Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

 
Creating a better society

A Constitution for a New City

Part 8:  Discover your talents and join us!

22 February 2022
Updated 7 June 2022 here


C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S

This document was so long that I put the first half in Part 7

Research should precede construction
Suggestions for Kastron's culture
Suggestions for apartment buildings
We should stop using a "Winner Takes All" system
Higher-quality people allow more options
Our culture alters our evolution
Who will create a better city?





Research should precede construction

We do not yet know how to create a better city

Our ancestors accumulated so much knowledge about making pottery that we can make pottery simply by following their procedures. By comparison, they did not provide us with knowledge about fusion reactors. Therefore, if we want to build a fusion reactor, we must first figure out how to do it.

Although that might seem to be an obvious concept, nobody is applying it to the creation of new cities. Our ancestors did not provide us with much knowledge about cities. Instead, they gave us cities that are haphazard jumbles of homes, factories, roads, garbage dumps, jails, and schools. They gave us cities that are ugly, inefficient, noisy, filthy, overcrowded, and susceptible to flooding. They gave us cities that are suffering from crime, graffiti, potholes, rats, termites, homeless people, and corrupt governments, courts, journalists, and schools.

Our lack of knowledge about cities requires us to put some effort into researching the issue before we build a new city, but the billionaires who are proposing new cities are not suggesting that we do research, or discuss what the new city should be like. They believe that they already know how to create a better city.

Furthermore, our ancestors did not provide us with much knowledge about culture. Instead, they gave us culture that has been developing haphazardly, and has been manipulated for selfish reasons by businesses, religions, crime networks, Zionist organizations, and lunatics. However, the billionaires who are proposing new cities are not interested in experimenting with school systems, government systems, voting systems, recreational activities, crime prevention policies, or any other culture. They believe that blockchain and electric automobiles is all we need to improve the culture of a city.

This document is intended to inspire you to think about cities

Although I have lots of suggestions for Kastron, I have been hoping for years that we can overthrow the lunatics, pedophiles, and criminals that dominate our world, and start discussing how to create a better city. Unfortunately, the world is still under the control of pedophiles and lunatics, and instead of discussing the issue of how to improve our cities, some billionaires have begun the development of new cities.

This document is not intended to explain how to create a new city. Rather, it is intended to inspire you to think about how to create a truly superior city.

This document describes some of my fantasies about a new city, but they are fantasies, not engineering plans. I don't have any experience with designing buildings, transportation systems, telephone networks, or much of anything else that we need to develop a better city.

Creating a superior city and culture will require a lot of people to contribute. Some of you might have more talent than you realize in regards to developing better cities or culture, but you never noticed your talent because:


You have not put much effort into thinking about such issues.



You have not made a serious attempt to acknowledge and control your arrogance, fear of the unknown, craving to mimic other people, or fear of criticism.

This document is intended to inspire you to discover your talents, overcome your fear of new thoughts, and join those of us who want to find a better path for the human race to follow.

Are you reaching your full potential?

Ever since I was a teenager it has seemed to me that at least 10% of the men are more intelligent than me, but that most of them never reach their potential because they do not have enough control over their arrogance, selfishness, temper, fear of the unknown, sexual desires, craving to mimic other people, or craving to be at the top of the hierarchy.

Some of the billionaires, for example, might be very intelligent, but their inability to control their craving for status and wealth causes them to behave like obese people, but who stuff themselves with money instead of food.

Some athletes are trying to reach their maximum physical potential. They look for coaches and athletes who can provide them with useful constructive criticism, and they sometimes get together with other talented athletes so that they can inspire one another into becoming better.

By comparison, how many people are looking for constructive criticism of their opinions on crime, abortion, raising children, economic systems, or school curriculum? How often do we find people getting together to push one another into improving their opinions?

There are lots of people who ask us for our opinion about one of their opinions, or about their hairstyle, or about the meal that they made for us, and they often insist that we be honest, but they become upset if we criticize them, which is a sign that they only pretended to want honesty. They asked for our opinion only because they were hoping we would give them praise.

To rephrase this concept, they were treating us as a sex toy because they were hoping that we would provide them with emotional pleasure.

Most of us rarely, if ever, encounter a person who truly wants constructive criticism about his opinions. Almost everybody becomes upset if we criticize their beliefs, rather than thank us for our criticism, and be grateful that we took the time to provide it.

If we can push ourselves and one another into controlling our emotions well enough to learn from constructive criticism and explore our options with cities and culture, many people are likely to get closer to achieving their maximum intellectual potential and discover that they have the talent to help the human race find a truly better path in life.

Example: the self-appointed experts on diets and health

An example of how our emotional characteristics can prevent us from reaching our full potential are the millions of people who are convinced that they are experts on diets and health. They frequently give lectures to us on food and health because they are certain that they know more than we know. They don't want to listen to our opinions, or look critically at their opinions.

If we were to ask them why they think they are an expert on health, they would tell us that it is because they have a lot of knowledge about the issue. In reality, the reason they believe that they are experts is simply because they don't have enough control over their arrogance to consider that they don't know much of anything.



Does the Pope's experience make him more knowledgeable about life than you?
A person who justifies his claim that he is an expert on health by pointing out that he has an extensive education, or years of experience, is behaving like a person who boasts that he is an expert on life and death because he spent years studying religion and the Bible in school, and has had years of experience working in churches, giving sermons, and praying, and that he has acquired a lot of knowledge from other religious experts.

I mentioned years ago that the more ignorant a person is, the more likely he is to believe that he knows everything. My explanation for this is:

1) We need a certain amount of knowledge before we realize that the subject that we are an expert in is more complex than we thought, and that we know only a small amount about it.

2) We also need a certain level of self-control in order to consider the possibility that we don't know as much as we think we know.

Those two concepts could explain what some people refer to as the Dunning–Kruger effect. Dunning and Kruger noticed that "people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability." However, there are also lots of people with "high abilities" that overestimate their ability.

If we could measure our arrogance, we would create a bell graph, and the people at the extremely arrogant section would be the most likely to claim to be experts on health, nutrition, abortion, religion, climate change, quarks, crime, marijuana, and other issues. They would be the most resistant to looking critically at their opinions and favorably at conflicting opinions. They give lectures to us rather than listen to us. They react to criticism with anger rather than thanking us for giving them a different view. When they are in leadership positions, they try to inhibit freedom of speech because they believe that the people who disagree with them are "spreading false information" rather than "expressing a different opinion".

The people who do not have much control over their arrogance are dangerous in influential positions because they are the most likely to inhibit freedom of speech, react to a difference of opinion with anger, and advocate the arrest, punishment, or execution of people who have different opinions. Examples of such people are the religious fanatics centuries ago who advocated the punishments and executions of "heretics" such as Galileo. Since social science is still a farce, historians disagree on what happened between Galileo and the church, and don't seem to care about resolving the confusion, but they seem to agree that the church was harassing him for decades.

The extremely arrogant, intolerant "experts" are scattered all around the planet. Although church officials have a reputation for being extremely intolerant, most religious people only insult people who have differences of opinion, rather than try to arrest, harass, or execute them.

By comparison, there are a lot of "liberals" who advocate the arrest, punishment, and reeducation of sexists, racists, climate change deniers, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, homophobes, and everybody else who has a difference of opinion. There are also liberals trying to stop people from eating meat, or stop them from controlling wild animal populations.

There are also lots of incredibly arrogant experts on human health and nutrition. An example is this mother who is so certain that our "cognitive abilities" will improve by drinking some of her pee that she was secretly putting some of her pee into popsicles for her daughter and her daughter's friend.

What is the difference between:



A woman who secretly put some of her pee into our food.


A religious fanatic who tries to force us to follow the correct religion.


A vegetarian who tries to force us to stop eating meat.


The executives of Google who fired James Damore for being "sexist".


The executives of Facebook who censor "fake news" and "false and misleading information".


Communist governments that arrest and rehabilitate the "enemies of the state".

I don't see much of a difference between those people. They are all so extremely arrogant, and so convinced that they know what is best, and so convinced that you and I have inferior beliefs and behavior, that they try to force us to do what is "correct". They treat us as a stupid child, or a slave, or an animal.

Voters must be aware of these concepts, and they should watch out for candidates who try to suppress critics. Our leaders should behave like athletes who encourage constructive criticism, and encourage their competitors to get better. Our leaders should have better-than-average control of their arrogance, selfishness, sexual cravings, temper, and other emotions.

Where do the experts get their knowledge?

The people who believe that they are experts on cholesterol, allergies, diets, and other health issues are getting all of their information about health by reading documents from other people, and extracting the bits that they agree with, and making a collage of that information.

The absurdity of what they are doing is easier to understand when you consider the people who do it with religion. Specifically, there are people who read various religious documents, extract the bits that they like, and then believe that they are experts on God, heaven, Jesus, and other religious issues. They believe that they have become an expert on religion simply by picking out bits and pieces of information from other people, but the people that they are taking information from are ignorant, misguided, stupid, and sometimes suffering from serious mental disorders. They believe that they have created a "Collage of Religious Truth", but in reality they have created a collage of information trash.

That same situation is occurring with all of the other issues that people believe that they are experts on. For example, the people who believe that they are experts on cholesterol are reading some documents about it, extracting some bits and pieces of information, and then assuming that they are experts on the subject. However, the people that they are getting the information from do not have the answers to cholesterol. Therefore, the people who are taking their bits and pieces of information and putting together what they believe is the "Collage of Cholesterol Truth", are actually creating a collage of ignorance, speculations, partial truths, and mistakes.

Another way to understand this concept is to imagine a person boasting that he is an expert on elephants because he has spent years studying the analyses of the seven blind men who described an elephant.

While that analogy may seem unrealistic, it is essentially what people are doing when they boast about reading a variety of newspapers, or watching a variety of television news programs, and thereby provide themselves with a more accurate view of life.

It is also what people do when they read books and Internet documents about Anne Frank's diary, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landings, and the Covid vaccine, and then believe that they are experts on the issue.

All of our opinions about cholesterol, raising children, marriage, crime, sports, and religion are based on the information that we picked up from other people. We believe that we are "educated experts" as a result of gathering that information, but that information is coming from people who are essentially blind. To make the situation more absurd, some of those people are mentally ill, some have significant intellectual disorders, and some distort information so that it supports their particular emotional desire for a God, or to allow them to blame their failures on sexism or racism, or to allow them to blame their child's bad behavior on something other than genetics.

To further make this situation absurd, some of the information we gather was created by crime networks and Zionist organizations who deliberately created false and deceptive information in order to manipulate and exploit us.

When we read newspapers, Internet documents, and "scholarly works", we are essentially wandering through a giant garbage dump and picking out the bits of trash that we find attractive.


What is the difference between:




a) Seagulls putting plastic, toxic chemicals, and shards of glass into their stomach.

b) People putting lies, deception, mistakes, propaganda, and nonsense into their mind.


The people who have so little control over their arrogance that they believe that they are "experts" are going to hurt themselves and other people in a variety of different ways. For a few more examples:



The people who believe that there is a proper way to make a pizza are denying themselves the pleasure of other styles of pizza.


The people who believe that they have the appropriate behavior will refuse to consider that some of their behavior is irritating to their spouse, children, coworkers, or neighbors. They will want the other people to change their "bad attitudes" and "stop whining".


The people who believe that they know which foods are healthy, or that we should drink our pee, will eat those foods or drink their pee without considering the possibility that they are actually harming themselves.

In order for us to reach our intellectual potential, we need to control our arrogance, fear of the unknown, craving to mimic other people, and other emotions, but it is not easy to control our emotions. However, if we cannot control our arrogance, we will likely boast that we are controlling our emotions, so we will not bother to make an attempt to control ourselves.

Athletes have discovered that they become better athletes when they have people to put pressure on them. This is one reason that athletes want coaches to give them constructive criticism and pressure, rather than praise and freedom, and why they are willing to train with their competitors.

That attitude should be a part of our culture. Instead of whining for more freedom, we should provide ourselves with leaders who put us under pressure to control our emotions, think more often, and behave in a more productive manner. Our leaders should encourage us to become better people, rather than try to suppress us.

Do you have any ideas for transportation systems?

Most people have not put much effort into trying to develop a better transportation system, but if everybody were to give it a try, some people would discover that they have some useful ideas. This next section will explain one of my ideas, and hopefully it will inspire some of you to think about the issue.

I don't think we will create a truly better city if we continue promoting conventional automobiles, city buses, or trains. I suggest that we put the utility lines and transportation system underground. I will explain one of my ideas, and hopefully it will inspire some of you to figure out if it is practical, or to create a better transportation system.

Should we have large trains or independent cars?



Red circles: train terminals.
Three colored paths: three different trains.

Many cities have underground transportation systems in which large trains ride on steel wheels. Two disadvantages with this system are:

1) Most people have to transfer from one train to another to reach their final destination.

2) The trains are rarely at the stations at the time we arrive, so we have to waste time waiting for them.

For example, in the diagram to the right, if a person at terminal A wants to travel to terminal B, he waits for and then rides on the black train, and then waits for and transfers to the blue train, and then waits for and transfers to the magenta train.

Kastron could use a different type of transportation system if we design the city as I suggest, which is to create a city that consists of distinct and separate "neighborhoods". Each neighborhood would be a cluster of tall apartment buildings, office buildings, schools, and factories. Every neighborhood would be separated by parks, trees, swimming areas, foot paths, and bicycle paths.

With that type of city design, the train stations would only have to stop in the neighborhoods, where the population density is high. Getting to a train station would be faster and easier because it would require riding an elevator into the basement of the neighborhood, and then walking a short distance to a train station. We would also be protected from the weather as we travel to and from the train stations, which would be nice when we have to carry packages.

However, if the train system in Kastron is like those of other cities, in which long trains go back and forth over a fixed route, then Kastron would suffer from the same problem of people wasting a lot of time as they wait for trains and transfer from one to another.

A transportation system that would be much faster, but which I am not certain is practical, would have small, lightweight, high-speed cars that can switch from one track to another so that we don't have to transfer to get to our destination. There would be different sizes of cars, but most would carry only one or two people, and the largest would carry perhaps six people.

The cars would be like those I described years ago here. They would have solid rubber tires to reduce noise, allow them to ride on wet, dusty, and steep tracks, and increase their rates of acceleration and deceleration. They would get electricity from a channel that is too narrow for us to get our fingers into. This design also allows us to walk over the tracks without tripping or getting electrocuted. Although the cars would use electricity, they would not use batteries.

One disadvantage with this system is that the train terminals become more complicated. Instead of one large terminal where hundreds of people get on and off at the same time, a terminal would resemble a blood vessel that branches out into capillaries.

When a "primary track" enters a neighborhood, it would connect to a network of short, "capillary tracks" that allow hundreds of people to access the individual cars. It would be similar to how a train track branches out into many other tracks at a railyard, as in the photo to the right.

There would also be a few "storage tracks" for cars to wait until they are needed. The storage tracks could be in the neighborhoods, and/or between the neighborhoods.

The network of capillary tracks makes the terminals more complicated to build, and they require more area under the buildings, but it has the advantage of providing us with more locations to access the cars, thereby reducing the distances that we have to walk, which further reduces the time we waste on traveling.



When a train track enters a neighborhood, it branches
out into "capillary tracks".

In the drawing to the right, the brown octagon is the boundary of one of the neighborhoods, and it is surrounded by parks, which are green. As the blue train track enters the neighborhood, it branches out into short capillary tracks in order to allow a lot of people to access a car at the same time. The four red circles are four of the many terminals that provide access to a capillary track. The magenta rectangles are the cars on the tracks, most of which are passing through the neighborhood without stopping.

Most neighborhoods would have one or more additional train tracks entering the neighborhood from a different direction. Each of those train tracks would also branch out into capillary tracks.

Each capillary track could be enclosed within its own underground channel, thereby separating it from the other tracks, but that would require every capillary tract to have its own terminal.

As the diagram below shows, we can walk over the tracks, so we have the option of putting several capillary tracks in the same terminal. This would reduce the number of terminals, which in turn reduces the number of staircases and elevators into the terminals.






We can walk over tracks, so several can be at the same station.
I think this system would be practical only if it was completely controlled by computers, and if the cars had cameras and computers to avoid collisions with people, animals, and other cars.

Computers would allow the cars to move much faster, especially when switching from the capillary tracks to the main tracks, and when passing through a neighborhood, which would be frightening and difficult for a human mind to do.

Unfortunately, I don't have the engineering knowledge to determine if this transportation system is practical, and if so, what is the most sensible way to design the cars, capillary tracks, and primary tracks. So I am hoping that this section of the document will inspire some of you to discuss this and other alternative transportation systems.

Some details on the concept of independent cars on tracks

Since most of us need a vehicle only for ourselves, most of the vehicles would hold only one or two people, and there would be a smaller number of vehicles for larger groups, such as 4 people or 6 people. A larger group of people would use several vehicles.

I suggest that the vehicles have solid rubber tires rather than steel wheels in order to give them enough traction to follow the contours of the land so that more of the transportation channels can be put only slightly beneath the surface, rather than deep underground.

In the drawing below, the letter A refers to the concrete walls of the channel, which is hatched with diagonal brown lines. The letter B refers to large, rectangular blocks of concrete that cover the top of the channel, and which could be removed if necessary. The letter C refers to a circular cover to let maintenance workers get into the channel without having to remove one of the concrete blocks. The letter D refers to utility lines.



In the drawing above, the top of the concrete block is exposed, rather than covered with dirt and grass. This leaves a surface that can be used as a road for the large or heavy industrial vehicles that must travel on the surface, and it could also be used by pedestrians, bicycles, and recreational vehicles.

The channels that are not needed as a surface road would be covered with a thin layer of dirt and grass. That would provide people with grass paths between the neighborhoods.

Since sewage lines are not normally pressurized, they would not be able to follow the contours of the transportation channels, but electricity, natural gas, water, Internet lines, and other utilities could use them.

The transportation channels would be deep underground only to get underneath streams of water, hills, and other transportation channels. In the drawing below, one transportation channel is in a tube to pass underneath a river. Also, the tracks are tilting the cars at an angle so that they can make turns at high speed.





The cars would be controlled by the city's computers. When we want to travel somewhere, we walk into a transportation terminal and request whatever size car we want, or we would use any computer or phone to schedule a car to be at a particular terminal at a particular time. The city's computer would send the car to our location, pick us up, and take us to wherever we request. We would leave the car at the destination terminal, and the city's computer would send it to the next person who wanted it, or move it to a temporary storage location.

By allowing the city's computers to track everybody's location, we could provide some convenient features, such as using a phone to request a car while we are still at home, at an office, or in a park, but instead of telling the computer to have a car ready at a certain terminal and at a certain time, we tell the computer to track our location and have the car meet us at whatever terminal we decide to go to.

Since a neighborhood might have 100 or more capillary terminals, this system would spare us the trouble of worrying about which terminal to go to, and at which time. It also avoids the problem of the city's computer moving an empty car into a terminal that blocks traffic as it waits for us to arrive. The computer would track our location, and as we enter a terminal it would send a car to that terminal so that it arrives at the same time that we do.

By evicting criminals, and keeping crime to extremely low levels, it would be safe for young children to use this transportation system by themselves. For example, if a child wanted to join a group of children who were going to the city center or a recreation area, one of his parents or siblings would use a phone or computer to arrange for the child to be picked up. The city's computer would track the location of the child, and when he entered a terminal, the car would drive over to him and use an artificial voice to call his name and tell him to get in the car. The child would get in, be taken to his destination, and the computer would tell him to get out of the car.

If the people in Kastron are not paranoid of facial recognition, then when the children are ready to go home, they would go to a terminal and the city's computer would recognize each of them. The computer would move a car over to each child, call them by their name and tell them to get in the car, and then take them to their particular neighborhood, even if the children did not know where they live.

The computer would also send a message to the parents that their child is on the way home, give an estimate of the arrival time, and notify them when the child arrives at the terminal. Since the computers are tracking everybody, the parents could use their phone or computer to watch a live tracking display to see when their child has arrived.

If a child's parents were at a music concert, museum, or city park at the time the child was finished with his activities, his parents could tell the city's computer to take the child to where the parents are, rather than to his neighborhood.

Eventually robots will be advanced enough to take children to and from the terminals to ensure that they get to where they are supposed to go.

The robots will also be able to put packages onto cars that are designed for freight rather than people, and robots at the destination terminal would pick up the packages and deliver them to businesses and homes. That would be better than using drones to deliver packages because it allows packages to be larger and heavier, travel longer distances, and eliminates the problem of drones falling out of the sky from mechanical problems and bad weather.

By keeping track of everybody's location, the robots could deliver packages to a person even while he is traveling around the city.

The transportation system could also allow people to set defaults for themselves. For example, a person who commutes in the morning to a factory, farm, or office could let the city's computer know his work schedule, and set that destination as his default. When he enters a train station, the city's computer would identify him with facial recognition software, and then check his default settings.

If he enters the station at about the time he specified for traveling to work, and if he did not override his default settings by specifying a different destination, the computer would assume that he is traveling to work, send a car to him, and take him to his default destination. He would not have to say or do anything to get to work.

The cars that have to travel long distances to a farm, mine, or factory that is outside the city could be designed to carry several people at high speed to reduce the travel times. The cars could be also given different colors according to their size and purpose to make it easier for us to recognize the car that we request.

I also suggest that the windows of the cars do not open. That would make the cars easier to produce and maintain, and to prevent items from blowing out of the windows. It would also eliminate the problem of people, especially children, hanging or tossing things out of the windows.

I also suggest putting an air filter in the cars so that the interior remains free of the dust from the brake linings and tires. Special cleaning cars could be designed to travel around the transportation channels at night to remove the dust.

Do you have any ideas for transportation?

Do you have the engineering knowledge to determine if my transportation system is practical? Or do you have some suggestions for a better transportation system?

You should not be silent about your ideas simply because they are undeveloped. It is beneficial to discuss issues because it can stimulate new ideas in yourself and other people. We cannot improve our ideas or inspire one another if we are so afraid of failure or criticism that we remain silent. We cannot explore our options unless we have the courage to make mistakes and embarrass ourselves.

We should regard embarrassment as just another emotional feeling, similar to noticing bitterness in cocoa, or the heat of a hot summer day. We cannot be harmed by embarrassing ourselves with suggestions that turn out to be impractical. So find the courage to explore our options and improve our lives.

Suggestions for Kastron’s culture

We should share the material wealth and land

My suggestions for Kastron are based on the assumption that we will have a more pleasant life if we share the material wealth and land. Two significant advantages to this policy are:

1) It reduces the chores we have to do.

I explained this concept here by pointing out that we can take care of large public land areas with much less labor and resources compared to taking care of an enormous number of tiny private yards. Likewise, our food related chores will diminish significantly when we eat at restaurants.

2) We get access to much higher quality items.

When each person wants to own material items, we have to produce cameras, drones, 3D printers, microscopes, and scuba equipment for each person, so they have to be low-quality, and they must be small enough for us to keep in our homes. Most of the time the items are sitting unused in our homes, and the batteries are slowly draining. By comparison, when we share items, we don't need to produce as many of them, so they can be higher in quality.

Furthermore, they can be designed with features to make them much more convenient. For an example, consider how differently we could design drones for Kastron. Instead of making small drones for each person to carry around and maintain, the city would produce larger, higher quality drones, and place them at various locations around the city where they are stored and recharged.

If we want to use a drone to observe some animals in the surrounding forest, or record video of ourselves with our friends as we ride bicycles or go swimming at a pond, we would go to one of the stores that provides a controlling device for a drone. We would pick up the controller, not the drone. We then request the type of drone we want, such as a helicopter version or an airplane version. We would also specify the type of camera we want, such as for visible light, infrared, or slow motion.

Finally, we would specify where we want to use the drone, such as at a city park, or at some location in the surrounding forest. By allowing the city's computer to track our location, the computer would know when we arrived at our destination, and it would have the drone arrive at the same time. We would then use the controller to operate the drone.

When the drone's battery reached a low level, the drone could send a message to the city's computer, and the computer could send another drone to replace it. When the replacement arrived, the original drone would fly to a nearby recharging station without our involvement. If we requested the drone to store video on a memory card, it would connect to the city's computer and upload the video to our account.

When we are finished using the drone, it would fly to a recharging station, upload its video to our account, and wait for the next person who wanted to use it. We would give the controlling device back to the store for somebody else to use. We would never have to transport the drone, or deal with low batteries, maintenance, memory cards, or upgrades.

We should put more emphasis on public structures and less on homes

Every culture today is encouraging large homes and private businesses, rather than public facilities. There are only a few public facilities in our cities, and they tend to be crude and ugly. I suggest the opposite policy for Kastron.

In Kastron, the government has total control of the economy. All of the businesses are essentially departments of the city. Therefore, the restaurants, social clubs, offices, recreational areas, gardens, ponds, video rooms, music theaters, children's facilities, arts and crafts facilities, and other structures in the city are "public" facilities rather than "private" facilities, so everybody will have access to them, as if they are part of our gigantic mansion.

Businesses do not own the factories or offices. Rather, they use the public facilities that the city provides them. Likewise, the people who supervise recreational areas do not own the land, ponds, bicycles, snowmobiles, scuba gear, rowboats, or other recreational items or structures. Rather, they manage the items and land that the city provides for the people.

By letting the city own everything, we can ensure that every aspect of the city is beautiful, safe, and spacious. We will not have to suffer from private businesses that create ugly, noisy, filthy, smelly, inefficient, overcrowded, or dangerous structures.

I suggest the homes in Kastron be small, and we put most of our resources, labor, and land into making beautiful and spacious public facilities. For example, the lobby of an apartment building should not be a dreary hallway with mailboxes. Instead, it should be full of attractive facilities for recreation, socializing, meals, music, and children's activities, similar to the lobby of a luxury cruise ship (the photo below).



When an adult wants to use some exercise equipment, get something to eat, visit a friend, or engage in a hobby, he would go to one of the public facilities in his neighborhood, or in the city. That will give him access to better equipment, more beautiful facilities, and a wider variety of architecture and decorations than he could have in his own home.

When children want to play with each other, or with toys, or go swimming, they would ride an elevator to one of the children's facilities, and that would provide the children with recreational options that parents could never provide, similar to the Neobio Family Park in China (below).




Homes do not need large storage areas

The apartments in Kastron do not need as much storage space as homes do today because we would not use our home for storage of toys, recreational equipment, hobby items, or clothing that we rarely use.

All of the toys and recreational items would be in the public facilities, and we would share the rarely used clothing, such as clothing for weddings and parties. That type of clothing would be available for free at the clothing stores that are scattered around the city.

We would pick up that type of clothing when we want to use it, and drop it off when we are finished. We would usually keep that type of clothing at our home for only a day or two.

One advantage to reducing the storage space in apartments is that it reduces the labor and resources involved with the construction and maintenance of apartment buildings, but without reducing the living area.

Another advantage is to prevent people from hoarding items. Nobody needs hundreds of pairs of shoes, for example. Instead, everybody needs pressure to suppress their craving to hoard items.

In a free enterprise system, there are hundreds of businesses encouraging us to collect objects. For example, women are encouraged to save their wedding gown, and according to this site, the most popular items to collect are stamps, coins, baseball pins, vinyl records, comic books, wine, trading cards, and toys.

Some businesses are creating items specifically for people to collect simply so that they can make money, such as these medallions produced by Walt Disney World, and the Beanie Baby dolls. Those businesses should be described as manipulating and exploiting people into developing desires for things that nobody needs or benefits from, and they are causing people's homes to become cluttered with worthless collections.

Our culture has been degraded by businesses, religions, crime networks, and neurotic people. We need to put all of our customs through a critical analysis.

Kastron will dampen our tendency to hoard and collect items by making the homes small, and not providing them with much storage space. Our homes should contain items that we use, not items that we hoard.

As I described in an earlier document, the people who enjoy collecting items should do so for museums, parks, schools, restaurants, and other facilities in the city, not for themselves. That would provide the public facilities with a wide variety of decorative displays, and since everything in the city is free, the facilities would be able to change the displays as often as they please in order to prevent monotony.



We should share collections, not hoard them.
For example, if the supervisor of a restaurant enjoyed displays of butterflies, insects, or minerals, he could place a different display in the restaurant every few days.

Likewise, if the supervisor of a social club liked the artistic creations at this page or this page, he could put a different display in the club every few days.

Furthermore, the displays would be available for citizens to share. For example, a person could put a display of minerals in his home, and when he got tired of it, he would give it back to the city and replace it with some other decoration.

This custom of creating artistic displays for the city would allow everybody to see and appreciate the displays. It would also reduce the number of butterflies and other animals that have to be killed in order to create displays of creatures.

Likewise, when we share the displays of rare items, such as geodes and opals, we don't need to find so many of them as compared to when people hoard the items in their home.

If the restaurants in a free enterprise system were to have such displays, most people would not notice or appreciate them. The reason is because in a free enterprise system, the restaurants are businesses, and the customers are profit opportunities that are "processed" by the restaurant.

In the USA, for example, most restaurants expect the customers to wait by the door, and then they are seated by an employee, then they are provided with food, and then they have to leave the restaurant. They are treated like cattle at a feeding station.

In Kastron, by comparison, the city government owns all of the businesses. The restaurant managers are city employees who operate the city's restaurants, not owners of private restaurants.

Exactly how we will set up the restaurants will be determined by trial and error after we get the city established, but as I have suggested in other documents, we should reduce the need for unskilled labor by reducing or eliminating the pampering by servants. For example, we should seat ourselves, and we could also set our own table. The employees of the restaurant might only provide food and cleaning services.

Nobody will be in a rush to sit down, eat, or leave. The restaurants will be as relaxing as if we were walking into a large dining room of our gigantic mansion. Furthermore, they will not be cramped, so it will be easy to walk around the tables.

The people eating in the restaurant will be our neighbors and friends, rather than strangers who speak a foreign language, or immigrants who accuse us of white supremacy and racism. Therefore, we could stop to visit with some of them before we eat.

Furthermore, the people working in the restaurants will be our friends and neighbors, rather than low-paid immigrants.

The restaurants in Kastron will be very relaxing, so it will be easy for us to wander around to look at the displays that the restaurant manager has provided. It will be as relaxing as when our parents invite us over to their home for Christmas dinner, and we take some time to look at their artwork, photos, or furnishings.

