey noises.

Our languages need to be overhauled, but that is a very big task, and it also requires us to alter a lot of existing documents, spellchecking software, and speech recognition software. It is a task that the future generations should deal with, not us. We have problems that should be considered as a much higher priority, such as:

When the future generations have dealt with the serious problems, they can consider dealing with some of the less important problems, such as overhauling their language. They might also want to switch to 24 hour clocks, or change their clock so that there are 100 seconds in an hour, 100 minutes in an hour, and 10 hours in a day. They might even decide to switch to base 8.

Also, note that the IFAB wrote that one purpose of the editing was to make the laws "less subject to contradicting interpretation". That is another example of how organizations are pandering to people. The IFAB leadership does not want to admit that they are trying to "reduce arguments" over the meaning of the laws because the word "arguments" creates images in our minds of athletes, spectators, and referees yelling and fighting with each other. The IFAB tries to avoid stimulating unpleasant memories by using words that are more vague and confusing. It is analogous to a church official who avoids the word "pedophile" by saying something like:

A small percentage of the population is putting a lot of pressure on us to be "politically correct", but our leaders should make decisions according to what is best for the human race, rather than pander to people who whine about what their particular emotions want. Our laws should be designed to create a pleasant, efficient organization, not to appease selfish, whiny, or neurotic people.

The constitutions of the charities are likely to be much more deceptive and manipulative than businesses because the charities depend on donations, and so their primary goal is to stimulate us into giving them our money. This results in them putting lots of boastful remarks and promises in their constitutions. For example, the first three paragraphs on the "What We Do" page of the Save the Children charity are:

However, that charity is not doing "whatever it takes" to investigate the accusations of pedophilia among government officials, charities, churches, businesses, pizza restaurants, or professors. They also ignore Vicki Polin's accusations that her relatives are involved with pedophilia and ritual murders of babies.

That charity claims to ensure that the children's voices are heard, but they are ignoring the voices of the Hampstead children, Jenny Guskin, David Shurter, and other people who claim to have being repeatedly raped by government officials, teachers, policemen, and other important people.

The leadership of the IFAB and USA Cycling organizations do not regard their documents as being perfect. As a result, they are willing to edit their documents in order to make their organization more efficient, the rules more understandable, and their sport more enjoyable and safe.

By comparison, people treat their nation's constitution as if the words are special and must be protected. No society is yet promoting the attitude that we should continuously edit our constitution to make it more efficient, more understandable, and more sensible. Instead, people add more words to their constitution rather than edit the existing words.

When Americans are accepted into some government agencies, they have to swear an oath to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, most people assume that we should protect the words in U.S. Constitution; that the document should be protected from editing.

In reality, we should defend the concepts in the document. The words that an author chooses to express a concept are irrelevant. It is acceptable to edit a document in order to express the concept in a more understandable manner.

I suspect that some people are confused about the importance of words because they realize that words are critical to fictional documents. To reduce that type of confusion, children should be taught to make a distinction between fiction and nonfiction, and to treat each in a significantly different manner.

The fictional documents are entertainment, so we could describe them as a type of "art". Art is intended to stimulate emotions, not convey concepts from one mind to another.

We have different preferences for art, but it makes no sense for somebody to claim that he can edit a fictional document to make it "better", or "more accurate". Each of us can edit a fictional document to make it more appealing to our emotions, but that doesn't necessarily make it more appealing to other people.

The words chosen by the authors of fictional documents are very important, and only the author should be allowed to edit his words. His words are analogous to the paint in a painting, or the music symbols on a sheet of music. If we edit artwork, we will not "improve" it. Rather, we create a new and different variation of it.

Artwork is intended to stimulate emotions, entertain us, or inspire us to think about something. We "react" to art. We do not try to decode the concepts that it conveys.

When we look at a painting, vase of flowers, or a sculpture, or when we listen to music, or when we read a fictional document, it does not matter if each of us visualizes something slightly different, or experiences slightly different emotional feelings. It is acceptable for each person to react to art in a different manner.

It is acceptable for different people to experience different emotions or thoughts when they look at the painting of the Mona Lisa, but it is not acceptable for people to disagree on the meaning of the First or Second Amendments, or disagree on the meaning of the laws that set up a football game or bicycle race.

We can improve the First Amendment if we can figure out how to edit it so that more people decode the words in the same manner, thereby reducing the arguments over what the words represent. However, we cannot improve the Mona Lisa by editing it.

When a person creates art, regardless of whether it is a painting, fictional document, vase of flowers, or marble sculpture, his choice of colors, words, brush strokes, and other aspects of the art are what cause it to be "art". It makes no sense to edit art. Each of us has slightly different preferences in art, but nobody can prove that his preferences are "better".

By comparison, nonfiction documents, paintings, and 3D models are intended to convey a concept to our minds. A nonfiction item could be described as an educational tool. Therefore, it is important that everybody decode the nonfiction items into the same concepts. This in turn means that when we discover that people are disagreeing over the meaning of a nonfiction item, we should edit it to reduce the confusion.

It makes no sense to claim that one piece of art is "better" than another, but it is sensible for a society to pass judgment on what type of art they want to promote.

For example, some people in Australia want the "poop on sticks" art in their city (photo at right), but some people did not. The city officials decided to allow the sculpture, but after a while they decided to modify it by painting it a dark gray so that the spherical objects, which were originally brown, looked less like poop.

They did not "improve" the sculpture by painting it. Rather, they essentially replaced it with a similar sculpture that has a slightly different emotional effect on us.

The purpose of artwork is to stimulate emotions or thoughts, rather than convey an intelligent concept. Therefore, if we edit a sculpture, painting, song, or other artistic item in order to change how it stimulates us, we are essentially discarding the original art and replacing it with different art.

The officials of a city cannot claim that some art is "better" than other art, but they can pass judgment on which art they want to promote in their city. They can make the decisions according to how the art affects people's emotions.

For example, they might choose to promote the art that has shown to stimulate pleasant emotions and thoughts in most people, or which helps most people to relax. They might choose to prohibit the art that has been determined to stimulate unpleasant feelings in most people.

The paintings and sculptures that were made by the ancient Greeks and Romans, or by the people in the Middle Ages, often depict situations that are no longer applicable to our modern era, but we can enjoy their art despite the fact that it is "outdated". For example, we do not need to update the Mona Lisa painting to give her modern clothing, a cellphone, lipstick, jewelry, tattoos, or fingernail polish.

By comparison, the nonfictional paintings, 3D models, and diagrams are representing concepts, which makes them educational tools rather than entertainment, so we should occasionally pass judgment on whether:

If an item fails either of those two tests, then we should edit it.

For example, the painting to the right shows the first Thanksgiving dinner in Plymouth in 1621, but according to this article, both the Indians and the pilgrims are in the wrong style of clothing, and they did not eat dinner while sitting at a dinner table.

That painting was not intended to be a fantasy of Thanksgiving. It was intended to provide information about a historical event. However, the information it is conveying to our minds is inaccurate. Therefore, we should either edit that painting to fix its mistakes, or discard it in the trash and replace it with a painting that is more accurate.

The Mona Lisa painting is art, so it makes no sense to edit it. However, if we decide to use that painting for some educational purpose, then it should be edited so that it accurately conveys the information that it is intended to educate us about.

For example, the person who put a mask on her face created that modification to encourage us to wear a COVID virus mask. Although there is lots of evidence that we are being lied to about that virus, the point I want to bring to your attention is that when we use art to convey information, we change its category from "art" to "an educational tool", and we should edit and continuously update our educational tools.

If the instructions to assemble a bicycle, piece of furniture, or child's toy were inaccurate, most people would complain to the company, or post angry reviews on the Internet. Likewise, if the Boeing company produced a repair manual for their airplanes that had inaccurate diagrams or instructions, the mechanics would demand a proper repair manual.

Engineers, computer programmers, and scientists are under pressure to ensure that the diagrams, videos, and instructions they create for their products are accurate and easy to understand.

By comparison, the field of "social science" is such a farce that there is no concern for the accuracy of the information that is created by journalists, psychologists, professors, government officials, and ordinary citizens. Nobody is under pressure to be accurate with their diagrams, paintings, or documents about Thanksgiving, the Apollo moon landing, raising children, crime, abortion, feminism, or marriage. Everybody is free to say whatever they please about cultural issues. Nobody is held accountable for their information, and nobody has to correct any of their mistakes or update the outdated information.

In order to improve the accuracy and value of the information we are exposed to, we must regard the people who provide us with information as being "scientists". They must meet high standards, and they must be under pressure to fix their mistakes and inaccuracies.

For example, a journalist who reports "news" should be regarded as a "social scientist" because he is analogous to a zoologist who is observing a pack of wolves. The only difference between a news journalist and a zoologist is that one of them is observing humans, and the other is observing animals.

Every society regards journalism to be a simplistic job, but we should change our attitude and regard it as more difficult than reporting what some animals are doing.

Humans are much more complex than animals, and therefore, it requires a higher level of intelligence and education to truly provide us with accurate reports on what the humans are doing. Furthermore, our emotions are triggered by human activities, and this requires a journalist to have more self-control than a zoologist needs.

We should differentiate between a person who provides entertainment, such as Hollywood gossip, and a person who provides us with information about the world. We could refer to the people who provide entertainment as "reporters", and the people who provide us with information as "journalists".

With those definitions, a "reporter" is analogous to an astrologer, a palm reader, and a fiction author. They do not have to meet high standards because they are like an artist who is merely entertaining us.

By comparison, the "journalists" are providing us with information about the world, and that makes them analogous to school teachers, scientists, and parents. Journalists should meet high standards, be held accountable for the information they give to us, be required to fix their mistakes, and be arrested if they provide us with lies or deception.

Everybody a thousand years ago could describe himself as an "expert" in medicine, biology, chemistry, or metallurgy because nobody knew much about those subjects. Today, however, we have much higher standards for people who want to describe themselves as experts in biology, chemistry, or medicine.

However, the social sciences are still so primitive that all of us can claim to be an expert on history, human behavior, culture, religion, abortion, crime, and other social sciences. This freedom has resulted in millions of people self-appointing themselves to experts of raising children, feminism, sports, and all other social issues. These arrogant experts are regularly giving lectures to us about "the truth", and they sometimes yell at us.

If we want to give medical advice to other people, we must get a medical license. However, none of us need a license to give advice about social issues. We are free to give advice about any social issue we please, such as raising children, marriage, divorce, abortion, crime, drugs, and immigration. None of us can be held accountable for anything we say about social issues.

Furthermore, we are allowed to lie and deceive about social issues without any consequences. For example, some Jews have been caught lying about being victims of the Holocaust, but there are no consequences for people who lie about historical events. Journalists are also free to lie to us about news events. NASA is lying about the Apollo moon landing, and who knows how many other things, without any consequence.

If the NASA officials or college professors were to lie to us about a medical issue, they would be fired or arrested, but nobody cares that they lie about historical events. Likewise, a journalist would be arrested if he published an article in which he gave faulty medical advice, but he does not get into trouble for deceiving us about the 9/11 attack, the 2020 election, or the world wars.

In order to improve our culture, we must change our attitude towards the social sciences. The social sciences should be considered as a branch of zoology. It is the study of humans, and that is almost the same as the study of apes, bacteria, and other animals. Therefore, if a person cannot handle zoology, he should not qualify for social science. Furthermore, in order to study humans properly, a social scientist needs the emotional ability to look critically at humans, so people who are too arrogant to be critical of humans should not be allowed in the social sciences. For example, a student who cannot see a similarity between humans and animals should be classified as emotionally unacceptable for the social sciences.

The attitude in every nation today is that the students who are failures in engineering, carpentry, medicine, machining, or science should get involved with the social sciences. This is an idiotic, destructive policy because:

We should stop designing school curriculum to appease students and parents. Instead, our schools should be similar to those that train dogs to assist blind people. Specifically, a school should teach beneficial skills as efficiently and quickly as possible.

A school should not pity the 4th-place losers and alter the curriculum to make it easier for them. Also, the students who cannot handle a particular course should be forced to try some other course, rather than allow them to remain in a course they cannot handle, and torment them with bad grades and insults.

Many teenage girls want to go to college only to find a husband, but it would be more sensible and efficient to experiment with courtship activities.

Government officials should not ignore arguments over the meaning of a law, and they should occasionally review laws to ensure that they are still applicable, and update those that are outdated.

We see this attitude among most organizations. For example, the USA Cycling group has updated their documents to deal with changes in the technology of bicycles, and to deal with our greater understanding of rolling resistance, aerodynamics, and other issues.

One of the reasons all nations are inefficient, corrupt, and miserable is because no society believes that they should occasionally update their constitution or other culture. This results in laws becoming outdated or confusing. An example that I have mentioned in many documents is the Second Amendment, which was written when "militias" were common, and when a "weapon" was a flintlock rifle.

I will give some more examples of why we need to edit our Constitution to reduce arguments, and to update it for changes in technology.

The First Amendment is one sentence of 45 words:

Those words are expressing a concept, but those words were written when almost every man was a self-employed farmer, almost every woman worked at home, and there were almost no businesses or government officials. That law is so outdated and vague that it is causing a lot of arguments today. For example:

The First Amendment prevents Congress from interfering with free speech or promoting a religion, but it says nothing about businesses, schools, charities, and other organizations. As a result of this lack of detail, many people today are wondering if Facebook, YouTube, and Google are allowed to censor or suppress us. Is YouTube allowed to delete our videos simply because we express an opinion that the executives of YouTube do not like? Is Google allowed to fire an employee simply for believing that there are genetic differences between men and women?

If the YouTube executives are allowed to deny their service to the people who express opinions that they disagree with, can other business executives also deny service to people that they disagree with? For example, can the executives of a supermarket deny access to those of us who express opinions that those executives disagree with? Can the executives of a hospital deny medical treatment to those of us who express opinions that those executives disagree with?