Of course, as I have mentioned many times, this type of city will be practical only if we set high standards for people. The restaurants will be miserable if people behave like this.

Museums are best for large items

Museums are already providing us with large displays of butterflies, birds, minerals, oil paintings, and other items, but there are three advantages to breaking those large displays into lots of small displays for the restaurants, social clubs, and lounge rooms:



By making lots of small displays for the walls and tables of our restaurants, homes, and  lounges, we are much more likely to appreciate them, and read the information about them.
• When the displays are only in museums, we have to travel to a museum to see them, but when the display is broken up into hundreds of small displays, the displays can be scattered around the restaurants, social clubs, and other facilities. We will see them every time we have a meal, relax at a lounge, and go to a music concert.

• I think the biggest advantage to making small displays is that we will be much more likely to enjoy them and learn from them. The reason is because our minds were not designed to learn a lot of information at one time, so when we are provided with a gigantic museum display that consists of thousands of butterflies, minerals, or bird nests, we quickly become overwhelmed with all of the information. After looking at a few dozen or hundred items, we start skipping through them quickly.

By comparison, when we create small displays of less than a few dozen items, we can easily look at and learn about the items without feeling overwhelmed.

• By making very small displays, we allow people to carry them home and display them on their wall or desk. When they get tired of it, they give it back to the city so that some other person or facility can display it.

I think that museums are best suited to the display of items that are too large or heavy to be practical to display in the public facilities, such as a display of dinosaurs.

Young children can wear used clothing

Many parents save the clothing items that one of their children has outgrown for one of their younger children, but that would not be necessary in Kastron because when a child outgrows a clothing item, the parents would give it back to the clothing store. When their younger child needs a larger clothing item, the parents would pick up something from the store. This will reduce the clutter in people's homes, and the need for storage space.

Likewise, parents do not have to save baby carriages, or other items for babies. They can give them back to the city so that somebody else can use them. If they have another baby in the future, they can pick up whatever they need when they need it.

This policy requires the businesses to produce items that are such high quality that they can be cleaned and reused. This will increase the initial expense of the items, but that will be compensated for by their longer lifetime. Furthermore, everybody will benefit by having higher quality items.

I also suggest that the stores do not distinguish between the new and the used clothing or baby carriages in order to reduce the tendency of parents to pick the new items. The new and used items should be randomly mixed together.

The clothing for children should be designed to be comfortable and practical, not sexual. Furthermore, cosmetics, jewelry, body piercings, hair dyes, and similar items should be prohibited for children. I think we will cause the girls to develop more appropriate attitudes when we discourage their interest in cosmetics, hair curlers, and plucking their eyebrows.

Clothing for work and recreation should be practical

Giving people the freedom to choose their clothing is:



Causing men in leadership positions to dress like penguins.


Causing emotional trauma for many children.


Causing a lot of women to wear shoes that hurt and damage their feet, and make it awkward for them to walk.


Allowing businesses to force female employees to wear sexually titillating and uncomfortable clothing.


Allowing people to cover their sexual organs all the time, thereby causing most of the boys to develop idiotic obsessions with women's bodies.

None of us actually want "clothing freedom". We prefer to mimic the clothing styles that other people in our peer group are wearing. This is especially true of children. Therefore, instead of promoting the false belief that we need or enjoy clothing freedom, the Kastron government will have total control of all of the clothing items.

This policy will allow the Kastron government to ensure that clothing that is designed for work is comfortable, safe, and durable. It will allow the government to prohibit sexually titillating clothing, jewelry, and cosmetics. It will also allow the government to alter the work clothing to fit the weather.

Furthermore, this will allow the government to experiment with men's clothing to reduce the time we waste adjusting our clothing. In case you were unaware of this problem, a lot of us men have to frequently adjust our pants, tie, collar, or underwear, or tuck our shirt back into our pants, or button and unbutton our coat, or roll and unroll our sleeves, or put our coat on and off. We certainly have the creativity and intelligence to design clothing that fits our body better than the current styles.

I mentioned here that the "pouch style" of underwear is very comfortable for me when walking and sitting. However, if I do a lot of bending or twisting, such as gardening work, my penis can get pulled out of the pouch, especially when the weather is cold because my penis becomes very short when cold. This made me wonder if it would be better if my penis was in a tube rather than a pouch, so I decided to look on the Internet to see if there were any newer versions of the underwear with a tube. I was surprised to discover that China and Brazil have been making versions with tubes for at least five years, and there might be other variations that I don't yet know about.

We should have the freedom to experiment with material items

This brings up a problem that the Kastron economic system is intended to avoid. Specifically, in a free enterprise system, businesses have no incentive to give us honest descriptions of their products, or let us know about the alternatives. This can result in us purchasing a product without realizing that there are alternatives that are more appropriate to our particular needs.

Furthermore, we cannot experiment with products. Businesses require us to purchase their products. This results in a lot of people discovering that what they purchased is inappropriate, especially when they purchase items from the Internet. Some people discard their inappropriate items in the trash, and others return them for a refund, and they are then often discarded in the trash. This problem is causing an incredible waste of resources and labor.

In Kastron, the government decides which products are put into production, and the government has no desire to suppress or promote any particular product. The businesses work for the government, so they will not advertise or promote their products. Instead, they will provide a serious description for each of their products, and explain how it differs from the alternatives, and what it was designed for. Everybody will have access to honest information about the products, and free access to all of them. This economic system will give us options that are impossible in a free enterprise system, such as the freedom to experiment with items.

Specifically, the city could arrange for some of the retail stores to be "Testing Stores" that contain products and prototypes that we can try for a while and then return in order to figure out which of them we like the best. For example, a person who wants a mattress for his home would go to a "Mattress Testing Store" and take one of the mattresses home. He would sleep on it for days or weeks, and then give it back and try another mattress, and he would repeat this process until he figures out which mattress he likes the best. He would then get a new version of that mattress.

By providing everybody with the freedom to experiment with mattresses, clothing, water flossing devices, chairs for our home, and other items, we will find the items that are best suited to our particular body.

I think we can make clothing more comfortable

I have not experimented with the tube style of underwear, but I have been experimenting with other things. For example, folding the top elastic band down 2 to 4 times to move the band down to my pelvic bone. The elastic band for men's underwear is normally around our stomach, but that puts it on skin that moves, stretches, and twists, which can cause the underwear to move and twist. The underwear seems to be a bit more stable when the band is on my pelvic bone since the skin in that area doesn't move as much. Therefore, I wonder if making the elastic band a bit wider, and moving it lower down, would make the underwear more stable. Has anybody experimented with that idea?

Also, I get cold easily, so I wear long underwear about half of the year, and I cut the crotch out of it in order to reduce the amount of material that gets folded up and pressed against my crotch when I sit down. That makes sitting more comfortable.

I also noticed that sitting is even more comfortable if I leave my zipper open because that also reduces the amount of material pressing against my crotch.

Although my experiments are crude, they make me believe that men would be more comfortable when sitting if we altered our underwear and pants to have something similar to the codpieces from centuries ago, as in the drawing to the right. With our modern technology, we should be able to create more useful, comfortable, decorative, and colorful codpieces than our medieval ancestors.

We could also design codpieces to hold a folded piece of toilet paper to absorb the dribble of pee so that it doesn't run down our legs or pants. That would provide men with the equivalent of a "sanitary napkin".

Unfortunately, we cannot wear a codpiece until everybody can control their sexual inhibitions well enough to remain calm around such clothing, rather than become hysterical, embarrassed, or make "Dick Jokes". And to provide a codpiece with a "sanitary napkin" requires men to acknowledge that we dribble more pee than a woman.

I recommend that boys be exposed to other boys who are peeing so that they are less likely to become adults who are embarrassed by their penis and the act of peeing. In the world today, many men are so awkward about peeing in public that they struggle to hide their penis and rush the process, which can cause them to dribble pee on themselves and the floor. Adult men should be relaxed when they pee, not frightened.

An even more significant problem that we must deal with is the men who cannot accept their small or deformed penises, and who react to codpieces like Elliott Rodger or Chris Morgan; specifically, by becoming angry from envy, or who pout. We must change our legal system and attitudes so that we can evict the people who are unable to accept their particular defects, and who waste their life and irritate us with hatred, pouting, envy, violence, and revenge.

We must also deal with the men who like to torment the men with small or deformed penises. We must expect children to do the equivalent of plucking out one another's feathers, but we should set higher standards for the adults.



Unlike most orthopedic cushions, this has a longer slot that removes pressure on testicles.
I also suggest that we experiment with the cushions on our chairs. Most of the orthopedic cushions were designed for people with hemorrhoids or back problems, but there are a few styles that have a large slot that removes the pressure on testicles. I have discovered that this style (photo to the right), is more comfortable than a flat cushion.

Therefore, I suspect that if we were to design a cushion specifically for removing the pressure from our testicles, we would create an even more comfortable cushion. Those cushions might also be more comfortable for women.

However, it is absurd to expect people to carry those cushions around with them and put them on top of the cushions of chairs in offices, restaurants, lounges, dentist's offices, and music concerts. If most people prefer those types of cushions, then it would be better to design the chairs with those cushions.

Another option is to design the chairs at restaurants, lounges, offices, and some other facilities to have seat cushions that are modular. The cushions would snap in and out of the chair without any tools or effort, similar to how Lego toys join together. The empty space underneath the chairs could hold one or more cushions, such as a flat cushion, or a thick cushion, and that would allow a person to use whichever cushion fits him the best. The thick cushions would be useful for short people.

Clothing for work and recreation should be practical

I suggest that we have two, distinct types of clothing; specifically, "work clothing" and "social clothing". The clothing for exercising and recreation would be in the "work" category.

We should design the work clothing to be functional, safe, and comfortable, and not be concerned with trying to make it sexually attractive or artistic. The work clothing should not have features that can easily get caught in machinery or tools, such as tassels or long, loose-fitting sleeves. The goggles, safety helmets, and steel-toed shoes should also be designed for function and safety, not visual appearance.

When we design our work clothing with that attitude, some items will not be very attractive, but rather than become upset about bland or ugly work clothing, we should remind ourselves that it will make the decorative clothing more enjoyable, as I will describe in the next section.

The decorative clothing would be for social events

The clothing for social events doesn't need to be as durable as the work clothing because we do not wear it as often, and it does not go through as much abuse. It can be decorative and delicate.

There are two advantages to having a different set of clothing for social affairs:
1) To reduce labor and resources
In Kastron, there will be no peasant class, so we need to reduce unnecessary work. By requiring work clothing to be durable, and restricting the delicate clothing to the social activities, our work clothing will last longer, thereby reducing the number of people who have to be involved with the production of clothing.

2) We will get more enjoyment from the decorative clothing
In Part 6 of this series, I pointed out that in order for us to enjoy pools of cool or warm water, we need variety in the weather so that we sometimes become hot, and sometimes we become cold. In order for us to enjoy life, we need variety, and we need to "suffer".

This concept applies to clothing, also. Specifically, if we were to have only one style of clothing, it would be as boring as living on a planet that has only one season, and the weather is the same every day of the year. By comparison, when we wear practical clothing for work, we will enjoy changing into the decorative clothing for social affairs.

Let women design the decorative clothing for men

The paintings that were made centuries ago show the influential men wearing colorful and decorative clothing, such as the men in the painting for January in the Très Riches Heures. Today the influential men resemble penguins. Why were men centuries ago willing to wear colorful and decorative clothing?

It is possible that the men who became influential centuries ago were more intelligent, creative, independent, and adventurous since they were more likely to have earned their position rather than get it through inheritances, crime networks, and other types of cheating, which seems to be how men get to the top positions of society today. However, it's also possible that their colorful clothing was due to women.

When I was a child, a lot of women made clothing items, including some of the teenage girls. This makes me wonder if women have been dominating the production of clothing during the past few thousand years. They might have even dominated the production of clothing in prehistoric times. (Ideally, historians would provide us with honest information about the development of our clothing and other culture, rather than propaganda about racism, the Holocaust, and terrorism.)

I suggest that Kastron experiment with this issue by restricting the designing of our social clothing to women. The men would be restricted to designing work clothing. I suspect that this will result in social clothing for men that is more attractive and comfortable, and which changes with the season.

Of course, we cannot let the women do whatever they please. We would have to routinely give them job performance reviews and pass judgment on whether they are doing a beneficial job, or whether they are creating outfits for men that are as impractical and uncomfortable as some of those at the Met Gala.

By replacing the incompetent women, we will eventually identify the women who can create men's social clothing that is attractive, comfortable, and changes according to the seasons, such as those in the photos below.



For hot weather For cool weather
For cold weather


If that experiment shows that women create even more absurd clothing than the men are creating, then we terminate the experiment and let men design clothing. We cannot hurt ourselves if the experiment fails, so there is nothing to fear. No matter what happens, we will learn something about the differences between men and women, so we should not be afraid of the experiment.

I also suggest we experiment with letting the women pick the outfits for men, rather than let the men pick the outfits. In other words, when men and women are going to a social event, the custom in Kastron would be for the women to pick an outfit for their husband, boyfriend, and other men, rather than let the men pick their outfit. This will prevent the men from doing what we want to do, which is mimic one another.

Men don't have much of an interest in clothing, so by giving women control of the design of men's clothing, and by letting women pick outfits for men, the women might make the men wear more decorative clothing at the social affairs.

None of us will be embarrassed to wear the decorative clothing because we will be able to use an excellent excuse; specifically:

"I didn't pick this outfit. I wanted to dress like a penguin, but no! The women wouldn't let me!"

I think this custom would be especially beneficial for the teenagers in Teentown. When they have a social affair, the teenage girls would pick the outfits for the boys, and this would cause the boys to become accustomed to wearing decorative clothing at social affairs, and with clothing that changes with the weather conditions. Then, when they become adults, they will be less fearful of such clothing.

It might also be useful for Teentown to arrange for some social affairs in which both boys and girls have to wear some extremely unusual clothing, as well as clothing from previous societies, such as the ancient Greeks, or the rococo style in the photo to the right. Two reasons that these affairs might be beneficial to the teenagers are:

1) By forcing the boys to wear extremely unusual styles of clothing, they will essentially be put through a process that is similar to "breaking in a horse". Specifically, they will become less likely to be embarrassed by different clothing styles, and less likely to insult the clothing of other cultures and eras.

2) Making the teenagers wear clothing from centuries ago could help them develop an interest in history and culture. For example, when they wear the ancient Roman and Greek clothing, they will discover that there were no zippers, buttons, Velcro, or other modern conveniences. They might start wondering, when did people start putting pockets on clothing? When did people start adding loops for belts?

A child assumes that his environment is the same for everybody, including his parents and grandparents, and that it will remain the same in the future. As we get older, all of us have been surprised to discover that some of the things that we assumed were an inherent part of human life are actually quite recent additions.

Although it is entertaining to learn how technology and culture has changed through the generations, it is also very useful. The reason is that in order for us to improve a product, or a cultural activity, we need to know its history so that we don't make the same mistakes that were made in the past. Understanding history allows us to add to the successes of previous generations. Therefore, it is beneficial for us to inspire an interest in history, rather than to suppress curiosity with threats to arrest people for Holocaust denial, or with accusations of being unpatriotic for looking critically at our culture.

Example: Why do airlines give free alcohol to first-class travelers?

An example of how historians could help us understand how to improve our culture is that they could provide us with an understanding of why some airlines are providing free alcoholic beverages to the people in first class. This custom implies that we are pampering a person by providing him with alcoholic beverages, but I consider that offer to be as worthless as being offered free heroin, or a free hammer to hit myself in the head with.

If I were to travel first class, I would prefer that they pamper me by offering free alcohol in the main cabin, and restricting first-class to people who have no interest in alcohol.

Why did airlines decide to offer free alcohol to the first-class passengers? Is it because the people who want to travel first class have a stronger desire for alcohol? Or is it because only the first-class passengers have enough self-control to drink responsibly?

If historians were providing us with a history of our culture, we would have a better understanding of how this custom developed, and that would help us to decide whether we want to keep this custom, or whether we should stop promoting alcohol.

Should we stop promoting "stereotypes"?

Some people would complain that I am "promoting a stereotype" by suggesting that women would do a better job of designing men's clothing, and when I claim that men and women have different emotional characteristics, and that women, as a group, are less intelligent than men. Some people, such as the author of this article, complain that those type of stereotypes are discouraging young girls from getting involved with certain jobs.

How does a stereotype stop a young girl from becoming an engineer or technician? What is a "stereotype"? Some of the dictionary definitions are:



A set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly.


A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.


To believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same.

The dictionary essentially defines a "stereotype" as a "false belief". Although that is a valid definition, each person has a different opinion about which remarks are "false" and which are "accurate descriptions of the characteristics of the majority of items of a group of similar items".

For example, is a person promoting a false belief if he says: "Young girls like to play with dolls"? Or is that remark an "accurate description of the emotional characteristics of the typical young girl"?

A more useful definition for "stereotype" is:
Stereotype: A person's opinion about a group of similar things.

With that definition, a person who complains that somebody is "promoting a stereotype" is essentially complaining that the person is expressing his opinion about a group of similar things. Since we should have the freedom to express our opinions, we should also have the freedom to promote stereotypes.

A "stereotype" is just an "opinion", but many people are using the word "stereotype" as a way to intimidate and insult us, similar to how people insult us with such words as sexist, anti-Semitic, racist, conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier, and jerk.

A stereotype is just a person's opinion about a group of similar things, so if somebody disagrees with a person's stereotype, the only sensible reaction is to discuss the issue. For example, when a man says "women are less intelligent than men", he is stating his opinion about a group of similar items. If the women do not agree with his "stereotype", the only sensible thing for those women to do is explain why they believe that his opinion of women is inaccurate.

If, instead, the women whine that he is "promoting stereotypes", they are essentially kicking and biting him, like a monkey who is upset with another monkey. That reaction will not improve the reputation of women, or do anything to improve life for women. Rather, it is more likely to reinforce a man's opinion that women are more emotional and less intelligent than men.

A “reputation” is similar to a “stereotype

A "stereotype" could also be described as the "reputation of a group of people". To understand this concept, consider that a person's reputation is our opinion of the person's behavior. If a person has a good reputation, it is because we were impressed by his behavior, and if he has a bad reputation, it is because we were upset, frightened, disgusted, or horrified by his behavior.

A person with a bad reputation is likely to whine that somebody "gave him" a bad reputation, but most of the people who have a bad reputation earned it by behaving in a manner that most of us regarded as unacceptable, frightening, disgusting, or horrible.

To complicate the issue of reputations and stereotypes, there are people who deliberately lie about somebody in order to influence our reputation of him, and they lie about a group of people in order to influence our stereotypes of that group. For example:



Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes that the CIA is responsible for giving Joe Kennedy the reputation of bootlegging liquor during the prohibition.


The Google executives tried to give James Damore a bad reputation by accusing him of disrupting the company with sexist opinions.


While Donald Trump was President, the journalists were frequently exaggerating or lying about him in an attempt to give him a bad reputation.


Journalists spent a lot of time trying to give James Alefantis, the owner of the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor, a good reputation by ridiculing "Pizzagate" and the people who accused him of involvement with a pedophile network.


Jews lie about Albert Einstein's achievements in order to give him the reputation of a genius.


Jews lie about Jews in order to give Jews the stereotype of being the most honest, intelligent, kind, loving, peaceful, educated, talented, and wonderful people, and that Jews are constantly being abused by anti-Semites.


Jews lie about the Germans and "white people" in order to create the stereotype that those groups are anti-Semitic, cruel, selfish, racist, white supremacists with white privilege.

These concepts apply to inanimate objects as well as people. For example, I and many other people have made a remark similar to: "Toyota and Honda automobiles are better quality than the American cars". We could say that we are "promoting a stereotype about those brands of automobiles". We could also say that Toyota and Honda have "good reputations" with us, and that Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors have a bad reputation.

It would be idiotic for the General Motors executives to whine that we are "promoting stereotypes", or that we are "giving General Motors a bad reputation". We are simply expressing our opinion about groups of automobiles. General Motors earned their bad reputation.

Is Snow White promoting stereotypes of dwarfs?

The previous document of this series mentioned that Disney is making a new version of Snow White with a Latina woman as Snow White. Disney is now planning to alter the story again in order to appease an angry dwarf, Peter Dinklage. Disney said that they would "avoid reinforcing stereotypes", and that they "have been consulting with members of the dwarfism community". This brings up two interesting issues:


1)
What stereotype does the story of Snow White promote? Who is harmed by that stereotype? Who will benefit by changing the story, and how do they benefit?




2)
What is a "dwarfism community"? Are dwarfs so different from the rest of us that they have their own community? What other types of communities are there? I am bald, and I have some problem with thyroid hormones, so am I a member of the "baldism community", and/or the "thyroidism community"?

Peter Dinklage is one of the actors in the Game Of Thrones series. I have never seen any of those episodes, but the photos that I've seen show men who are strong and athletic. Even the dwarf in the show looks strong and athletic.

If I had the personality of the people who are whining about stereotypes, I would whine that the fiction books, movies, and television programs should be inclusive and diverse by portraying scrawny, weak men with thyroid problems as people who are just as good as the larger, healthier, athletic men. I could complain that the media is creating stereotypes that are hurting the feelings of those of us in the "Scrawny Men Community".

Dwarfs are genetic defects, not a “community

It is destructive to regard dwarfs as a community. It is better to think of them as humans with a particular genetic disorder. Furthermore, they are not identical to one another, and they are not better than other people.

If we were to put all of the dwarfs on their own planet, we would discover that they separate into groups because of their mental and physical differences. We would also find that some of them are accusing the others of abuse or discrimination. We would also find some of their children complaining about being bullied by the other dwarf children. And we would find that some of them are committing crimes.

Everybody has genetic problems. Therefore, all of us could form "communities" based upon our particular genetic disorders, and all of us could whine that we are being abused and suffering from stereotypes.

If the Grimm brothers had written "Snow White and the Seven Scrawny, Bald Men with Thyroid Problems", would I suffer as a result? Or if they had written "Snow White and the Seven Ordinary Men", would that satisfy everybody? Or would some "ordinary men" complain that it is making them feel bad about themselves?

When we allow a group of people to claim to be a "community" of people, and when we allow them to whine about stereotypes, we encourage people to use their genetic disorders like cards in a game of poker. The dwarfs are behaving as if their genetic disorders are "higher" than those of the midgets, idiots, and other people. Some people refer to this type behavior as the Oppression Olympics.

We should not encourage people to get into a competition over whose genetic disorders are more important. It would be more sensible to acknowledge that everybody is defective, and to insist that everybody regard themselves as a human and a team member, not as a "community" of abused people who deserve pity and pampering. Our goal should be to reduce defects in every generation, not pander to people who want to exploit their defects.

In regards to the story of Snow White, the story is based on an idiotic plot, but if we choose to edit it, I suggest we make changes to benefit the human race, not to appease dwarfs. A dwarf will not suffer if a children's story mentions dwarfs, just as a tall person will not suffer if there was a story about Snow White and the Seven Tall Men.

Pandering encourages whining and selfishness

When we pander to people who whine about stereotypes or bad reputations, we encourage hatred, whining, pouting, and fighting. It also encourages the whiny people to imagine themselves as a separate community of people who are being abused.

We should not tolerate the people who whine, or be intimidated by their accusations that we are cruel or unfair. If somebody doesn't like a children's story, movie, or opinion, they should discuss the issue and explain why we should change it, rather than imagine themselves as part of a community that is being abused.

We learn about ourselves and our culture when we discuss issues, but not when we accuse people of promoting stereotypes, or having opinions that are sexist, racist, or anti-Semitic.

If women stoppedfighting with men, and allowed us to study the differences between men and women, we would be able to slowly figure out how to improve our culture. For example, we might discover that women are better at designing clothing, decorating homes, and creating art because their mind is better at visualizing colorful images, whereas the reason men are better at engineering and repairing mechanical items might be because our mind is better at creating and manipulating 3-D models of mechanical items.







Men might be better at creating
and manipulating 3D models.

Women might be better at creating
colorful
but 2-D images.


An analysis of men and women might also show us differences in their preferences for background images on their computers and phones. Men might prefer landscapes and machines, and women might prefer photos of their children or of artwork.

We might also discover that some of the men who excel as artists have abnormally strong female characteristics, or abnormally weak male characteristics, or defective intellectual or emotional characteristics. That could explain why so many of the artistic men are sexually mixed up, anti-social, mentally ill, unhappy, and/or attracted to drugs.

Conversely, we might discover that the women who excel in engineering or science have stronger male characteristics, or superior intellectual characteristics, than the typical woman.

Freedoms that should be restricted

Instead of promoting "freedom", we should analyze each freedom and put restrictions on the freedoms that are more detrimental than beneficial. Here is a brief list of some freedoms that I don't think have any benefit, and should be restricted:

The freedom to breed plants and animals.
This freedom allows us to breed pit bulls and roosters for fighting; grapes that produce wines with higher levels of alcohol; and dogs to become better substitutes for babies and friends.

The freedom to choose our meals.
This freedom causes people to become unhealthy, and to waste food. It also makes it impossible for a society to plan its production of food.

The freedom to reproduce.
This freedom allows people to produce unwanted and defective children who hate themselves, suffer throughout their lives, and torment other people. It also causes the human gene pool to degrade.

The freedom to create economic monarchies.
The freedom to inherit wealth, land, and businesses gives us terrible leadership.

The freedom to own land.
This freedom results in most of the land on the Earth to be private property, which restricts us to tiny areas that are public property. It also allows people to interfere with the development of cities, such as the owner of the property to the right.

It also allows some people to become extremely wealthy when oil or other valuable materials are discovered on their land, or when their land becomes valuable as a result of population growth. Their wealth gives them more influence over society, and is another reason we have terrible leadership.

The freedom to choose cosmetics.
This freedom results in people cluttering their home with cosmetic products, and wasting labor and resources on attempts to impress and deceive other people. The cosmetic surgeries waste a lot of technical talent and resources, and many people regret their surgeries, which results in wasting more labor and resources in an attempt to undo their mistake.

The freedom to delay the death of hopeless people.
This freedom allows people to waste medical services in attempts to delay the death of people, including fetuses, who are dying from old age, incurable diseases, or genetic disorders. We should be concerned about the quality of a person's life, not the length of time that he is alive.

The freedom to have brain surgery.
The medical technology we have today is effective at repairing damage to our body, but we cannot yet fix a person who is suffering from injuries, tumors, or blood clots in his brain. Therefore, giving people the freedom to have brain surgery is giving them the freedom to turn themselves into zombies who become a burden on society.

The John Hopkins University admits that brain surgery "can cause problems with thoughts, feelings, and behaviors", and there are videos on the Internet that allow us to observe a person before and after brain surgery, and we can clearly see that he has suffered brain damage as a result of the surgery. Although therapy helps many of them regain most of their ability to speak or walk, they are permanently damaged. They are described as "patients" of the hospital, but they could be described as "victims" of a culture that regards brain damage as trivial.

Update 7 June 2022:
The link to the article at John Hopkins University (in the paragraph above) does not have the remarks about brain surgery causing changes in a person's behavior, so did I make a mistake? Or did John Hopkins edit the article to remove those remarks in order to avoid frightening people about brain surgery?

If they removed those remarks, then they are censoring important information in order to deceive people into getting extremely dangerous brain surgery, and for what reason? Money?

The interesting aspect of this issue is that virtually the exact same remarks can be found at several hospitals in India, such as this one and this one, and at the end of the description of this YouTube video posted by the British BioMedicine Institute, and at this site, and at this site. (This time I saved screen images of their remarks in case they remove them.)

The most interesting of those sites is this one because it mentions John Hopkins twice. The image below is a portion of that page, and I highlighted the remarks about the danger of brain surgery in orange, and I highlighted the two references to John Hopkins in magenta.





Why would that site describe the brain surgery at John Hopkins unless they copied the information from a John Hopkins document?

This makes me wonder if John Hopkins created that information, and then sites around the world copied it. Then, after I posted the document you are currently reading, somebody at John Hopkins removed the information in order to avoid frightening people about brain surgery.

If they removed those remarks, then they are censoring important information in order to deceive people into getting extremely dangerous brain surgery, but for what reason? Money?

I suppose the people involved with brain surgery are worried about losing their job, but censoring important information for such a reason is behaving like a criminal who cheats or rapes us in order to satisfy his craving for money, status, or sex.

How would you feel if you went to a doctor, and he suggested surgery for you or your child, but did not tell you about the risks because he was worried that you might refuse the procedure, and he was planning to use that money to purchase a swimming pool for his mansion?

That attitude is analogous to a teacher who convinces some students to remain in his PhD program even though the students do not have the talent, simply because the teacher wants tenure and needs some students. Or how about the people who want to have sex and/or get pregnant, but doesn't tell their partner that they have a venereal disease?

If we are being lied to about brain surgery simply so that some people can keep their job, then those lies are more evidence of what I complained about in other documents; specifically, that the free enterprise system causes people to become so afraid of losing their job, and it makes it difficult for us to be trained for another job, that most people will suffer with a job they dislike, or a job that is useless, dishonest, destructive, or disgusting.

“OMG! I might lose my job! We must hide the truth from the public!”
Furthermore, if John Hopkins is lying to us about brain surgery, they are another example of how people tend to react to problems like a frightened animal rather than an explorer who finds the courage to face and analyze problems, discuss possible solutions, and experiment with improvements.

If the people involved with brain surgery could find the courage to analyze the situation, they would realize they were deceived into getting involved with brain surgery because they were not provided with the truth about it when they were young and planning their career. They are victims of deception, but instead of improving the situation, they reacted like a frightened animal that is fighting for its survival in any manner it can think of, with no concern for the consequences.

I suppose that if we knew the truth about brain surgery, we would want it to be restricted to experiments, not promote it to the public as a safe and routine medical treatment.

The amount of lying, deception, abuse, censorship, and crime is incredible. My documents have pointed out that we are being routinely lied to and censored by NASA, Google, Zionists, journalists, and lot of other organizations, and now we ought to wonder how many hospitals, doctors, surgeons, and medical institutions are lying to us about medical treatments.