Are city officials allowed to promote religion by supporting displays of the baby Jesus during Christmas? The First Amendment has so little detail on this issue that there have been lawsuits filed by religious people when the city removes those displays, and there have also been lawsuits filed by atheists who want to stop the city from supporting those displays.

Would it be acceptable for a city to promote science or evolution, instead of religion? For example, would a city be allowed to create displays for the Christmas holiday that show animals evolving into humans, as in the drawing to the right?

Is the military allowed to promote religion, such as by displaying a Bible on their ships or in their buildings? The First Amendment is so vague that a lawsuit was filed by a man who wanted the military to remove a Bible that they put on display at a veterans' hospital.

The First Amendment forbids the Congress from promoting a "religion", but does that forbid other government agencies from promoting the particular "God" with a capital "G"? For example, is it acceptable for the Federal Reserve to put "In God We Trust" on money?

If some Hindus are promoted to the top positions of the Federal Reserve, are they allowed to change the expression to "In Krishna We Trust"?

If we replace the Federal Reserve officials with atheists, would they be allowed to replace that expression with "In Evolution We Trust" or "In Science We Trust"?

Are schools allowed to make children pray? The First Amendment does such a terrible job of explaining its concept that the Supreme Court had to get involved to settle a dispute about whether schools are allowed to promote prayers.

The endless arguments and lawsuits over the meaning of the First Amendment should be considered as proof that the First Amendment is vague and confusing. Ideally, our leaders would react to that confusion by editing the First Amendment to reduce the arguments.

It is absurd for us to argue over the meaning of a law or other document, and even more stupid and wasteful to file lawsuits and conduct fights in the courts.

If a group of carpenters were hired to build a house, and if the architect provided them with drawings that were vague and confusing, the carpenters would not fight with each other about how to interpret the crude drawings.

Rather, they would complain that the drawings are lacking detail. They would tell the architect to provide them with the missing details.

If the US government officials were truly capable of providing us with leadership, they would not ignore the arguments and lawsuits over the First Amendment. Rather, they would realize that the arguments are proof that the First Amendment is a failure, and that it needs to be edited.

They would realize that the First Amendment is a confusing, vague law that needs more detail. They would realize that they need to improve and update the First Amendment.

When architects create drawings that carpenters misunderstand, or when businesses produce repair manuals that mechanics are confused by, they edit their documents in an attempt to make them more understandable. They do not ignore the people who are confused about their documents. They take responsibility for the confusion, and they try to reduce it.

Ideally, our government officials would react to the confusion about the First Amendment by realizing that it is failing to achieve its purpose of providing guidance to the people.

In addition to editing the First Amendment to make it less confusing, our government officials should also update the First Amendment to make it appropriate for our modern era.

For example, as I pointed out here, the First Amendment gives us the right to assemble in public because the human voice was the primary method of communication during that era.

Also, the cities were primitive. There were not many conference rooms or theaters. Therefore, they would hold meetings in public areas, such as a public street. They did not have automobiles or railroads, so they could use a public street without disrupting the other residents of the city.

Today, however, the streets are full of cars, so it is no longer appropriate for people to gather in a public street. Today it would make more sense to require people to use one of the facilities that every city provides for meetings. Today we also have the option of remaining at home and having meetings through the Internet.

Furthermore, the phrase "peaceably to assemble" is so vague that some people are interpreting that to include screaming, throwing rocks, blocking automobile traffic, setting fires in garbage bins, and breaking windows.

Some people interpret "peaceably to assemble" to include protests inside restaurants, markets, and other businesses, such as these vegetarians who tried to embarrass, intimidate, and manipulate the people inside a restaurant who were eating meat, and these protesters who laid down in the aisles of a grocery store. Does the First Amendment give people the right to have such protests?

Ideally, our government officials would clarify the phrase "peaceably to assemble" so that it prohibits the obnoxious, destructive, and worthless demonstrations in public areas, and inside of restaurants or markets.

The four sheets of parchment that the U.S. Constitution was written on are displayed in Washington DC, and with two guards standing by, as if they are documents from a supreme being.

It is idiotic to believe that we need to protect the words of the constitution, or the parchment that they are written on.

Since there is confusion about what the words represent, we should edit the words to ensure that everybody understands their meaning.

Unfortunately, not many government officials seem to realize that they need to improve their constitution, laws, or other culture. Government officials sometimes add more words to their constitution, but most refuse to edit the existing words, and most would never consider replacing a section with a new sequence of words.

Our government officials do nothing to improve our nation. The primary concerns of every nation's government seems to be collecting taxes and eliminating competitors. It might be easier to realize how worthless our government officials are when you compare them to business executives. I will give an example.

Years ago I wrote that our government officials are doing nothing about a bridge that is so low that trucks were regularly being damaged as they tried to pass under it.

That bridge has since been given 8 inches more clearance as a result of the railroad company lifting the bridge up by 8 inches in order to make the track more level. This has reduced the number of trucks crashing into it, but the bridge is still too low.

I suggested the city lower the road, but this video claims that the city looked into the possibility of lowering the road, and came to the conclusion that it cannot be lowered because there are utilities underneath the road. The officials claim that it would be too expensive and inconvenient to the people of the city to move the utilities to some other location, or dig them up and bury them at a deeper level.

The city officials eventually came to the conclusion that there is nothing they can do to improve the situation, and so they have done nothing. As a result, trucks are still occasionally being damaged as they try to pass under the bridge.

This bridge is an example of our need to update

Business executives are routinely encountering problems that are identical to the problem of this bridge. This problem could be described as "equipment that has become outdated".

When the bridge was first constructed, it was adequate because there were no tall trucks in that era. All of the vehicles could easily fit under it. However, during the past few decades, trucks have become taller, and that caused this bridge, and many other bridges around the world, to become too low for the modern trucks.

Government officials around the world have had to deal with the problem of old bridges that are too low for the modern trucks. Some officials have also had to deal with old bridges that are too weak for the modern, heavy trucks and heavy farm equipment.
This site shows some bridges in Europe that are too low or too weak.

Businesses have to deal with this problem on a routine basis. The managers of factories, farms, mines, and other businesses are regularly having to deal with equipment that is outdated. However, businesses do not claim that there is no solution to these problems. They find solutions rather than do nothing.

We have a government that cannot solve problems because the voters consistently do a terrible job of selecting government officials, and the voters don't replace the incompetent officials.

We prefer to lounge, not work

As I explained in other documents, animals are inherently lazy, and this causes them to do their tasks as efficiently and quickly as possible. Humans inherited that laziness from our monkey ancestors, and this results in all of us having a preference for relaxing, retiring, being pampered by servants, avoiding the chores that we don't like, and doing whatever we please at whatever casual pace we please.

Animals and humans put more effort into their tasks, and we do a better job, when we are under pressure to do the work.

The free enterprise system is very successful because it puts pressure on us to work. Unfortunately, the pressure is to make profit, rather than to improve human life, so a lot of the work that we do is worthless or detrimental. If we had government officials who understood these issues, and who had the courage to experiment with culture, then we could experiment with an economic system that puts us under pressure to improve our cities, flood control systems, transportation systems, holiday celebrations, sports activities, and other culture.

Government officials are also under constant pressure, but in a democracy, they are under pressure to pander to voters. If the voters were judging government officials according to their achievements, and replacing those who accomplished the least, then the officials would be under pressure to improve society. Unfortunately, the voters are putting pressure on officials to titillate them with praises and promises. As a result, government officials can get away with doing nothing.

When the city officials announced that there was no solution to the problem of that bridge, the voters should have reacted by replacing those officials. And the voters should have continued to replace the officials until they elected an official who found a solution.

In a free enterprise system, a business that gives up easily on finding a solution to a problem is likely to go bankrupt. Likewise, athletes who give up easily will be failures. However, government officials can give up without any consequence. The voters will not care, and the money that is wasted will come from businesses or taxpayers, not from the government officials.

By comparison, if the manager of a factory ignored an outdated doorway that was so low that modern trucks were routinely crashing into it, the business would suffer because they cannot increase the prices of their products to cover the wasted resources and labor. That incompetent manager would make it more difficult for his business to survive. Furthermore, his employees would regard him as an idiot, and that would have a bad effect on their morale and attitudes.

The competition in the free enterprise system results in a business firing or demoting the managers who cannot solve problems, or who ruin the morale of their employees.

If we were to restrict voting to people who have a more appropriate attitude towards leadership, then the voters would behave like business executives. Specifically, they would fire the government officials who failed to find solutions to problems. And if their replacements could not find a solution, they would be fired also. Eventually this would result in a government official who finds a solution.

I have only spent a few moments thinking about that bridge, and I do not have any information about the utility lines under the road, but I can think of two possible solutions:

The section of the road that goes under the bridge could be shut down. It could either be restricted to bicycles and pedestrians, or it could be provided to a business to be used as a warehouse or other facility. There are plenty of alternative roads in that area. (Take a look at a map of that area.)

Some people might respond that closing that road would be a nuisance to some of the people in the city, but this brings up another very important issue. Specifically, in the thousands of years that people have been creating cities, no city yet has provided itself with government officials who plan the layout of the city. Instead, every city is a haphazard jumble of buildings, roads, parking lots, utility lines, and other structures. In every city there are people complaining about the location of the roads, overpasses, airports, railroads, bridges, tunnels, utility lines, and other structures.

Our government officials have done such a terrible job of managing our cities that there is no way to close a road, bridge, or tunnel, or create a new road, bridge, or tunnel, without somebody complaining that it would be inconvenient to him.

Ideally, the voters and government officials would acknowledge that our cities are inefficient, ugly, and wasteful. We should stop trying to maintain our disgusting cities and start designing new and better cities.

Unfortunately, that requires the voters to provide us with appropriate leadership. Until that happens, we have to live in chaotic cities, and we should react by closing the bridges that are too low, and removing the roads, parking lots, tunnels, and other structures that are annoying or wasteful.

The city officials claim that they cannot lower the street because there are utility lines underneath it, but how deep are those utility lines? The depth may not be enough to lower an asphalt road, but it may be enough for a steel bridge.

In other words, as the diagrams below show, they might be able to lower the road by replacing the thick asphalt road with a steel bridge.

There are so many alternative roads in that area that I think it would be best to close the road rather than put a lot of labor and resources into a steel bridge. Also, the utility lines under the road are extremely old, which means they are likely to fail soon.

I think we should consider that road and the utility lines to be hopelessly outdated, and close the road to automobile traffic. That will also make it easier to repair the utility lines.

Some people might respond that the bridge is insignificant because almost every bridge in the world has enough clearance. They might accuse me of making an issue out of an exception.

It is true that most cities do not have a problem with bridges, but the bridge is just an example of how every city and nation has government officials who do nothing to solve problems.

For example, in some cities the officials are ignoring the areas that are likely to be flooded, and other cities have officials that ignore the problems of people building houses along cliffs that erode into rivers or oceans. Other cities have officials who ignore water shortages, overcrowding, traffic congestion, homelessness, or the noise from highways, railroads and airports. Many cities have officials that ignore the power lines that break during storms, or they ignore the graffiti of teenage gangs.

The US government also claims to be unable to solve the problem of telemarketers, spam email messages, and computer viruses. Are those problems truly unsolvable?

Every city, state, and national government is also suffering from government officials who ignore the problem that their government is growing in size and increasing taxes on a routine basis, but not doing much in return for all of the money that they take from us. Our government officials also do nothing about the increasing cost of education and medical care.

That bridge is only one example of how our government officials do nothing to solve our problems or improve our nation. In some cases the officials investigate a problem and then announce that there is no solution, and in other cases they ignore the problem, and sometimes they blame the problem on a rival political party.

Imagine if businesses did not keep track of payments

Another example of how worthless our government officials are is that I pay my property taxes online, but the government doesn't keep track of who has paid their property taxes. Therefore, I regularly get an email message that tells me:

Imagine if every time you purchased an item from an online business, you got this email message a few weeks later:

If a business did not keep track of who had paid their bills, their customers would be furious. However, nobody cares that our government employees are that lazy and incompetent. It is also important to note that the California government is collecting an enormous amount of money from property taxes, so they can easily afford to hire computer programmers to fix this problem.

Businesses are under pressure to respond to complaints, so many of them have hired some employees specifically to handle complaints, but our governments don't have anything comparable to a complaint department, or a quality control department. Instead, they ignore our complaints. The voters are supposed to ensure that the government officials are behaving properly, but the voters are too incompetent.

Businesses in a free enterprise system are under so much pressure from their competitors that they cannot allow managers to get away with ignoring problems. A manager who claims that a problem has no solution would risk being fired, especially if other managers, or competing businesses, have found a solution to similar problems.

By continuously replacing the managers who cannot solve problems, the businesses end up with managers who look for solutions, and who do not give up easily.

The people who are the most successful in business, art, music, athletics, carpentry, gardening, and other tasks, are not "typical" people. They are not a random sample of the human population. Rather, they are people at the edge of the Bell curve. They are more successful than ordinary people because they tend to put an above-average effort into their tasks, and they are the most likely to look for solutions to problems. They are less likely than the ordinary people to give up, cry, and beg for handouts.

Our top government officials should also have the attitude of routinely replacing the lower-level government officials who accomplish the least.

For example, the FBI should set up a department to identify and arrest the people who are sending spam email messages and computer viruses. If the leader of that department had no signs of progress after a certain number of months, he should be replaced. By continuously replacing the officials who accomplish nothing, the FBI would eventually provide itself with officials who have the ability to reduce crime.

However, the voters allow the FBI officials to get away with doing nothing about some crimes, covering up other crimes, and participating in some crimes. Even more shocking, millions of voters support the attempt by the FBI to convince us that some Russians are the reason President Trump was elected. Instead of replacing the corrupt FBI officials, those voters support the corruption.

No business would ignore a security department that was as corrupt and incompetent as the FBI. Only government officials and voters allow such extreme levels of abuse, corruption, and incompetence to go on year after year, decade after decade.

To make this issue more complex, there are situations when it is sensible to give up on a project. For example, I pointed out that many nations have put a lot of labor and resources into developing fusion reactors, but we have accomplished nothing after many decades.

We should consider the possibility that fusion reactors require much more knowledge than we have today, and that we should postpone the project for the future generations. We should also consider the possibility that fusion cannot be controlled, and that a fusion reactor is as unrealistic as a perpetual motion machine.

When a business continuously puts money into a project that fails to show progress, they will terminate the project. A business will go bankrupt if they continuously put a lot of labor and resources into a project that has no progress.

By comparison, governments can waste phenomenal amounts of money for decades on fusion, atom smashing machines, foreign aid, crime, and other projects that have no progress because governments don't have competition, and voters do not hold government officials accountable for their failures.

Terminating a project is not "giving up" if we have intelligent reasons to believe that the project is either impossible, or requires technology that we don't yet have. For example, there are intelligent reasons to give up on a project to find the end of a rainbow or a fountain of youth, or postpone a project to create an artificial eyeball for blind people until our technology becomes more advanced.

How many historians care about the truth?

The story that Ponce De Leon was looking for a fountain of youth in Florida is said to be a "myth" or a "popular legend". If the story is false, why are we continuing to promote it centuries after his death? Will people in 50,000 A.D. also repeat this and other false stories?

That is just one of many false stories that are still being passed from one generation to the next. When we allow authors to mix entertainment and false information with educational materials, some people, especially children, are likely to believe some of the nonsense. For example, some Americans claim that Abraham Lincoln walked 3 miles or 6 miles to return a penny or three pennies. By exposing children to different variations of this event, there are people posting questions on the Internet about how many miles Lincoln walked, and how many pennies he returned.

The free enterprise system encourages this nonsense because the people who create historical documentaries, children's books, and magazine articles are trying to titillate the public, and they often do this by including some "myths" and "legends". An example is this episode of Inside Edition in which we are told:

How many people in that town believe the jail is haunted, and who are those people? A "real" scientist has to document his sources of information, but the people in the social sciences are allowed to provide information based on "some people say", or "they say", or "according to a popular legend".

In November 2020, PBS published this video documentary about Lapland. Since this is one of their most recent documentaries, it should be an improvement over the documentaries that were created decades earlier. Video cameras have improved, but there has been no progress in the quality or accuracy of the information that people in the social sciences are providing to us. 

For example, all throughout the documentary we are told about legends and myths. The description of the documentary also does this; it describes the documentary as being about "the fabled home of Santa Claus":


We should find the courage to experiment with a better economic and government system so that the people who create documentaries can stop pandering to the public. We should raise standards for the social sciences to such a high level that the documentaries have to remove all of their idiotic but entertaining remarks. The description of that documentary about Lapland should be serious and informative, such as:


Imagine if engineers included entertainment in their documents. For example, imagine if the Boeing engineers created a maintenance manual with instructions like this:

The authors who promote legends and myths might respond that they are telling us about them because they are popular. However, one of the reasons that they are popular is because there are so many authors promoting the legends. If we had higher standards for journalists, then journalists would ignore the idiotic myths, thereby reducing their popularity.

In some cases, the authors are the only reason that a concept is popular. For example, none of us would know about "crop circles", the Bermuda Triangle, or Bigfoot if it were not for a group of criminals who created the concepts.

Another example is that the Oxford University Press selects a "Word of the Year", and for 2018 they selected the word "toxic". They claim that the word was popular that year, and that second most popular use was for the expression toxic masculinity.

However, the expression "toxic masculinity" is popular only because a group of criminals are trying to manipulate our attitudes. If it had not been for those criminals, none of us would know of such an expression.

Children are also picking up false information from Hollywood movies and books that are "based on a true story". Information that is "based on a true story" should be described as "fiction" because it contains false information.

Furthermore, it should be noted that even the most unrealistic work of fiction could be described as "based on a true story". For example, the Discovery Channel could create a documentary about "The Monsters In Our Homes". The documentary could boast that it is "based on millions of true stories", and they could "prove" it by providing some interviews in which children testify that they know for a fact that there are monsters hiding in their closet or under their bed.

Historians, journalists, and other people who provide us with news reports and historical information should meet the same high standards as engineers. We should not allow anyone to claim that his information is "based on a true story". We should make a clear distinction between entertainment and educational information.

Imagine if engineers were to create a maintenance manual for the Boeing 787 that was "based on the truth", but which contained some false information and exaggerations in an attempt to make the manual more entertaining.

The free enterprise system is causing businesses and authors to manipulate and exploit us rather than look for ways to improve our lives. Can you find the courage to experiment with a more advanced economic system?

Instead of getting fired for incompetence, government officials can actually benefit from it. Specifically, when they are near the end of their term in office, they can announce to the voters that the problems are so complex that they must be reelected in order to finish the task. In other words, by doing nothing about a problem, they can use the lack of success as justification to be reelected.

By comparison, when an employee of a business has no progress in his tasks, he is replaced. The managers of a business are too intelligent to be fooled into keeping him on the payroll for four more years.

If the voters would replace the most incompetent leaders, we would eventually have government officials who are successful in solving problems. We would have a government in which the officials are routinely finding ways to improve the design of our cities, the clarity of our laws, and the efficiency of the government agencies. The officials would also routinely find improvements to our work environments, social affairs, holiday celebrations, schools, recreational activities, children's activities, and other culture.

Although business executives tend to be much more talented than government officials, they are not necessarily as useful as they should be. The reason is because a free enterprise system puts business executives into competition to make profit, rather than to improve society. This gives us business executives who excel in making profit, not who excel in improving society.

If the only way a person could make profit was to improve society, then the competition to make profit would provide us with business executives who excel at improving our lives. Unfortunately, we can make profit in a variety of undesirable ways, such as joining crime networks, forming friendships and marriages according to how we can benefit financially, and exploiting consumers and laws.

Another problem with free enterprise is that it gives us business executives who excel at pandering to consumers. This can result in business executives who excel in providing us with emotionally appealing products and services, but which may be worthless or wasteful.

For example, there are businesses developing the technology to start a colony on Mars or the moon. These businesses are emotionally appealing to a lot of people, but from the point of view of society, they are wasting labor and resources because we do not yet have the technology to do that. These businesses are making promises that they cannot keep, similar to political candidates who pander to the voters. The Mars One project has already gone bankrupt.

If we truly want to start a colony on another planet, we should first create a large space station with artificial gravity, and make sure that it is self-sufficient in its production of food, water, and oxygen. It should also have maintenance facilities to deal with routine problems. It could then travel to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else, without needing supplies from the earth.

That space station would make creating a colony on Mars much more practical. While it is still orbiting the earth, it could be provided with all of the equipment and supplies necessary to start a colony on Mars. It would then travel to Mars, and it would orbit Mars while some of the people traveled to the surface of Mars to create a colony.

Creating that giant space station would require a tremendous amount of labor and resources, and supplying it with the equipment necessary to start a colony on Mars would also require a tremendous amount of labor and resources.

However, it would be less work, and less dangerous work, than sending lots of small rockets to Mars and expecting a few people to create a colony with the extremely limited amount of food and equipment that those rockets could supply them with.

I suggest you consider that the reason so many people believe that they can create a colony on Mars within a few years is because they cannot see how difficult the task is. I mentioned this concept in other documents; specifically, the less we know about something, the more we think we know. We must learn a certain amount about an issue before we realize how ignorant we are.

We have been building a space station for decades, and this has made us fully aware of how difficult such a project is. We have yet to understand what is required to create a colony on Mars, and this causes us to assume that it will be an easier task.

Likewise, we have no idea how to control nuclear fusion, and this allows us to assume that it will be easy to do it. However, it may require much more intelligence than any human has, and so it may not happen until humans have evolved for another 2 million years. It may also turn out to be impractical or impossible. People 20 million years from now might regard our fusion projects in the same manner that we regard the attempts to create perpetual motion.

Some of the people who have gotten involved with projects that they later decide are unrealistic may continue supporting the project simply because of the difficulty of finding another job.

One of the many problems of a free enterprise system is the difficulty of getting funding for a research project or business, or finding another job. This can cause us to support a project even when we realize it is worthless or hopeless, and it can cause unions to resist new technology.

The Articles of the Barons, Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution belong in a "Museum of Culture". Also, it could be a museum on the Internet, rather than a physical museum. In such a case, the museum would have images of the original documents, and the text of the documents. That Internet site would resemble the document the IFAB created to show their history.

By putting such documents into a museum, the future generations will be able to learn how their culture evolved to what it is. For three examples of what the future generations could learn from such a museum:

The USA has hundreds of variations of Christianity. This list has more than 200, and the Wikipedia has more information. When I was a child, I wondered why one of my grandmother's family chose the Lutheran religion. In addition, they could have chosen one of the many non-Christian religions, or one of the variations of atheism.

Her ancestors came from Denmark, and a Museum of Culture would show that the Danish constitution makes the Lutheran religion the official religion of the Church of Denmark. Therefore, I don't think that my Danish ancestors chose the Lutheran religion. Rather, they accepted it because they had grown up in a nation that was pushing it.

One of my grandfathers came from a Catholic family that emigrated from Italy, and a Museum of Culture would show that the Catholic Church has been much more aggressive in pushing the Catholic religion than the Danish government has been in pushing the Lutheran religion.

By comparison, the U.S. Constitution forbids the government to promote a religion, and it gives us the right to believe whatever we please. This freedom has resulted in the American citizens creating hundreds of variations of Christianity, atheism, paganism, and other religions.

A Museum of Culture would help people realize that it doesn't matter what form our culture is in. Culture is just some intangible instructions in our mind, and it doesn't matter how we transfer those instructions from one mind to another.

A Museum would show that our prehistoric ancestors passed culture with their voice, and by observing one another. About 4000 BC, the Sumerians began writing some of their laws and other culture on clay tablets. During the Middle Ages, the Europeans were creating documents on animal skins and linen paper, and they wrote words with bird feathers that they dipped in ink.

The museum could show how the feather pens evolved into pencils, typewriters, and ballpoint pens. The trend during the past few decades is to use computers to create electronic documents, and to replace keyboards with speech recognition software.

Some people today are complaining that the new generation of people are not reading books, but it makes no difference whether a person gets information from an electronic document, sheets of paper, or clay tablets. We should not care about the form that information is in. We should instead care about the quality and value of the information. We should be concerned about what we put into our mind, not the method we use to transfer the information from one person's mind to another.

I regard paper books as inferior to electronic documents because they cannot be searched, and they cannot provide high quality photos, videos, audio files, or interactive software. Furthermore, they cannot be edited, and we cannot copy and paste sections of them into email or other documents.

I predict that paper books will continue to dwindle in popularity as computers become increasingly advanced. It is possible that the people a few thousand years from now will have such advanced 3-D displays that they will not want paper documents. There may be no such thing as a library of books, or a home with a bookcase.

A Museum of Culture would help us realize that we have a strong desire to mimic one another rather than experiment with our options.

For example, the Magna Carta was written in Latin, rather than the version of English that the people were speaking at the time. No society had been using Latin for centuries, and not many people could read Latin, so the Magna Carta was unintelligible to the majority of people.

The people who created the USA did not use Latin for their documents, but they used Latin for certain things, such as putting "E Pluribus Unum" on the Great Seal of the United States.

That Latin expression was regarded as the motto for the USA, but in 1956 the Congress declared that the phrase "In God We Trust" will be our official motto. That was one of the few times the US government made a change to our culture, but I would not describe it as an "improvement". Rather, the Congress was pandering to the religious fanatics.

If we design a Museum of Culture to appease people, we will design the museum so that people enjoy it. For example, the display of the Magna Carta and Newton's Principia would claim those documents were written in Latin because the authors were intelligent and educated. However, that type of museum is a form of entertainment, not a useful educational tool. It would titillate people's emotions, not educate them or stimulate intellectual discussions. It would have no value in helping us to understand our culture, our behavior, or what our options for the future are.

By comparison, if we design a Museum of Culture with the same serious attitude that a chemist describes ammonia, then the museum would treat humans as if we are just another animal. The museum would educate us rather than entertain us.

For example, in regards to explaining the use of Latin, the museum would point out that there was never a time in human history at which people discussed which language they should use for their documents. Rather, people used Latin for thousands of years simply because humans evolved from monkeys, and we inherited their craving to mimic one another. The museum would also point out that just like animals, people have continuously displayed a fear to try something different and explore our options.

That type of museum would help us to understand why our culture became what it is, and that knowledge can help us decide which aspects of our culture we ought to consider improving.

To rephrase that concept, when we understand that we have a strong desire to mimic other people, we will realize that we should analyze our culture and determine which of our customs we are following simply because of our desire to mimic other people. We should then analyze those customs and pass judgment on whether they are sensible enough to continue following, or whether we should terminate or alter them.

The religious fanatics would condemn that type of museum for treating humans as animals, but we should not design a museum to appease anybody. In order to be useful, a museum needs to be as accurate as possible.

We learn nothing about ourselves or our culture when we claim that our ancestors used Latin because they were educated and intelligent. That is not a scientific explanation of how our culture became what it is. That is just boasting.

By comparison, when a museum shows us that we have been using Latin for thousands of years simply because of our desire to mimic one another, then we will get a more accurate and useful understanding of our culture, and that in turn can help us make better decisions about which of our customs we ought to terminate or update.

Incidentally, you might find it amusing to consider what the Magna Carta, Principia, and other documents would look like if the Europeans had decided to mimic the Egyptian hieroglyphics or cuneiform, rather than Latin.

A Museum of Culture would also show us that our desire to mimic, our fear of exploring our options, and our resistance to thinking has nothing to do with whether we are stupid or intelligent, or whether we are ignorant or educated. The museum would show that many of the most intelligent and educated people behave similar to animals. We behave like animals when we follow our emotional cravings, rather than use our intelligence to make decisions.