“OMG! If I disagree with the feminists, I might not find a wife! Help me, Jesus!”
I am also shocked at how many adult men are capable of getting into fistfights, yelling obscenities, and threatening people and nations with violence, but who do not have the courage to face reality, our social problems, crime networks, corrupt government officials, feminists, disgusting business executives, dishonest journalist, or abusive Zionist organizations.

Where are the men with courage?
Violence and temper tantrums is animal behavior, not "courage". How many men can be a leader rather than a frightened sheeple that is holding onto Jesus, his wife, or a gun for comfort?


Most people don't complain about the brain damage from brain surgery because they don't have any interest in learning or thinking. They prefer to spend their time lounging in front of a television, having silly conversations, eating excessively, and playing with video games or pet dogs. They can continue those activities even after suffering brain damage.

Even more sad, a person can remain as a government official or Supreme Court judge while suffering from senility, strokes, and mental illness.

I suggest Kastron set high standards for people, which will mean that a person with brain damage in Kastron will be a lonely misfit, rather than a famous Hollywood celebrity, government official, lawyer, or judge.

We should face the unpleasant fact that we do not yet know how to fix certain types of brain problems. We should euthanize those people rather than turn them into zombies.

In a free enterprise system, all types of medical services are provided according to who can afford them, but Kastron government will pass judgment on who gets medical services. The officials of Health Department should have an attitude similar to that of a farmer. Specifically, their priority should be to ensure that the "normal" people are in excellent health, rather than waste labor and resources on futile attempts to help the hopelessly defective and sickly people, or cause people to become zombies. They will have the authority to euthanize the children and terminally ill people that they regard as hopeless.

We cannot expect government officials to make "perfect" decisions about who to give medical services to, and who to euthanize, but they will not be able to make their decisions in secret, so we will be able to analyze their decisions, and replace the officials who make decisions we disagree with.

The government officials in the world today are so corrupt and incompetent that all of us would be frightened to give them the authority to deny us medical services or euthanize us, but as I mentioned in the previous document of this series, by removing our safety net, we will be pressured to get involved with ensuring that our government officials are among the most intelligent, honest, and responsible members of the human race, rather than human trash.

Furthermore, some people have been indirectly euthanized when they were denied medical services, but that type of euthanasiz is happening according to our wealth rather than according to a government official's decision.

What difference does it make whether a person is euthanized because he doesn't have enough money to pay for medical treatment, or if he is euthanized because a government official decides that he is not worth the resources to keep alive?

The difference is that if we have appropriate government officials, they will make much more intelligent decisions about where to put our medical resources compared to a free enterprise system. For example, instead of wasting resources to prolong the death of a wealthy elderly man for a year or two, they will put the resources into helping the younger people maintain better health.

The freedom to be an irritation, burden, or danger.
Every nation provides its citizens with the freedom to irritate other people, and even be a danger or a burden to society. For example, we are free to hoard items to such an extent that we damage the home, or become a health hazard to our neighbors as a result of the rats, mold, and other creatures that live in the home, or become a fire hazard as a result of hoarding flammable items.

We also have the freedom to be annoying in public areas, such as making a mess of the items in a retail store; leaving trash at theaters, music concerts, and Stonehenge; producing smoke from fires and barbecues; and creating noise with television and music. We also give people the freedom to play "practical jokes".

We also have the freedom to own almost any type of pet animal we please. This results in lots of people being bit by dogs, and being irritated by their barking and fighting. It also results in animal poop and pee being scattered all around the cities, some of which becomes dust that gets into our lungs, food, clothing, and homes.



We should not plead with people to behave properly.
All societies today regard individual people as more important than the team. This results in such idiotic situations as people pandering to the irritating people, or pleading with them to behave better. For example, the television programs about hoarders show city officials and relatives of the hoarders pleading with them to throw away some of their junk.

Imagine business executives pleading with their employees to stop hoarding things in their office, or the commander of a Navy submarine pleading with the sailors to stop littering in the submarine, or parents pleading with their children to clean their bedroom.

This group of Russian citizens tries to improve the behavior of other Russians by putting stickers on their windshield when they don't follow the rules for parking and driving. Imagine if some of the forklift drivers at a warehouse were not following the rules, and the supervisors tried to persuade them to do so by putting stickers on their vehicles whenever they misbehaved.

The people who have irritating behavior are suffering from low quality brains as a result of genetic defects, concussions, strokes, old age, or some other problem. We cannot improve their brain by pleading with them to behave better.

In Kastron, the team has priority over the individual. The people who are badly behaved are to be regarded as low-quality people who are unacceptable disruptions to society, and they should be dealt with rather than pleaded with or pandered to. For example, if somebody becomes a hoarder in Kastron, the government should not waste time pleading with him to clean up his mess. Instead, he should be regarded as a mentally defective person who is unable to function properly in a modern society. He should either be put on restrictions or evicted.

With that type of attitude, a "practical joke" will not be considered as a "joke" if it is irritating or dangerous. Although there is no dividing line between a "harmless joke" and a "dangerous prank", everybody in Kastron is required to make sensible decisions about what is truly amusing, and what is a potential annoyance or danger. The people who cannot make wise decisions about that issue, and who annoy other people with their attempt to be amusing, are to be regarded as having an unacceptable mind. They should be put on restrictions or evicted. Likewise, hazing will not be tolerated.

I think that we enjoy hazing and playing pranks on one another because we evolved for a dangerous competition for life. Young animals prepare for the battle for life by jumping on each other, biting each other, and chasing one another around.

We misinterpret what the young animals do as "having fun" and "playing with each other", but they are actually preparing their mind and body for the brutal and deadly competition for life. It also starts the process of determining their position in the social hierarchy.

Animals also have a craving to torment the misfits. When they torment the misfits, such as plucking out their feathers, they are doing the animal equivalent of "hazing".

Humans inherited the desire to jump on each other, bite each other, and torment the misfits, but our modern technology allows pranks and hazing to be very irritating and deadly. An example is when this man killed his friend when he accidentally used a real gun in his prank. There have been so many deaths from hazing ceremonies that the Wikipedia has this list of deaths in the USA.

People today need to behave better than prehistoric savages, and those who cannot behave better need to be dealt with in some manner, rather than tolerated or pitied. The people who push for dangerous pranks and hazing ceremonies should be regarded as animals with low levels of self-control. They should not be admired for being "tough" or "brave".

In our modern world, a person can have an effect on everybody on the planet, including the future generations. Therefore, we will all benefit by ensuring that everybody is a beneficial member of the human race.

We euthanize dogs that are dangerous, and zoo animals have been killed simply for biting people who foolishly walked into their cage, but we give pity to dangerous people, and especially to badly behaved children. I recommend acknowledging the evidence that destructive humans are just as disgusting as violent dogs. Actually, the greater intelligence of humans causes the violent and irresponsible humans to be much more destructive, especially when they form crime networks.

Freedoms that we should have

The freedom to experiment with medicines.
As I described in previous documents, such as this, requiring us to get prescriptions for medicines prevents us from experimenting with medicines, and making the prescriptions useful for only one year causes those of us who need the medicines throughout our lives to waste our time and resources getting the same prescriptions year after year, and it is a waste of a doctor's time to continuously create the same prescriptions. Prescriptions are also less efficient for society because they require people to waste their time and resources trying to control other people's access to the medicines.

Prescriptions can reduce the chances that we get the wrong medicine, or the wrong dosage, and it can reduce the abuse of medicines, but it is an inefficient and irritating way of dealing with such problems. To understand this, consider if we were to do this with food.

If all of the foods were by prescription only, we could dramatically reduce obesity, diabetes, malnutrition, and other problems, but would the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Imagine having to go to a doctor to get a "food prescription", and going back to the doctor every year to get the prescription renewed. And imagine that whenever you want to get a meal, you have to show your prescription to the employees of a pharmacy, and then wait for them to provide you with your food.

Requiring us to get a food prescription would improve the health of many people, but it is an inefficient and irritating way of dealing with the problem. My suggestion for improving our diets is to eliminate the kitchens in Kastron, require everybody to get meals at restaurants, and give the government total control of the economy. That allows the government to supervise the meals at restaurants.

Although this will not stop people from eating excessively or becoming malnourished, we should not worry about, or try to control, the people who don't have the ability to make wise decisions. Instead, we should regard those people as having low-quality minds.

When we design culture to prevent the low-quality people from hurting themselves or other people, we torment the well-behaved people. Even more important, all of the laws that are intended to improve the behavior of badly behaved people are failures. We cannot stop them from abusing medicines, committing crimes, or fighting with their family members.

We should provide people with access to medicines rather than torment the well-behaved people with prescriptions. We waste our time and cause ourselves frustration when we try to control the badly behaved people. Furthermore, trying to control them often results in them becoming angry and violent.

We would create a more pleasant social environment by raising standards of behavior. The people who abuse medicines should be treated in the same manner as the people who abuse knives, razor blades, automobiles, and alcohol, such as putting them on restrictions, or evicting them.

The freedom to choose death.
No nation provides people with the freedom to choose how and when they die. This results in people who want to die being forced to wait until their level of misery is so high that it overpowers their craving to live, and they can commit suicide, such as this man, who jumped off of a bridge. This custom could be described as "torturing a person to suicide", and we could describe that as being worse than torturing a person to death.

Even more sad are the people who finally reach the level of misery that they can commit suicide, but they make a mistake and fail at suicide, and end up becoming permanently injured and waste a lot of society's resources on medical care, such as the people who shoot themselves in the face with a gun and get a face transplant.

My recommendation is that the government have a department that arranges for people who want to die, and gives them some freedom to choose how and when they die.



Another option is to have a party before dying, as this woman did.
Switzerland is offering people the opportunity to get into a tiny capsule and die from lack of oxygen, but I think that getting into a tiny capsule is unpleasant because it would feel like getting into a coffin.

I would rather sit somewhere where I have a nice view of something, such as a forest, garden, or creek, and then have something to eat or drink that puts me to sleep, and then kills me.

Some people might like the option of not knowing which day they die. A person might choose to die within the next month or two, and the government would choose the day without telling him which day.

The problem with giving people the freedom to choose their death is that the freedom is useful only if their mind is functioning well enough to make such a decision. That freedom is useless for people in a coma, or suffering from strokes or other types of brain damage. We often let family members decide what to do with their brain-damaged relatives, but family members tend to demand expensive and difficult medical treatments in order to prolong death as long as possible.

My recommendation is to restrict the decisions about life and death to a government department, and the people in that department should be held accountable for their decisions. They should not be able to make decisions in secrecy. We cannot expect them to be "perfect", but we can require them to provide an intelligent explanation for their decisions. We also need the right to pass judgment on whether we think the officials are making wise decisions, and the voters should continuously replace the officials who are doing the worst job.

Freedom of speech.
Every nation boasts that they provide people with freedom of speech, but no government enforces that freedom. For example, every nation allows Facebook, Google, Twitter, Zionist organizations, businesses, religions, journalists, and government agencies to censor, fire, intimidate, and suppress people and opinions.

To make the situation more absurd, our governments allow people and organizations to refer to lies and deception as freedom of speech. For example:



We are free to make false accusations, such as accusing people of white privilege, Holocaust denial, climate change denial, and sexism.


We are free to promote false information, such as crop circles, and the theory that miniature hydrogen bombs destroyed the World Trade Center buildings. That is also deceiving and manipulating.

Some people might respond that our "freedom of speech" should allow us to post information about crop circles and the Flat Earth theory, and to make accusations of Holocaust Denial and sexism, but I recommend that we define "speech" as "our opinions". We should not allow lies, deception, or attempts to intimidate people to be regarded as "speech" or "opinions".

There is no dividing line between an "opinion" that somebody is sexist, and an "attempt to intimidate" somebody by accusing them or sexism, but we can and should make that distinction rather than be intimidated by people who are trying to manipulate us. We should judge a remark by whether a person has intelligent supporting evidence for it, and if not, we should consider that the person is trying to manipulate us.

All nations also provide us with the freedom to post information on the Internet anonymously, or with a false name, thereby making it impossible to hold people accountable for their attempts to deceive and manipulate us.

When a person provides information to the world, such as by posting information on the Internet, he is trying to influence other people's opinions and the future of the human race. He is self-appointing himself to the role of world leader. Therefore, he should have to meet the same standards that other leaders meet. He should be held accountable for what he says, and we have the right to know where his information comes from, what it is based on, and what supporting evidence he has.

Nobody in Kastron will have the freedom to post information anonymously. Instead, everybody has the right to know who is the source of information, and the right to hold them accountable for what they say. We should also have the right to have mistakes corrected, and if the author does not fix the mistakes, then other people have the right to do so. We should not be forced to tolerate mistakes.

Furthermore, the Kastron security department should pass judgment on why a person provides inaccurate information, and if they determine that he deliberately created false information in an attempt to deceive us, he should be considered as a criminal. We must stop tolerating people who try to manipulate us, and we should not allow them to justify their deceptive information by faking stupidity or ignorance, such as the school officials who "accidentally" gave students the assignment of describing their sexual preferences using pizza toppings. If that assignment was not intended for the students, who was it created for?

Some journalists claim that they need the right to provide information from anonymous people in order to expose corrupt governments, but there is no evidence to support the theory that anonymous information can stop government corruption. Rather, there is much more evidence that virtually all of the anonymous "whistleblowers" are actually wolves in sheep's clothing, and they are working with corrupt government officials to deceive and manipulate people.

A person who truly has something intelligent to say should be proud of himself and want to be given credit for his achievements, so he should want to identify himself as the source of the information. The people who want to "educate" us while they remain secretive and anonymous should be investigated to determine if they are criminals who are trying to manipulate us.

Another problem with allowing people to provide information anonymously is that it encourages people to be frightened to expose corruption or disagree with our leaders. We should do the opposite; namely, encourage people to regard government officials, policemen, judges, and business executives as city employees, and set higher standards for them than we set for factory workers and gardeners. We should encourage people to pass judgment on people in leadership positions, and replace those who are doing the worst jobs.

Rather than be fearful of our leaders, we should encourage people to get involved with maintaining our society by exposing the corrupt and incompetent leaders. We should also encourage everybody to become accustomed to getting and receiving constructive criticism, and looking for ways to improve the information in our encyclopedias, school books, and television documentaries. We should encourage people to look for ways to improve our lives, rather than be afraid to criticize or disagree with other people.

Freedom to have leaders who earn their position.
Every nation is providing us with the freedom to get into leadership positions through inheritances, nepotism, divorce settlements, and other forms of cheating. This is a freedom that should be terminated.

The USA goes even further and allows some people to get into a leadership position for life, with no regard to their effect on society. For example, the Supreme Court judges are given the job for their entire life; teachers are provided with tenure; and business owners are "economic monarchs" who can keep their position throughout their lives and pass their business, land, and employees to their children or spouse.

We will provide ourselves with much better leadership when we have the freedom to observe what our leaders are doing, and the freedom to pass judgment on whether they are earning their position. We should also have the freedom to replace the leaders who are the least beneficial, and arrest those who commit crimes. We should have the freedom to prevent people from becoming leaders through inheritances, divorce settlements, and other forms of cheating.

In order to have this freedom, we must eliminate the secrecy that we provide people in leadership positions. We need the freedom to observe our leaders. While some people might complain that this is an "invasion of privacy", our leaders don't provide their employees with secrecy. Employees are observed and judged, and they are replaced if their performance is inadequate. It is more important for us to observe and judge our leaders than it is to observe a factory worker.

Freedom from crime.
The US legal system was designed by people who were frightened by the incompetence, mental illness, selfishness, and violence of the European monarchies and governments. Their reaction was to make it difficult for the police to arrest people, and even more difficult for the courts to convict a person of a crime. However, this policy is another example of living in fear of government officials, rather than replacing them.

We torment ourselves when we live in fear of corrupt judges or government officials. I think one of the most important freedoms that we should have is freedom from crime. We should be free of the fear that our government officials, neighbors, policemen, teachers, and judges will cheat, murder, rape, or abuse us. We should have the right to trust the people we live with.

Although prehistoric children were afraid to leave their campsite, they were free to wander anywhere within their campsite. They felt safe around the adults, not frightened. We should give our children the same freedom. Children should be free to wander around the city without fear of pedophiles, kidnappers, crime gangs, or bullies. They should be able to trust and depend upon the teachers, policemen, government officials, and other adults. The children should be so free of crime that they can take sleeping bags into a city park and spend the night together without needing their parents to protect them.



We should not live in fear of criminals!
We cannot become free of crime when we encourage one another to live in fear of criminals, government officials, or the police. We cannot be free of crime by purchasing guns, either, or by punishing criminals, or by sending criminals to rehabilitation programs.

Providing ourselves with freedom from crime requires a dramatic change in our attitudes towards crime and law enforcement.

My suggestion is to evict criminals, even if they are judges, FBI officials, government officials, or policemen.

The freedom to know the truth about our leaders.
In order to provide the previous two freedoms, we need the freedom to know the truth about the people in influential positions. We cannot provide ourselves with honest, responsible, and beneficial leaders when we provide them with so much secrecy that we cannot be sure whether they are male or female, or whether they are suffering from Alzheimer's or strokes, or whether they are involved with a pedophile network. We need the freedom to know the truth about the people we put into leadership positions.

The freedom to know the truth about a potential friend and spouse.
As I pointed out in a previous document, the people who deceive us into becoming their friend or spouse are wasting something that is much more precious than material wealth; namely, they are wasting a portion of our lives, and there is nothing we can do to get that time back.

Every society is providing people with the freedom to be secretive and deceptive. We have the freedom to lie about our age, marital status, criminal history, drug problems, medical problems, and mental illness. This freedom causes many people to get into friendships and marriages that are miserable. The married couples who are unhappy with each other can torment one another, and they can make life less pleasant for their children, neighbors, parents, relatives, and friends.

We live for a very brief period of time. We will improve our lives by living among people that we can trust, not by acquiring more material items. We should not tolerate people who waste a portion of our life. One way to reduce the wasted life is to provide everybody with the freedom and the right to know the truth about potential friends and spouses.

Providing this freedom requires some significant changes to our culture. My suggestion is, as I've mentioned in other documents, for the government to maintain a database that has details of everybody's life, and let everybody have free access to the database. There should be no pity for the people who are ashamed of themselves.

The freedom to share the wealth.
Every society makes people compete for food, housing, clothing, and other items. This competition creates a lot of envy, hatred, crime, a fear of unemployment, and a fear of divorce.

We will create a much more pleasant and efficient social environment when we provide people with the freedom to have equal access to the food, housing, water, land, and other wealth. This freedom requires a dramatic change in our culture. Specifically, it requires eliminating classes of people, and prohibiting people from getting special privileges.

An even more emotionally difficult change that we must make is that the people who cannot, or will not, contribute to the wealth need to be prohibited from reproduction so that they don't create more parasitic people in the next generation, or they need to be evicted.

The freedom to euthanize defective and unwanted children.
All nations today put pressure on parents to take care of every child, no matter how defective it is, and even if it is the result of a rape. Kastron will provide parents with the freedom to euthanize their defective and unwanted children. This freedom will allow parents to raise children that are a pleasure rather than a burden or irritation.

The freedom to move to a different home within our city.
Although every culture provides people with the freedom to move to a different home, it is impractical for us to fully use that freedom because the process is time-consuming and expensive in a free enterprise system. Government agencies, banks, real estate agencies, and other businesses demand that we give them lots of paperwork and money. Furthermore, cities do not maintain an excess of homes, so we usually have to wait for somebody to sell their home before we can move.

In Kastron, there will not be any hotels. Instead, the city will deliberately have a large excess of apartments. Everybody will be free to move to a different apartment as easily as a person in a hotel can switch to another room. This culture will make it much easier for us to find an apartment near our friends or family members, or closer to where we work, or closer to whichever forest, city park, recreational area, or bicycle path we want to be near.

In order for it to be practical for a city to use apartments as hotel rooms, a city government must have the freedom to discriminate with visitors, and the freedom to evict the visitors who are sloppy, abusive, or unwanted. Nobody should have the right to visit in a city.

The freedom to evict unwanted people.
In a city in which we are sharing the wealth, living in close contact with one another, and don't have any security devices on our homes, it is especially important that we have the freedom to evict the people that we don't want to live with.

Living in Kastron should be regarded as "joining a team", and as a privilege and a responsibility, not as a "freedom". Nobody should have "the right" to live in Kastron, just as nobody has a right to work at a particular business, or become a member of an orchestra, or have a particular person as their spouse. Everybody must earn what they want.

Enjoy the pressure to try different things

If we are given the freedom to do whatever we want to do, we will avoid everything we consider to be unpleasant, and we will prevent our children from experiencing uncomfortable situations. Unfortunately, humans and animals were not designed to be pampered. Rather, the intelligent animals were designed to adapt to their environment.

Therefore, if we protect a child from unpleasant experiences, and pamper him with whatever he pleases, he will adapt to that environment. He will become a dysfunctional adult.

The previous document of this series gave an example; specifically, that our custom of "protecting" boys from nudity, childbirth, breast-feeding, and sex is causing them to become adult men who have obnoxious obsessions with women's bodies, "dick jokes", "camel toes", and sex.

Now consider that we are also hurting children when we "protect" them from criticism, failures, disappointments, and chores.

Insects are born knowing all of the information that they need to know as adults, so they don't have to learn anything during their childhood. Human children, however, must learn how to become an adult. However, we cannot prepare children for adulthood by pandering to them. We must expose children to the type of events that they will experience as an adult, such as chores, competition, disappointments, criticism, nudity, sex, failures, embarrassment, responsibility, time schedules, rules of behavior, and bosses.

During prehistoric times, the children were exposed to the situations that they had to deal with as an adult, but today we have the technology and leisure time to pamper and protect children. This is causing many parents to play with children rather than prepare them for life. For example, parents, especially mothers, are titillated by babies that laugh and giggle, and they are upset when babies frown, cry, or become angry. This results in mothers who titillate their children rather than teach them something useful.

One of the reasons I suggest removing teenagers from their parents' homes and putting them into Teentown is to prevent parents from pampering the teenagers. Teentown will make it easy to ensure that all of the teenagers are exposed to a variety of useful chores and situations.

A teenager might occasionally cry or have a tantrum when he experiences disappointments or criticism, but he will not be damaged by it. All of the mentally healthy teenagers will learn to deal with it, and become better adults as a result.

Of course, due to genetic variations, some teenagers will not learn how to deal with criticism, disappointments, or competition. They will become adults who continue to whine, cry, hate, and pout. However, we should not respond by lowering the educational standards to fit those people. We should instead regard those people as mentally defective, and separate them from the others, or evict them for not having the mental ability to handle our modern world.

We must be critical about the design of a city

As with animals, we have a tendency to make decisions rapidly based on whatever we happen to know at the time, rather than put time and effort into researching the issue and looking critically at our brilliant opinions. This animal behavior causes us to sometimes regret our decisions.

It is especially important for us to be aware of this characteristic when we design a city because we cannot easily undo the mistakes that we regret.

The Chinese government recently came to the conclusion that some of their buildings were ugly, and some were attractive but too expensive, wasteful of space, or impractical. They came to the conclusion that they must put restrictions on the "architectural freedom" of citizens and organizations.

In order for a government to set restrictions on architectural freedom, we have to decide who among us we want to appease, and who we want to ignore. For example, should we allow the buildings and decorations like those in the three photos below? Or should we prohibit that type of architecture and decorations?




A building in a shopping center in France
Search of the Internet images for "ugly building"
A portion of a mural on the side of a building.


Some artists insist that there is no way for us to decide what is and is not "art", but we can and should make decisions about what we regard as "art". Furthermore, as I pointed out in other documents, such as this, we can determine if something is "art" simply by changing its environment. For example, if we put something into a pile of trash, and nobody recognizes it as "art", then it is not art.

Furthermore, even if something classifies as "art", we are not under any obligation to like it. An artist might complain that we are hurting his feelings when we criticize his artwork, but we should not feel guilty for disliking somebody's artwork.

We also have to be careful that we don't do something simply because our ancestors did it. An example is how we are still considering some of the artists from centuries ago to be incredibly talented, such as Paul Gauguin. Most of the paintings by artists of previous centuries would be considered worthless if their paintings were randomly mixed among other paintings in a thrift store, city dump, or high school art room. By comparison, if paintings by da Vinci or Michelangelo were mixed in a high school art display, people would be shocked at the incredible talent of the artist. People would also be impressed by a lot of the mosaics, statues, and paintings from the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians.

I suspect that a lot of the worthless art is considered valuable for three primary reasons:


1) Their primitive technology resulted in most people never seeing the art that was created in other cities or nations.

2)
Only a few people were producing art, so those artists did not have much competition.

3)
Criminals use worthless art to pass money to one another, which inadvertently causes people to believe that the art is valuable.

If history was a real science, then historians would be analyzing our culture and we might today have some idea of how and why Picasso and other artists became famous, and what effect criminals have had on our view of art.

There are museums dedicated to worthless artists, such as Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, and Mark Chagall. We must be aware of our tendency to mimic our ancestors, and we should push ourselves into analyzing our culture, and using our intelligence to look for a better path to follow.

Most of the art that we are putting into museums, decorating our city with, and publishing in books about art should be removed. The only people who should be looking at those artists are the historians who are trying to understand how our culture has been influenced by crime networks, money laundering, mental illness, technology, and the free enterprise system.

Before we decorate the city with something, we should put it through an "art test". Specifically, randomly mix it in with other art items and then observe people to see if many of them pick it out as being worthy of decorating the city with. However, we should observe only the adults that we regard as respectable. We should not care what teenagers, idiots, alcoholics, badly behaved people, or children find attractive.

I also suggest that we restrict all of the public decorations to those that stimulate pleasant emotions, rather than confusion, fear, anger, pouting, sadness, or suicide. For example, optical illusions, such as the two below, are interesting the first time we see them, and they are acceptable for temporary decorations, such as for a city festival, but I think they are irritating as long-term decorations.






The checkered floor (above, right) is supposed to stop people from running down the hallway, but that policy is as idiotic as putting locks on our doors to stop burglars. Optical illusions will stop a person from running only the first time they see the illusion.

Instead of ruining the appearance of a city in an attempt to prevent bad behavior, we should design the city for us to enjoy, and we should restrict or evict the badly behaved people.

A lot of the sculptures in the world today are clever, interesting, or amusing when we first see them, such as the three below (search for "public sculpture"), but they can become dreary, stupid, or ugly after a few years. (Search for "ugly public art".)




We get tired of art, but not nature

All of us enjoy looking at trees, flowers, hummingbirds, and creeks. We enjoy nature so much that we decorate our yard with paths, flowers, and trees, and we decorate our home with paintings of nature. Many of us also enjoy wandering around in a forest, city park, or botanical garden simply to enjoy nature. Images of nature are also popular as background images on our computers.

The reason we enjoy nature so much is because we evolved to enjoy nature. The prehistoric humans who were the most successful in life were those who loved their environment.

Humans have not adapted to concrete, asphalt, automobiles, litter, or telephone wires. Also, we have not evolved to enjoy optical illusions, sharp edges, modern art, or extreme contrast in objects, such as black and white stripes.

Imagine living in a city in which you have two different footpaths to walk on to get to your job each day. One path allows you to pass by trees, creeks, birds, and flowers, and the other path takes you along hundreds of modern art sculptures, like the three in the photos above.

Initially, you might enjoy both paths, but most people would eventually become tired of the "clever" and "fascinating" artwork, whereas nobody would become tired of nature.

Furthermore, some man-made sculptures can become irritating, such as the spider in the photo above. The reason is that we have an inherent fear or dislike of certain animals, such as snakes, spiders, rats, and wolves. Therefore, a city that is decorated with drawings or sculptures of those creatures will stimulate unpleasant feelings. Spiders and rats are a part of nature, but we did not evolve a desire to live with them.

Although we evolved to enjoy people, artwork of people can be irritating if it is so realistic that it stimulates our emotions, such as the murals below. (Here are dozens more).






We are social animals, so our brain was designed to analyze visual images in order to find such things as human faces. Also, our mind was designed to interact with people, not ignore them. Therefore, when a city has realistic paintings of people – especially people who are looking at us, shooting an arrow at us, or waving at us – our emotions will be triggered over and over as we walk around the city. That emotional stimulation might be interesting the first time we experience it, but it becomes annoying after a while.

Some things are tolerable only in small quantities

Another concept to keep in mind when decorating a city is that a lot of things are acceptable or tolerable only when a small number of people are doing it. In regards to art, if a city has only a few murals of realistic people, it might not bother us, but if the city was decorated with thousands of realistic people, we would find it irritating.

To understand this concept, consider two different cities that are identical. One city has hundreds of gardens scattered around the buildings, and each garden has different types of flowers, fountains, trees, and rocks. The other city has sculptures and artwork scattered around the buildings, and many of the sculptures are of spiders, optical illusions, and abstract art. Also, some of the murals are of people that are looking at us, waving at us, and shooting arrows at us.

Everybody would agree that the city with the gardens is the most beautiful. Everybody would enjoy wandering around that city to look at the gardens, and we would never get tired of the gardens. We would enjoy having a home that looked out onto one of the gardens, and we would enjoy relaxing in a garden, or having a meal in a garden.

By comparison, the other city would be interesting only for a brief period of time. We would quickly get tired of wandering around the city to look at statues of spiders, abstract art, and optical illusions. We would also get tired of looking out of our window and seeing a painting of a person shooting an arrow at us, or seeing a statue of a rat.

There are not many people, if any, who fill their yard with abstract art, sculptures of spiders, or optical illusions. Virtually everybody fills their yard with plants, flowers, trees, ponds, rocks, or grass.

We evolved to enjoy an ever-changing natural environment

Animals evolved for an environment that is in a slow but perpetual state of change. For example, the trees and plants grow and die; the tilting of the Earth causes the weather to change throughout the year; the birds, butterflies, and other animals appear for certain seasons and migrate during other seasons; and the water level in the creeks rises and falls. We evolved to enjoy that slow but constantly changing aspect of nature. We did not evolve for an environment that is exactly the same year after year, decade after decade.

However, in a free enterprise system, we have a tendency to live in one home with one style of furniture and artwork for decades because of the expense and difficulty of changing the decorations. I think our lives would be more "natural" if we could easily change the decorations in our homes.