In order to behave better than the animals, we must be aware that we inherited the emotions of monkeys, and we need enough self-control to push ourselves into thinking about what to do. We must also be able to occasionally choose to "suffer" with a policy that is emotionally unpleasant but intellectually sensible.

Unfortunately, most people do not realize – or they refuse to believe – that they have the emotional cravings of a monkey. Most people believe that their emotional feelings are sensible, and that they will get more enjoyment from life by titillating their emotions. They believe that they are suffering when they cannot satisfy one of their cravings. As a result of this attitude, they tend to stimulate themselves, and their children, to excess rather than try to control their cravings. Of the people who realize that they should control their cravings, many lack the self-control necessary.

The end result is that most people do whatever is most emotionally titillating, just like the animals, such as pandering to their children, mimicking one another, eating excessive amounts of food, becoming hysterical over abortion, committing crimes in order to get more material wealth, fighting one another for status, having sex with Harvey Weinstein in return for becoming a famous actor, and joining a crime network in return for their help in becoming a government official.

The crude, animal behavior of the majority of people is the reason why a small number of criminals, corrupt government officials, kings and queens, priests, Hollywood celebrities, and journalists can so easily manipulate enormous numbers of people.

In order for us to improve the world, we need more people who can acknowledge that humans are monkeys, and who have enough self-control to behave better than a monkey.

When an engineer is trying to improve an oven, refrigerator, or robot, he does not ignore the work of other engineers, and he does not mimic them, either. Rather, he analyzes their accomplishments and failures, and he tries to learn from them and improve upon their accomplishments.

We should encourage that same attitude with culture. We should not ignore the culture of our ancestors or other nations, and we should not mimic any of their culture, either. Rather, we should analyze our culture and the culture of other societies, and we should try to improve our culture.

It should be noted that when the Articles of Confederation failed, the authors of the constitution decided to look at the governments of other nations, and try to learn from them and create something better.

This brings up a very important aspect of human and animal behavior that we should be aware of, and we should try to keep under control. Specifically, we have a strong desire to follow along the same path forever, and we consider changing paths only when we are suffering to such an extent that the pain of continuing along the same path is strong enough to overpower our fear of the unknown and our arrogance.

For an example, the Articles of Confederation did such a terrible job of managing the USA that the people began facing extreme economic and social problems. The problems were so severe that it was essentially a punch in their face. It caused them to suppress their arrogance, stop believing that they knew everything there was to know about governments, and try to learn from the mistakes and successes of other societies.

You should be able to see this concept in your personal life, or in the lives of other people. For example, some alcoholics have refused to admit that they have an alcohol problem until it caused serious suffering in their life, such as a divorce, liver cancer, or getting fired from their job. That suffering can cause an alcoholic to suppress his arrogance, be more critical of himself, acknowledge that he has a problem, and make an attempt to improve his behavior.

We could summarize this characteristic by saying that animals and humans become willing to change their path in life when they are suffering to a significant extreme. Another way to express this characteristic is that we do not want to improve our life if we are already enjoying life, or if our suffering is below the level necessary to overpower our desire to follow the same path. An expression for this characteristic is:


If we are aware of this characteristic, and if we have enough self-control, then we can experiment with our culture simply to improve our lives, rather than wait for our culture to "break". Unfortunately, no nation yet promotes such an attitude.

Example: Cheating in elections

An example of this attitude is how people have been ignoring the evidence that cheating occurs during elections. There has been evidence of cheating for decades, and even the ordinary people should have enough intelligence to understand that a secretive voting system is very easy to cheat. However, most people have ignored the evidence of cheating until the 2020 election, when the cheating was on such an extreme scale that it upset some people to the point at which they were willing to change their path in life.

At the time I am writing this document, it seems to me that Trump won the election by many millions of votes, and that the Democrats had to cheat to an extreme in order to make it look as if Biden had won the election.

This makes me wonder, if Trump had won the election by only a small amount, the cheating would have been on small scale, so how many of the people who are complaining about the cheating would have complained in that case? I suspect that most people would have ignored the cheating, and Joe Biden would become the next president.

At some point in the future, people will have government systems, school systems, and other culture that is much more advanced than what we have today. If we could visit a Museum of Culture in the year 5600 A.D., we would have a much better understanding of how crude our culture is today, and how much it can be improved.

For example, their display of the evolution of government systems will show that the Magna Carta was written in Latin on one sheet of parchment, and the U.S. Constitution of 1787 consisted of four sheets of parchment, and the constitution that I am proposing is a much more extensive and detailed set of electronic HTML documents.

Their museum will show that sometime after 2020 teams of people began competing with each other to develop improvements to governments, school systems, and other culture, just as teams of engineers compete to develop improvements to robots and refrigerators.

Those future museum displays will show that the documents that set up governments, social affairs, businesses, bicycle races, marriages, and other culture have been edited over and over, century after century.

Those displays would help people realize that the words in our cultural documents are just symbols of no importance. The important aspect of the documents is the concept that the symbols represent.

Therefore, if different people decode the words into slightly different concepts, we should react by realizing that the words are failing to do their job of accurately passing the concept from one person's mind to the next. We should react to that problem by editing that document, and the editing should continue until we all agree on what the words represent.

When engineers design a refrigerator, they create a set of documents that explain to people in a factory how to produce the refrigerator, and they create other documents to explain to the user how to operate and maintain the refrigerator, and they create other documents to provide instructions for the technicians who repair the refrigerator.

Engineering documents are analogous to a nation's constitution, and also to the "rules" that the USA Cycling group has created, because they are sets of instructions to unite and organize a group of people.

The only difference between the documents that engineers create and the documents that the USA Cycling group creates is that the engineers produce instructions to organize a group of people into producing material items, and the USA Cycling group produces instructions to organize a group of people into producing bicycle races.

Businesses in a free enterprise system are in competition, so they are under pressure to find improvements to their products and services. However, imagine if Ford was the only automobile company in the world. In such a case, Ford would be a monopoly, and that would allow them to be as incompetent and inefficient as a government. For example, without competition, they would be able to produce the Model T forever without any concern about being driven to bankruptcy.

What would you think if the engineers at Ford were still producing the Model T today because they insisted that it is the greatest automobile ever created? What would you think if the engineers insulted a person as a traitor to Ford if he suggested changes to the Model T? Imagine the engineers responding to suggestions for improvements to the model T with such angry remarks as:

Furthermore, imagine that Ford was requiring their engineers to use Latin in their engineering documents. How about if they also wrote the User's Manual and Repair Manual in Latin?

And imagine that Ford required the employees to wear powdered wigs and use feather pens.

What is the difference between:

a) A business that boasts that it follows the traditions set by the founders of the business, and that those founders did such a perfect job that it is idiotic for somebody to suggest improvements to their product or business.

b) A nation in which the people boast that they proudly follow the culture of their ancestors, and that anybody who suggests experimenting with changes is a radical, extremist, traitor.

Engineers and scientists never boast that they are following the technology of their ancestors. Rather, they boast about improving the technology of their ancestors.

By comparison, most people are proud of themselves when they mimic the culture of their ancestors. They boast that they follow "long-established" procedures that have been "proven" through the generations, or that they are "carrying on a proud tradition". Some people justify their religion with a remark similar to:

Rather than improve their culture, most people try to stop people from experimenting with culture. If the typical person were to create a Museum display to show the history of his culture, he would be proud to show that he is following the same policies for crime, government, drugs, marriage, and abortion that his primitive ancestors were following thousands of years earlier.

Imagine an engineer boasting that he refuses to make changes to some primitive technology because he follows "established and proven" engineering designs, rather than "experiment with radical, extremist speculations".

If Ford had been a monopoly, and if they continued producing the Model T for centuries, the engineers of the future would be able to boast:

No engineer is that ignorant or stupid. Instead, engineers are constantly looking for ways to improve their designs. They are also willing to edit their documents to make them less confusing to the people who must assemble, use, or repair the products.

Engineers often create displays of old diagrams, prototypes, and products, but they do so in order to learn from the successes and failures of previous engineers, and to allow people to learn how technology has improved through the years, not to promote old technology.

An example is the display of farming vehicles that John Deere created to show how their farming technology has improved.

That type of display is useful for the engineers who design farming machinery, and for any citizen who is interested in learning how farming technology developed.

Engineers routinely analyze previous products in order to build upon the achievements of other engineers, and to avoid the mistakes of other engineers.

Ideally, government officials would also try to learn from the successes and failures of previous societies, and add to the achievements of previous generations.

Sports have changed quite a bit during the past few thousand years, but the changes have been trivial during the past few decades. This can cause us to assume that most of the major changes are finished, and that the people a million years from now will have very similar sports.

In this section, I want you to consider that there might be some dramatic changes in sports and other culture. Specifically, try to imagine what a Museum of Culture in 3600 A.D. might show for the sport of bicycle racing.

The museum's display would begin by showing that bicycles developed during the 1800s. If there were any bicycle races in the early 1800s, they were not documented, so they would have been as informal and spontaneous as when a couple friends are at a beach and have an informal "contest" to see who can skip a rock farther along the surface of the water.

The first bicycle race to be documented was held in 1868 in Paris, France. It was for a distance of 1200 meters on a gravel path. The winner rode a wooden bicycle with solid rubber tires.

The museum would show that none of the men who were involved with bicycle races during the 1860's were training full time for the events, or hiring coaches to help them become better at racing. There were no professional bicycle racers in that era.

The museum would show that the sport evolved during the following decades into a variety of different types of bicycles and races. The museum would also show that the sport evolved to the point at which people could make a living as a competitor in bicycle races. At that point, the "ordinary" people were no longer capable of qualifying for a bicycle race. Instead, a small group of athletes competed, and the ordinary people watched the contests. This caused bicycle racing to become a "spectator sport".

The museum would show that the athletes eventually became so concerned about winning the contests that the athletes were training for the contests, and many were working with coaches and/or risking their health by experimenting with drugs, hormones, and steroids. The museum might help people get a better idea of how extreme the athletes were pushing themselves to win by showing such photos as the veins in the leg of Bartosz Huzarksi (photo, below right), which he posted after completing a section of the Tour de France race.

The museum would show that during the 21st century there were many businesses putting a lot of labor and resources into developing extremely lightweight, aerodynamic bicycles made of carbon fiber.

The museum would also show how the speed of the bicycles was increasing through the years as the bicycles and roads became more advanced, and as the people put more effort into training. For example, in 1873 a man rode a bicycle for an hour and reached a distance of 23 km, and a century later many people were riding more than twice that distance in an hour.

The reason I want you to consider what a museum would show for bicycle races is to encourage you to wonder how sports and other culture might change in the future. We assume that we have the best culture possible, and that the future will be a continuation of the present, but it is very unlikely that people in 60,000 A.D. will live in the manner that we are living, or have the same sports or recreational activities that we have today. They are much more likely to regard our culture as being only slightly better than that of the Middle Ages.

The previous document of this series showed a section of Pieter Bruegel's painting of children's activities in 1560, and two photos of a Chinese facility for children in 2020. Children's activities have changed dramatically during the past few centuries, and we ought to consider that the social and recreational activities of adults are going to change dramatically in the upcoming centuries.

We regard the previous few centuries as being an "Industrial Revolution" because there was a tremendous amount of technical progress during a relatively short period of time. I think there will eventually be a point in the future at which the human race has the social equivalent. The people in the distant future will regard it as a "Cultural Revolution" because it will be a time at which culture advances rapidly.

That cultural revolution will be a time when the people start taking control of their culture rather than letting it be manipulated by businesses, crime networks, religions, and idiots. They will start conducting research and experiments with sports, holiday celebrations, clothing styles, school curriculum, economic policies, and other cultural issues, and they will make changes according to what provides people with the best life, not according to what people want or like.

I suspect that there will be a time in the future at which the people have become so knowledgeable about human culture and human behavior that they have made significant changes to virtually all of the sports, recreational, and social activities. If we were to travel thousands of years into the future, I don't think we would recognize any of their activities.

That cultural revolution will be a time at which "social science" finally becomes a real and productive science. It will be similar to the time during the Middle Ages when people began abandoning alchemy and developing chemistry, biology, metallurgy, and other sciences. It will be a time during which the future generations abandon religions, Freudian psychology, voodoo, Marxism, and other nonsense, and acknowledge the evidence that humans are a species of monkey.

This change in attitude will allow them to understand human behavior and culture, which in turn will allow them to develop more appropriate governments, economic systems, school systems, city designs, holiday celebrations, and other culture.

In regards to sports, I predict that there will be a time in the future at which people start coming to the conclusion that their monkey-emotions are causing them to put too much emphasis on winning a meaningless contest, and that they should change the events to make them more useful.

The museum displays of the distant future will show how this change in attitude affected all of the sports and recreational activities. For example, the museum will have displays that show how the bicycle races of the 21st century were extremely competitive events in which the athletes trained full-time, used a lot of drugs and hormones, and rode on extremely advanced, aerodynamic, carbon fiber bicycles. The museum will then show that the bicycle races of the 22nd century, or maybe it won't happen until the 26th century, were significantly different because the people lost their interest in winning. They stopped training for the events, stopped using drugs, and stopped giving prizes to the winner.

I think the future generations will also stop putting research into making bicycles faster. Instead they will switch to making bicycles more comfortable, safer, quieter, and resistant to mechanical failures and flat tires.

I also suspect that the museum will show that there was a point in time at which the people decided to make their sports and recreational activities more visually interesting. They would design their bicycles, volleyballs, and other recreational equipment and clothing to be more decorative.

If that prediction seems strange to you, consider how meals have changed during the past few thousand years. Our prehistoric ancestors ate their meals just like monkeys do; specifically, sitting on the ground and eating food with their hands. Although there are still millions of people who put a bowl of food up to their face and shove the food into their mouth with chopsticks, there are millions of us who prefer to eat with forks and spoons at a decorative table, and have the food prepared in an artistic manner.