This is one of the reasons that I suggest we make all of the apartments identical, and to design them with fixtures in the walls that enable us to replace the decorations by ourselves, and without special tools or glues. It is also why I suggest eliminating copyrights and royalties. The arts and crafts clubs should be free to create copies or modifications of all artwork. It is absurd to let people copyright art, especially of dead artists.

These policies will allow everybody to decorate their home by picking up furniture and decorations from the stores, and giving them back to the city when they want to redecorate their home. The city would clean the items, recycle those that are worn out, and put the useful items back into a store to be used again. This will allow us to avoid becoming bored with our home decorations.

Home furnishings must be more durable

In order for us to be successful with the sharing of home furnishings, the items must be much higher quality and more durable than they are in a free enterprise system. All of the furniture, picture frames, and lamps need to be strong enough to resist twisting and breaking so that we can easily transport them to and from the stores. The heavy objects will need high quality wheels and bearings, rather than delicate, plastic, caster wheels.

Will we want to sleep on a used mattress?

The Kastron government will scatter furniture stores around the city to provide people with free beds, chairs, lamps, paintings, carpets, and other furnishings. Initially every item will be "new", but when people redecorate their homes, they will become "used" items.

We could also let people give a mattress back to the city, but would you want to sleep on a mattress that has already been in possibly a dozen other apartments, and used by a dozen other people?

Would you want to put a chair in your home, or hang a painting on your wall, that has already been in lots of different apartments and used by different people?

Whether we enjoy sharing home furnishings depends on our attitude. The human mind has the ability to set up a "feedback loop" in order to stimulate itself. We can easily work ourselves into a frenzy by repeatedly stimulating ourself with the image that we are sleeping on a mattress that a dozen other people have already slept in, had sex on, and coughed in.

Likewise, we can work ourselves into a frenzy over the concept that we are sitting in an airplane seat that thousands of other people have already sat in, and that we are sleeping in a hotel bed that thousands of people have slept in, and that we are sleeping on the bed sheets, pillowcases, and pillows that possibly hundreds of people have slept on, coughed into, and accidentally peed into.

Furthermore, we can torment ourselves over the realization that we are sitting in a restaurant chair that thousands of people have sat in, and that we are drinking from glasses and using the plates, forks, and spoons that thousands of people have already put into their filthy mouths. We can also become upset by reminding ourselves that the dentist is putting tools into our mouth that have been in the mouths of hundreds of other people.

Likewise, all of the single people can torment themselves over the thought that their potential spouse has already been "used" by somebody else.

Whether we enjoy sharing home furnishings and other items depends upon our decisions. If we choose to set high standards for the people in Kastron, and if we choose to make high quality items, and if we choose to clean and maintain the items, we will benefit tremendously by sharing items.

Since we are capable of sharing spoons, forks, dental tools, and other items that we put into our mouth, I suggest that we also consider providing the bathrooms of restaurants with water flossing devices. When we are finished using the device, instead of placing the wand in a stand, we would put it into a cleaner/sanitizer, and leave it there. It would then be automatically washed and sanitized, making it just as clean and sterile as dental tools.

This would be a convenient way to clean our teeth without having to go home. However, this requires making public bathrooms more spacious and pleasant. It also requires raising boys differently so that they become men who are relaxed in a bathroom, rather than paranoid that the other men will see their penis.

We could also design the bathrooms with different architectural styles in order to make them more interesting, including variations that resemble the bathrooms at the Madonna Inn in California. Public bathrooms do not have to be miserable.

Sharing "used" items becomes a problem only when we live among irresponsible people, or when businesses create low quality items. Also, whether we enjoy "used" items depends upon our attitude. For example, many people enjoy items that are very old, and which have been used by many people, such as furniture or art from a previous century.

It does not matter whether our material items are "new" or "used". Our happiness does not depend upon material items. It is our mind that determines whether we enjoy a used item, or whether we cry about it.

We need restrictions on “architectural freedom

A man in Amsterdam created some videos, such as this, in which he insults tall apartment buildings as "living in a concrete box". He also suggests that we do not restrict a person's architectural freedom, or discriminate against who is living in our neighborhoods. He promotes the typical attitude that we should allow people to have more freedom.

Apparently, he enjoys living in a city in which the homes and other buildings are as different from one another as those in the photos below, but most of us do not enjoy it. (Click the links below to see dozens of unusual homes and buildings.)




A Belgian house
Another Belgian house
A Frank Gehry design


We cannot design a city to please everybody. We must make a decision on who among us we want to appease. At one extreme are the people who want a city in which everybody is free to create any type of architecture they please, and at the other extreme are people who want a city that is extremely orderly.

Most people want things to be orderly, but only to a certain extent. For example, we organize the items in our closet, and when we create gardens, we organize the plants, rocks, and trees. Very few people, if any, place things at random locations in their home or yard.



We store tools in an efficient manner,
but not the items in our home.

It is also important to note that we rarely put things in the most efficient locations, except for work tools. For example, we often put tools into wire baskets, on pegboards, or on hooks, such as in the photo to the right, but in our homes, offices, and restaurants, we put almost everything into cabinets and drawers, and we cover them with decorative doors, handles, and hinges.

The doors make it more difficult for us to find and access items, but our mind is more interested in a visually attractive environment than an efficient environment.

Everybody wants their home and city to be visually attractive, but the genetic and environmental differences between us cause us to disagree on what is visually pleasant.

A home that some of us consider to be neat will be considered sloppy by somebody else, and a city that some people consider to be beautiful will be considered monotonous or ugly by somebody else.

The squeaky human wheels should not get the grease!

It looks nice to repeat something over and over in a pattern. For example, a floor looks nice when we repeat tiles or pieces of wood, and a hairbrush and comb look nice when we repeat the pattern of bristles and teeth.

Some people consider a city to look nice when we repeat a building over and over, such as in the two photographs below, but I find a city to be unpleasant, monotonous, and dreary when buildings are repeated like that.





Identical houses in Mexico.
More here.

Identical houses in China.
Search for "identical houses"


Since we disagree on what is visually pleasant, how do we decide who we should please when designing a city?

In a democracy, a lot of decisions are made according to who does the most whining. This policy could be described as "The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease". However, this policy is detrimental because it encourages "squeaky behavior".

I suggest that we design our city, products, social activities, school curriculum, and everything else according to the people who have the characteristics that we want for the future generations. This will create a city that the future generations will also enjoy. We should not pander to, or be intimidated by, the people who accuse us of hurting their feelings, violating their rights, or denying them their freedom.

I suggest “architectural discrimination” rather than diversity

Some people want the architecture in every city to be a random mix of styles, which we could describe as "architectural diversity". However, I think we will create a more pleasant city when we allow every neighborhood to have the freedom to "discriminate" against its architecture and decorations. There will be diversity between the neighborhoods, but within a neighborhood there will be discrimination. This will allow every neighborhood to be unique, which in turn will make the city more interesting to explore.

My suggestion is that Kastron consist of neighborhoods that are surrounded by parks. This isolates every neighborhood, which allows the cluster of buildings in each neighborhood to have their own architectural style without clashing with the style of other neighborhoods.

I think a city that promotes "architectural diversity" is ugly, even if each of the buildings is attractive. For example, an architect in Bolivia, Freddy Mamani, created some unique buildings (the photos below), but they are scattered around Bolivia at random.




If all of the buildings in one neighborhood in Kastron had his style of architecture, that neighborhood would probably be very attractive, but I don't think his architecture looks nice when it is randomly mixed with other styles.

By giving every neighborhood in Kastron its own unique architectural style, we would create a city in which we enjoy exploring the neighborhoods. We would have less of an interest in traveling to foreign cities and more of an interest in enjoying the city that we live in.

The city should practice “vegetation discrimination

The same concept applies to the city parks. Instead of scattering flowers, trees, and bushes at random throughout the city, I suggest that different areas of the city have different vegetation so that as we wander around the city we encounter different trees, bushes, flowers, ponds, and rock formations.

A city would be attractive even if we scattered plants at random, but in that type of city, we would not have any incentive to explore the parks because all of them would be identical to one another.

One of the fascinating things about the Earth is that as we travel around, we encounter different types of rocks, creeks, trees, flowers, ponds, and bushes. The Earth does not practice diversity.

If we design a city so that the vegetation changes throughout the city, then we will enjoy wandering around the city to observe the variety. Likewise, the city will be more fun to explore when we give all of the foot paths, bicycle paths, foot bridges, plazas, and swimming areas different designs.

That type of city will also make it easier for us to notice some of the plants and trees. For example, we might not notice a Jacaranda tree if it is scattered among other trees, but if a group of them are in a particular area, like this, the incredible display of purple flowers will grab our attention. The same is true when we encounter a patch of blooming cherry trees, or a patch of maple trees that are changing their colors in the autumn.





When we explore Kastron, or when we walk or ride a bicycle to work, we will encounter patches of  Jacaranda trees, succulents, wisteria, lilies, and other types of vegetation.
We should make the foot paths, bicycle paths, plazas, and ponds in different shapes and designs, and with different types of bricks, tiles, woods, and rocks.


Another technique to increase the beauty of the city is to create some patches in which a variety of small plants are randomly mixed together. Although the plants will be randomly mixed with a patch, each of the patches will be unique. An example are the variety of plants around the foot paths in the photos below.






I think that designing the city in that manner will give us even more reason to get out of our house and occasionally take a walk, ride a bicycle, or drift through the canals in a rowboat simply to enjoy the variety of vegetation, ponds, creeks, footpaths, and buildings.

Recreational areas should be attractive

No society yet cares whether their city is visually attractive. This results in many recreational areas that are ugly. For example, a swimming pool is usually a rectangular pit that is lined with concrete and surrounded by concrete. And a tennis court is as ugly as a parking lot, and the courts that are surrounded by chain link fences look like they belong in a prison. Can you figure out which photo below is of a prison?






The Kastron government has total control of the social and recreational activities, and in addition to experimenting with activities that are more beneficial, they are also required to look for ways to make the activities more visually attractive.

One technique to improve the appearance of our recreational areas is to alter the activities so that they can be played on grass rather than on slabs of asphalt or concrete. This requires prohibiting cleats and other types of shoes and equipment that destroys the grass. An additional benefit to playing on grass is that it will reduce injuries.

Another goal of the Kastron government is to design recreational activities that don't need much land, and don't need chain link fences or nets to prevent balls and other items from flying out of the area. Golf, soccer, tennis, baseball, and other sports would not need fences, and would use much less land, simply by making the balls softer. That has the additional benefit of reducing injuries.

By experimenting with recreational activities, we will slowly find ways to modify them to be more beneficial, safer, and more fun. In addition, the city will be more beautiful without the ugly slabs of concrete and asphalt, sand traps for golf courses, and chain link fences.

Better cities require better guidance and less freedom



Why are our cities so miserable?
Why are the existing cities so unpleasant? Why do they have so much crime, overcrowding, noise, transportation problems, and ugly structures?

One reason is that we give people a tremendous amount of freedom, and we almost always choose to do what our emotions want, rather than think about what is best for society.

Another reason is that we continuously provide ourselves with incompetent and corrupt government officials who don't provide much guidance in the design of cities.

And the reason that cities have high crime rates and graffiti is simply because lots of people choose to get involved with such activities.

During the past few centuries, all nations have been decreasing the authority of their governments and giving more control of society to the public. The men who created the U.S. Constitution took that concept to an extreme by making everybody in a leadership position pander to the public.

Unfortunately, the USA has proven that putting a nation in the hands of the public is not the solution to bad leadership. One reason is because most people are easily tricked into supporting corrupt and incompetent governments, and another reason is that the majority of people will always make "ordinary" or "average" decisions about how to manage the economy, school system, recreational affairs, city design, and everything else. The majority of people will never provide "good" leadership, and especially not "excellent" leadership.

Our modern world is so complex that most men cannot provide sensible guidance to themselves, their wife, or their children, so it is absurd to allow them to influence our nations and our future.

We cannot improve our cities, reduce crime, or prevent overcrowding by giving people more freedom. We must experiment with methods to provide ourselves with better leadership, and we must restrict the freedom of the public so that they don't have so many opportunities to cause trouble for themselves and other people. The public needs better guidance and less freedom.

We need to identify the men who are truly interested in improving society, rather than pleasing themselves. We need men who have the courage to experiment with our options, look critically at themselves, listen to alternative opinions, and do what is best for the human race.

The drawing below shows a city with automobiles, and the artist used straight lines for almost everything, but perhaps that image will inspire you to think about what we could do with a city. For example, we could design foot paths, plazas, and bicycle paths that have curves rather than straight lines; we could create buildings that are attractive and colorful; and we could put the transportation system underground.

If we start discussing our options with cities, we will undoubtedly discover that some of us have some useful ideas. In order to discover what our talents are, we must push ourselves into thinking different thoughts. We cannot be afraid of failure. So, push yourself into thinking about cities and culture. You may discover some talents that you were unaware of.


We could decorate a city after moving into it

Creating a completely new city, with all of the decorations that we would want, would require a lot of labor and time. It would be much easier to create the buildings and other structures that we need to survive, and then move in before the city is complete.

This gives us time to become accustomed to the city, and to think about how to decorate it with tiles, swimming areas, foot bridges, creeks, doors, bicycle paths, trees, flowers, and stained glass windows. This will increase the chances that we choose details and decorations that will be appreciated for centuries.

As described in the previous document of this series, I suggest the city encourage hobbies that create decorative things for the city, such as "jigsaw mosaics". That will allow all of us the opportunity to get involved with decorating the city, which will provide us with the pleasure of doing something that other people appreciate, and it will help us to feel as if the city belongs to us rather than to a business or government.

Suggestions for apartment buildings

Our buildings should survive for centuries

My suggestion for Kastron is that it be clusters of tall buildings, but many of the tall buildings that were constructed since the late 1800s were torn down after only 40 to 80 years. Although some of them were torn down only so that they could be replaced with a larger building, we must design buildings that are more durable and easier to maintain. It would be absurd to create a new city if the buildings have a lifetime of only 40 to 80 years.

Some of the buildings that were created centuries ago are still standing, even though they were made with primitive technology. How could they create buildings that are more durable than ours?

I don't know anything about architecture, so this section is merely to encourage the people who have experience with this issue to think about it. How do we design tall buildings that have a lifetime of centuries?

Architects do not have to appease consumers

One advantage that we have in Kastron is that we don't have to design buildings to appease consumers. This allows us to create buildings that are easier to construct and maintain. We want the buildings to be visually attractive, of course, but we can do things that would be considered unacceptable in a free enterprise system, such as leaving some of the bolts and fixtures exposed.

For example, the photos below show old-fashioned elevators (click them for more photos). The advantage with that type of elevator is that we can easily see if any of the cables are worn, or if any of the steel is rusting, or if dirt is accumulating on the moving components. It also makes it easy to get access to the components for greasing and cleaning. Exposing the items will also make it easier for robots to inspect the components.








Our ancestors created elevators with exposed components because their technology was primitive. As technology improved, engineers hid more of the elevator components. However, there will be no peasant class in Kastron, so engineers should be under pressure to reduce unnecessary labor.

The engineers should be concerned with what mechanics have to say about the maintenance of the product, and with what the people at the recycling centers complain about, not with what consumers want.

For example, many modern buildings are covered in sheets of glass or granite, but does that provide us with durable buildings that are easy to maintain? Or is it merely to titillate consumers or investors?

We should also consider whether the gigantic windows of modern buildings, such as those that extend from floor to ceiling, are practical. If a building is significantly more durable and easier to maintain with smaller windows, then we should "suffer" with smaller windows, as in the Pierre Hotel (photo below, left). Likewise, it might be best to leave the mounting hardware for the windows exposed to make it easier to install and replace the windows.

Furthermore, it is much easier to build sections of the walls, and an entire apartment or office room, on the ground, (photo below, right), so we should look for a way to make the buildings more modular.






The Pierre Hotel is not
covered in sheets of glass.

Creating walls, or entire apartments, in a factory also allows them to be more precise.



Walls could be designed for snap-in panels

If we can figure out how to create modular walls or rooms on the ground in a factory, the walls would have enough precision that we could create modular panels that snap into the walls, thereby allowing us to install and change the decorations of the apartment without damaging the walls, or requiring tools or chemicals.

Businesses are already producing a variety of panels for walls, ceilings, and floors, but most of them are meant for businesses, so most of them have an "industrial appearance", such as those below.






I suggest we consider making modular panels that are much more decorative so that we can use them in our homes, social clubs, restaurants, and other facilities. Furthermore, we could make the panels so durable that we can remove them and replace them when we want to change the artistic style of our home. We would give the panels back to the city, and the employees would clean them, and put them back for somebody else to use.

It is impossible to create useful, snap-in panels in a free enterprise system because there is no authority to organize and coordinate the businesses, but the Kastron government has total control of the economy. This will allow the government to ensure that all of the panels are durable and compatible. All of the panels can be of specific sizes so that nobody has to bother measuring anything, or cutting any of them to fit. All of the apartments could also use modular ceiling panels, such as in the photo below.



Furthermore, the government will be in control of the design of every structure of the city, and that allows them to require the architects to design rooms of specific sizes so that the modular panels fit perfectly. In other words, if the modular panels have a size of one half by one meter, then the architects would design rooms on a one meter grid.

We should sacrifice some freedoms to reduce undesirable chores

The current method of putting wallpaper, moldings, mirrors, lights, wood paneling, tiles, and other decorations in our homes is to attach them with nails, screws, glues, and cement. The problem with that method is that when we want to replace a damaged section, or change the artistic style of the home, we have to destroy the walls, tiles, wallpaper, moldings, and other decorations. Businesses profit from this destruction, but it is a waste of labor and resources. Furthermore, the wealthy people often destroy materials that are in excellent condition.

We would save a lot of labor and resources by creating apartments that are empty shells that have mounting fixtures in the walls, ceiling, and floor. Those fixtures would allow us to attach and remove "base panels". Each of the base panels would have the wallpaper, tiles, moldings, wood strips, and other items permanently attached to it.

We would first attach base panels to the fixtures in the floor, wall, and ceiling. This would set the artistic style of the home. Then we would attach mirrors, paintings, lights, and other items to those base panels.

For example, in the photo below, left, the panels have three-dimensional molding. Although those panels were designed to be permanently attached to a wall, we could make them snap into fixtures in the wall.




We first attach base panels to fixtures in the wall, such as these white or dark brown panels.
Then we attach paintings, mirrors, lights, and other items to the fixtures in the base panels.


All of the apartments would be exactly the same dimensions, and all of the base panels would be designed to exactly fit the walls. We would never have to measure the walls or cut any of the panels.

Some base panels would have fixtures for mounting lights, mirrors, paintings, shelves, monitors, and other types of decorations and items. After we install the base panels, we attach whatever items we want on the walls. If we did not want to attach something to one of the fixtures, we could cover it with a plug.

Creating homes that have fixtures in the wall for base panels, and creating durable base panels that have fixtures for mounting lamps, computer monitors, televisions, paintings, and other items, and adding fixtures to all of the picture frames, lamps, and other items that fit into the base panels, will require a lot more work than compared to how we are building homes today, but it will eventually save a lot of labor and resources.

This concept also allows us to give back the televisions, paintings, mirrors, and other items when we get tired of them. If the items were in good shape, the city employees would clean them and put them back in the store for somebody else to use.

My recommendation is for businesses to be prohibited from producing paints, solvents, construction tools, and construction materials for consumers. Kastron would not have any hardware stores. Nobody would be allowed to permanently modify an apartment, office building, or other structure. However, everybody would be free to replace any or all of the modular panels for the walls, ceiling, and floor.

The photos below show moldings and wallpaper that are attached to the walls with glue and nails, but we could attach the moldings and wallpaper to base panels instead, and then snap the base panels into fixtures in the wall.






By creating the base panels with high precision, the joints between them would be thin lines, which would not ruin the visual appearance. In fact, some of the panels could be designed so that the joints are part of the decoration, such as the panels of imitation rock in the photo below, left. In addition to being decorative, some panels would contain fixtures for mounting paintings, mirrors, lights (below right), or shelves.





The modular panels would make it easy for people to replace broken or worn panels, and to change the artistic decorations in their home by themselves without any fumes, noise, tools, dust, paint, or glues. By making high quality, durable panels, when somebody gets tired of them, he can give them back to the city and let someone else use them. That would save a lot of labor and resources compared to a free enterprise system, in which construction crews demolish the existing moldings and wallpaper, and toss them in the trash.

Can we figure out how to make modular bathrooms?

Businesses are already creating toilets that can be installed and replaced without special tools. The only problem is that the free enterprise system allows businesses to produce toilets with different dimensions and plumbing connections, and this results in us occasionally having problems getting a toilet to fit a particular bathroom. In Kastron, the government will force all of the businesses to design plumbing fixtures that follow standards, so everything will be compatible.

Since it is possible for a toilet to be installed and replaced without tools, nails, cement, or glue, we should design sinks and showers that can be replaced just as easily. Instead of permanently attaching sinks and showers to the wall of the bathroom, we could build modular sinks and showers in a factory, roll them into the bathroom, and attach them to the plumbing fixtures. That will make a bathroom look like it has "furniture" rather than "sinks" and "showers", as in the photos below, but that will not ruin our lives.






The modular bathroom units make it easy for us to swap them with a different style when we get tired of one. For example, the shower unit in the photo above has a sauna function, and if we wanted to switch it with a smaller unit without a sauna, we would give it back to the city and replace it with some other shower unit. The city employees would clean the unit and put it back in the store for somebody else to use.

How would we get a large, heavy shower unit into an apartment without destroying the floor or walls of the apartment? The simplest method is to provide the apartments with larger doors, but we ought to consider putting the bathrooms next to the hallways, and have a removable panel that provides access to the bathroom.

In our current nations, that method would be unacceptable because it would give burglars access to our bathrooms, and it would allow obnoxious people to play disgusting pranks on one another, but by setting high standards for the people in Kastron, that becomes an acceptable option.

The diagram below shows two apartments for adults that do not have children, which will be described in more detail later in this document. We could put the bathrooms next to the apartment hallways, and cover the entrance to the bathroom with a panel that is held in place with screws. By removing those screws, the panel could be removed to provide access to the shower, sink, toilet, and base panels.





All of the bathrooms in all of the apartments in Kastron would have exactly the same size and dimensions, and use the same mounting fixtures and plumbing fixtures. That would make it easy for businesses to produce bathroom components that fit perfectly into the bathrooms. Nobody would have to measure or cut any of the base panels, and nobody would have to be concerned about incompatible sinks or other items.

Use room dividers to separate an apartment into sections

My suggestion is to make each apartment for childless adults as one large room, and the apartments for families would be two rooms, one for the adults and one for the children. Rather than have the architects divide the apartments up into separate rooms, we would use movable room dividers if we want to separate our apartment into separate rooms.

Likewise, instead of building closets into the apartment, we would use freestanding closets that are built in a factory and rolled into the apartments, similar to these armoires.

Businesses are already producing a variety of room dividers and armoires, but they are not intended for people to share, so they tend to be low quality.

In the previous document of this series, I suggested having only four styles of apartments. Three of those styles would be for adults, and one would be for teenagers. Since the teenagers live in Teentown for only a few years, they would not be allowed to make changes to the apartments, but the adults would be provided with a variety of room dividers.

If we wanted to split our apartment into two or more rooms, we would pick up whatever style room divider we wanted, and when we got tired of it, we would give it back to the city.

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of room dividers, there are an infinite number of possibilities. For example, the two photos below show dividers that do not extend from one wall to the other, which allows us to walk from one section of the room to the other without opening doors.





A divider can be a very thin mural or mirror that doesn't take up much floor space.
Or it could be a 3D sculpture or an iridescent tile mosaic with shelves.


Most people today assume that it is best to provide each child with his own bedroom, separated by solid walls, but I suspect that young children will be more comfortable in a room in which they have separate areas as a result of room dividers because that will let them see and hear one another so that they don't feel alone.

The two photos below show dividers that we can see through. A divider can be strings of beads of various densities, wooden latticework, or lace fabrics. A divider can also be fabric materials with tiny LED lights scattered within them.




This divider has a strip of cork to post things on, and does not extend to the ceiling so that items can be placed on top of it.
The dividers can have built-in desks, drawers, or tables.

The room dividers could also use curtains, such as in the photo below of a cruise ship cabin.



The photos below show room dividers that completely separate an apartment into independent rooms.




These dividers create independent rooms.
These dividers also reduce sound.


Modular panels put restrictions on our freedom

A disadvantage to the concept of base panels that have fixtures that allow us to mount lights, shelves, televisions, mirrors, and other items is that we are restricted to mounting the items at the fixtures, rather than anywhere on the wall that we please. Although this restricts our freedom to decorate our home, the benefits are tremendous. For example:



It eliminates all of the labor and resources involved with repairing the damage that we cause when we use nails or glue.


The fixtures make it easy to install and replace items. We would never waste time measuring items, or trying to figure out what type of hook, fixture, bolt, screw, or bracket we need to hang an item.


The paintings, monitors, and other items would be perfectly aligned, and never become crooked.


The lamps, monitors, and other items that need electricity or Internet connections would get it through the fixtures, thereby eliminating power cords and other wires.


We will never bother our neighbors with the noise from pounding nails into the wall.

The photo below shows this concept. The painting at #1 is in a frame that has fixtures on its rear that fit the fixtures in the base panels, which in turn are attached to fixtures in the wall.

The monitor at #2 also has fixtures on its rear that attach to the fixtures in the room divider (#3). The monitor could be used as a computer monitor, phone, and television. Unlike the painting, the fixtures on the rear of the monitor would have pins to access the electricity and Internet. The room divider would also have a short cable to access the electricity and Internet in one of the sockets in the ceiling, wall, or floor.




In the image above, the monitor is displaying the video from a camera at a restaurant to verify that the robotic chef is working properly. Since the businesses will not be fighting and cheating one another, they will not be afraid that their competitors will see what is going on in their factories, so they will be able to install more cameras that provide live video views, thereby allowing employees to ensure that the machines, scientific experiments, farm animals, and water drainage ditches are working properly.

If people can get over their paranoia of being observed, doctors could put cameras into hospital rooms so that they could observe and talk to their patients.

If a person did not want a monitor on the room divider at #2, he could attach a painting, mirror, shelf, or sculpture. Likewise, the painting at #1 could have been a monitor, tapestry, or light fixture. If a person did not want to install anything at a fixture, he could install a plug to cover it up and keep it clean.

The photo below shows a room on a cruise ship. An apartment for a single adult or a married couple without children doesn't need to be any larger than that. The monitor (#4) would allow a person to watch a television documentary, make reservations at a restaurant, or make a video phone call. In the cruise ship, the room divider (#5), is permanently attached to the ship, but in the apartment it would be movable and replaceable. The base panels on the wall (#6), have moldings and wallpaper, and a lamp is attached to one of them, and it gets electricity from the base panel so that it doesn't need a power cord. Likewise, the base panels that are attached to the ceiling (#7), provide electricity to the light fixtures that are attached to them.



Will we suffer by living in small and identical apartments?

My proposal for Kastron is to make all four types of apartments to be small, and identical in size and shape.We will not have the freedom to alter the size or shape of the apartments. We will only have the freedom to change the removable base panels, decorations, and furnishings inside the apartment. Will we enjoy living in small apartments that are identical to what everybody else lives in?

The people who live on a boat, space station, oil derrick, or submarine live in very small homes, and they do not have the freedom to change the size or shape of their home. They only have the freedom to alter the decorations in their home. Are they suffering?

It is useful to consider that some wealthy people have chosen to live in hotels, resorts, or cruise ships. This puts tremendous restrictions on what they can do with their home because it is not their home. Furthermore, some of those hotel rooms and cruise ship cabins are smaller than the homes that some "ordinary" people live in. Also, some of those rooms do not have kitchens, laundry facilities, or dining rooms.

Are those wealthy people suffering as a result of living in a small home, and not having the freedom to modify the size or shape of their home?

We could describe those wealthy people as having more freedom than the rest of us, and as living like pampered Kings and Queens. For example:



They are free of the maintenance and repairs of a home.


Since they get their meals from restaurants, they are free of the burden of purchasing groceries, cooking meals, and cleaning up the mess.


Since they give their dirty clothing to the hotel to clean, they are free of the burden of washing their clothing, and free of the chores of purchasing and maintaining laundry equipment and supplies


They are free of gardening chores because they don't own any land.

Freedom is a complex issue. There are advantages and disadvantages to all freedoms. It is senseless for people to demand more freedom. We should instead analyze freedoms and determine which of them are truly beneficial, and which are wasteful, idiotic, or destructive.

My suggestions for the Kastron apartments will put a lot of restrictions on our freedom, but those restrictions provide us with tremendous benefits. For example:



We will not need to put labor or resources into providing the public with construction materials, tools, or supplies.


Nobody will be bothered by construction noise, dust, or vibrations.


It will prevent people from painting or modifying an apartment in a manner that they find attractive, but which almost nobody else does, which then causes the next resident of the apartment to want to change it, thereby wasting time, labor, and resources.


Since all of the plumbing fixtures, electrical connections, and other items for the homes will follow standards set by the government, the factories will not need to produce so many variations of those items. This will reduce labor and resources, and the warehouses will not have to stock so many products. We will have fewer and/or smaller factories and warehouses.


The engineers will not have to waste their time producing trivial variations of bolts, fixtures, and other items.

We will benefit by experimenting

None of us knows enough about the human mind to figure out what type of city we would be happiest with, and how we should deal with the different desires of different people. We must be willing to experiment with ourselves. We are not going to hurt ourselves. If we decide that we don't like something, we experiment with something else. As long as we react to problems by thinking, rather than with panic, hysteria, pouting, and whining, we will benefit from the experiments because no matter what happens, we will learn more about human behavior, culture, and cities.

Nobody should have to commit to a hobby

In previous documents, such as this, I pointed out that most leisure activities are a waste of our time and resources. In addition to experimenting with leisure activities to make them more satisfying and useful, I recommend that the government only support public hobbies, as opposed to hobbies that people do by themselves at their home. The previous document of this series used jigsaw puzzles as an example.