I suspect that there will be a point in the future at which people stop putting emphasis on gathering material items, giant homes, and trophies, and switch to enjoying activities, people, and the universe. They will want everything in their lives to become visually attractive. They will be intolerant of ugly cities, ugly roads, ugly sidewalks, ugly factories, and ugly foot paths. They will want their entire city to be attractive, clean, and quiet. They will also want their recreational and social activities to be more visually pleasant.

It is impossible for us to create a beautiful city today because we cannot control the design or layout of a city when we are using a free enterprise system, or a democracy. The only way we can create a beautiful city is to create a government that has dictatorial control over the design and layout of the city. This requires taking away everybody's freedom to build their own homes, factories, parking lots, and other structures. The city government must be able to own all of the land and all of the buildings so that they can control the design, placement, colors, and features of all of the city structures, farms, utility lines, foot paths, and canals.

The governments of today are too corrupt and incompetent for that type of city, but I predict that the "Cultural Revolution" will result in truly impressive and talented government officials. Furthermore, people will change their attitudes towards life. Instead of fighting each other for food, homes, and material items, they will switch to something similar to what I have proposed, in which material items are provided for free.

It will be much easier for people to create a beautiful city for themselves when the government is in control of the city, land, and material items because it is much easier to create and maintain community property compared to private property.

Instead of the situation we have today, in which every family must purchase and maintain their own bicycles, drones, recreational equipment, private yards, and private swimming pools, the city will provide everybody with a much wider variety of higher-quality swimming pools, gardens, social clubs, and recreational activities. This will give the people access to material wealth that they could not afford or maintain.

Our prehistoric ancestors lived like packs of wild animals. Their main concern each day was finding food and water. When they settled into cities, they began competing with each other for material wealth and status, and many people began cheating and forming crime networks.

Today we have the technology to produce such an excess of material wealth that we could stop fighting over material wealth. We could also stop fighting over status and land. We could switch to working together to create cities with spectacular, high quality, and more useful communal structures and products.

Although the human race as of 2020 may be so dominated by people with serious mental disorders and animal behavior that none of us will live to see humans stop fighting with each other, it will happen at some point in the future.

The predictions that the human race will destroy itself are absurd. The one thing we can depend on is that all animals and plants will improve through time, although there may be some temporary setbacks.

The nations that don't adapt to our modern era are going to continue to deteriorate into a group of lunatics, criminals, and retards, and they will eventually be dominated by genetically better people with superior culture.

At some point in the future the people are going to start changing their attitudes, exert more self-control, and behave more like a human and less like an animal. At some point they will realize that even the "poor" people have more material wealth than they need, and that everybody should be more concerned with enjoying their jobs, their work environment, and their city.

They will stop fighting for material items, land, and status, and become more interested in sharing the world, enjoying people, and enjoying life. They will realize that they will gain much more by working together for the benefit of everybody.

I think the future generations will want to create cities that are visually attractive, quiet, and clean, and this attitude will extend to all aspects of their lives. For example, they will want their factories to be visually attractive and clean, and they will want their recreational areas to be attractive.

There are a few attractive locations within some cities today, such as the path below in Tunstall Park, but we could design an entire city to have beautiful foot paths, bicycle paths, bridges, parks, and gardens.

All of our office buildings, factories, apartment buildings, restaurants, schools, plazas, and social clubs could be surrounded by beautiful parks, ponds, plazas, foot paths, and bicycle paths. As you walk, ride a bicycle, or drive a small electric vehicle around the city, you would pass by a variety of trees, bushes, flowers, ponds, and bridges. This would make it pleasant to travel to work, a restaurant, or a park, and it would be fun to explore the city.

In previous documents I suggested that factories have such decorations as stained-glass windows. In our era, the business executives consider it to be uneconomical to create visually pleasant, quiet, and clean factories, but I think there will be a point in the future at which people set higher standards for their leaders, and this will result in business executives who are concerned with creating jobs that people enjoy. I predict that the future generations will stop allowing business executives to be pampered Kings and Queens with gigantic mansions, yachts, private jets, and diamond jewelry.

Getting back to the issue of sports, I predict that the future generations will change all of their sports and recreational activities from the intense competitive events that they are today, to more useful, safer, and pleasant events that encourage people to get some exercise and enjoy the city, nature, and people. That change in attitude will prevent the future athletes from beating the world records that athletes are setting today.

For example, consider what a Museum in the year 3600 might show for the evolution of weightlifting. It would show that the weightlifting events during the Middle Ages were casual events that were arranged for fun. There were no professional weightlifters, and nobody trained for the event.

By the 21st century, there were thousands of men and women training full-time for a variety of different weightlifting contests, and some of them offered very large financial prices. Many of those athletes used drugs, steroids, and hormones to increase their strength. The extreme emphasis on winning these contests resulted in one man, Eddie Hall, lifting 500 kg in a particular type of weightlifting contest.

I predict that the Museum will show that at some point after the 21st century there was a dramatic change in attitude about sports. Specifically, the people lost their interest in winning contests of no importance, so they stopped training, using drugs, and giving prizes to the winners. As a result of their lack of interest in winning, none of them will be able to come close to beating Eddie Hall's 500 kg record.

Instead of putting emphasis on winning a contest, the people in the distant future will be more concerned with enjoying themselves and getting something of value from their activities.

If we could travel several thousand years into the future and watch a sports event, I think we would assume that we are watching some type of comedy show, or an act from the Cirque du Soleil.

The people in the sports event will not show a concern about whether they win, and they will be wearing more visually interesting clothing in order to be more entertaining to themselves and the audience.

During prehistoric times, when people wanted to do something during their leisure time, such as swim in a pond, or see who could throw a rock the farthest, or sing a song, anybody who wanted to participate could do so. In that era, all of the social and recreational events were "participation events" rather than "spectator events".

After people settled into cities, businesses began promoting "spectator activities" so that they can profit from them. During the past century, television companies have created a variety of game shows and other programs to encourage people to sit at home and passively watch other people participate in recreational events, games, dancing contests, and singing contests.

I think the popularity of spectator sports will decrease during the following centuries, and people will become more interested in participating in sports and social events. I predict that a thousand years from now most of the leisure activities, possibly all of them, will once again become participation activities.

For example, at some point in the future, perhaps the year 2600, bicycle races might appear to us to be some type of casual "tour" of the city or a forest, or some type of "social activity", rather than a "sport" because none of the "athletes" will show an interest in winning the race, or in training for the races.

They are also likely to ride bicycles that are slower, higher in quality, more attractive, more comfortable, more reliable, and quieter than what athletes ride today. We would not regard them as "racing" bicycles. Rather, we would describe them as "pleasure" bicycles.

Instead of caring about who wins, they will encourage people to participate in the event and try to complete it. They may refer to it as a "race" or a "contest" simply to put pressure on people to complete it fast enough to join whatever comes afterwards, such as a dinner, a music concert, or a social affair.

Why would people in the future arrange a bicycle "race" or "contest" if they don't care who wins? The reason is because animals and humans need some type of pressure put on us to do things we don't like to do, such as get exercise. We are inherently lazy, and we do not like to work, but we get more satisfaction from life when we do things rather than when we lounge. Therefore, we can benefit by designing activities that put pressure on us to do something beneficial.

Animals and humans, especially the males, have strong cravings to compete with one another, so we should take advantage of that emotion by arranging for competitive events. However, we would not compete to win a prize. Rather, we would design the contest so that everybody involved accomplishes something more useful, such as getting out of the house to enjoy nature, or getting some exercise, or meeting some people, or simply accumulating some pleasant memories for our old age.

The Industrial Revolution inspired people to use their imagination and develop new technology, and the result is that we have a lot of material items and foods that our ancestors never imagined.

I predict that the Cultural Revolution will cause people to use their imagination to create better social and recreational activities, and better designs for parks, gardens, swimming pools, plazas, clothing, restaurants, theaters, and music concerts. It will bring improvements to culture that none of us can imagine.

The people at the Cirque du Soleil have devised some unusual costumes and entertainment, such as the water dress in the photo to the right, but people in the future are certain to have a variety of decorative clothing and entertaining activities that nobody has yet imagined.

The future generations will also have lighting techniques and hologram options that we don't yet have, thereby giving them a wider variety of decorative lighting options for their clothing, vehicles, bicycles, swimming pools, theaters, foot paths, plazas, and parks.

Furthermore, I think they will design most of their activities to be for participation by the public.

A free enterprise system discourages participation because we must purchase or lease whatever we want, which in turn requires that we spend a lot of time trying to figure out what to purchase or lease. If we choose to purchase an item, then we have the burden of storing it when we are not using it, and we have the burden of maintaining it. Purchasing and leasing items is a nuisance and a burden.

However, people are more likely to participate in events if they live in a city that provides everything for free. Nobody will have to be bothered purchasing or leasing recreational equipment, music equipment, water dresses, snorkeling equipment, bicycles, electric vehicles, drones, cameras, or anything else. They just borrow whatever items they need for the activity, and give them back when they are finished.

People are also much more likely to participate in any event that is designed to be pleasurable or useful, rather than a competitive event to win a trophy.

When friends are at a lake, and one challenges the other to skip a rock on the surface of the lake, they have a casual competition for fun. They do not get carried away with trying to win a trophy, and they do not train for the event, or take drugs to increase their strength. They put pressure on one another to participate in the activity, not to win.

I suspect that future generations will prefer "participation events". Instead of friends getting together to watch athletes on television, they will put pressure on one another to get together for a recreational or social event. They will put pressure on one another to participate, not to win. Furthermore, the events will be designed so that the participants get something of value from the event, such as exercise, meeting people, or simply enjoying life and accumulating some pleasant memories for their old age.

I think it is likely that future generations will design some recreational activities that allow the participants to do some of the necessary chores of the city, such as a contest to remove the weeds in a section of the city park, or to decorate the city for a holiday.

Not many people today are interested in doing chores for their city. One reason is that a free enterprise system causes our city to feel as if it belongs to businesses. We feel comfortable in our homes, but when we go into the city we feel as if we are customers who must either spend some money or get out. Some cities do not even have many public bathrooms or water fountains. This puts pressure on us to become a customer of a business simply to use a bathroom, or get something to drink. Some of us avoid that problem by using the bathrooms in our home, and not staying long in the city.

Another reason we do not want to do chores for our city is because many of us dislike, or are frightened of, the people in our city. We want to avoid them, not get together with them.

However, imagine if you were living in the type of city I have suggested. Imagine a city with beautiful buildings and parks, and in which immigration is controlled. There are no peasants, homeless people, crime networks, or wealthy people. There is no free enterprise, so people share all of the material wealth, restaurants, recreational facilities, social clubs, and other facilities.

You would not be a "customer" in that city. You would not be under pressure to spend money or go home. Rather, you would be free to use any of the facilities you please. You would be able to use any bathroom in the city, and you could get water or other drinks for free.

In that type of city, it would feel as if you are sharing a gigantic mansion. All of the restaurants would feel as if they are dining rooms within your mansion, and all of the bathrooms in the city would feel as if they are bathrooms within your mansion. All of the music facilities and theaters would feel as if they were entertainment centers in your mansion. The parks, gardens, and swimming areas would feel as if they were part of your yard. You would feel comfortable everywhere in the city.

In that city, you would feel as comfortable in one of the restaurants as you do in your own dining room, and you would feel as comfortable in a recreational facility as you do in your private yard.

At some point in the future the people are going to get tired of the ugly, chaotic cities that we are living in today and start experimenting with better cities. However, when they create a city that does not have a peasant class, the people are going to have to share the chores that nobody wants to do.

Therefore, they might prefer to turn some or all chores into a contest. For example, they could create a contest to clean the buildings, plazas, foot paths, or bicycle paths (as in the photo below). They would divide up into teams, and they would compete to see which team can clean their section with the least amount of labor and resources.

These "contests" would not have any judges, and the winning team would not get any prize. Instead, the purpose of making them into a competitive event is simply to take advantage of our emotional craving to compete with one another. By stimulating that emotion, we put pressure on one another to accomplish the chore more efficiently and better. It is also likely to make the chore more enjoyable.

The chores that are physically demanding would provide the additional advantage of providing the people with exercise. That could be a much more satisfying way of getting exercise compared to running on a treadmill, or by lifting weights.

For example, the city could create "contests" to repair or build sections of rock walls. The citizens with skills in that particular chore would be allowed to enter the competition to create the nicest wall in the least amount of time.

By making the chore into a contest, they stimulate their emotions, which pushes them into focusing on the task and inspiring one another to do an impressive job.

Since the chore is physically demanding, it would provide the people with exercise in a manner that is much more beneficial to the city and the future generations than exercising at a gym.

We do not yet know how to convert a chore into a contest that we enjoy, but as soon as we start experimenting with contests, we will start learning about this issue. However, experimenting requires we find some people with enough courage to participate in the experiments. And, of course, we need much better leadership.

Our emotions fool us into believing that the greatest happiness comes from being pampered like a King or a pet dog, but we get more satisfaction from life when we are under pressure to accomplish some task, and with people we enjoy working with, and which provides a benefit to the group. We get more satisfaction from doing something than from receiving gifts.

When we contribute to the construction or maintenance of a city park, swimming pool, bicycle path, plaza, or children's playground, we will develop an emotional attachment to the city. Our city will feel more like it is our city, and less like we are intruders into other people's city. This in turn should make us more interested in getting out of our house and enjoying "our city".

Furthermore, even though we will not have enough time to get to know everybody we work with when we do these chores, spending a few hours on a chore with strangers will make those people feel like team members. This in turn will make the city feel as if we are living among friends, which should increase our desire to get out of our house and enjoy the city and the people.

Both the democracies and the free enterprise systems pander to the people, and this encourages us to think about what we personally want, rather than what is best for society. This encourages us to become hypocritical, selfish, arrogant, spoiled brats. It encourages us to boast about ourselves, make demands about what we want, and whine or fight when we don't get what we want.

Some of us have enough self-control to avoid becoming brats, but it would be better if our culture encouraged us to be team members rather than focus on our personal desires. I predict that the future generations will eventually switch to such an attitude, and that it will have a dramatic effect on the design of their cities, their economic system, their schools, their holiday celebrations, and all of their other culture.

For example, instead of every person, business, sports group, government agency, and other organization designing their homes, office buildings, parking lots, and other structures in whatever style and color that they please, and instead of letting every person and organization put those structures at whatever location they please, they will design their city according to what is best for everybody.

If we could travel into that distant future and live in their world for a few years, I don't think we would want to come back to our era. I think we would regard the 21st century as having very crude and animal-like culture.

Nobody knows what the cities will be like thousands of years from now, or what their culture will be, so why do I have so many predictions of what the future will be? Why do I have so many images of what I think the cities should look like?

It is beneficial to speculate on what the future will be because that can help us to realize what some of our options are. To rephrase this, when we allow our imagination to speculate about the distant future, we sometimes give ourselves ideas about what we could do with our future.

In order to improve our lives, we need to experiment with our options, but what are our options? We are not going to discover our options by mimicking our ancestors. However, when we use our imagination to guess at how people in the future will live, we can get some ideas on what we might want to experiment with.

For example, will the future generations spend most of their leisure time alone in their home, as millions of Americans are doing today? Will the cities thousands of years from now be the same haphazard jumbles of ugly buildings, roads, and parking lots? Will the people a million years from now have the same free enterprise system? Will the people and businesses spend their lives fighting one another for money, mansions, and private jets?

I predict that there will be a point in the future at which humans change their attitudes towards life and begin the process of improving their culture. They will create cities that are truly spectacular, and they will experiment with activities to encourage people to get out of their house and do something.

One technique to get people out of their house is to take advantage of our desire to compete with one another. We could experiment with contests, but not provide prizes in order to prevent people from getting carried away with winning. For two examples:

We have much more food and material wealth than the people of the Middle Ages, but socially we have not improved by much. Actually, I suspect that some social problems are worse today, such as crime, loneliness, homelessness, pedophile networks, and monarchies.

The increasing number of divorces suggest that men and women are having an increasingly difficult time forming pleasant relationships in this modern world. Some feminists claim that divorce is increasing only because it is now more practical for women to get a divorce, and that wives were just as miserable centuries ago as they are today.

What is the truth about how human life has changed during the past few thousand years? Were wives just as miserable when Archimedes was alive as they are today? Were there just as many pedophile networks in medieval Europe as they are today? Was there as many burglaries and thefts in ancient Rome as there is in Italy today?

Unfortunately, social science is still so crude that the field of "history" is still an entertainment activity rather than a scientific analysis of the past. This results in historians who don't care whether our history books have inaccurate information and drawings of the first Thanksgiving, and they don't even care if history books are lying about the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, or the world wars.

We will never provide ourselves with accurate historical analyses, or understand crime, divorce, selfishness, or other characteristics, or improve our cities, economic system, recreational activities, or other culture, until we are willing to make some major changes in our attitudes towards life.

One of the changes we must make is to acknowledge that humans are a species of monkey, but the majority of people oppose evolution. The majority of people are either pushing religion on the social sciences, or some variation of the philosophy that "human mind is a piece of clay".

As a group, the conservatives are superior to the liberals, but they should not be allowed in top positions of leadership because they inhibit progress. The most obvious example are the conservatives in Asia who put pressure on their nations to eat with prehistoric chopsticks, use prehistoric rice farming techniques, and use a prehistoric written language. Conservatives are also worthless as leaders because they beg some god to solve problems rather than take an active role in solving problems.

The majority of people don't care about reality or evidence. They prefer to believe whatever is most emotionally satisfying. As a result, they will never provide us with an understanding of human behavior, or the problems we experience. They will provide us with unrealistic fantasies. Social science will never become a productive science as long as they are allowed to dominate it.

We need to restrict our top leadership to people who have the personality of an explorer. Our leaders should have the courage to face reality, discuss our options, and experiment with our culture.

We are not going to improve our world as long as we allow our nations to be dominated by selfish, aggressive monkeys who want to grab all of the bananas for themselves, and by pedophiles who want us to be their servants and sex slaves. We need better leadership.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not need laws, governments, schools, or any other advanced social technology. They formed a united team simply by following their emotional feelings. The prehistoric children did not need schools because they learned everything they needed to know simply by observing and mimicking other people.

There was no economic system, so they had no need for laws about money, work schedules, vacations, weekends, taxes, or Social Security. The people did not have surnames, so there was no concern about whether a woman should take a man's surname when she gets married. There were no vegetarians, feminists, Zionists, organized religions, or BLM groups trying to influence their lives. Since the people were nomadic, nobody had many possessions, owned any land, or could inherit much of anything from their parents. They did not have to deal with issues related to privacy or secrecy because there was virtually no privacy or secrecy in that era.

The purpose of a constitution is to unite a group of people into a team, but a small prehistoric tribe did not need any laws to unite them into a team. Their emotions took care of that. Therefore, if a prehistoric tribe wanted to create a constitution for themselves, it would have been so simplistic that one person would have been able to create it by himself within a few minutes. It would be something like:

When our ancestors settled into cities, they had to deal with a lot of new issues that did not affect the small, nomadic tribes. For example, they had to make decisions about private and public property, and where a person could put his home, and how people could dispose of dead bodies, human waste, and trash.

It is impossible for people to form a city if everybody has the freedom to do whatever they please. The most obvious reason is that there would be endless arguments over who owned the land and sources of water.

In order to live in a city, the freedom of the people must be restricted, and the people must be required to follow a set of laws that tell them how to deal with private property, the disposal of trash and dead bodies, and thousands of other issues.

As technology becomes more advanced, and as a city becomes larger in population, the freedom of the people must be restricted even further, and they must follow an even larger, more detailed set of laws. Today we need laws that set up a monetary system and school system, and we need lots of laws to deal with such issues as worker safety, toxic chemicals, healthcare, pesticides, privacy, slander, inheritances, crime networks, abortion, refugees, immigration, drug abuse, and retirement.

The U.S. Constitution is a set of laws on four sheets of parchment, and The Bill of Rights is another sheet of parchment. This creates the impression that we can create a modern society with just five pages of instructions. In reality, a modern society needs much more than that. Take a look at how detailed the Uniform Code of Military Justice is, for example. It refers to the very narrow field of crime and justice in the military, but it is much longer and more detailed than the U.S. Constitution.

Our modern societies need a much more extensive set of laws and a lot more detail than the US Constitution is providing us. We need so many laws that it would be impossible for one person to create them all.

The USA cycling group created more than 200 pages of rules, and those rules only define one sports event. A modern society has thousands of sports, recreational, and social events, as well as lot of businesses, holidays, schools, and other organizations, all of which need lots of rules. We also need hundreds of rules to regulate the production and processing of food, medicines, and dangerous chemicals.

Expecting one person, or even a small group of people, to create all of the laws necessary for a modern society is as ridiculous as expecting one engineer, or a small group of engineers, to create all of the material items that a modern society uses. Our material items are the result of a lot of work from millions of engineers, technicians, scientists, carpenters, and other people, and over a span of thousands of years.

However, there has been very little social progress. This creates the impression that a single person can create brilliant policies for drugs, abortion, schools, marriage, economic issues, immigration, and thousands of other social issues. This causes millions of people around the world to believe that they are experts on hundreds of different social issues, and they regularly give lectures to one another on the correct beliefs.

Consider how this concept applies to knives. A knife appears to be a very simple material item; specifically, just a sharp piece of steel with a handle. However, a modern knife is the work of a lot of people over thousands of years.

The first knives were sharp pieces of rocks that one person could create by himself. Furthermore, the technology was so simplistic that a child could pick up the technique to create a knife simply by watching the adults chip away at rocks. Also, those knives were so crude that almost everybody was capable of finding a way to improve the knives, such as by discovering a better way to chip the rocks, or by finding a better way of holding the rocks.

The knives that we produce today cannot be produced by one person by himself. Our steel knives, for example, require raw materials that must be mined in different locations of the earth, and those materials need to be processed with advanced equipment.

There are hundreds of videos that show a person making a knife "by himself", but in reality all of those people are gathering materials and equipment from other people, and doing the final assembly. It is impossible for one person today to mine his own iron ore, coal, and other raw materials, create his own steel, produce his own forging hammer, grinders, and heat treating furnace, etc.

A person today who creates a knife "by himself" is actually being assisted by thousands of other people who work for hundreds of businesses scattered around the world.

It is also impossible for a child to pick up the technique to create a modern knife simply by watching other people. In order for children today to learn how to create a modern knife, they need to go to school and learn a lot of information about mining, metallurgy, grinding, math, heat treatments, and engineering.

Furthermore, it is very unlikely for a person today to be able to figure out how to improve a modern knife because all of the simplistic improvements were discovered centuries ago. In order for a person to improve a modern knife, he would have to put a lot of time and effort into experimenting with changes, and looking critically at his experiments.

The material items that people had 50,000 years ago were so crude that a person could create everything he wanted by himself. He could create clothing by removing the fur from an animal and wrapping it around his shoulders or waist. He could create a knife by pounding some rocks together and creating a sharp edge. He could create a home and a bed by removing rocks from a small area, and laying down some leaves or grass.

Today our clothing, knives, homes, and beds are much too complicated for a person to create by himself.

By comparison, our culture is still so crude that it is possible for people to create culture by themselves. For example, one person can create a government system, business, museum, abortion policy, crime policy, and holiday celebration by himself.

The holiday celebrations, constitutions, school systems and other social technology that we use in 2020 is so crude that it doesn't seem to be "technology". Rather, our culture seems to be more analogous to "opinions", "traditions", or "beliefs".

However, there will eventually be a point in the future at which people have learned so much about human behavior and culture that they will have developed some truly advanced government systems, school systems, economic systems, and other culture. Once that happens, it will become impossible for one person to create culture by himself.

For an example of how complicated culture will eventually become, consider how starting a business has changed during the past few thousand years, and how complex it might become a few thousand years in the future.

A couple thousand years ago businesses were so simple, so small, and so insignificant to human life that a person could create a business without much education, time, or effort. He did not have to be concerned about work environments, toxic waste, worker safety, sick pay, child labor laws, or female employees who were pregnant or taking care of young children. He also did not have to deal with the complex crimes that can be committed today by employees, investors, customers, and competing businesses.

Today a person needs a lot more of an education and skills in order to create a successful business. People today need to know a lot of laws, know how to use a lot of modern technology, and must deal with a lot of issues that did not exist centuries ago.

This pattern of businesses becoming increasingly complex is going to continue. The people a thousand years in the future are certain to regard the 21st century as an era when it was easy to start a business because we have so few restrictions, and we can be so ignorant about life and culture.

For example, we can create a business today without having to justify its existence. If a business is capable of making profit, it is allowed to function. There is no concern for whether the business is beneficial to society. This allows people to create businesses that produce shoddy or worthless products and services, such as astrology predictions, beer drinking contests, and worthless insurance policies.

Furthermore, we are allowed to create nonprofit businesses that survive by begging, and none of the nonprofit businesses have to show evidence that they are doing what they promise, or that they have some value to the human race.

Businesses and other organizations are also free to manipulate our opinions, historical information, and culture. For example, the Ben & Jerry's ice cream company posted this article to explain how "defunding the police" is actually a wonderful concept because it will "increase funding for things that people really need", such as affordable housing, education, healthcare, and childcare. And they posted this article to convince us that "We must dismantle white supremacy."

Imagine the IBM management allowing some employees in the cafeteria to promote "Defund the IBM Security Department do increase funding for things that IBM employees really need."

Our freedom of speech should not be interpreted to allow freedom to deceive. Everybody should be required to provide supporting evidence for their remarks. For example, Ben & Jerry's should be required to explain what white supremacy is, and explain why we should stop "white supremacy" but not stop "Black Supremacy", "Female Supremacy", and "Jew Supremacy".

The authors of the U.S. Constitution did not intend freedom of speech to include the freedom to promote propaganda, lies, or deception. However, there are no standards for the leaders of businesses or other organizations, and they don't have to prove that their organization is beneficial to society.

I predict that people in the distant future will regard our era as lacking sensible regulations, and thereby allowing a lot of worthless, abusive, and disgusting businesses, nonprofit groups, and other organizations.

Also, there is no concern today about the effect a business has on the morale or attitudes of its employees, customers, or competitors. Nobody cares whether a business is inspiring people, or whether it is encouraging fights, resentment, pouting, or other bad attitudes.

I predict that there will be a point in the future at which businesses will have to justify their existence. People will not have the freedom to create any business they please. Instead, they will have to show evidence that their business is beneficial to society, and that it inspires their competitors rather than instigate fights, resentment, or hatred. The business will also be required to show evidence that their employees enjoy going to work, as opposed to what we have today in which businesses can be successful even when the employees regard themselves as rats on a treadmill, or peasants serving an absurdly wealthy and selfish King.

I also predict that the people managing businesses in the future will need a much more extensive understanding of the differences between men and women, and the differences between young and old people. They will use that knowledge to provide different work environments for men, teenagers, pregnant women, women with small children, and elderly people.

I think the people in the distant future will regard our businesses as crude and cruel for treating us as unisex creatures, and for giving everybody the same work environment regardless of our age, sex, and physical condition. The business executives of the future will not have the freedom that they have today, such as imposing unisex work policies on the employees, and forcing pregnant women to have the same work schedule and work environment as men.

To summarize this section, as the future generations learn more about human behavior and culture, they will increase the demands on the people who influence society. They will require the people who create and manage businesses, government agencies, schools, social activities, recreational activities, and other culture to justify what they are doing. They will want all of the organizations and activities to show evidence that they are truly providing a benefit to the human race, rather than exploiting, abusing, or pandering to people.