Instead of making things by and for ourselves, we will use better equipment and supplies to create things for the city.
Therefore, the city will not provide any hobby equipment or supplies for consumers to use in their home. Instead, the city will provide lots of social clubs that provide hobbies, and only those clubs will be provided with equipment and supplies. People who want to get involved with a hobby will go to one of those social clubs.

In order to encourage people to experiment with a hobby, the clubs will not require anybody to commit to a hobby. The attitude in Kastron is that the clubs are essentially the recreation rooms of our giant mansion, so they belong to each of us, not to a private business. The clubs are analogous to a public park, restaurant, or museum.

This attitude allows us to get involved with any of the clubs without any commitment. We can show up only once a year if we want to. Also, we can wander into any club simply to observe the people, just as we can wander into a city park to observe the people.

By not supporting home hobbies, we don't have to produce low cost, low quality hobby items and supplies for the individual citizens. We can instead create higher quality equipment and supplies for the clubs.

The clubs would allow us to create items that we would never be able to create in our home, and we would be much more comfortable because we would work on large tables in a spacious club, rather than work on the floor or on a small table in our home.

We would also have access to high-quality CNC equipment, kilns, 3D printers, robots, and other tools. And we would be in contact with people who have more experience with the equipment, thereby allowing us to learn from them.






The clubs would provide us with equipment that we could never afford, such as this CNC laser machine that is cutting wood.

The advanced equipment would allow us to create things that we could never create in our home.

The clubs would make it easy for us to create things for the city, such as modular panels for the walls, ceilings, and floors in our homes, restaurants, offices, and lounges. The photos below show some flooring designs that would be difficult to do in our home, but a club with advanced equipment would make it easy for us to create modular panels with those type of designs.




With a "pick and place" robot, we would design a tile mosaic but let the robot find and attach the appropriate pieces of colored tile.
Mixing rock and wood into modular panels would be easier when we can work at a table and have access to high-quality cutting tools.
With CNC equipment, we could make ceramic and glass tiles of any shape, rather than be limited to squares, circles, and rectangles.


Since we are selfish creatures, we have a tendency to want to do things for ourselves, but everybody benefits much more when we get involved with hobbies that do things for the city. Some reasons are:


We get more satisfaction from life when we do things with other people.


We get tremendous satisfaction when we do things that other people appreciate.


We make the city increasingly beautiful.


When we create something for the city, that aspect of the city will have more emotional significance to us compared to when a stranger creates it.


When somebody we know creates something for the city, their creation will have more emotional significance to us compared to when a stranger creates it.

If most of the people in Kastron get involved occasionally with creating something for the city, then the city will be full of creations made by people we know. This will make the city feel like it is our personal home. For example, when we walk on a footbridge that a friend, spouse, or relative helped to create, it will mean a lot more to us than when we walk on a footbridge that was built by children in a factory in Pakistan.

Likewise, it will be more enjoyable to eat in a restaurant, work in a factory, relax in a lounge room, and attend a city festival when some of our friends and neighbors helped to create some of the tables, chairs, decorations, wall panels, or artwork.

We all benefit when we pressure one another into doing something beneficial for the city. Nobody suffers, everybody wins.

However, this custom requires high quality people who want to work for the benefit of the city, as opposed to the people who demand "artistic freedom" to do whatever they please, or who become furious when somebody dislikes their artwork.

Better people gives us more artistic variety

An additional benefit to living in a city with high quality people, and encouraging them to get involved with creating decorative items for the city, is that we will get more variety in the designs compared to when only a small number of people are producing decorative items.

Businesses are already providing us with so much variety, such as the wall panels, curtains, and decorations in the photos below, that it may seem impossible to create anything new, but it is very unlikely that we have reached the limit of human creativity.







If we can inspire more people to get involved with creating decorative items, we will get more variety.


By encouraging more people to get involved with creating furniture, foot paths, rowboats, murals, tiles, and other items for the city, we will provide the city with a wider variety of artistic styles and decorations for our apartments, restaurants, offices, factories, music theaters, lounge rooms, schools, and other facilities.







By having more people create decorations for public facilities, we will have a wider variety of architectural styles, lamps, furniture, and windows.
The wealthiest person with the largest mansion would not have as much variety in architecture and decorations as the people in Kastron.


In a free enterprise system, businesses prefer to create identical copies of themselves. For example, all of the McDonald's restaurants are identical. In Kastron, however, the emphasis is on human life, not on training us to recognize a business. Therefore, all of the restaurants, social clubs, recreational areas, and other facilities in the city will have different architecture and decorations.






Instead of spending every evening in the same home with the same furniture,
we will have a tremendous variety of lounge rooms, restaurants, and social clubs.


The goal of the government is to create a city that is so pleasant that we want to get out of our home and enjoy some of the social and recreational activities, and the parks and gardens, and the people we live with.

Apartments should be for humans, not trees

As I pointed out in other documents, every animal evolves to enjoy its particular environment. Gophers enjoy living in dark, dirt tunnels; polar bears enjoy living in snow; and frogs like living in ponds. Humans prefer living on the ground among grass, bushes, flowers, trees, creeks, and sunshine.

In the previous document of this series, I pointed out that every society is promoting the belief that a home with a "view" is better than a home that is on the ground. In reality, we are most satisfied when we are in very close contact with grass, bushes, flowers, butterflies, birds, creeks, and trees.

The manner in which we decorate homes and apartments provides evidence to support this theory. Specifically, we have an emotional craving to have plants and running water inside of our home. Furthermore, the paintings that we hang on our wall are frequently a view of nature that we get while standing on the ground, not the view from a penthouse apartment or rocket.

As a result of these emotional cravings, businesses provide us with lots of plants and cut flowers for our homes, and there are hundreds of variations of water fountains to allow us to simulate living near a creek.




Search the Internet images for "buildings covered in plants" to see some extreme examples.
Search the Internet images for "indoor water fountains" to get an idea of the variety.

Putting plants in the apartments, or on balconies, makes us feel better, but it has a lot of disadvantages. For example:



The buildings have to be designed to hold more weight.


The plants that attach themselves to surfaces will destroy the surface.


The water that drips out of the containers damages the building and supports the growth of mold and fungus.


The plants attract insects and rodents, which can get into the apartments.


Bringing cut flowers into our homes requires a tremendous amount of resources to grow the flowers, and then quickly transport and distribute them before they die.

The vegetation and creeks should be outside our homes

We want to live among nature, but I think we are hurting ourselves by trying to bring nature into our homes. I think we will have a much more satisfying life, and significantly reduce our need for labor and resources, by designing homes for sleeping and resting, and creating a city that is so enjoyable that we want to get out of our home whenever we want to enjoy nature. Our restaurants, social clubs, factories, and offices should be surrounded by nature, not by parking lots, asphalt roads, noisy automobiles, or graffiti.

We should prohibit people from putting plants, fountains, terrariums, and aquariums in their apartments. Instead, the city should support social clubs for the people who enjoy taking care of plants and animals. Those clubs would let them get together with other people to take care of plants at the restaurants, city parks, gardens, plazas, swimming areas, and office buildings. That will let them do something that everybody will appreciate and enjoy. Those social clubs will also provide them with better equipment and supplies, and people that they can learn from.





People who enjoy ponds and fish should provide them for our city rather than themselves.
People who enjoy working with plants should create gardens for our restaurants and social clubs.


We should design a city for people who are sociable

There are a lot of people who want to spend a lot of their life alone, but we should not design a city to appease those people. We should regard those people as anti-social misfits, even if they are extremely wealthy, talented, intelligent, or famous.



Instead of allowing pets, we could have something similar to this dog sanctuary.
I recommend that Kastron prohibit people from having plants, fountains, and animals in their home. This will put a lot of restrictions on our freedom, but all societies have been increasing the restrictions on what we can do in our homes, especially the people living in condominiums and apartments. I suggest increasing the restrictions so that apartments are only for humans, and primarily for sleeping.

The people who want pet animals should get together to create and maintain some type of animal reserve so that everybody can interact with animals without the animals making a mess of our apartments, walkways, or parks.

There is no right or wrong about what we can do in our homes. We simply have to decide what type of life we want. By prohibiting people from keeping animals, plants, and water fountains in their home, we reduce the number of insects and rodents in our apartment buildings, we reduce the water damage, and we reduce the noise, odors, animal poop, and allergens.

Do children need windows in their bedrooms?

As I write this document, there is a dispute about whether the college near my home should allow the Munger Hall dormitory in which the bedrooms do not have windows. By eliminating windows, it becomes possible to give each student his own bedroom.

This journalist claims that a jail is more desirable than Munger Hall. However, we should not be concerned with what people like or want. Instead, we should be concerned with what is the best for the students. We must consider the effect their home has on their attitudes and behavior.

Will the students become better adults when they have their own bedroom, or will they become better adults when they have a window? Will removing the window from their bedroom cause bad attitudes, or damage to their mind?

If we provide a window, does it matter what we see when we look out the window? For example, is it acceptable for a window to provide a view of a large, brick wall? What about a window that looks out onto a parking lot, or telephone wires, or a group of homeless people?



An LED light panel that simulates a stained-glass window.
The sailors on a submarine don't have windows, and many of the cabins on a cruise ship don't have windows, either. Are those people suffering as a result?

It is also important to note that many students who have windows in their dormitory right now are rarely opening the curtains because they don't spend much of the daytime in their dormitory.

Furthermore, many people open their curtains only to let light into their home, not because they want to look out the window, in which case they could replace their windows with a light panel, including decorative light panels, such as in the photo to the right.

In Kastron, the light panels will be free and easy to replace, thereby giving people the ability to replace a light panel whenever they get tired of the design.

We could also design a light panel that has an LCD panel in front of some or all of it so that we can have a computer change the design, or to display photos, or to simulate clouds blowing around while butterflies are landing on flowers.

A lot of people fantasize about living on Mars or the moon, but the scientifically accurate proposals don't provide windows in bedrooms, and the proposals to live underground don't have any windows.

Therefore, the people who whine that a bedroom without a window is a form of torture should be demanding that we terminate all of the projects to put colonies on Mars or the moon so that we don't torture the people who live there.

Why do we want windows in our home? It is because we are monkeys. We evolved to live among nature during the day, and to sleep in nature at night. This is the reason that many people like to hear noises at night, such as water running in a creek.

Unfortunately, it is impractical for us to live in a modern home while at the same time living in close contact with nature. We have to make some sacrifices, and I suggest we choose to make the homes small, and to put more of our resources into surrounding all of the buildings with beautiful parks and creeks.

I suggest designing the culture of Kastron to encourage us to spend our leisure time outside of our home at the recreational facilities, restaurants, parks, social clubs, lounges, music concerts, or city festivals. We should not want to spend our leisure time sitting at home and looking out the window. When we want to look out of the window, we should go to one of the lounge rooms or social clubs.

We should also design the city so that mothers with babies and young children can spend most of the day at public facilities with other mothers with young children. The mothers should not want to sit at home alone, look out the window, and complain about boredom and loneliness.

In our cities today, a lot of people are spending most of the daytime in an office cubicle that doesn't have a window, but they have a large home with lots of windows that they rarely look out of. I think it would be better to design Kastron to switch the emphasis from windows in our home to windows in the offices, restaurants, lounge rooms, and other public facilities. I think it would be better to design office buildings so that more people have a window. I think we should consider giving apartments only one window, and not bothering with windows in the children's bedroom.

Children will not spend much time in their bedrooms because they will spend most of their time at school, restaurants, recreational areas, parks, ponds, and other facilities. Furthermore, "normal" children don't want to spend much time looking out of their bedroom window. They would rather do things with other children. Also, young children enjoy hiding in dark areas, which is why they enjoy building forts out of cushions, blankets, and cardboard boxes.

In Kastron, children will be able to ride an elevator down to recreational areas that are designed for and restricted to children, and they will have access to high-quality toys that parents could never provide them, and in beautiful facilities with grass, trees, pools, and paths for electric vehicles. How many children would want to sit in their home and look out the window when they have such recreational options?





I don't think the children in Kastron will care whether they have windows in their bedroom. We have more options in the design of apartment buildings if we provide windows only for the adults. Therefore, we should consider this option.

In Kastron, the college students will be treated as adults, so they will be live in the same apartments as other adults, but do the teenagers in Teentown need windows? The teenagers will be living with thousands of other teenagers, and they will not have parents trying to make them sit at home in the evening. I doubt if the teenagers will want to spend their leisure time sitting in their bedroom and looking out the window. They are more likely to use their bedrooms only for studying, grooming, and sleeping. Furthermore, when they are working on a computer, a window is an irritation when the sun is shining in their face or on the computer monitor.

I don't think teenagers need windows in their bedroom. I suggest giving the teenagers light panels instead of windows, and providing windows for the public areas of Teentown, such as the lounge areas, dining areas, and recreation rooms.

Future generations might have radically different culture

You might find it interesting to consider the possibility that computer monitors a few centuries in the future will be so impressive that people prefer to replace the windows in their homes with large monitors. They would place cameras on the outside of the building to let them see what is outside.

Although that would be idiotic with today's technology, the cameras and monitors thousands of years from now might be able to show high resolution, colorful, 3D holograms. That would enable them to increase the brightness at night, or show a view using infrared or ultraviolet light. It would also allow them to zoom in on objects outside their window, and switch to the view from some other camera, such as in a different location in the city, or a camera that has been installed underwater at a tropical coral reef.

Their voice recognition software will be so much better that they will be able to talk to their windows. That would enable them to request the image from a particular camera in a particular coral reef. When they get tired of looking at the coral reef, they could tell the window to switch to a camera in the mountains.






Imagine replacing windows with computer monitors that create 3D holograms.


They might also install cameras inside their home so that the computers can see what they are pointing to. That would allow them to point to an object in the hologram and tell the window to zoom in on it.

If we could travel 10,000 years into the future, we might be as confused about how the people are living as our prehistoric ancestors would be if they were to travel to our era. They are likely to have social and recreational activities that we cannot imagine, and they might design a city in a manner that none of us can conceive of because we lack their technology and knowledge.



The apartment buildings of the future
might be windowless decorations for the city.

Furthermore, the future generations might restrict reproduction to the people who need the least amount of sleep, and that would eventually result in people who don't need any sleep.

Those people would use a home only for grooming, changing clothing, and sex. They might not care if their home has a window.

By not bothering with windows in their apartments, they could design the apartment buildings to be works of art, as they are in the drawings here and here.

The windowless apartment buildings would also be better insulated against heat and cold, and more resistant to storms, tornadoes, and earthquakes. They would also free the people from the chore of cleaning the windows.

If they also give preference to the reproduction of babies that develop the most rapidly, then eventually the babies will be able to walk and use a toilet within a few weeks of birth, and start to speak a few weeks later. That would further reduce the amount of time that mothers spend at home with their babies.

We could restrict jobs at children’s restaurants to mothers only



It is much more efficient to feed children as a group, and it allows the children to eat with their friends.
In every culture today, mothers have to spend a lot of time purchasing food, making meals, serving meals, and cleaning up the mess. By comparison, the mothers in Kastron will take their children to restaurants that provide free meals for children. This will significantly reduce labor and resources needed to feed children because it is much more efficient for a few adults to provide meals for a large group of children, compared to having every mother produce meals for her own children.

I suggest that we restrict the jobs at the children's restaurants to the mothers of the children in order to increase the chances that the mothers can see or talk to their children, and vice versa. The children will also be able to see the mothers of their friends.

I think this will provide the children with a more pleasant environment compared to being fed by strangers. I also think this will make the children feel like they are eating in the dining rooms of their home rather than at a business.

It should also be a more pleasant environment for the mothers because they will work with other mothers, their own children, and the children of their friends. They will not be bothered by men, or have to worry about men with pedophilic desires.

We could restrict certain jobs to women only



The employment at schools and facilities for children could be restricted to women.
I also suggest that we let women have the jobs at the recreational facilities and schools for children. The men would be restricted to working at the facilities for teenagers and adults.

That policy would not be possible in a democracy because people would complain about discrimination, but discrimination is acceptable in Kastron if it is beneficial to society. Of course, we will not know for sure if that policy is beneficial until we try it, so let's give it a try!

The Kastron government is required to experiment with culture in order to improve our lives. Therefore, if we discover that we benefit by discriminating against men or women in certain organizations, then it will become a part of the Kastron culture.

During prehistoric times, men and women lived in a small campsite, but how often did they work together? I suspect that the women spent most of their time working by themselves, and that the men spent most of their time working alone or with other men. I suspect that men and women did not work together very often until they settled into cities. Furthermore, I think the men and women worked together only occasionally, not all day, every day.

Every society permits discrimination in public bathrooms simply because that type of discrimination makes us feel more relaxed and comfortable, so we should find the courage to experiment with discrimination in other aspects of our culture.

In Kastron, discrimination is acceptable if it improves our lives. This will allow social clubs, restaurants, recreational facilities, and other organizations to discriminate in a variety of ways, such as a social club that sets aside certain hours for people with a particular profession; a recreational facility that sets aside certain hours for teenage boys who are above-average in athletic abilities; and a restaurant that sets aside certain hours for a particular age group. This policy will allow people with similar interests to get together in the public facilities.

Artists need pressure to join the team

My impression of the people who consider themselves to be "artists" is that they demand freedom more often than the rest of us do, but they have the most trouble handling freedom. I think most of them are wasting their talent. I think they need more pressure to do something useful than the typical person.

For example, a search of the Internet images for "photorealistic drawings" shows hundreds of drawings that are almost indistinguishable from photographs. Most are of people's faces, but here are some common objects, such as a can of baked beans and a bottle of vodka.

Those artists have tremendous talent, but what is the benefit to society of having an artist put thousands of hours into creating a picture of a bottle of vodka that we could create by taking a photograph with an ordinary cell phone?

There are also a lot of artists with impressive creativity and talent, but they don't give us anything that we can use as decorations in our homes, plazas, footpaths, ponds, parks, restaurants, offices, or factories. For example, this artist has created a wide variety of images with amazing colors, patterns, and shapes, four of which are shown below, but they are not things that we can hang on our wall, or decorate our clothing with, or use to decorate a city plaza or water fountain.



If the artists would decorate the city, everybody would appreciate their talent.


The artists put a lot of time and labor into their work, and they occasionally sell some of their creations, but I would describe them as wasting their life and talent on artwork that most people don't notice or appreciate. They are a burden on society because they don't give us much, if anything, of value, but they expect us to provide them with lots of food, medical services, electricity, houses, computers, and other items.

To understand how parasitic the artists are, and why they should either do something useful or be evicted, imagine traveling to another solar system to start a new life. Imagine that you have just landed on the planet, and you need to build a city for yourselves. You need homes, electric power, water, food, furniture, and lots of other things.

Imagine that you are a leader of this group, and that one of your duties is to provide tasks for everybody. You must figure out how many people you need to assign to the production of food, the production of electricity, and the development of homes.

How many people would you authorize to spend their time creating photorealistic images of people and bottles of vodka? How many people would you authorize to spend their time creating artwork that is similar to that of Banksy and Patricia Piccinini?

A free enterprise system and a democracy give people the freedom to waste their lives on worthless, deceptive, and even dangerous activities. I pointed out here that this freedom can fool us into assuming that we are enjoying our life because we are "doing what we want to do", but most of us would have a more satisfying life if we were pressured into doing something useful for the human race because that would provide us with the emotional satisfaction that we receive when we do something that other people appreciate.

The criminals who hurt people, the business executives who deceive people, and the artists who create worthless art, believe that they are enjoying life, but they are denying themselves the pleasure of doing something that we appreciate.

Balconies are a waste

I think the reason that we want a balcony is for the same reason that we want windows and plants in our apartment. Specifically, because we evolved to live with nature.

However, it is not practical to make a balcony large enough to satisfy our craving for nature. As a result, most people do not use their balconies, except as a storage area for junk.

I recommend prohibiting balconies. Architects are designing homes and office buildings to titillate customers, but we should design a city according to what will give us the best life. I think we will have more satisfying lives when we put our resources into providing the city with beautiful gardens, parks, creeks, ponds, foot paths, and bridges. When we want to be around nature, we should get out of our home.

The top floors should be for the public

In a free enterprise system, the top floor of a building is treated as a status symbol. It is often a very expensive apartment or restaurant. However, in Kastron, everybody is equal, so my recommendation is that the top floors be set aside for the public for use as restaurants and lounge areas, but not for large groups of people. Rather, for individuals and small groups of people who want to relax and look out the window at the clouds, snow storms, stars, moon, city, sunset, or sunrise.

Some long tables could be placed directly against the wall (as in the image below, left), to make it easy for individuals to look out the window as they eat, relax, work on a laptop computer, or listen to music. Tables and chairs could also be arranged so that small groups of 2 or 4 people can sit together without blocking one another's view (as in the photo below, right).




Placing tables against the windows makes it easy for individuals to enjoy the view.

The lounge rooms would have binoculars and telescopes.


We should also consider using some of the rooftops for greenhouses to either grow certain foods without pesticides or insects, or to create a garden with tropical plants, such as orchids, thereby providing us with a tropical garden to eat in, socialize, and relax.

Apartments would not need laundry or cleaning equipment

Instead of providing every apartment with its own low-quality laundry equipment, vacuum cleaner, mop, and other cleaning equipment and supplies, every floor of the apartment would have much higher quality laundry facilities and cleaning equipment that the people share. There are tremendous advantages to sharing this type of equipment:


1)
None of the apartments would need storage areas for such equipment. This allows the apartments to be slightly smaller without reducing the living area, thereby reducing the labor and resources involved with the construction of the buildings. It also reduces the cleaning chores in the apartments by a tiny amount.

2)
The vacuum cleaners, mops, spray bottles, and other equipment can be much higher quality than what consumers could afford. They will be more convenient, quieter, and do a better job. For example, spray bottles could be of such high quality that they don't dribble.

3)
We would have access to different sizes and types of vacuum cleaners, mops, and washing machines rather than just one style. For example, there could be a large washing machine for bedding materials, and smaller machines for small clothing items.

4)
Nobody would have to deal with the maintenance or replacement of the vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and other equipment. The city would take care of those tasks, and the engineers would be under pressure to design them for low and easy maintenance rather than for consumer appeal and profit.

5)
We reduce the number of utility lines into the apartments, which reduces the chores required to construct, maintain, and recycle the buildings.

Eventually there will be robotic vacuum cleaners and mops, but unlike the inexpensive robotic vacuums that move about randomly, these would be high quality CNC robots with cameras that know the floor plan of the apartment building, and have the ability to sense and move around unexpected obstacles. They would be able to vacuum and mop quickly and efficiently. A person would request a robot to vacuum or mop, and he would not have to be in his apartment at the time. Since none of the front doors would have locks, the robots could get in and out on their own.

Eventually robots will also be able to pick up a basket of dirty laundry, put it into a washing machine, and bring back clean laundry. As of 2022, we probably have the technology to create a robot that can do this with diapers because diapers do not need delicate handling.

Why not give apartment buildings a giant, covered courtyard?

Some apartment buildings have courtyards, but most are so small that the people on opposite sides feel as if they are looking into one another's windows rather than looking out at nature.

My recommendation is to make a courtyard so large that the people feel as if they are looking onto a garden, rather than into their neighbor's home. In the image below, the courtyard is 100 meters x 40 meters. The photograph is an aerial view of my neighborhood. Although the homes and yards in my neighborhood are smaller than those in places like Kansas, it shows that the courtyard is so large that people would not feel as if they are looking into one another's homes.



A courtyard of that size is large enough to fit the entire Palm House of Kew Gardens, as shown in the image below.



There are already some gigantic stadiums and other structures that have an ETFE roof, so why not provide the courtyards of apartment buildings with that type of roof? That would give every apartment building a gigantic version of a sunroom.

Unlike the tiny sunrooms that people have at their home, (such as the photo below, left), that hold only a few people, the apartment buildings would have courtyards that are so large that they could have lots of areas for socializing and relaxing, in addition to having trees, grass, and ponds (similar to Kew Gardens in the photo below, right).




Imagine a courtyard that is a
gigantic version of a sunroom.

Imagine being able to walk from
your home into a giant garden.


Most people have to travel long distances to visit a garden. Imagine living in an apartment building in which you can look out your window to see such a garden, and you can ride an elevator to the ground floor whenever you want to walk around or relax in it.

A covered courtyard allows us to put higher quality furniture in the courtyard, and it allows the apartments, lounge rooms, offices, restaurants, and other facilities that face the courtyard to be able to open the windows without any concern for wind or rain. It also makes it easier to control the insects, animals, and birds that live in the courtyard.

Earlier I suggested that we prohibit plants and fountains in homes. By creating a covered courtyard, the people who enjoy plants and fountains could get involved with maintaining plants and fountains in the courtyard. For example, the people who enjoy orchids could maintain orchids at a section of the courtyard where there is high humidity, such as a pond or fountain, and the people who enjoy working with bonsai trees or cactus could provide other sections of the courtyard with those plants. That would allow those people to do something that everybody appreciates.

The city could be designed to deal with the wind


The floor plan of the Burj Khalifa.
The Burj Khalifa in Dubai has a triangular shape in order to make it handle the wind better than a rectangle. If that shape is truly superior, could we make it much larger so that it encloses a large courtyard?

In addition to designing the buildings to handle the wind better, I suggest using the dirt and rocks that come from digging the foundations of the buildings, the drainage canals, and the underground transportation channels to create hills around the city to reduce the wind at the ground level, as I mentioned in a previous document of this series. The hills would also make the city more attractive, and it would provide the city with interesting paths for bicycles, canals, and small electric vehicles.

Nobody will be a peasant

Regardless of which shape we choose for the apartment buildings, there are some areas of a building that are undesirable for homes. In a free enterprise system, the undesirable locations are given to the "poor" people, but in Kastron everybody is equal. Therefore, the undesirable locations of the buildings will be used for other purposes, such as elevators, laundry rooms, video rooms, and recreational areas.

We should have lots of high-quality video rooms

Rather than provide homes with large televisions and encourage people to sit in their home and watch television, I think it would be better to provide the city with lots of video rooms that have much larger and higher quality video screens, better audio equipment, and more comfortable chairs. In the drawing below, there are two video rooms, each with a giant, curved screen, and which hold up to seven people.

Every video room would have different types of furniture and decorations, providing us with variety. These rooms would make it feel as if we are living in a gigantic mansion that has lots of luxurious home theaters with high resolution monitors.




Every floor of the apartment buildings would have several video rooms, so there would be plenty for everybody since not everybody would watch video at the same time. The rooms would hold only a few people so that everybody has an excellent view, and to make it easier for the people to agree on what to watch.

Everybody in the city would be free to move to any apartment they please, and I assume that people would usually choose to live near their friends. This will make it easy for friends to watch a video together because they will be able to get to a video room simply by walking a short distance within their building. If the video rooms on their floor are already in use, they can go to one of the rooms on the other floors.

The apartments should also be designed to reduce the noise from the bathrooms. The drawing above shows bathrooms that are adjacent to one another. I assume that this will reduce the noise from the bathrooms, and that it will make it easier to access the plumbing fixtures.

These drawings show apartments for adults who do not have children. Each apartment is a rectangular room with a fixed location for the bathroom.

One of the goals in Kastron is to eliminate as much undesirable labor as possible. In the drawing below, all of the bathrooms are placed next to the hallway, and there would be a door in the hallway that allows access to the plumbing.






The area for plumbing could also be used for electrical panels, Internet connections, and ventilation.

The doors to the utilities area would be smaller than the doors to the apartments. They would be decorated to match the hallway. An example are the doors in the photo to the right, which has similar molding and colors as the rest of the hallway.

The utility doors would not have locks on them, except in the apartment buildings that are designed for families, which would have simplistic, childproof locks, rather than burglar-resistant locks.

In our current nations, it would be unacceptable to have unlocked utility rooms scattered throughout the hallways, but by setting higher standards of behavior for the people, we would not have to worry about people vandalizing the utilities, or playing pranks on their neighbors, such as turning off their electricity or cold water.



We could provide every apartment building with small, lightweight capsule elevators (image to the right). They would hold only a few people, but move much faster than the larger elevators. They would allow us to move quickly to one of the floors of the apartment buildings while getting a view of the courtyard or city.

The conventional elevators would be used for freight and large groups of people. The drawing below shows both capsule elevators and conventional elevators at the same location, allowing people to choose which they want to use.






The drawing above shows that we could use the outside corner of an apartment building for a public area so that everybody has access to the views that it provides. It could be a lounge area, recreational area for children, or exercise room.

We should stop using a "Winner Takes All" system
 
The free enterprise system motivates us with fear

I mentioned in the previous document of this series that we need pressure on us to do something, or else we will waste our life like a pet dog or a spoiled child. A free enterprise system inspires us to work by putting us into a competition for survival. The fear of being homeless and hungry motivates us into doing some work.

The free enterprise system is successful because it treats us as animals, which is what we are. It puts us into a battle for our lives, which is what all animals evolved for. Unfortunately, this type of system doesn't care whether we do useful work, or work that is legal, and that results in a lot of cheating, abuse, pouting, fighting, and parasitic behavior.

The competition for survival also results in people pushing for customs that allow them to receive gifts. This pressure has resulted in birthday parties, weddings, Christmas, and other social affairs becoming dominated by the giving and receiving of gifts. Our social affairs have become so dominated by gifts that even young children expect a tooth fairy to provide them with money every time they lose a tooth. Our culture is putting an excessive amount of emphasis on gifts and material wealth.

We need to be put under pressure, but we should develop a pressure that is more pleasant and productive than the fear of hunger and death. And our customs should evolve to become more satisfying and beneficial.

How do we inspire people to improve things?

Since everything will be free in Kastron, how do we motivate people to work? How do we inspire people to experiment with improvements to our products, software, holiday celebrations, social affairs, recreational activities, city festivals, and school curriculum?

I think Kastron should do something similar to what militaries and businesses are doing. Specifically, reward people who do something useful, but the rewards should be intangible, such as getting credit for their achievements, which improve their chances of getting a job that requires that particular talent. Furthermore, when trying to determine who should reproduce, and in what quantities, the people with the most credits would have higher priority.

The only problem with that system is that our current societies allow so much secrecy that it is difficult to determine who should get credit, and who is plagiarizing or einsteining other people.

As I have mentioned in many documents, I suggest eliminating secrecy in Kastron, and allowing the city to maintain a database that collects information about everybody's life from the moment they are a fetus. This will allow us to do a better job of determining who is bringing improvements to our city, technology, or culture.

Furthermore, we should give people credit for anything that can be considered an improvement to life, such as improvements to clothing styles, recreational activities, holiday celebrations, and recipes for meals. I will give four examples of how this policy would work. It will show how all of the people who contribute something of value will get credit for their achievements, even if their contribution is trivial or quickly improved upon.

Example #1: water fountains in bathrooms

Assume that a man, Richard, wonders if a water fountain in the apartment bathrooms would make it easier and more convenient for us to drink water and rinse our mouth because it would eliminate the need for cups, which clutter the bathroom and need cleaning.

It would also be more convenient and comfortable than twisting our head sideways and putting our face into the sink to get water directly from the faucet.

In a free enterprise system, it would be very difficult for Richard to do anything with his idea. It would be difficult for an ordinary person to experiment with fountains in order to determine if they are truly beneficial, and if so, what the design should be. If Richard were to spend his time and money to experiment with fountains, and if he concludes that they are indeed beneficial, it would be difficult for him to put them into production and convince consumers to install them in their homes.

In Kastron, however, the situation is considerably different. The Kastron government would maintain a complaints and suggestions site on the Internet, and Richard could post a document to explain his concept of adding a water fountain to the apartment bathrooms. Everybody in the city would be free to read the complaints and suggestions, and post their opinions about whether one of the suggestions is worth investigating, or whether it is absurd.

If a government official considered Richard's idea to be worth pursuing, he would authorize one or more businesses to experiment with fountains to determine whether it is indeed a beneficial concept. The experiments would not be for the purpose of determining whether consumers like having a water fountain in their bathroom. Rather, the experiments would be to determine whether the fountains improve life for us.

The experiments would look at the effect the fountain has on people's lives and attitudes. For example, if the fountains reduce the time people spend in the bathroom by making it faster and easier for them to rinse their mouth, then that would be considered an advantage. If the fountains also reduce the clutter and cleaning by eliminating the need for water cups, that would also be considered another advantage.

The government would compare the benefits of the fountains to the disadvantages, which are the labor and resources needed to produce and maintain them.

If the government concludes that the fountains truly improve life, then the government would announce their decision to produce fountains for the bathroom. This would start the next phase of the process, which would be for engineers to determine the best design for the fountain.

In a free enterprise system, businesses are under pressure to get products on the market quickly, and this often results in the first version of a product having some serious flaws. This is such a common problem that many consumers have developed the attitude that they should wait for the second or third version of a product, and to be cautious of "new and improved" versions of a product.

Although some engineers and business executives dislike rushing products to the market, some of them don't show any embarrassment. For example, Reid Hoffman boasted:
If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late.

In Kastron, the government determines which products will be manufactured, and when they will be manufactured, and their goal is to avoid wasting labor and resources on products that we regret. Although every product can be described as "imperfect" and "needing further development," a new product should be superior overall to an existing product.

An official who advocates the production of a product that is later determined to need more development will be considered inferior to the officials who make better decisions about when to put a product into production. The officials who make the worst decisions will be the first to be replaced.

With this type of economic and government system, the government will not rush to produce a water fountain for the bathrooms. Instead, they will authorize some businesses to experiment with the design of water fountains.

The businesses will be competing with each other, so they will be secretive during the experiment, but there will be no patents or copyrights, so the engineers can use any existing technology that they please.

The purpose of having businesses compete to design the fountain is to figure out what is truly the best shape and design. What shape should the water fountain be? What angle should the water come out at? Should the water be turned on with a button, a rotating knob, or a foot switch? What materials should the fountain be made of? Should there also be a valve for hot water in order to provide warm water for rinsing our eyes or face?

Should the fountain be attached to the sink, or should it come off of the wall to prevent mineral deposits at the base?

The mouthguard is usually made from steel, but since we might want to use the fountain when we are sleepy, it might be better to make it out of a soft plastic to reduce the chances that we chip our teeth if we bump into it. If so, it should be an easily replaceable piece of plastic so that when it breaks, we don't need a technician with special tools to replace it.

The citizens will be free to post their suggestions about the fountains, and the engineers are free to use any of their suggestions. Although it would be unusual for an ordinary citizen to post a suggestion, the attitude in the city is to encourage people to look for improvements to life, rather than be passive and apathetic.

For example, a citizen might post the suggestion that the water fountain have a quick release attachment (similar to that in the photo below) so that we can plug a water flossing device into the water supply so that the flossing device doesn't need a water tank, thereby making it smaller, eliminating the time wasted refilling the tank, and avoiding the problem of water leaking from the tank. Every engineer would be free to investigate that concept without any concern for royalties, copyrights, or patents.








When the government considers that the businesses have had enough time to experiment with water fountains, they will tell them to release the results of their experiments, and release all of their technology to the public.

All of the engineers will then be able to analyze one another's ideas. The engineers who come up with beneficial ideas will get credit for it, even though the process of developing the water fountain is not yet complete.

The government will then repeat the development process by telling the engineers to learn from one another, and try to create an improved water fountain. The engineers will then compete to develop an improved version of the fountain. The citizens will also be able to post their suggestions.

When the government considers the businesses to have had enough time to improve the design, the government will tell them to release their designs to the public for everybody to see and comment on. If the government officials come to the conclusion that none of the fountains have been developed enough to be put into production, then the businesses will once again be told to improve the design some more.

Unlike a free enterprise system, in which businesses are rushing to be the first on the market, the Kastron government will repeatedly put the engineers into competition to improve a product until the product has enough of a benefit to justify putting it into production.

Furthermore, the Kastron government wants as few variations of a product as possible. Instead of producing hundreds of variations of water fountains, and letting the consumers figure out which one they like the best, the government will put the engineers through cycles of looking for improvements until they get to the point at which there are some truly useful versions, and as few versions as possible. This will provide us with a small number of high quality, useful products.

Engineers will not care what the public wants

Although the public would be able to contribute their suggestions to the design of the water fountain, the engineers and government officials would not care what the public wants. Instead, they would design bathroom products with the same attitude that the military has when they design the bathrooms of a submarine or ship. The military doesn't design bathrooms according to what the majority of sailors are emotionally attracted to. Rather, they try to figure out what is best for the team. Likewise, the government should choose bathroom fixtures and other products according to what is best for society.

The government officials would put pressure on engineers to design products that are low maintenance, efficient, useful, and easy to recycle. Instead of titillating consumers with lots of unnecessary features and options, the engineers would be under pressure to create products that are easy to understand and use in order to reduce the number of people who misuse products, or who need technical support to use the products.

Engineers will be concerned with long-term effects

In a free enterprise system, most consumers are concerned with the initial cost of a product, not the long-term cost of a product. As a result, almost all products for the public are low-quality, and need frequent replacement, which requires factories to continuously produce enormous amounts of low-quality products. It also causes trash dumps to grow larger every year.

There is a higher initial cost to producing high-quality products, but over a long period of time they reduce the need for labor and resources. The higher quality products also make our lives more pleasant because they are less frustrating to use and more efficient.

Incidentally, I recently bought the WP 100 teeth cleaning unit, and it stopped working after only a couple months. I took it apart to see if there was something I could fix, but it appears that the motor failed, and it was not designed to be replaceable, as is typical with products in a free enterprise system.

Furthermore, there were six screws holding the components together, and they were identical except that four of them had to fit inside narrow tubes, so they had slightly smaller heads. The difference was so small that I did not notice until I put the unit back together and discovered one of the screws got jammed in the tube.

The engineers could have designed the unit to use six identical screws, but it was not designed to be maintained, and there is no concern in a free enterprise system to reduce the number of trivial variations of screws, bolts, and other hardware.

In Kastron, however, the engineers will be in competition to produce high-quality products that are easy to maintain, and which use as many standard components as possible.

Everybody should get credit for their contributions

Getting back to the example of a citizen proposing a water fountain for a bathroom, if Richard's idea turns out to be a success, the final design of the fountain that is authorized for production is certain to be different from his original design. The production model will be a mixture of ideas from many engineers, and possibly from some citizens and government officials. Everybody who contributed something useful to the development of the fountain would get credit for his contribution, even if it was quickly replaced by somebody else's improved idea.

All of our material items, scientific knowledge, social affairs, recreational activities, educational programs, and other culture are the result of people who improve upon the work of other people. However, the free enterprise system does not acknowledge the people who contribute. Rather, the free enterprise system puts us into an unsupervised battle in which the "winner takes all".

For example, Douglas Engelbart seems to have conceived of the computer mouse, and Bill English might have contributed to it, but the idea was ignored by almost everybody because computers and software were so primitive at the time that the mouse did not have much value.

Many years later Steve Jobs learned about the mouse and put it into production, but he did not give Engelbart, or any of the other people who were involved with the development of the mouse, any recognition for their achievements, and he did not share any of the profits with any of them.

The fear of getting nothing encourages fighting, cheating, paranoia, hatred, resentment, plagiarism, and revenge. It also results in people wanting to be secretive about their technology, and to have patents and copyrights to stop other people from using their ideas. This makes it difficult for businesses to build upon the work of other people, and it makes it impossible for consumers to know what is in the "flavorings" and "other spices" that are in their food and drinks.

Our emotions prefer a winner-takes-all system because we are selfish animals, but in this modern era, this system is detrimental because it encourages us to steal each other's ideas, keep our technology a secret, and ignore and suppress our competitors. All of us would benefit much more if we were using an economic system that encouraged us to inspire one another, build upon one another's achievements, identify the people who are talented, and help one another develop their talents.

In order to create a more productive economic system, everybody in Kastron will have the same material wealth, and there will be no royalties, copyrights, or patents. Instead, everybody gets credit for all types of beneficial ideas. We must also keep track of everybody's failures.

This will create a culture in which people behave similar to scientists who give credit for one another's achievements, and who hurt their reputation when they produce idiotic theories, or when they plagiarize or einstein other people.

With that type of culture, Richard would get credit for coming up with the idea of putting a water fountain into the bathrooms, and all of the people who contributed to the design of the fountain will get credit for their contributions, even if their improvement was quickly improved upon by somebody else.

The purpose of giving people credit for their achievements is to help us identify everybody's talents and limitations. It would show us who has engineering talent, who is talented at supervising people, who is talented at organizing or devising recreational activities, who is talented at identifying incompetent managers, and who is most successful at helping men and women form stable marriages at the courtship activities. This information is useful for determining who should have priority for certain jobs. For example:



A person who has a lot of credit for improving the design of products would have a higher priority for engineering jobs, and for the government department that makes decisions on product research and development.


A person who has credit for finding improvements for recreational activities would have high priority for the government department that experiments with and supervises the recreational activities.


A person who has credit for improving bicycle paths, the transportation system, the sewage system, or other aspects of the city would be qualified for the government department that is involved with city planning.

A person will get credit for anything that is considered to be an improvement to our life, such as finding improvements to our clothing, food recipes, museums, school curriculum, and courtship activities.

The opposite is also true. Specifically, people who fail at something will have that failure listed in their database entry. As people accumulate failures, they would have an increasingly difficult time getting jobs in those particular areas. For example, a person who has lots of failures with designing products would have a difficult time getting a job as an engineer, and a person who repeatedly fails at supervising recreational activities, music concerts, courtship activities, or factories would have an increasingly difficult time getting jobs in those areas.

Scientists realize that they are building on the work of other people, and they identify the people who have done the previous work rather than ignore them, or pretend to be the creators of it. By acknowledging the achievements of other people, the scientists do not fear that another scientist is going to take credit for his work.



Our culture should cause us to look forward to other people's contributions to our ideas.
In Kastron, we get credit for our accomplishments even if somebody quickly improves upon our accomplishment. Therefore, instead of being afraid of people who improve our ideas, we will enjoy putting our ideas out into the public and watching people improve them.

It will feel as if we are planting a seed, and that other people are coming over to help it grow.

This is a "everybody benefits" system, not a "winner takes all" system.

Furthermore, by keeping track of everybody's successes and failures, it will be easier for businesses to decide who to put into management positions.

Likewise, the voters will be able to restrict the leadership positions to people who have proven themselves to be successful at providing us with intelligent analyses and suggestions.

We will also be able to restrict the school officials to people who have been successful at providing intelligent suggestions for improving the school curriculum or the efficiency of the schools, and restrict the leaders of recreational affairs to the people who have proven to be successful at supervising, creating, or modifying recreational affairs.

Example #2: Improving cultural activities

We would create and improve social and recreational activities in the same manner as I described for the concept of a water fountain in the bathroom. Specifically, every citizen would be free to make suggestions for new activities, or improvements to existing activities, and the government officials would authorize experiments to determine if any of the suggestions turns out to be beneficial. Citizens would also be able to contribute their ideas during the development process, just as they could do so with the water fountain concept.

The previous document of this series suggested we consider modifying the custom of jigsaw puzzles so that the purpose of them is to decorate the city. That is the type of suggestion that a citizen could post on the site for suggestions and complaints. If a government official thought the idea had some potential, then he could experiment with it.

The only difference between improving cultural activities and improving material items is that the government cannot arrange for engineers to test culture in a laboratory. Instead, the government has to arrange for a group of people to experiment with the new ideas.

For another example of this concept, imagine that Richard likes playing the game of Jeopardy, but he does not want to answer questions that he regards as idiotic, such as about Hollywood movies, and he does not want questions about subjects he knows almost nothing about, such as chemistry or sailing.

Imagine that Richard thinks about the issue, and posts a document on the Complaints and Suggestions site that advocates modifying the game of Jeopardy so that the people organizing the game do not choose the contestants or the categories for questions. Rather, a person who wants to be a contestant chooses the categories, and other contestants are chosen from the people who also want those same categories.

With that modification to the game, a carpenter might arrange for a game in which all of the categories are related to carpentry. A person who enjoys 3D printing might arrange for a game in which the questions are about that particular hobby. A mother with a young baby might arrange for a game in which the questions are about babies, childbirth, and children.

Those type of Jeopardy games would not attract a large audience, and some might not attract any audience. However, as I mentioned in a previous document of this series, I think we should switch many of our "spectator activities" to "participatory activities".

I mentioned that we should analyze each freedom to determine which is truly beneficial for us. Likewise, we should analyze our activities to determine which of them is more beneficial as a spectator activity, and which is more beneficial as a participatory activity.

I suspect that the people who enjoy Jeopardy would get more enjoyment by participating in games that have questions that are relevant to their lives, and from watching their friends and relatives play the games, rather than watching strangers on television who answer questions that none of us know the answer to.

By comparison, most of us do not have much musical talent, so it is not practical for us to participate in creating music. Therefore, it is beneficial to arrange for us to be spectators of a music concert. We could be in an audience at a live concert, or we could watch a concert from one of the thousands of video rooms that provide high quality monitors and audio. The music would be created by the few people with talent, or by robots that play music, or by computers that synthesize it.

I think that many of the activities that are currently being broadcast on television would be more beneficial as participatory activities. In regards to Jeopardy, instead of putting the game on television for the public to watch, the people who enjoy the game should be told to get together with their friends and neighbors and play a game, or watch their friends and neighbors play. They should play the game to entertain themselves, not to create a television program for other people.

Getting back to the issue of how a person in Kastron would improve social activities, Richard would point out that allowing the contestants to choose the categories for the questions allows everybody to play the game. Furthermore, it allows people to have categories that are relevant to their particular job or hobby, which in turn allows them to learn more about their job or hobby, which is beneficial to everybody.

If a government official thought that Richard had a potentially useful idea, then he would arrange for people to experiment with it. The government officials would then observe the effect the game was having. They would not care whether people liked the game. Rather, they would observe how it's affecting their lives, behavior, and attitudes.

I suspect that this particular modification to the game would cause a few people to become slightly better at their job or hobby. Therefore, the government would consider this to be an advantage over the existing version of Jeopardy, which causes people to waste their time memorizing useless information.

As the experiments with Jeopardy are taking place, some citizens might be inspired to think about how to improve it further. For example, Ralph might suggest that IBM's Watson software be modified to create questions and be the judge as to whether the answers are correct. Ralph would justify the expense of modifying the software by pointing out that it would eliminate the need for people to create questions, and it would eliminate the need for judges, and, even more important, it would allow the contestants to set up a game by themselves. It would make it so easy to set up a game that even children would be able to set up a game that is at their particular level of education and intelligence.

Ralph's suggestion might inspire John to think about the issue, and John might post a suggestion to modify the Watson software to ensure that children are arranging for questions that are beneficial. He would point out that without supervision, children might arrange for games in which the questions are idiotic or, even worse, encourage bad attitudes or obnoxious activities. Therefore, the software should be modified to restrict the questions for children to those that would be useful for children to know the answers to.

Somebody else might then suggest having the option to remove the fastest-takes-all aspect of the game. As the game is right now, all of the credit goes to the person who is first to answer the question, except for the final question at the end of the game. Therefore, somebody might suggest changing the game so everyone has a keyboard or touchscreen, and they have a certain amount of time to answer every question, just like they do the end of the game, thereby being judged on whether they can answer the question within the time period. By making that change to the game, it becomes a contest to see who can answer the most questions instead of who is the fastest to answer a question.

Somebody else might suggest that when nobody can answer the question correctly, they are allowed to ask for hints and try again.

The government would set up experiments to determine which changes to the game make it more enjoyable and beneficial, and everybody who contributes something beneficial will get credit for it. The credit will help the people who want to get a job in the government agencies that are involved with social and recreational activities.

It is possible that only a minority of the population in Kastron would be interested in playing the game of Jeopardy, so improving the game would not do much to improve life in Kastron. However, that game is only one of thousands of possible social and recreational activities. By encouraging people to look for improvements to our activities, all of the trivial improvements become significant.

Consider two cities that are identical in all respects, except that in one city the people are constantly looking for ways to improve their activities, whereas the people in the other city just repeat the same activities over and over, century after century.

In the city where people are trying to improve their culture, each improvement will be trivial, but after centuries of improvements, they will have activities that are noticeably more beneficial, require less resources and labor, and encourage better attitudes.

In the other city, by comparison, the government would continue to arrange for Easter Egg Rolling parties, and the citizens would continue to participate in competitions to put the most clothes pegs on their face (photo to the right).

The people who resist or ridicule "trivial" improvements to culture are inhibiting progress. All of the progress that the human race has experienced with material items, farming, metallurgy, and other areas has been the result of an accumulation of thousands of trivial improvements.

If we start experimenting with our culture today, the people thousands of years into the future may have cities and activities that make our culture seem as idiotic, unpleasant, and crude as the medieval technology seems to us.

Example #3: Suggestions for research projects

In Kastron, people would be allowed to post suggestions for scientific research even if they lack the technical knowledge to understand what they are asking for. Although this might seem idiotic, a person does not need to understand a technical issue in order to realize that we need a better understanding of the issue.

The most obvious example of this concept is human health. Even the most educated person is ignorant about most aspects of human health. Therefore, when a "highly educated" scientist proposes a research project for human health, we could say the project is coming from an ignorant person who doesn't know much about human health.

This concept actually applies to all issues, not just health. Each of us likes to believe that we are all-knowing experts in many subjects, but a more realistic view of humans is that we vary from extreme ignorance to less-extreme ignorance.

If we could measure how much knowledge each person has, we would discover that the most educated person is extremely ignorant. We might discover that the most educated person knows less than 10% of all of the knowledge that there is to know.

Animals were designed to have confidence in their decisions, so they assume they know everything they need to know. They do not have doubts about themselves. We need to be aware of this characteristic and dampen our tendency to believe that we are an all-knowing expert. Each of us is actually very ignorant about every subject. As a result, there is nothing wrong with an "ignorant" person suggesting a research project. I will give two examples: 1) letting our bedding materials dry out, and 2) using capsaicin to cure cancers.

1) Should we let bedding materials dry out?

After an "ordinary" person watches a documentary about the microscopic creatures that live in our bed, he might wonder if making a bed immediately after waking up, and putting pajamas under the covers, is helping the creatures survive by maintaining a moist environment for them. He could post a question about whether it would be beneficial to our health to pull down the covers of the bed to increase evaporation in order to kill those creatures, and hang the pajamas in the closet to dry, or whether the creatures are so harmless that it makes no difference.

If any scientist has already investigated that issue, he could post his conclusions, thereby providing everybody, including the future generations, with some information about the issue. It would also show the scientists that the information about that issue is unknown to the public, so it should be added to the online encyclopedia so that nobody asks the same question again in the future.

If, instead, nobody knows the answer to that question, then some government official or scientist might suggest investigating it. If all of the scientists are busy with more important projects, the government might arrange for a high school science class to investigate it so that the students do something useful as they learn about science.

By encouraging people to post their questions and suggestions, we will slowly learn more about the world we live in, and how to improve our health. This will also help us identify the people who have the talent to help us understand our world and improve our lives. It will also show us how to improve the online encyclopedia so that we are more successful at finding information.

People are asking questions on the Internet right now, and they are usually getting answers, but the questions and answers are scattered all over on various message boards and websites, and in various languages. Furthermore, there is no authority to determine which of the answers is more accurate, and to delete or fix the inaccurate answers. Some of the answers contradict one another. To make the situation more absurd, our governments are allowing Wikipedia, journalists, schools, and other organizations and citizens to censor information and promote propaganda.

In Kastron, by comparison, the government is in control of the online encyclopedia, and everybody is held accountable for the information they provide to the public, so inaccurate answers will be deleted or edited. This will cause the online encyclopedia to become increasingly useful.

2) Can capsaicin cure certain cancers?

In a previous document, I mentioned that I was eating hot peppers in an attempt to see if capsaicin would get rid of basal cell carcinoma. It seemed to get rid of some of the tiny carcinomas, but it did not completely eliminate the large one next to my eye, which was the one I was trying to get rid of.

I decided to put the capsaicin directly onto the carcinoma instead of eating it. I squeezed the juice out of haberano peppers, and rubbed it onto the carcinoma nearly every morning. After a few weeks the carcinoma was red and inflamed, but did not bother the surrounding skin, so I assumed it was attacking the carcinoma, which meant that it was more effective than eating the capsaicin.

I then bought a vial of capsaicin. I mixed some of it into some coconut oil to make a paste, and I rubbed some on the carcinoma in the morning. After a few weeks (or months, I did not keep records), the area with the carcinoma looked like an open wound. It was about the size of my fingertip. It was not bleeding, but it looked as if the skin had been ripped off.

It was too painful to put the capsaicin onto the open wound, so I waited for a scab to form, and then I put more capsaicin on top of the scab. The coconut oil caused the scab to become soft and fall off after a day or so, thereby leaving another open wound.

I repeated this cycle over and over, month after month, and soon a year had passed, then another year. I was starting to give up hope, and wondering if this wound would ever heal.

Then sometime during 2021 it began healing, and now it looks like a white scar. It seems as if the carcinoma has been completely destroyed. That area is no longer creating flakes of skin, and when I put capsaicin on it, it doesn't turn red. However, I do not know if there is still some cancer underneath the scar.

I also noticed that small areas on my arm seemed to be going through a similar process, but on my arm the carcinomas were much smaller. Instead of creating open wounds, the capsaicin seemed to be very slowly destroying them.

By the end of 2021 I started putting capsaicin on the four, small carcinomas on the back of my hands, and one of them has already gone through the process of turning into a wound that develops a scab, and now it is almost gone.

A warning about capsaicin

If you want to experiment with putting capsaicin on your skin, here are some warnings.

Capsaicin passes through my skin and gets into body much more effectively compared to when I eat it. Therefore, a small amount of it on my skin is equivalent to eating a very large amount of it. I don't know if it is because of my particular skin, or if this happens to everybody.

After I put it on my skin, it seems to get into my bloodstream, and then it gets everywhere in my body. When it gets into my lungs and throat, it causes occasional dry coughs, and sometimes sneezes, which is only a problem because the paranoia of Covid can cause people to become frightened that you are sick.

The capsaicin also gets into my tear ducts. It collects in the tiny particles of dried tears along my eyelids, especially while I am sleeping. When one of those little particles falls into my eye, it dissolves and releases its capsaicin, causing that eye to burn, which makes me want to shut that eye. This happened to me a few times, and I had to stop what I was doing and shut my eye for 15 to 30 minutes. Fortunately, it happened to only one eye at a time, so I could use my other eye.

Since capsaicin is not water-soluble, it is difficult to rinse out of our eye with water. (Incidentally, if our bathrooms had water fountains, it would be easier to rinse our eyes.)

It is important to be aware of this potential problem because if it were to happen when you are operating a vehicle or machine, you might have a serious accident.

Those incidents made me understand why the police like this chemical; specifically, it makes us want to shut our eyes because the pain almost stops when we shut our eyes. Why does the pain stop? Is the chemical reacting with oxygen?

The amateur experiments have limited value

The point of this section is that there are lots of people besides me who are conducting uncontrolled, haphazard, amateurish experiments with our diets, hormones, exercise routines, sleeping habits, and medical treatments. Occasionally one of us believes that we have discovered a way to improve our health, and so we might announce it on the Internet, but since the experiments are crude, nobody can be sure if we are interpreting the situation correctly.

For example, I doubt if a mixture of coconut oil and capsaicin is the ultimate cancer treatment. I used coconut oil only because it is a solid, which makes it easier to work with than a liquid.

Furthermore, I used only coconut oil and capsaicin, but it might be best to mix in some other chemicals, such as those from onions, garlic, ginger, or black pepper.

Although the amateur experiments occasionally produce some useful knowledge, it is difficult for a person in a democracy and a free enterprise system to do anything with his ideas. To improve upon this situation, the Kastron government will encourage people to post their suggestions for everybody to see. The suggestions that show potential can be funded and investigated, without any concern for profit.

The citizens who suggest projects that turn out to be valuable will be given credit for it, and the officials who authorize projects that turn out to be useful will get credit for recognizing the useful projects.

Conversely, the people who post stupid suggestions, or who advocate projects that turn out to be failures, will have that failure listed in their database. For example, Christopher Key claims that "we have tons and tons of research" to support the theory that drinking our pee will cure the Covid virus, and that "God’s given us everything we need.” However, his remark about God should be considered as an "intellectual failure", and unless he can show us that the "tons of research" are intelligent, then that remark should also be considered as an intellectual failure.

By keeping track of everybody's successes and failures, we will have a better idea of who among us is above-average in identifying useful projects. However, the government should not be permitted to censor the people who have a lot of failures. Instead, the people who accumulate failures will develop a bad reputation.

Example #4: Complaints with no suggestions

The site for "Complaints and Suggestions" accepts complaints, in addition to suggestions. In some cases a person will have a complaint about a product or cultural activity, but no suggestions on how to improve it.

For example, assume that Robert has no technical knowledge about electric razors, but he notices that his electric razor feels like it is pulling on his beard, rather than cutting it, and that he has to rub the razor over and over the beard in order to trim the hairs. He would be able to post his vague complaint.

It might seem idiotic to encourage people to post such complaints, but an engineer is not always aware of every limitation and flaw in his product. Therefore, complaints from the public can cause the engineers to take a closer look at what they are doing.

Also, some of the complaints will show that the people are misunderstanding the product, or our ignorance about the product, which will cause the engineers to realize that they should edit the instructions and descriptions, and/or make the product less confusing. I have misunderstood some of the features of some products, and I know I'm not the only person.

In a free enterprise system, businesses are not obligated to fix problems with their products, or improve their instruction manuals. By comparison, the Kastron government is required to continuously experiment with improvements to our products and culture.

The citizens will get credit for identifying problems in products, software, school curriculum, social activities, and everything else, so that will encourage citizens to look for problems.

In regard to Robert's complaint about his electric razor, if a government official were to conclude the razor should be investigated, then he will authorize some businesses to compete to analyze it and determine whether it can be improved. The process would be similar to what I described for the development of a water fountain for the bathrooms.

If an investigation of the razor shows that it could indeed be improved, then Robert would get credit for making his vague complaint, and the government official who thought the issue was worth investigating would get credit for recognizing a complaint that was valid. The engineers who improved the razor would get credit for having that talent.

The reason I chose an electric razor as an example of a vague complaint is because I have that problem with my electric razor, but I don't have any suggestions on how to improve it. Since electric razors clog up with hair, oil, and skin, I first assumed that it was clogged up, so I cleaned it with a citrus oil cleaner, which made the blades look new, but it continued to pull on my hairs.



I took one of the blades out of my electric razor.
It then occurred to me that perhaps my razor would cut better if I removed one of the blades because that would give the remaining blade more power.

Removing one blade improved the performance by a small amount, but it did not solve the problem completely. Also, by removing one blade, it exposes the flat blade in the center, which causes the razor to feel more "rough". It would be better to reduce the size of the blades.

I don't know why my razor feels like it's pulling on my beard, but an investigation might show that making the blades smaller will give them enough power to cut their hairs better.

In a free enterprise system, the engineers are often more concerned with the consumer appeal of a product rather than its function. It is possible that electric razors have large blades because the manufacturers have discovered that consumers are more attracted to the large blades.






Are engineers designing razors with several large blades because they work better than one, small blade?

Or are they designing razors to titillate ignorant and irrational consumers?




In Kastron, the situation will be considerably different. I would be able to post my complaint on the site for suggestions and complaints, and if a government official thought it has potential, he would authorize a project to investigate the issue.

However, the project would not be concerned with whether consumers prefer the smaller blade. Instead, the purpose of the project would be to determine the effect the smaller blade has on society. For example, if the experiments show that the men using the smaller blade spend less time shaving, and use less electricity, then it would be considered an improvement over the existing designs.

If the smaller blade turns out to be beneficial, the government would put it into production, and they would discontinue the production of the larger blades, even if consumers were attracted to the larger blade.

Should we create "snowflake popcorn"?

Providing the public with the freedom to post suggestions will result in a mixture of sensible and idiotic proposals. However, it is not easy to determine which of the proposals are idiotic.

To add complexity to this issue, sometimes a proposal will be authorized because it seems sensible, but it fails to achieve its goal, and that requires making a decision about whether it has the potential to succeed, in which case the government should continue funding it, or whether it should be terminated before we waste any more labor and resources on it. It is not easy to determine whether a failed project is worth pursuing.