These increases in restrictions will make it more difficult for people to create businesses, sports, holidays, and other culture. Eventually it will get to the point at which the majority of people do not have the education or intelligence necessary to be able to create or alter culture.

The free enterprise system does not allow anybody to be in a supervisory role, so there is no way for us to determine who dominates our economy, or what our economic future will be. Everybody who can acquire some money can influence the economy, and the people who have the most money have the most influence. This allows our economy to be influenced by pedophiles, mentally ill people, crime networks, children, selfish people, religions, and uneducated idiots.

To make the situation even worse, the free enterprise system allows businesses to survive by begging for money, thereby freeing them from the work of earning a living, which allows them can do something else with their time, such as self-appoint their organization to a leadership position and try to manipulate our future.

An example of these organizations are the political groups, the ADL, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. My impression of these organizations is that many of them are groups of criminals, pedophiles, or members of foreign nations who are trying to manipulate, exploit, cheat, abuse, and deceive us.

These nonprofit organizations are not "normal" businesses because they are not producing products or services that we purchase, and they are not competing with other businesses in the sale of products or services. Instead, they try to control our future by influencing government policies, school curriculum, holiday celebrations, and other culture. They are self-appointing organizations to a leadership position.

These nonprofit groups do not work with us to help us figure out what we want to do with our lives. Rather, they behave like dictators who try to control and dominate us.

Furthermore, our government does not have any authority over them, and neither do the voters. We cannot find out what they do, or who they work for. Many of them are also allowed to keep their finances a secret. We have no control over them, but they have a lot of influence over our schools, elections, activities, businesses, and other culture. Some of them are even trying to change our language, such as mypronouns.org.

These organizations have a lot of secrecy, and they are allowed to influence our schools, elections, holiday celebrations, court cases, products, language, and other culture, and without being held accountable for anything they do, and without having to justify or explain what they are doing.

In addition, they are free to make idiotic accusations and file idiotic lawsuits in order to manipulate us, and to eliminate their critics, such as by accusing us of being sexist, anti-Semitic, a Holocaust denier, or a climate change denier.

These groups are in leadership positions of our society, but there is nothing anybody can do to remove them from leadership. They can operate as if they are independent societies within our nation.

By not requiring organizations to justify their existence, and by giving organizations a lot of secrecy, and by not giving anybody control over the organizations, we allow people to create a variety of disgusting and detrimental nonprofit organizations. For example:


One of the lessons that we should learn from the abuse that we are experiencing from businesses, religions, and nonprofit groups is that it is dangerous and foolish to give people the freedom to create any organization they please, and to allow them to have the secrecy to do whatever they want.

As I pointed out in the previous document of this series, it is acceptable to give people a lot of freedom in their personal life, but when a person tries to influence the lives of other people, he is self-appointing himself to a leadership position, and we should make everybody in a leadership position meet high standards, and we should not let them have secrecy.

Everybody who tries to influence our lives should be required to justify what they do. They should be required to show us evidence that they are truly bringing improvements to our lives, rather than exploiting or abusing us.

The nonprofit groups survive by begging for donations. They exploit our desire to be helpful, and they take advantage of people who are trusting. They have a lot of techniques for tricking us into trusting them, admiring them, and donating money to them. For example:

• They boast about their noble purpose.

They claim that their organization is dedicated to a noble and useful goal, such as helping children, or doing "fact checking", or exposing Nazis and white supremacists, or defending scientific integrity. Most people are too trusting of authorities to want to verify that the organization is doing what they boast about. Also, most people don't want to do research or think.

• The members claim to be high in the hierarchy

• They give each other awards

Many employees are given routine job performance reviews, but no society yet is promoting the attitude that organizations should also be given performance reviews. We also do not give performance reviews to the executives of a business, nonprofit group, religion, sports group, or other organization.

An organization can have a significant effect on our life. Therefore, we should pass judgment on whether an organization is providing a beneficial effect. We should pass judgment on the value of the products or services they provide, and we should also pass judgment on whether they are providing a beneficial effect on morale and attitudes.

We should not give people the right to form any organization they please, and behave in any manner they please. We should demand that they show some evidence that they are beneficial to society.

We should not judge an organization according to whether people "like" the organization or its products. We must ignore our emotional feelings and judge an organization according to its effect on society and the future generations.

There are hundreds of organizations that describe themselves as "religions", such as the Mormon Church, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Catholic Church. The U.S. Constitution does not require any of these organizations to justify their existence.

Furthermore, our constitution gives the organizations the right to be secretive, rather than give citizens the right to know how much money the organizations are collecting from their begging operations, and what they do with their money. This secrecy can result in people with low incomes donating money to church officials who are extremely wealthy. That is the type of relationship between a peasant and his King during the Middle Ages.

Millions of people around the world enjoy the organized religions, but we should not allow an organization to exist simply because some people are attracted to it.

There are millions of people who are attracted to gambling, prostitution, drugs, beastiality, pedophilia, and dogfights, but most nations have restricted or prohibited the organizations that provide those services.

Why do we prohibit dogfights and beastiality but not organized religions? The decisions that we make are not based on intellectual reasoning. Rather, they are based on our emotional feelings. Specifically, our craving to follow the crowd of people causes us to assume that if the majority of people approve of something, then it is acceptable. For example, most people enjoy the effect of alcohol, and as a result, alcohol is regarded as an acceptable "adult beverage" rather than as a dangerous and undesirable drug.

Likewise, most people are attracted to an organized religion, and this causes us to assume that organized religions are acceptable and desirable, rather than destructive and idiotic.

By comparison, only a small percentage of the population is interested in dogfights, pedophilia, and beastiality. Therefore, we regard those as unacceptable, deviant activities.

I will discuss organized religions in more detail in another document. I mention this issue now only to point out that we allow organized religions to exist without any concern for what effect they have on society, and we also provide them with so much secrecy that we don't know how much money they collect, what they do with the money, or how extensive the pedophilia is among the church officials.

We should pass judgment on which organizations are providing us with useful products or services, and what effect they are having on morale and attitudes. We should terminate those that are inefficient, detrimental, parasitic, or worthless. For example, what has the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) done to improve our lives?

Scientific American published this article that was written by Lauren Kurtz, the executive director of the CSLDF, and Gretchen Goldman, the research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I would describe that article as an obviously deceptive attack of President Trump. I would also say that if our nation had standards for journalists, the article would be considered unacceptable, especially for a scientific magazine. It is indistinguishable from the propaganda that comes from the CNN journalists. For example, one of their accusations is:

Indeed, the Trump administration has censored,
manipulated and hindered science at unprecedented rates.

If they provided some intelligent evidence for how the Trump administration is "hindering science", and at an "unprecedented rate", then it would be acceptable for them to make that accusation, but they don't have any evidence. Instead, they do the usual of trying to impress us with their college diplomas and job titles.

In addition to making unsupported accusations, the authors show the extreme level of hypocrisy that I pointed out is common among "liberals" and "freedom fighters". For example, they complain about "censorship", but they are the people most actively involved with censoring those of us who have alternative opinions. For example, when we disagree with their climate change opinions, they accuse us of "censorship", or of "hindering science", or of "harassing climate researchers".

The image below shows a portion of the main page of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, as of 4 Dec 2020. Note that they boast that they are "protecting scientists from anti-science forces". Hopefully you can understand that they refer to people with a different opinion as being "anti-science", and that instead of trying to protect scientists from something harmful, they are trying to suppress the alternative opinions.

They create the impression that every scientist and climate researcher is a victim who is "under siege" by the "anti-science forces", and that some researchers are getting death threats.

All organizations claim to be wonderful people, but a lot of them are abusive, dishonest, worthless, or parasitic.

The free enterprise system expects the ordinary people to drive the incompetent and abusive organizations to bankruptcy, but we cannot expect the ordinary people to make sensible decisions about which organizations to support. As I pointed out in the previous document of this series, the public is easily fooled by intelligent criminals.

Furthermore, we cannot expect the public to make wise decisions about which organizations to support because no citizen has enough time or resources to investigate the millions of organizations.

To make the situation even worse, we provide organizations with so much secrecy that even if a person had the time to investigate an organization, he would not have the authority to get access to much information about it.

We need a government and a legal system that will protect us from the intelligent criminals and the worthless organizations.

Everybody is selfish, biased in favor of themselves, and resists looking critically at themselves. This results in all of us being somewhat hypocritical.

If we could measure our hypocrisy, we would create a bell curve in which most people have an "average" level of hypocrisy. Likewise, if we could measure a person's ability to notice his hypocrisy, we would find that most people have an "average" ability to notice their hypocrisy.

I suspect that those measurements would show us that the people who refer to themselves as "liberals" have higher levels of hypocrisy than the "conservatives", and the liberals have the most trouble noticing their hypocrisy. The liberals seem to have the most trouble "practicing what they preach".

This would explain why the liberals spend so much time boasting about their noble qualities, such as how they support freedom and peace, and how they oppose war, hatred, fascism, sexism, and racism, while they are censoring alternative opinions, and suggesting brutal treatments of people who disagree with them.

An example of the extreme hypocrisy and cruelty of the liberals are the liberals who created, approved of, and/or contributed to, the Trump Accountability Project. (If they remove the copy at the archive, here is an image of a portion of the main page.) That project is a website that maintains a list of people who supported President Trump. The image (below) from their site explains the purpose of the list:

At some point during November 2020, they deleted the list of names, and changed the message to boast that the goal of their project was:

At the beginning of December 2020, their website was gone. I wonder if they terminated their project because they received a lot of angry remarks about how it was giving liberals a bad image. That website reminded me, and probably a lot of other people, of the irrational, selfish, hypocritical, and cruel government in the movie 1984.

All of us have a tendency to ignore our bad behavior and mistakes, but I think the Trump Accountability Project is just one more example of how the liberals have the most extreme hypocrisy.

Instead of admitting that the Trump Accountability Project showed the same violent, vengeful, and abusive attitude that we see in communist governments, they claim that the project's purpose was truly noble, and that they terminated it simply because they are moving to the next step of their plan to improve life for us by "restoring the soul of the nation".

No matter what they do, and how they behave, they are heroes, and those of us with different opinions are racist, anti-Semitic, anti-science, sexist, and evil.

Every animal has the attitude that he owns the entire world. An animal will grab at anything that attracts its attention. They have no guilt for stealing items because they consider everything to belong to them. When an animal takes something from another animal, he has the attitude that he is simply taking back what the other animal is trying to steal from him.

Likewise, an animal doesn't consider himself to be trespassing on anyone else's property because he believes he owns all of the land. Every animal regards the other animals as the trespassers.

A lot of liberals enjoy pouting, and this can result in them claiming that animals are better behaved than humans, but the opposite is true. Humans are much better behaved.

However, if we could measure everybody's similarity to animals, we would create a bell graph that shows that a minority of the population has behavior that has an extreme resemblance to animal behavior.

For a simple example, if we could measure a man's emotional feelings toward sex, we would create a Bell graph in which at one extreme we find men grabbing at women and raping them, just like animals.

Some religious people might describe those men as being possessed by the devil, and some psychologists might describe them as "normal" people who need some therapy, but I think a more accurate description of their behavior is that they are genetically more similar to animals than the rest of us.

The people at the extreme edge of the bell graph would be more likely than the ordinary person to grab at something that attracts their attention. Furthermore, they would not regard themselves as criminals, or behaving inappropriately. Rather, they would regard themselves as getting what they deserve, or taking what belongs to them.

An animal is not ashamed of anything that it does. When a pet dog grabs our food, or tries to have sex with your leg, he has no shame. He does not regard himself as thief or a rapist. An animal assumes that his behavior is perfect and justified.

Animals commit crimes in front of other animals and humans because they do not regard themselves as committing crimes.

If a dog grabs a piece of meat from our dinner table, and if we respond by grabbing it from his mouth, he is likely to become angry at us. Instead of feeling guilt or shame, he will regard us as a thief who is taking his food.

The humans who have a mind that is more similar to that of an animal will show less guilt when they are caught committing crimes, and be more likely to react with anger. This is most obvious with human babies. When a baby grabs at something that attracts his attention, and we take it away from him, he is likely to react with anger.

A human whose mind is more similar to that of an animal is likely to react with anger when we catch him committing a crime. He is likely to regard himself as a victim, rather than a criminal, and he might accuse the people who caught him of being "racist" or "anti-Semitic".

Furthermore, animals are very arrogant, so a human who has a mind that is similar to an animal is likely to be so arrogant that he may regard his crimes as wonderful achievements rather than as crimes.

Consider an animal to understand this. When a dog grabs a piece of meat from our dinner table, he is not ashamed of himself. He is proud that he got it. If a dog could speak, he might boast to both the humans and other dogs about his success in getting a delicious piece of meat.

I suspect that some of the people who cheated during the 2020 elections regard themselves as heroes, not criminals. Instead of feeling guilty for what they did, they feel pride.

How do the Zionist groups justify instigating wars, kidnapping and selling children, conducting murder rituals, putting explosives in the World Trade Center buildings, giving us deceptive and false news reports, etc.? It is likely because they regard themselves as wonderful people who are helping the world, and who regard you and me as inferior and potentially dangerous animals. This is the attitude that we see among the animals.

Years ago I pointed out that the most advanced societies were at the extreme edges of the continents, and I mentioned that Asia seems to have a lot of crime and crude behavior, and that some of the crime is extremely blatant. My conclusion is that the center of Asia has a higher percentage of people who are more similar to animals than the societies at the edges of the continents.

To summarize this, the more similar a human is to an animal:

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to be concerned about cheating during an election, or journalists who lie. They also did not have to worry about shoplifting, embezzlement, and other crimes. However, as technology improves, one of the side effects is that it provides us with a lot more ways of committing crimes.