To get a better understanding of how we would deal with idiotic suggestions, consider that an ordinary citizen would be able to post a proposal to genetically engineer popcorn so that each seed has six sections, and when it pops, it creates a random, six-sided shape, similar to how snowflakes have six sections. He claims that this will make popcorn more entertaining, especially for children.

If you were a government official, would you authorize the development of snowflake popcorn? Or would you reject it as idiotic?

One technique that we frequently use to determine whether we should authorize a project, or continue funding a failed project, is to take a look at who supports the project, and if those people have had a lot of success with previous projects, then we will frequently take their advice.

Our societies today are allowing so much secrecy, cheating, and deception that we cannot be certain who among us has had success in the past, but the Kastron government will keep track of everybody's life, so it will be much easier to determine who is most talented in analyzing research proposals and other issues.

In regards to a proposal for snowflake popcorn, most people would agree that it would be a waste of scientific talent to develop it because we don't yet have the technology to easily create such popcorn, and because the benefits are insignificant. However, there are lots of projects that are much more difficult to pass judgment on. For some examples:



Should we continue to fund the project to create a fusion reactor? Or should we put that project on hold until we have more technology?


How about the projects to develop a supersonic aircraft, such as those being developed by Boom and United. Are the benefits of a supersonic aircraft worth the labor, technical talent, and resources to develop, build, and maintain it? Or would we benefit more by putting that labor and talent in some other project?


How about the projects to develop flying automobiles, such as AeroMobil and AirCar? Are they more beneficial and sensible than snowflake popcorn? Or are they wasting technical talent and resources?


What about the projects to fly a few wealthy people high up in the atmosphere, such as World View Enterprises and Virgin Galactic?


What about the projects to create a space station with artificial gravity, such as The Gateway Spaceport? Is that a more sensible project than NASA's space station? Or should we put the space stations on hold until we have more technology, such as robots that can build the stations for us, while we control them from the ground?


How about all of the projects to develop a "smart home"? Which items in our home is it sensible for us to include in the smart home concept?


How about the projects to develop improved slot machines, roulette wheels, and other types of gambling devices? Are those projects more sensible or beneficial than snowflake popcorn?


How about the projects to develop lawnmowers, vacuum cleaners, and other devices that accomplish their task by random motion? Is that more sensible than a project to provide the devices with a map so that they can follow a more efficient path?


How about all of the projects that are trying to help the poor people in India and Africa, such as the projects to breed rice that is more productive, or to provide them with small, inexpensive water turbines that allow them to produce a small amount of electricity from small creeks? Are those type of projects beneficial?

In a free enterprise system, and in a democracy, organizations and individual citizens have the freedom to get involved with almost any type of project they please, and they do not have to justify its value. This freedom allows us to get involved with projects that have no value to us, or which are destructive. For example, the organizations that are involved with feeding hungry people are making the situation worse by increasing the number of hungry people, but they are not held accountable for the problems they are causing. Furthermore, nobody has the authority to terminate a worthless or destructive organization.

Likewise, we are free to create worthless or dangerous recreational and sports activities, and cosmetic products and surgeries. Since nobody is held accountable for anything they do, the people who continuously waste labor and resources on worthless or destructive projects can continue to get funding for more worthless projects.

To improve upon this situation, the people in Kastron will have their life history recorded in a publicly accessible database. The people who accumulate a lot of failures will have the most difficult time getting influential positions, and getting people to listen to, and approve of, their proposals.

Higher-quality people allow more options
 
A team is limited by the talents of its members

The abilities of a team depend upon the mental and physical characteristics of their members. The more dishonest, paranoid, selfish, violent, stupid, uneducated, and anti-social a group of people are, the fewer options they have in regards to their activities, products, recreational activities, and other culture.

By setting high standards for the people in Kastron, we provide ourselves with more options. An example I mentioned in the previous series of this document is that we will not need locks on the doors to our homes, which gives us more options for front doors. In this section I will give another example. Specifically, if the people in Kastron can suppress their paranoia of being tracked by computers, then we could switch to using generic phones.

The city would track everybody

Everybody in Kastron would be listed in a publicly accessible database. Prior to birth, an entry will be created in the database for the person, and he will be assigned a unique ID number. That ID number will be the only identification number a person needs. His entry in the database will begin with his medical information as a fetus, and it will identify his parents and other relatives. When the person is born, the database will begin the routine collection of photos, audio samples, and 3D scans of his face and body.

Security cameras would be scattered around the city, but instead of having people watch the video, the video would go to computers for the purpose of tracking people's locations. Since there would not be cameras at all locations of the city, or in every room of all buildings, the computers would usually know only a person's approximate location, such as that he is inside a particular building or recreational area. However, keeping track of our approximate location would be very useful for a lot of purposes, including medical and scientific research.

It will be easy for the facial recognition software to identify people because the city's computer knows who lives in the city, and who is visiting the city, and so everybody must match somebody in that database. When somebody comes out of a building, the computer only has to look through a list of the people that it knows are in the building, making the facial recognition much more successful and faster. If somebody cannot be found in the database, the police would be contacted, which would make it impossible for illegal immigrants to exist in the city.

What is "our business"?


I have frequently criticized the people who are afraid of being tracked, or afraid of having their "personal" information put in a database for everybody to access. I will now mention a related issue; specifically, the people who reprimand us when we ask them a "personal" question.

There were several times when I was a child that I heard somebody ask somebody a question, and the other person responded with an angry remark similar to, "That's none of your business!"

I can remember thinking to myself, "I would have answered that question, so why did that person react by reprimanding the person for asking?" My assumption was that I am emotionally weak for answering such questions.

Now that I am an adult, I have a different view of this situation. All animals that are not at the very top of the food chain are paranoid of being observed. We also have a strong craving to hide our embarrassing qualities and create impressive images of ourselves. However, some of us are less fearful of being observed, and more willing to be honest about ourselves.

I no longer think of myself as emotionally weak for being honest about myself. I now think that being honest requires more "emotional strength" and self-control than being secretive and deceptive. I think that the people who cannot be honest are better described as behaving more similar to an animal.


The people who want to keep secrets and create false images are behaving like an animal.

What is "our business"? I would say that it is our business to know the truth about the people we live with. Everybody in Kastron should be a team member, not an anti-social hermit who wants to be secretive and deceptive.

We should not let people intimidate us with such remarks as "That's none of your business!" We should tell those people that they do not have a right to be secretive or deceptive. We should tell them that if they are embarrassed or ashamed of themselves, that is their problem, not ours.

We already track people and vehicles to a certain extent

 Our nations are already allowing a lot of different types of tracking and observation activities. For example:
• The security departments of businesses, shopping malls, and other organizations have employees who sit in front of monitors and watch us with hundreds of video cameras.
• Businesses are allowed to make employees use some type of timecards to allow the manager to know they are working, on lunch, or not working.
• Schools, businesses, and militaries are allowed to make visitors sign some type of guestbook, enter the times they arrive and leave, and/or wear some type of badge.
• Many organizations have devices that count the number of people walking into and out of their building.
• There are websites that show us the locations of airplanes and boats.

I suggest that we get rid of all of the timecards, guest books, visitor badges, and related things, and replace them with a more advanced tracking system that is completely controlled by computers. Nobody would have the monotonous job of sitting in front of security monitors, and we would not have to waste labor or resources on the production or processing of timecards, or making people sign guest books. Instead, the city computers would process video and audio information from around the city to track everybody's location.

Since cameras would not be in every room of every building, the computers would only know a person's approximate location, but that type of tracking information would have a tremendous benefit.

That type of system would allow us to create a map of the city that shows the location of all of the people, similar to how we track the airplanes (the image to the right). That would allow us to see where our friends or children are, which would make it easier for us to arrange to get together because we would not have to waste our time, or their time, asking them where they are.

Government officials would be able to use the tracking information to determine which foot paths or plazas are overcrowded, and at which times of the day, and which days. Medical researchers would be able to use it to follow the spread of diseases and allergies.

None of us will be harmed if other people can look on a live tracking map and discover that we are in a particular building, restaurant, or city park. The only people who are going to be harmed by that type of tracking are the people who are trying to do something that is illegal, or that they are ashamed of.

The people who are afraid of being tracked by the city's computers, and who are afraid of having all of their information kept in a publicly accessible database, should be regarded as inferior people who are behaving like frightened animals or criminals.

We should design our culture for the people who want honesty, openness, low crime rates, and responsible behavior, not the people who want secrecy, paranoia, false images, and deception.

Ideally, no information about us would be considered “private

In a free enterprise system, businesses keep track of what we purchase in order to sell us more items, but in Kastron keeping track of the products we use and the foods we eat would be useful for medical research, engineers, and other people who are trying to improve life for us.

The more data we collect, the more we can learn about ourselves. We would even benefit if we could keep track of how everybody is sleeping at night, and when we sleep, and when we take naps during the day, and what our waste products are like. That information would help us understand what affects our sleeping and digestion.

When a scientist wants to understand an animal, he studies all aspects of the animal's life and behavior. He does not care whether the animal is "embarrassed" by something. We need the same attitude with humans. In order to truly understand humans, we must stop treating some information about us as personal, private, or off-limits to research.

We would even benefit by keeping track of everybody's sexual activities, masturbation, and wet dreams. That information would help us to understand how the environment affects sexual activities, and it would allow us to analyze the people who are at the edges of the bell graphs to determine why some people have almost no interest in sex, and others have an extreme amount.

Telephones could be generic devices that we share

Since Kastron does not have a free enterprise system, there will be only one telephone system. This will enable all of the phones to be compatible.

There would be a few different types and sizes of phones, such as audio-only phones for people who are doing a job or recreational activity that would make it awkward to carry a smart phone. With modern voice recognition technology, those audio phones could be controlled entirely by voice commands to eliminate the need for a keypad, which makes them smaller, more rugged, and more waterproof.

We could design the audio phones to be worn on our wrist, clipped to our belt, built into an earphone, worn around our neck, or attached to our clothing, like a brooch.

The audio phones would make it possible for us to use the phone without our hands, thereby enabling us to answer and make phone calls while working with our hands, riding bicycle, trimming a tree, and capturing illegal immigrants.

Since everything in Kastron is free, nobody has to purchase or select a phone service, or get a SIM card. Instead, we could design the telephone system so that all of the phones are generic, and we don't need phone numbers.

Since the city computers will maintain a database with information about everybody, we have the option of creating a telephone system in which all of the telephones are analogous to the dumb terminals of a mainframe computer.

When we pick up one of those generic phones, the phone would transmit our face or voice data to the city's computer, and the computer would look in the database to identify us. The computer would then give us access to our phone data, and it would know which phone we are using so it would know how to direct phone calls to us.

When the phones are generic, we would not know which phone a person is using. Therefore, when we want to call somebody, we would identify the person by his name, not by his phone number. The computer would look in the database to see which phone that person is using, and route the call to that particular phone. The person receiving the phone call would see the name of the person who is calling him, rather than the number of the phone that he is using.

If we give our phone to somebody else to use, the city's computer would recognize that other person, and he would have access to his phone information, and the city's computer would update the information in its database to show that the phone is now being used by that person. When he gives the phone back to us, it would return to being "our" phone.

Since the city computers would be tracking people and phones, they would know where everybody is in relation to all of the phones. This would allow us to offer a phone service that is not possible in a free enterprise system. Specifically, it would allow us to receive phone calls even when we did not have a phone.

For example, assume that Richard and his friends decide to go swimming at a pond, and Richard leaves his phone at home. While Richard is at the pond, his mother decides to call him. She tells her phone to call Richard, and the city's computer looks in the database to see which phone Richard is using. The computer would also check the tracking information to see where Richard is. The computer would notice that his phone is at his home, but he is at the pond. The computer would then tell Richard's mother that Richard does not have his phone with him, and the computer would give her four options:
1) Leave a message on Richard's phone.
2) Send the phone call to whichever phone is nearest to Richard.
3) Let her know when Richard has arrived back at home.
4) Cancel the request to call Richard.

If the call is important, she will be able to tell the computer to call the nearest phone. If there are several phones in the area, the computer would ask her which of those phones to call, in case she knows one of the people. If she doesn't know anybody, and if Bob is holding the phone nearest to Richard, then Bob will get a phone call that tells him that Richard's mother is calling Richard.

The computer could also display a map on the phone to show where Richard is in relation to the phone, in case Bob is not sure where Richard is, or who Richard is. The computer could also show a photo of Richard. Bob could then say to Richard, "Are you Richard? You have a phone call." Bob would then give the phone to Richard.

In our nations today, we would be extremely annoyed if we received a phone call for a stranger, but if we were living in a city in which the people had to meet higher standards, it would not be a problem. For one reason, the people would have enough respect to direct a phone call to a stranger only for important reasons, and another reason is that the people making and receiving the call would have enough respect to keep the phone call as short as possible. Furthermore, the situation would rarely happen since most people would carry a phone with them, or their friend would have a phone. I suspect that most people would go through their entire life without getting a phone call for a stranger. However, having that option would be beneficial once in a while.


Since all of the phones are generic, it does not matter which phone a person has. The city would have phone stores scattered around, so anybody who needed a phone could pick one up from the store, and if a person ended up with more than one phone, he could put the excess back at any store, or he could give one of the phones to somebody who needs a phone.

As long as everybody in the city is responsible and considerate, the generic phones would make our lives much more convenient. None of us would have to be concerned about carrying a phone all the time. A family or a group of friends could go somewhere and leave all but one phone at home. None of us would have to be concerned about phone numbers, either, or SIM cards.

Likewise, all of the Internet Wi-Fi connections would be generic. Nobody would need passwords. All devices could connect to the Internet anywhere in the city through any Wi-Fi connection.

Furthermore, the government would ensure that all of the computers, phones, Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth items, and other equipment is compatible, so we would never have to waste our time with connection problems, communication protocols, or incompatible devices.


We would pick up and drop off phones at any of the phone stores.

Animals do not want freedom

The people in Kastron will have a lot of restrictions on their freedom, and that requires that the people have a better understanding of the issue of freedom so that they don't demand a freedom that they do not need or cannot use properly.

Most people regard freedom as a magic substance that improves our lives as we get more of it. In reality, freedom is a complex topic. Giving a person a freedom is giving him the choice to choose the path he follows, but there is no guarantee that he will choose a path that is beneficial for him, or for society.

Since most people are of average intelligence, and have an average understanding of the world, they would benefit by having somebody with greater intelligence and knowledge tell them which path to take. This is why animals evolved such a strong craving to follow their leader. The animals that were the most successful were those that would willingly follow a leader when they lost the competitive battle to be the leader.

Most humans do not want freedom, so why are they demanding it?

Humans have the same strong craving to follow a leader when we fail to become the leader. Therefore, why are so many people whining for more freedom?

I suspect that some of the people who are whining for freedom are doing so simply because they are mimicking other people who are whining for freedom. The reason this is possible is that most people are choosing wealthy or famous people as their role models.

Unfortunately, in this modern world, many of the wealthy and famous people are exhibiting crude, animal attitudes, and some have serious mental problems. They do not encourage self-control, teamwork, honesty, or treating people as friends. Instead, they encourage the hoarding of material items, extreme selfishness, a lack of concern for other people, the seeking of status, and excessive amounts of sex. They also want to use other people as servants rather than treat them as friends or equals. They want secrecy, and the freedom to do as they please. They want their children to have special privileges. They admire dishonest and rebellious people, such as pirates, Bonnie and Clyde, and Billy the Kid. They promote the censorship, harassment, firings, and arrest of their critics. They promote cheating to get what they want rather than demand that everybody earn what they want.

People who mimic the famous and wealthy people are going to mimic the bad attitude of doing whatever pleases us with no regard to the effect we have on other people, and regarding criminals, such as pirates, as admirable people.



Our leaders treat us like animals.
It was acceptable for prehistoric people to follow whichever man fought his way to the top of the hierarchy, but today we have to pass judgment on who deserves a leadership position.

A person who wants to vote must show that he can make wise decisions about when they are being provided with leadership, and when we are being abused, deceived, cheated, and treated like an animal.

A voter should realize that the censorship by Google and Facebook is restricting our freedom of speech and manipulating our opinions, not protecting us from false information. The censorship is analogous to the blinders on a horse.

A voter should also know the difference between a serious accusation of a crime, and nonsensical accusations that are intended to eliminate competitors or critics, such as accusations of climate change denial, white privilege, Holocaust Denial, anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism.

Example: Global warming

A democracy gives us freedom of speech, but without any responsibilities. There are no standards for us to meet, and none of us is held accountable for anything we say. We do not have to provide supporting evidence for our theories, identify our sources of information, or correct our mistakes.

Giving people freedom of speech while also giving them "freedom from responsibility" resulted in a lot of abuse in the 1800's because many businesses deliberately lied about medical products in order to exploit sick people. That abuse caused the government to put restrictions on our freedom of speech in regards to medical issues, but no government yet has set any restrictions on what people can say about global warming.

We have the freedom to say anything we please about global warming, and this has resulted in some criminals conspiring to frighten us into believing that we are about to destroy the Earth as a result of our production of carbon dioxide. Millions of people have been deceived into following their advice. By not holding people accountable for what they say, it is impossible for us to know which of the people who promote global warming are the criminals, and which are their victims. Two examples are:



In 2009, Climeworks was established to stop global warming, and as of November 2021 Climeworks has 150 employees in four nations. They are producing machines to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and pump it deep underground in the hope that it eventually becomes incorporated into the rocks. They have 15 machines operating in Europe. Are they criminals who are profiting from the global warming fraud? Or are they victims of the deception?


In 2020, Jeff Bezos announced that he was setting up a $10 billion fund to stop global warming. Is he a criminal who is deliberately promoting this fraud? Or is he one of their victims?

If Climeworks or Jeff Bezos were to promote fraudulent medical information, they would be arrested, but there are no restrictions on what we say about global warming. We can also say anything we please about the extinction of the dinosaurs, the creation of the universe, heaven, hell, Jesus, racism, feminism, sexism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and white supremacy.

When businesses were free to say whatever they pleased about pharmaceutical products, many people decided to follow the advice of dishonest or ignorant business executives and salesmen who recommended worthless or dangerous medicines. Today people are free to say anything they please about global warming, and that is causing people to follow the advice of dishonest and ignorant "experts" who advocate reducing our production of carbon dioxide.

What is the difference between a person who purchased a bottle of Radithor to improve his health, and a person who purchased an electric car in order to improve the Earth's climate? Why do we protect people from fraudulent medicines, but not from fraudulent information about global warming, racism, feminism, the world wars, and the Apollo moon landing?

It might be true that our production of carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the Earth's climate, but there is no evidence for that theory yet, and we are not even permitted the freedom to discuss the issue in public.

Although we have freedom of speech, we cannot discuss global warming in public because we are also giving Google, the ADL, journalists, school officials, and other organizations and citizens the freedom to censor, suppress, intimidate, and fire the people who disagree with them, which is a freedom that conflicts with freedom of speech, and is a freedom that only criminals benefit from.

Anybody who disagrees with the global warming theory is censored or insulted, and nobody is allowed to offer alternative solutions to improve the climate, such as reducing the human population, or moving transportation systems underground so that we can replace some of the asphalt and concrete with vegetation, or increase the vegetation by living in tall buildings rather than separate homes.

All of us are being presented with only one side of the global warming issue. Therefore, none of us can be described as "free". We could all be described as a type of slave or prisoner who is manipulated by restricting our access to information, people, and discussions.

If we were truly free, we would be able to have public discussions about any issue we please, and that would help us to realize that there are thousands of potential problems that we could work ourselves into frenzy about. For example:



Burning hydrocarbons adds water to the environment, so we could panic about the possibility of "Global Flooding".


Should we try to stop North and South America from separating? If those continents break apart, an enormous amount of water from the Atlantic ocean will continuously flow into the Pacific Ocean, and that would have a dramatic effect on the creatures in the Pacific Ocean, and possibly the weather. It might also affect the rotation of the Earth. Should we start building a giant concrete wall along the Panama coast to prevent "Global Oceans"?


The world produces 300 million tons of salt every year. A lot of it is put onto roads during the winter to melt ice, which eventually gets into the oceans. The salt that we dig up from the land is increasing the salinity of the oceans. Should we prohibit the mining of salt and restrict the production of salt to the evaporation of seawater to prevent "Global Dead Seas"?

To add complexity to this issue, even if we stop mining salt, it is likely that the oceans will continue to increase in salinity as a result of rainwater washing salt into the oceans. Should we do something to counteract that, such as dig a giant pit somewhere and fill it with salt from the oceans?


I suggested in a previous document that mammals developed a body that maintains a temperature of about 38°C because that was the typical temperature of the Earth when animals evolved, so that was the temperature that animals evolved for. There might not have been any ice, snow, or hail anywhere on the Earth at the time of the dinosaurs.

In such a case, if the global warming fanatics had been alive when the Earth's climate started to cool down, they would have been horrified by snow, hail, and ice. They would have panicked that the Earth is going to be destroyed by "Global Freezing", and that it will exterminate thousands of species of animals and plants, and create large wastelands of ice, glaciers, and snow. They would have wanted to destroy the glaciers, not protect them.


When the continents began moving around, the global warming fanatics would have panicked that the land areas are going to be squashed, thereby reducing the total land area, and creating uninhabitable mountains and deserts. They might have advocated using bulldozers to flatten the mountains to prevent "Global Continental Crumpling".

None of the people who are panicking about global warming are providing us with intelligent analyses of the Earth's climate, or even admitting that they don't know much about the Earth's climate. They are behaving like bullies or criminals who are are trying to intimidate, frighten, and manipulate us into obeying them. What is the difference between:


a)
A journalist who deceives a person into believing that he will be a hero by reducing his production of carbon dioxide.

b)
A priest who deceives a child into believing that God will love him if he provides the priest with sex services.

c)
These 5 dentists in California who were arrested for deceiving people into having unnecessary procedures.

Leaders do not need to censor false opinions

The executives of Facebook, Twitter, and other companies claim to be protecting us from false information by censoring certain opinions and people, and Google executives claimed that they fired James Damore to protect their company. However, as I explained years ago, we don't need to protect the truth.

The issue of freedom and censorship is complex, and the people in influential positions should show that they have some understanding of this issue. A popular example of the complexity is the situation of a person yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building. Specifically, we have the freedom to yell "Fire!", but we want people to use that freedom only when it is beneficial to society.

A person will get in trouble for yelling "Fire!" as a prank, but nobody gets in trouble for spreading false information about the Flat Earth theory, the Holocaust, Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, or the 9/11 attack.

Our freedom of speech should be the freedom to discuss our opinions, not the freedom to deceive, manipulate, exploit, or cheat other people.

To determine whether somebody should have the freedom to say a particular remark, we should consider the effect the remark has on society, and the purpose of the remark. The remarks that are intended to deceive should be considered as a crime, not as freedom of speech.

However, people who make false remarks as a result of ignorance, honest mistakes, or stupidity are not committing crimes. Furthermore, there is no need to censor honest mistakes. For example, if a person is so mentally defective that he believes the Earth is flat, it is detrimental to censor him because that can result in anger and complaints of censorship. We will not protect children from the Flat Earth theory by censoring those theories. The proper way to protect children from false beliefs is to provide them with the truth.

For example, we could point out to the children that if they talk to their relatives who are living in another city, they will discover that the sun is in a different location, and it is nighttime in some cities while it is daytime in others. If the Earth is flat, then all cities would experience daytime and nighttime at the same time.

Of course, providing evidence that a theory is false is useful only if the person is capable of understanding the evidence, and emotionally willing to look at it. For example, there is a lot of evidence that evolution is more sensible than the religions, but most of the world's population is either intellectually unable to understand evolution, or emotionally unwilling to accept it.

The mentally inferior people are spreading a lot of idiotic beliefs. Would we protect the children from religion and other nonsense by censoring those people? No. Censoring people who have irrational opinions is as useless and detrimental as punishing people with bad behavior. We have to accept the fact that some people's minds don't work very well, and we should not try to control those people, or believe that we can fix their mental problems.

Censoring the people with nonsensical opinions will most likely result in anger, and possibly violence. It is better to let them have free speech so that they feel that they have a fair chance to explain themselves.

This concept is similar to that of allowing a person who is accused of a crime to have a trial in which he is free to present evidence of his innocence. Even though his evidence may be regarded as stupid or deceptive, all throughout history people have noticed that it is better to give a person the opportunity to explain himself than it is to convict him secretly.

How do we deal with people with bad behavior? How do we deal with people who continuously promote irrational opinions? How do we determine whose opinion is irrational? How do we determine whose behavior is "bad"?

Unfortunately, there is no way for us to design a test that will tell us whose mind is functioning better, or whose opinion is more sensible.

Nature took care of this problem for our prehistoric ancestors by putting them into competition for survival. The people with the higher quality minds dominated in the long run. Today we have to set up the competitions and make the determination of whose opinions and behavior is the best.

The point of this section is that censorship should not be tolerated. Censorship is needed only by criminals. Censorship is a form of cheating. We should demand that our leaders allow their competitors to express their opinions, and if our leaders disagree with somebody, they should provide evidence that their opinions are more sensible.

Deception should be a crime

To add complexity to the issue of false opinions, we must pass judgment on whether a person is promoting a false opinion because of ignorance or mental inferiority, or whether they are doing it because they are trying to manipulate us.

For example, I suspect that most of the people who are promoting the Flat Earth theory, the theory that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with miniature hydrogen bombs, and that the theories that the Protocols of Zion and David Goldberg are fictional creations of anti-Semites to hurt the innocent and lovable Jews, are criminals who are trying to deceive and manipulate us.

We do not need to censor the people who promote false opinions. Rather, we need to investigate them and pass judgment on whether they are promoting the opinions to manipulate us, and if so, they should be regarded as criminals.

Would small homes make us feel like prisoners?

My suggestion to make all of the apartments very small, for sleeping and resting only, will put a lot of restrictions on our freedom. For example, we will not be able to have parties in our home, or cook meals, or work on our hobbies. Will this cause us to feel as if we are living in a jail cell? This is another interesting and complex issue that we need to think about.

There are a lot of similarities between people living in Kastron, and prisoners living in a jail. For example:


When we want to eat, we have to leave our "prison cell", go to one of the "prison" cafeterias, and eat with all of the other "prisoners".


When we want to socialize, we have to go to one of the "prison" lounges that all of the other prisoners can use.


When we want recreation, we have to go to one of the "prison" recreation areas.


When we want to work on a hobby, we have to go to one of the "prison" social clubs where we will work among other "prisoners", and use the "prison's" equipment and supplies.


When we want to find a spouse, we have to go to one of the "prison" courtship activities.

Whether we enjoy that "prison life" depends upon our leadership, the people we live with, and the way we design the "prison".

Every child could be described as a prisoner, and parents could be described as prison officials or prison guards. His bedroom could be described as his prison cell. However, whether a child suffers depends upon the minds of his parents. Appropriate parents will provide a child with a wonderful life, and they will prepare him for adulthood.

When we don't like something, we should look for improvements

As I mentioned in other documents, we should react to problems by looking for improvements, rather than whine about the problem. The people who complain that apartment buildings are ugly, noisy, and miserable are whining, not looking for ways to improve the situation.

We have the intelligence, creativity, and knowledge to create a city in which everything is beautiful, including the factories, bicycle paths, machine shops, and recycling centers. However, creating a beautiful city requires people, and leaders, who have an interest in society and are willing to do some useful work.

The people who currently dominate the world have already started the creation of some new cities, such as the City of Telosa and Neom. However, their cities are essentially what we already have, so I suppose they will live in giant mansions, and they will put everybody else into the same noisy, ugly, overcrowded houses, condominiums, and apartment buildings that they are already creating for us, such as those in India and China.

If we can provide ourselves with better leadership, and if we can find people who are willing to do some useful work for the city, then we could create a city in which all of the apartments are essentially the luxurious bedrooms of a beautiful mansion. The city would be beautiful everywhere, and provide us with lots of spacious and beautiful restaurants, recreational activities, and children's facilities.





Every apartment building could have beautiful dining rooms, social areas, recreational rooms, staircases, and windows.
Every apartment building could have a giant, covered courtyard to provide us with a beautiful garden.


A city is whatever we decide to make it. We have unlimited options with our cities. We can choose to make them overcrowded, noisy, and filthy, or we can choose to make them quiet, beautiful, and relaxing.

We cannot improve our lives by acquiring more material wealth, sex, or status. The most important aspect of our lives are the people we live with, and the people we choose for leadership positions.

If we choose to live among responsible, honest people who are willing to contribute to the city, and if we provide ourselves with respectable leaders, then we will become a team that works to provide one another with a beautiful city, pleasant job environments, and useful school courses. We will provide one another with a wide variety of restaurants, social and recreational activities, parks, swimming areas, foot paths, bicycle paths, trains, children's facilities, and plazas.

Our culture alters our evolution

We evolve to fit our environment

Every animal evolves to enjoy his particular environment. For example, gophers enjoy living in dark, underground tunnels and eating the roots of plants, and reindeer enjoy a cold climate and eating lichen.

Animals cannot alter their environment, so they adapt to whatever it happens to be. However, our prehistoric ancestors eventually began developing technology that changed their environment slightly. That caused humans to evolve to fit the cultural changes that they were making.

For example, when it became common for them to have a fire in their campsite at night, they slowly began to evolve to enjoy campfires. Our ancestors have been sitting around a campfire for so many thousands of generations that it has become part of our genetic characteristics. Our craving for having a fireplace in our home is genetic, not something that we learned from our parents. We are attracted to fire. We enjoy the reddish light and heat from a fire.

However, our craving for fires is no longer appropriate. Even if the world's population is reduced to 500 million, we would ruin the atmosphere if everybody was burning fires for hours every evening. It would also require a lot of our labor to produce and distribute all of the wood, and deal with all of the ashes.

We need to make decisions about what we want the human race to evolve into, and adjust our culture accordingly. One option is to prohibit fireplaces and allow our desire for fires to deteriorate through the generations.