To make the issue of crime more complex, there is no clear dividing line between a "crime" and "acceptable behavior". An example is the issue of "censorship". Everybody boasts that they support freedom of speech, but nobody actually wants freedom of speech. Rather, we want restrictions on freedom of speech. However, we disagree on what the restrictions should be.

An example of a restriction that everybody approves of is that we don't want people to have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded room.

Another example of why we want restrictions on freedom of speech is to stop people from making false accusations. For example, if a person tells the people something about you that is false, such as telling them that you are a pedophile, everybody would agree that he does not have the freedom to make false accusations, and that he should be arrested for slander.

However, if a person tells other people that you are a sexist, racist, anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, or climate change denier, every society would describe that as "freedom of speech" rather than as false accusations or slander. Likewise, people are free to accuse you of having "white supremacy", and "toxic masculinity".

Which accusations should be considered "freedom of speech", and which should be considered a "false accusation" or "slander"?

That is not a simple question. It is a complex issue, and creating a sensible policy for it may require more intelligence than the majority of people have. This would explain why every nation is allowing lots of idiotic accusations rather than making them illegal.

As life becomes more complex, it becomes more idiotic to expect the ordinary people to make wise decisions about leaders, the economy, school curriculum, or other issues.

For example, I would say that calling somebody a "climate change denier", "sexist", "conspiracy theorist", or "Holocaust denier" without a sensible explanation for the accusation is just as slanderous as calling him a "pedophile" without any evidence of the accusation. However, most people allow those accusations, which in turn allows crime networks and selfish people to abuse, manipulate, harass, intimidate, and suppress their competitors and critics.

Another example of how complex our lives have become is that we need to deal with the issue of which subjects we should have the freedom to give advice about. For example, our prehistoric ancestors were free to give medical advice, but today a person has to get a medical license to do that.

Our prehistoric ancestors had the freedom to give advice on religious issues, and we continue to provide that freedom to everybody. Each of us is free to claim that we represent one or more gods, and each of us is free to start a church and give sermons to tell people what our particular god or gods want them to do. Everybody who claims to represent a god is also free to pressure people into donating money to him.

Should a society provide people with this type of freedom? Or should we require a person to get a "religious license"?

If a person should get a religious license, what should the person have to do in order to qualify for such a license? Should we require that he show us evidence that he truly does represent some god or gods?

Should everybody, including children, such as Greta Thunberg, have the freedom to give us advice about the climate? Should we give everybody the freedom to give us advice on marriage, raising children, careers, or recreational activities?

In 10,000 BC everybody was free to do whatever they pleased. After people settled into cities, restrictions began being placed on what people could do. Today every society restricts who is allowed to give medical advice, and who is allowed to become a teacher at a school, but there are no restrictions on becoming a religious leader, palm reader, or a government official.

My prediction is that future societies will increase the restrictions on what people can do. They may increase a person's freedom in his personal life, but they will increase the restrictions on what he can do that affects other people.

At some point in the future, creating a business will require a person to have an extensive understanding of human behavior and culture. It will require people who could be described as "social scientists". Likewise, the only people who will be able to create recreational activities, social events, museums, social clubs, school systems, abortion policies, and holiday celebrations will be the social scientists.

Although it might seem strange to claim that social scientists will be needed to create a recreational activity or an abortion policy, consider how this has already happened with virtually all of our physical technology. For example, I previously pointed out that everybody was capable of making a knife in prehistoric times because everybody was capable of hitting rocks together and creating sharp edges on them. All of our prehistoric ancestors were "experts" on creating a knife because all of them were equally talented in pounding rocks together to create a sharp edge. Or we could describe them as "equally ignorant".

The knives we use today, however, are so complicated that nobody makes his own knives. Instead, we purchase them from businesses, and each business gets components and machines from other businesses. Producing knives today requires a lot of work from a lot of businesses that are scattered around the world.

By comparison, our culture is so crude that ordinary people are regularly creating policies for abortion, drugs, schools, businesses, and economic systems. The reason an individual person can create culture by himself during few minutes of his leisure time is not because culture is easier to produce than a knife, refrigerator, or industrial robot. Rather, it is because our culture is so crude. Everybody today is so ignorant about culture and human behavior that everybody is an expert on culture. Everybody is an expert on how to raise children, how to design a school system, how to treat women, whether marijuana should be legal, and who should be elected president.

We are so ignorant about human behavior that all of our social issues appear to be simplistic. As I pointed out in a previous document, we must learn a certain amount about a subject in order to realize that we don't know as much as we thought we did. The less we know about an issue, the more likely we are to assume that we know almost everything there is to know about it. As we learn more about the issue, we realize that it is more complex than we had assumed.

Many people tell the story of the seven blind men and the elephant in order to help a person realize that he doesn't know as much as he thinks, but our arrogance causes us to resist the evidence that everybody is one of those blind men.

As a result of our arrogance, a pattern occurs over and over in human history. Specifically, we find a person, usually a man, boasting that he has just solved some issue, and years later another man boasts that he has discovered that the earlier theories are wrong, and that his theory is correct, and then, years later, another man announces that the previous theories are incorrect, and that his explanation is correct.

The universe is one of the issues that we know almost nothing about, and as a result, all throughout history we find people assuming that they know almost everything there is to know about the universe. Today there are people boasting that they can explain the universe with the Big Bang, dark matter, string theory, or Higgs bosons. And some people claim that there are such things as worm holes and parallel universes.

This pattern will continue, and the people thousands of years in the future will regard our explanations of the universe as being almost as idiotic as those of our prehistoric ancestors.

It is very likely that the truth about the universe is extremely different from what we are assuming today. For example, perhaps the space has a "granularity", and when matter moves around, it cannot go anywhere but must jump in tiny, but specific increments. Magnetic fields may also have to follow that granularity. And perhaps the atoms that are radioactive are those in which the protons and neutrons are not fitting properly into the granulated positions, thereby creating an unstable nucleus.

I don't know what the universe will turn out to be, but I bet it will be significantly different and more complex than what anybody today assumes. Scientists should encourage an exploration of all issues rather than boast that some issue has been solved to such an extent that there is no need for further research.

I suspect that we are as ignorant about human behavior as we are about the universe, and that is the reason why so many people assume that they are experts on human behavior. I predict that people thousands of years in the future will discover that human behavior and culture is much more complicated than we assume it is.

Our social problems appear to be simple to us because we know so little about them. For example, most people consider the solution to crime to be either "tough law enforcement", or "rehabilitation" programs. Both of those methods have failed continuously, but people are still promoting them.

There is no evidence that crime is a simple issue to solve. Instead, there is evidence that social problems become more complex as technology improves, and as our societies become larger in population. For example, modern technology has allowed crime to become extremely complex and destructive compared to what people in prehistoric tribes were capable of doing.

Technology also creates problems that didn't exist before. For example, during prehistoric times, there was no such thing as abortion, so there was no need for them to develop any policies for it. Today we have technology that allows abortion, but the technology is dangerous, crude, painful, and emotionally unpleasant.

Eventually there will be technology that makes abortion much safer, easier, and less unpleasant. Furthermore, there will eventually be technology that does a better job of identifying whether a fetus is defective, and at an earlier point in the development of the fetus. A woman in the future might be able to have the DNA of her fetus analyzed when it is only one month old, and if it is defective, she might be able to abort it with a harmless drug, thereby making the abortion safe and painless, and without any need to visit a doctor or hospital. That technology will make abortion more desirable to more people. That technology will make the issue of abortion more complicated than it is today.

The doctors and businesses that offer in vitro fertilization today are creating the impression that the technology is extremely advanced, but in reality it is extremely crude. However, a few thousand years from now this technology might be reliable and easy to do.

Furthermore, the technology to analyze DNA is going to improve. A few thousand years from now the people might be able to analyze DNA so accurately that they can determine what a person is going to be like when he is just a ball of cells only a few weeks old.

People thousands of years from now may have such advanced technology that they will have to deal with issues that nobody today is concerned with. For example, they will have the option of producing all children through in vitro fertilization so that they can control the genetic characteristics of the next generation of people.

They will also have the ability to analyze the DNA of the fertilized eggs to determine whether it has the genetic characteristics they want, and if not, they can dispose of it while it is still in a petri dish. This will allow them to avoid raising children with mental disorders, cleft palates, crooked teeth, stupidity, migraine headaches, extreme arrogance, and other problems. Will the people who oppose abortion oppose that?

It is also possible that scientists will eventually figure out how to extract the DNA from sperm, analyze the DNA, and then fertilize an egg with the DNA that they decide is appropriate. This will simplify the production of children because the technicians won't have to fertilize a lot of eggs, wait a few weeks for them to develop, and then analyze them.

When the future generations develop that type of technology, instead of dealing with the abortion issue, they will have to deal with the issues of controlling reproduction and the collection and disposal of sperm, eggs, and fertilized eggs.

Another issue that people will eventually have to deal with is whether they want to ensure that humans remain one species, or whether they want to allow them to diverge into different species. At the moment, we are on a path that will create different species of humans.

In the world today, people are allowed to reproduce with whoever they want to, and this is resulting in many people reproducing with somebody who is very similar to them. For some examples:

If we continue to let people reproduce with whoever they please, there will eventually be different, incompatible species of humans. The athletes will eventually breed themselves into a species of incredible athletes, and the stupid people will become a species of idiots, and the mentally ill people will become a species of mentally disturbed people. The religious fanatics will eventually become a species of religious fanatics, and the ugly people will create a species that becomes increasingly ugly.

Our cities will eventually look like the interstellar bars in the Star Wars movie.

Furthermore, the different species will eventually develop slightly different nutritional needs, medical characteristics, tastes in food, and other characteristics, just as we see with all of the animals and plants.

People in the future will have to deal with the issue of whether parents should continue to have the freedom to produce their own biological children, which in turn will result in humans evolving into different species, or whether that freedom should be taken away so that scientists can prevent humans from becoming different species.

My prediction is that the freedom to reproduce will eventually be terminated in order to prevent humans from becoming different species. The reproduction of humans will become as controlled as it is for farm animals and plants. Specifically, the scientists would collect eggs and sperm and make decisions about which of them to use to create the next generation. A woman would be implanted with a fertilized egg, but the egg would not necessarily be hers, and/or the sperm may not be from her husband.

The scientists would also occasionally mix the genetic characteristics of the different races of humans to prevent the races from evolving into incompatible species. In other words, the Japanese scientists would occasionally mix some sperm from Caucasians, Chinese, and other races into the Japanese gene pool, and Caucasians would occasionally mix the sperm of other races into their gene pool. This would allow different races of humans to exist, but the races would never become so different that they become incompatible species.

In a previous document, I pointed out that it's possible that the reason there is a lot of adultery is because humans may have inherited a characteristic from the animals to secretly breed with other people in order to increase the variety of genetic characteristics of the children. Every society is trying to prevent adultery, but preventing it is reducing the genetic variety of the next generation.

Preventing adultery reduces the problem of venereal diseases, and it reduces marital fights, but it may be hurting the human race. Therefore, the best solution might be to eliminate the freedom to reproduce, and take control of reproduction so that we can determine what our next generation will be.

People today have tremendous freedom with reproduction. We can choose who to reproduce with, and we can have as many children as we please. We can reproduce with more than one person, also. There are some people trying to force women to raise the children that result from rapes.

We also have the freedom to produce children that we have no desire to take care of. We can dispose of our unwanted children by putting them up for adoption or sending them to some type of hospital, or by pushing them onto our parents or other relatives. We also allow parents to throw their unwanted teenagers out of the house, thereby increasing the number of people who are homeless and living in the streets.

Providing people with reproductive freedom is allowing the human race to degrade genetically, and it will eventually create incompatible species of humans. In order to improve the human race, we must control reproduction.

If one of our ancestors from 10,000 BC were to travel to our era, most of our culture would be unfamiliar to him. For example:

If we could travel 10,000 years into the future, I think we would be almost as confused as a person from 10,000 BC would be in our era. We might not recognize many of their recreational or social activities, and we might not recognize any of their foods. They might not have any farms, fruit trees, or vegetable gardens because they might manufacture all of foods in factories in order to have complete control over the digestibility, flavor, nutrition, and texture. They might have figured out how to produce food that is much better tasting, and which digests so well that people rarely poop, and the poop is fairly clean, and there is almost no problem with farting.

Although we would be familiar with police and laws, I think we would be shocked that they have much less freedom than we do. For example, I don't think they will have the freedom to reproduce, or the freedom to choose an abortion. Instead, reproduction will be controlled by the government, and defective fetuses will be automatically euthanized rather than giving parents the option. I also don't think they will have the freedom to create organized religions, or claim to be a spokesman for some supreme being.

Furthermore, after thousands of years of controlling reproduction, everybody will be in excellent physical and mental health, and everybody will look and smell nice. The women would not have any desire for cosmetics, perfumes, or hair dyes because they would be naturally beautiful. There would only be a few dentists and doctors in a city, and they would be needed only to deal with accidents and elderly people, not the endless medical problems of a genetically defective population.

People from our era would stand out in a crowd because we would be ugly and misshapen by comparison to them. We would also have stinky bodies and mouths. We would also seem to have a greater resemblance to an animal as a result of our lower levels of self-control and our higher level of arrogance, violence, and selfishness. I suspect that they would consider us to be somewhat frightening and potentially dangerous because of our greater tendency to react to problems and disappointments with violence, anger, and temper tantrums.

I think our prehistoric ancestors loved their lives, and I think people thousands of years in the future are going to have even more pleasant lives. I think the people in 10,000 A.D. will consider human history to consist of three main phases:

I think that people in 10,000 A.D. will regard us as living during a transition period during which humans developed technology but did not know how to handle it, thereby inadvertently causing extremely high levels of violence, pouting, crime, loneliness, fighting, and misery. Also, we are inadvertently causing the genetic degradation of the human race.

I also think that we can bring significant improvements to our lives today if we start the cultural revolution now, but are there enough people who have the ability to form a team that can experiment with our options?