If we decide to continue producing fireplaces, my recommendation is to prohibit them in homes, and allow them only in public facilities. Also, I would limit the fireplaces to natural gas or ethanol to reduce pollution. Furthermore, we should not poison the ethanol with methanol. We should stop promoting the "Pity the Underdog" attitude. It is more sensible to reduce our exposure to and production of methanol and other poisonous chemicals, including isopropyl alcohol.

Our culture determines who is a misfit
 
The design of our city, meals, economic system, school system, recreational activities, and everything else about our culture, determines who among us is best suited to our environment, and who is a misfit.

A "genetic disorder" depends upon the environment that we live in. For example, when our ancestors settled into cities they began to add large amounts of grains, sugar, and animal milk to their diet. Due to genetic variations, the people had various abilities to deal with such foods. The people who had trouble suffered from digestive problems, autoimmune problems, nutritional deficiencies, headaches, blood sugar problems, or other troubles, which in turn interfered with their life in a variety of ways. They may have been wonderful people, but their inability to handle their new diet caused them to be more likely to be sickly, weak, or a social misfit, which in turn reduced their chances of surviving and successfully raising children.

Through the generations of tormenting people with a new diet, the people began evolving the ability to handle such foods, but evolution is very slow, so the process is nowhere near completion. A significant percentage of the human population is still having trouble with grains, sugar, and animal milk.

When our ancestors changed their diet, they inadvertently changed the course of human evolution by causing some people to suffer and become misfits. Some of the misfits undoubtedly reacted to their misery by using alcohol or other drugs to dull their pains, and some of them may have had so much trouble making a living that they turned to crime, charities, or begging.

For a personal example of this problem, in the early 1990's I noticed that my left nostril would sometimes be partially blocked, and it would feel warm and tingle slightly deep inside, as if it some area of it was swollen. The problem would come and go, but it seemed the worst about an hour or so after eating, so I assumed I had a mild allergy to food, and perhaps other things, also, such as pollen. Some of my relatives have mild allergies and occasionally have to blow their nose, so I assumed it was just another of my genetic defects.

I assumed that I had a slight allergy to dairy products, and although eliminating dairy products seemed to help a bit, it did not stop the problem from occurring. Recently I decided to completely stop eating all grains and nuts, and that stopped the problem quickly. I can breathe through my nose much easier now.

I have been experimenting with my diet to figure out which grain or nut is causing the trouble, and whether it has to do with whether it is raw, sprouted, or cooked.

Note:: I will soon post this document (link does not exist yet) about my discovery that I prefer the flavor and odor of grains after they have been either soaked for many hours, or sprouted, so I no longer want to use raw grains for bread or porridge.

If computers had been observing us and collecting medical and other data about us, including the foods we eat, the pollen and other allergens in our environment, and how often we blow our nose or breathe through our mouth because our nose is clogged, a computer might have been able to figure out which foods, cooking methods, or allergens are causing me trouble.

The California government requires us to give our automobile a smog inspection every two years, but almost every automobile passes the tests, which makes the tests a waste of time, labor, technical talent, and resources.

It would be much more beneficial to put our labor and resources into developing tests for humans. It is more important for us to understand ourselves than it is to understand our automobiles. Although many people are regularly going to dentists and doctors for routine checkups, those doctors are providing only simplistic tests. It would be more useful to gather much more detailed medical data about everybody's digestive system, hormones, blood sugar, heart, kidney, and other organs, and put all of it into a publicly accessible database.

There are certain to be a lot of people besides me who have some problems that are so subtle that they haven't yet noticed them, but who would have slightly better mental or physical health, or be able to think slightly better, or breathe easier, or sleep better, if they were aware of their problems and correcting for it.

Furthermore, the database would allow medical researchers to get a better understanding of human health, and we would all benefit from that.

There is no such thing as "healthy" food

Everybody advocates a "healthy" diet, but which foods are healthy, and which are unhealthy? There are thousands of experts on diet, but they promote different diets, such as Keto, Mediterranean, vegetarian, vegan, low-fat, low carbohydrate, and variations of raw foods.

The attitude that some foods are "healthy" is the result of ignorance and/or arrogance. Almost everything on this planet is a "healthy" food to some creature. The purple and green sulfur bacteria consider hydrogen sulfide to be a health food.

Whether a food is "healthy" depends upon a person's particular genetic characteristics. If a person has the genetic ability to handle peanuts, grains, nuts, eggs, strawberries, and shellfish, then those foods are "health foods" to that person. If a person had the digestive ability of a vulture, rotten meat would be a health food.

Even if we control reproduction, all of the children in every generation will have a slightly different digestive system, liver, pancreas, immune system, and other body parts. Therefore, a healthy diet will always be slightly different to different people.

In order to improve our health, we must stop believing that we are the creation of some god, and that all races, ages, and sexes are identical to one another.

We must acknowledge the evidence that humans are a species of monkey; that our physical and mental characteristics are determined by our DNA; that we are very similar to each other but genetically unique; and everybody has lots of genetic defects.

We can develop attractions to things that hurt us

A remark that my father made to me that didn't make sense at the time was that people sometimes develop a desire for the foods that they are allergic to. I can now understand how that could be possible.

A better way to explain the concept is that when we have a mildly unpleasant reaction to a food, but the reaction doesn't occur for hours later, our mind can be fooled into thinking that we enjoy the food more than other foods.

For example, if a person has a mildly unpleasant reaction to wheat, but if he frequently has bread or pasta with his meal, then he will go through a cycle in which he enjoys the meal, and then an hour or so later feels mildly unpleasant, but not so unpleasant that he realizes that he is having a bad reaction to the wheat. By comparison, when his meal doesn't contain wheat, he will enjoy the meal just as much, but he will not suffer afterwards.

If we could measure his pleasure levels, we would find that when he eats a meal without wheat, he enjoys the meal, and then his pleasure levels return to normal. He then starts experiencing some unpleasant feelings as hunger develops (the upper graph in the image below).



By comparison, when he has a meal with wheat, he will enjoy the meal just as much, but an hour or so later his pleasure levels will drop below normal as he suffers from the bad reaction. If he then has another meal with wheat, his pleasure level will rise, but the rise will be much more dramatic, which can fool his brain into thinking that the meals with wheat are more pleasurable (the lower graph in the image).

The possibility that we become attracted to things that hurt us is another reason why we should study ourselves, and why we should be careful about believing that we know what we like and dislike, and that we know what is best for us.

We must remind ourselves that our mind is not a precise, dependable scientific instrument. It's just a large, monkey brain.

The value of food also depends on its preparation

To complicate the issue of which foods are healthy, we also have to be concerned with how we prepare the food. For example:
• Contaminants
We process and cook food with items made of metal, plastic, and silicone rubber. I noticed the metal in a coffee grinder slowly wearing away from grinding nuts, but should we be concerned about those bits of metal? Which metal contaminants are dangerous? I've also noticed that some acidic foods have an effect on aluminum pans and aluminum foil, but should we be concerned about food reacting with aluminum or other metals? Chromium and nickel are supposedly dangerous, so should we avoid stainless steel?

• Heat
The health value of food can be altered by the temperature that we bring it to, and the duration of time that we hold it at various temperatures. Some people claim that milk is destroyed if we pasteurize it, whereas other foods, such as kidney beans, must be held at a high temperature for a long time in order to destroy the lectins.

Many seeds and nuts contain some type of lectin, so would it be best to roasts any of them to destroy that chemical? If so, at what temperature, and for how long?

• Leaching with water
A lot of foods have oxalic acid, and many people have been warned to leach it out of rhubarb by boiling it in water, but spinach is frequently eaten raw even though it has a lot of the acid also. Should we leech it from spinach?

Incidentally, different people provide different values of oxalic acid in foods, and there is no concern to determine which values are the most accurate, or whether the acid is easily absorbed by the human body. For example, this hospital lists beets in the foods to avoid by people who are trying to reduce their intake of the acid, but this doctor claims that the oxalic acid in beets is not easily absorbed by the human body.

• Sprouting grains and nuts
Would sprouting any of the grains or nuts make them healthier? If so, how long should the seeds be allowed to sprout? Do people with peanut allergies have less trouble with sprouted peanuts?

I suspect that people in the distant future will develop the technology to create completely artificial meals so that they can avoid the problems with natural foods. They will be able to produce meals that are better tasting, have better textures, more nutritious, are easier to digest, and produce less waste and intestinal gas.

Each of us is genetically unique, and defective

Since each of us believes that we are the standard to judge other people, we assume that the diet that is best for us is best for everybody else. This arrogance has caused the US government officials to create a food pyramid to show us the best diet.

If we had the technology to determine the dietary needs of a human body, we would discover that each of us has very similar but slightly different dietary needs as a result of our particular genetic characteristics and defects. Likewise, we have similar but slightly different reactions to pollen, bacteria, humidity, and other environmental issues. For example:



Some of us have skin that creates stronger calluses in response to abrasion, thereby causing those people to have hands and feet that are more resistant to cuts and abrasion.


Some of us have immune systems that are better at adapting to pollen and other allergens, thereby allowing those people to avoid allergic reactions.


Some of us have bodies that do a better job of adjusting its perspiration, temperature, and blood flow to deal with the weather, thereby allowing those people to be more comfortable in extreme weather conditions.

Aajonus Vonderplanitz was sickly his entire life, but doctors never figured out what his problem was. He began experimenting with his diet, and he improved his health dramatically by switching to a "Primal Diet" that was mainly raw meat, raw eggs, and raw dairy products. He also claims that he would sometimes eat rotten eggs and meat.

Aside from the dairy products, his diet is essentially that of wolves, hyenas, lions, and all other carnivores, including the prehistoric humans who had not yet figured out how to start a fire.

Some people were born with tails, and some have hair on their face. Those people are evidence that the genetic blueprints for prehistoric characteristics are still in our strands of DNA.

Perhaps Vonderplanitz inherited a digestive system that was similar to that of his prehistoric ancestors, thereby making it impossible for him to digest the modern foods. Or, perhaps his digestive system was simply so defective that he could digest only a few foods.

Although his dietary needs were very unusual, his arrogance was typical for a man, so he promoted his diet as being the best for everybody. A more sensible interpretation of his life is that he had some very significant genetic differences or defects that caused him to have extreme problems with our modern diet, and that only a tiny percentage of the population would benefit from his diet.

We would learn a lot more about human life and health if we eliminated secrecy and allowed doctors and scientists to collect data about us.

Why are wealthy people in better health than poor people?

Wealthy people, as a group, have longer and healthier lives than poor people. Most people assume it is because the wealthy people can afford better medical care, so a lot of organizations want the government to provide poor people with better healthcare, such as this article from the AAFP, and this article from The Commonwealth Fund.

However, wealthy people were in better health before there was such a thing as "medical care". For example, Michelangelo died in 1564 at age 88, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek died in 1723 at age 90, and Benjamin Franklin died in 1790 at age 84, but all of those men had medical and dental care that was much more crude than the prisoners and welfare recipients of the USA and Europe.

Archimedes had even more primitive medical care, and almost no knowledge of nutrition, but he is estimated to have lived to age 75, at which time he was killed by a Roman soldier.

The same concept applies to animals. Specifically, the animals that are at the top of the social hierarchy are in better health than those at the bottom level, but it also has nothing to do with healthcare.

A free enterprise system puts people into competition, and the people who have certain types of genetic disorders, such as people who get sick frequently, have arthritis, suffer from allergies, or are physically weak due to problems with their liver, digestive system, hormones, or kidneys, are going to be at a disadvantage. This can result in them becoming the "poor people".

Likewise, certain mental characteristics and defects can cause a person to become poor, such as the people who have troubles learning, obeying orders, following time schedules, concentrating on a job, and working in a team. People can also become poor if they cannot control their spending, gambling, temper, or drug use.

The people who don't want to believe in genetics tend to blame a person's inability to take care of himself on bad luck, racism, sexism, homophobia, lack of opportunities, bad parenting, or some other intangible concept, but the people who have trouble in life are having trouble because of their particular genetic characteristics.

All cultures are promoting the belief that wealthy people are in better health because they can afford better healthcare, but the truth is the opposite. Specifically, the people who become wealthy tend to be the people who have better health.

If we were to divide a society into two groups - those with above-average wealth, and those with below-average wealth - we would discover that the people with above-average wealth have superior genetic characteristics overall, which results in them having better health, more intelligence, more coordination, and more talent.

This creates the ironic situation that the wealthy people have access to better healthcare, but they don't need as much healthcare.

The poor people, as a group, need more healthcare because a lot of them have genetically inferior bodies that are more prone to diseases. Furthermore, the poor people tend to have genetically inferior minds, which causes them to suffer health problems for a variety of reasons, such as choosing inappropriate foods or quantities, or abusing alcohol or other drugs.

Their lower quality minds are also more likely to result in them suffering from accidents that require medical attention. Every culture today promotes the attitude that accidents are random events that occur equally to everybody, but accidents are not random. I mentioned this in some other documents, such as here.

The hospitals in the USA are regularly providing medical care for people who have been shot with guns, stabbed with knives, fallen off ladders, or injured from accidents with industrial machines and recreational vehicles. Those problems do not occur randomly, and they are not the result of poverty. If we were to remove secrecy and keep track of everybody, we would discover that the people who need the most medical care are those who are the most genetically defective.

We should maintain a database of everybody's life, and that will allow us to keep track of who is having the most accidents, and that would help us determine which accidents are the result of a person's genetic problems, and which accidents can be reduced by redesigning the road, machine, or school curriculum. For example, some automobile accidents have been reduced after redesigning an intersection, and some industrial accidents have been reduced after redesigning a factory or machine, or by giving the employees a better education.

The children of poor parents have significant disadvantages in life

To add complexity to the issue of the healthcare, the children of poor people are likely to need more healthcare even if they have excellent genetic health simply because they are being raised by defective parents. For example, the children who have stupid or mentally ill parents might be fed a diet that is inappropriate, thereby causing the children to become sickly or obese. Furthermore, those children might pick up idiotic attitudes from their parents, such as bad eating habits, gambling, drug use, risky stunts, avoiding school, and avoiding "work".

The children who are raised by stupid or mentally ill parents are suffering in many ways compared to other children, and that makes it more likely that they end up becoming poor. This can result in people developing the theory that poor people are the result of "poverty", and that we can help the poor people by increasing their income or giving them handouts of money. However, that problem is not "poverty". Rather, that problem is low quality parents. Giving money to mentally disturbed parents will not cause those parents to raise their children appropriately. The only poor parents who benefit from acquiring more money are those who have the sense to spend the money wisely.

A better solution to the problem of poverty is to restrict reproduction to people in better physical and mental health.

Kastron will appeal only to sociable people

The people who will be the best adapted to Kastron are those who enjoy living in close contact with other people; getting involved with hobbies and recreational activities with other people; and doing things for the city rather than for themselves. They will also be willing to let the city maintain a database that exposes the truth about their lives.

The misfits in Kastron will be the people who want secrecy, or want to spend a lot of their leisure alone in their home, or want to do hobbies for themselves rather than for the city. Those people will complain that the apartments are too small, and that they don't have any privacy.

We cannot design a world that pleases everybody. We must decide what type of genetic characteristics we want for the future generations. My suggestion is to favor the sociable people and, even more important, the people who do not need secrecy because they are not embarrassed or ashamed of themselves. People with those characteristics will create a very pleasant, relaxed social environment, and their ability to work with and for the team will make them very productive.

More examples of how we inadvertently altered human evolution

Our culture determines who among us is a misfit, so we must design our culture to favor the genetic characteristics that we want in the future generations. Here are some more examples of how our ancestors inadvertently altered human evolution as a result of changes that they made to their culture:

• Living at high elevations

The people who moved to high elevations in Peru and Tibet caused some of their children to suffer from the low oxygen levels. Those children were less successful at surviving and reproducing, which caused each generation to have a slightly better ability to handle the low oxygen levels.

• Campfires

Before our ancestors could create fire, the people who could not handle cold weather tended to get sick or die. They were the misfits of that era. However, campfires allowed those misfits to survive and reproduce. This resulted in each generation being slightly less able to handle cold weather.

• Homes that we can heat and cool

During the past few thousand years, we have been living in homes that protect us from storms and extremes of temperature. Recently we have been able to control the temperature and humidity in our homes and offices. This is allowing people to survive and reproduce even if they have serious problems dealing with minor changes in temperature or humidity, or if they have problems with rain or wind.

Alcohol

When our ancestors began producing alcoholic beverages, some of the people who had bizarre personalities or mental disorders became more relaxed, friendly, or sociable, thereby allowing them to attract a spouse and reproduce. This results in each generation having a higher percentage of people who need alcohol in order to compensate for their mental problems.

• Caffeine and nicotine

When our ancestors began using stimulants, such as tea, coffee, and tobacco, the people who benefited from the drug became more successful at survival and reproduction. This caused every generation to have a higher percentage of people who need stimulants.

• Religion

When our ancestors created religions, some of the misfits benefited by stimulating themselves into believing that some supreme being will protect them from danger, or that they must control their envy, criminal behavior, and temper in order to get into heaven. Religion allowed those particular misfits to become more successful at survival and reproduction, resulting in each generation becoming more dependent upon religion in order to control their crude and destructive behavior.

• Charities, handouts, and other types of assistance

Humans have a strong desire to help people who are having trouble in life. This causes us to give donations, second chances, and advice to people who are having trouble controlling their consumption of alcohol, temper, envy, drug abuse, gambling, and spending habits.

All of us, especially when we are young, make mistakes, so we benefit tremendously by helping one another learn from their mistakes and become better people. However, during the past few thousand years, the people who cannot take care of themselves have been able to continuously receive handouts from churches, individual people, businesses, and governments.

Continuously providing people with handouts is not helping them become better. Rather, it allows misfits to survive and reproduce, thereby increasing the number of them in every generation.

• Cooking meat

When our ancestors began cooking meat, the children who had a digestive system that had trouble with the bacteria that often contaminates raw meat benefited by the sterilization of cooking. This resulted in every generation becoming more dependent upon sterilized food.

• Jobs and businesses

When our ancestors settled into a city, it became impossible for people to survive by hunting animals. They had to be a self-employed farmer, or get a job, or start some other business. The people who had trouble with this radical change suffered, and they found some other way to make a living, such as through crime, religion, government, or begging for handouts. This results in every generation having more people who have trouble with modern jobs.

• Prostitution

Although some women probably offered sex to men in return for food or furs during prehistoric times, prostitution probably did not become a common or full time activity until people settled into cities. The women who could not attract a man, and who did not have relatives to take care of her, could turn to prostitution to survive and successfully raise children, thereby creating more misfits who had trouble making a living.

It is imperative that we restrict reproduction

Our technology has changed our environment, but we are not yet doing anything to ensure that the human race is adapting to it. This is causing a lot of people to suffer, such as the people who have trouble controlling their cravings for sugar, sex, or material wealth, or who have trouble following laws, attending a school, or working at a modern job.

It is not "desirable" to restrict reproduction. Rather, it is "imperative". If we don't restrict reproduction, the future generations will become increasingly sickly, mentally disturbed, violent, and dependent upon caffeine, air conditioners, surgical procedures, medical drugs, and handouts.

The people who complain that it is cruel to restrict reproduction are actually being cruel to the future generations because they are allowing the human race to degrade into miserable, sickly, ugly, stinky creatures who hate themselves.

Artificial selection is superior to natural selection

Evolution is a cruel and slow process. For example, humans developed color vision, intelligence, the ability to speak, and other characteristics as a result of the suffering of millions of people who had inferior genetic characteristics.

Furthermore, this cruel process is still occurring. For example, millions of children around the world are suffering from allergies, obesity, diabetes, low energy levels, and other health problems as a result of being unable to cope with our modern diet, and there are millions of adults having trouble with life because of their inability to deal with school, jobs, laws, alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, money, and fame.

Our culture determines who among us is well adapted to life. If we change our economic system, we change who is successful and who is a failure. If we change our diet, we change who is healthy and who is sickly. If we change our recreational or social activities, we change who enjoys the activities and who is a misfit.

We should not create culture according to what we are most emotionally attracted to. Instead, we should use our intelligence to consider the effect our culture will have on the evolution and suffering of the human race. We should design our culture according to what we want the human race to evolve into.

If we promote six small meals a day, then we favor the people who have a digestive system that prefers having small amounts of food passing through constantly. If, instead we have only two or three meals a day, then we favor the people who have digestive systems that prefer a gap between the meals. The number of meals also affects our work schedule, and how much time we spend cleaning our teeth. The more meals we have, the more often we disrupt our work.

If we promote a religion, then the future generations will evolve into needing that particular religion. If we promote alcohol, secrecy, deception, false images of ourselves, and caffeine, then people will evolve to fit that particular culture. If we promote homosexuality, orgies, pedophilia, murder rituals, or bestiality, then the human race will evolve to fit that culture.

After we decide what type of culture we want the human race to have, we should restrict reproduction to the people who enjoy that culture, rather than let evolution occur "naturally". When humans make decisions about reproduction, evolution becomes "artificial", and we can make it much more pleasant, rapid, and productive. Farmers have proven this concept many times by rapidly breeding fruits, vegetables, pet dogs, and flowers.

The people who want the freedom to reproduce are promoting a freedom that is no longer sensible. Those people don't have the mental characteristics necessary for this modern world. People today need to have a basic understanding of evolution. It is especially important for people today to understand that if we allow the misfits to reproduce, there will be more of them in every generation, and eventually they will evolve into different and seriously defective species.

What do you want the future to be?

There is no right or wrong culture. We simply have to make decisions on what we want the human race to become. The people who don't like the decisions must be classified as misfits, and they must be restricted from reproducing.

Our culture also affects our visual appearance

The visual appearance of humans is also influenced by our culture. For example, now that every society covers their sexual organs with clothing, the people with defective organs have a better chance of attracting a spouse and reproducing successfully. This causes every generation to have uglier and more defective sexual organs.

Likewise, cosmetic surgery, perfumes, soap, and other beauty products are allowing ugly, stinky, and defective people to be more successful at attracting a spouse and reproducing.

Our culture also determines which of our muscles get the most exercise. For example, modern shoes are causing us to walk by landing on our heels, which gives less exercise to our calf muscles and Achilles tendon compared to walking barefoot. The location we put our foot on the pedal of a bicycle also affects which muscles get the most exercise.

If we had a database with details of everybody's life, we might be able to figure out if we need to be concerned about this issue. Are the people who damage their Achilles tendon or calf muscles the people who tend to walk on their heels?

Our culture also affects which facial muscles get the most exercise. For example, the misfits will spend less time smiling and laughing, and more time frowning and complaining. This will give their frowning muscles more exercise, which might cause their face to develop an unhappy appearance.


Some people have an "upside-down mouth", such as Lynn Turner and Richard Person (photos to the right).

Although some upside-down mouths are certain to be genetic, some of them might be due to excessive amounts of frowning, crying, and hating.





Our culture might also affect our eyesight. When I was a child, I was told not to hold books too close to my face when I was reading or else my eyes would become nearsighted. Today some children are putting phones and computers close to their face. Our body and mind has the ability to adapt to our environment to a certain extent, and we should research this characteristic so that we know what to advise children to do. For example, can a child become nearsighted by putting computer screens or books too close to his eyes? If so, how close is "too close"?

It would be especially useful to know what our mind adapts to. A child's mind somehow learns how to control his muscles so that he can walk, but what else does our mind adapt to? For example:



If a school gives children lots of practice in dealing with criticism, will any of them become adults who are better able to deal with criticism compared to the children who are pampered, praised, and protected?





If a school encourages curiosity and pushes children into exploring things, will any of them become adults who are less frightened by the unknown?

We should be concerned about the quality of our lives

Animals devote their lives to surviving and raising children with no concern about whether they or their children are enjoying life. Human cultures are still promoting the animal attitude that the length of time that we live is important, not the quality of our lives. This results in every society putting a tremendous amount of labor and resources into keeping defective children, elderly people, and sickly people alive as long as possible, no matter how much they are suffering.

We have strong inhibitions about killing and eating our own species, and those inhibitions were beneficial for prehistoric people, but now that we are using technology to prevent nature from killing people, we must change our attitudes and be concerned about the quality of a person's life.

The boy in the photo below has such a serious problem with leukemia that he suffers every day. The adults who are delaying his death believe that they are wonderful people for increasing the number of years that he lives, but they are torturing him and his family members.





The concept of euthanizing children is sad, but it is also sad to torment the defective children and their parents. There is no pleasant solution to this problem.

Some parents boast that their defective child is a gift from God, and that the defective child has taught them many wonderful lessons about life, but they are doing a variation of Aesop's fable of the Fox and the Sour Grapes.

Animals often react to unpleasant or frightening situations by running away, and that is what these parents are doing. They are essentially running away from the miserable situation that they are in, and they try to make themselves feel better by repeatedly stimulating themselves with the fantasy that God gave them a defective child for them to learn from, and that the child is enjoying his life.

That behavior is similar to the single men and women who are upset that they don't have a spouse, but cannot admit that they are lonely. Instead of being honest about their feelings, they make angry and bitter remarks about how they don't want to get married. That attitude is especially common among the men who are posting videos about "Men Going Their Own Way" (MGTOW).

Those men are not enjoying life. Rather, they are bitter, angry, and miserable, but they are trying to convince themselves that they are happy by repeatedly telling themselves that women are terrible creatures, and that they are fortunate to be single.

I don't like being single, but I don't pretend that women are disgusting creatures, or that I don't want a wife. I also don't like being bald, physically weak, or having thyroid problems, but I don't pretend that I enjoy any of those problems, either, or that those problems are gifts from God.

The people who behave like the fox in Aesop's fable are people who cannot be honest about their feelings, and who create a fantasy world for themselves. They are inferior people who react to problems with fantasies, lies, false images, pouting, hatred, anger, bitterness, envy, or tantrums. They are not capable of providing themselves or us with sensible analyses or guidance. They should not be allowed in influential positions.

The parents who boast that their defective children are gifts from God are also lying to themselves. Those parents should be told to shut up. They are cruel people who are tormenting themselves and their defective child.

Another example is David Vetter, below, who was born with such an extremely defective immune system that he had to be enclosed in a sterile environment. (This article at PBS has details and photos of his isolation suit, below.)





The Bullock Museum made a display of his isolation suit, and describes his situation as an "inspirational story", but I suggest that it be described as an example of how people are putting a lot of labor and resources into futile attempts to save the most hopeless and miserable children.

This article claims that doctors learned some information about the human immune system by studying David Vetter, but did they learn something that was so useful that it justifies torturing a child for years?

There are so many people who oppose the use of prisoners in medical experiments that the Nuremberg Code was created after World War II as a result of the experiments by Nazis, and many laws have been created around the world to protect prisoners from such experiments, even though it is much easier to justify using prisoners for medical research than it is to justify using defective children who never caused us any trouble. Many people also complain about the use of animals in medical research, and some people even complain about the use of dead human fetuses for medical research. There are also people who do not want their dead body to be used by medical students or for medical research.

The people who provide assistance or donations to defective children praise themselves for being heroes, but they are not making the world a better place for anybody. Rather, they are titillating themselves.





There are millions of people, including children, suffering everywhere in the world from pedophile networks, mentally disturbed parents, crime networks, and numerous other problems. Rather than prolong the death of defective children, we should euthanize them and do something that will truly improve the world, such as dealing with the incompetent governments and crime networks, and experimenting with methods to reduce loneliness and marital problems.

Students who cheat can be more dangerous than murderers

In order to become a voter in Kastron, a person must qualify for the job. This requires the government to develop an educational program for the people who want to become voters. It will be analogous to the training and testing of pilots and medical doctors. As with all types of educational and testing programs, there will be people who try to cheat. However, no society yet shows much of a concern about students who cheat. We are more concerned with athletes who cheat.



This article claims that blinders are
the solution to Harvard's cheating problem

Some teachers try to prevent cheating, such as putting blinders on the students who are taking a test, but trying to prevent students from cheating is as idiotic as putting locks on our front doors to prevent burglaries.

These boxes (or here) at a college in India are more effective than the sheets of paper in the photo to the right, but they cannot solve the problem, either.

Although we can reduce the cheating and burglaries with crime prevention techniques, it cannot solve the problem because it cannot improve the minds of the people.

The previous document of this series recommends that we prohibit apartments from having locks on the front door, and that we evict the criminals rather than live in fear of them. I suggest the same policy for students who cheat. Specifically, instead of trying to prevent them from cheating, we should identify those that cheat, and consider them to be inferior people. They should be disqualified from influential positions, and have restrictions on their ability to reproduce. This policy will improve the genetic characteristics of every generation. This will cause every generation to be more willing to earn what they want in an honest manner, rather than look for a way to cheat.

Three reasons as to why students who cheat are potentially more dangerous than a murderer are:


1)
They can get into jobs that they cannot do properly. This results in incompetent doctors, engineers, pilots, dentists, carpenters, and machinists.

2)
Since they cheated in school, they are likely to continue to cheat at their job. This gives us dishonest doctors, business executives, lawyers, accountants, etc.

3)
If they get into jobs that give them a lot of influence over other people, such as government officials, scientists, journalists, and police officials, then we end up with incompetent and dishonest leaders.

If an athlete is dishonest, he might win a contest, but he doesn't cause trouble to any of us, or to the future generations. If a factory worker is dishonest, he can cause more trouble than an athlete because he can interfere with the operation of the factory and ruin the products he works on, but he is not a significant problem to us or the future generations.

However, if a government official, voter, journalist, or other influential person is dishonest, he can cause trouble for an enormous number of people, and for people in other nations, and for the future generations.

It is more important for us to be concerned about the honesty and competence of people in influential positions than it is to be concerned about an athlete or a factory worker. Unfortunately, every culture is doing the opposite. We allow our leaders to have incredible secrecy, and to get away with crimes, incompetence, and nepotism. We set high standards only for athletes, factory workers, receptionists, waitresses, stewardesses, and sales clerks.

As with everything in life, cheating is more complex than it might appear because there is no dividing line between what is and is not cheating. However, we can certainly make better judgments on cheating than our courts are doing today. For example, consider the issue of cheating to get into college. In 2019 some parents were arrested for paying college officials to allow their child to get into the college, but there are other parents doing almost the same type of crime without getting in trouble for it. Specifically, some wealthy parents donate money to a college in the hope that it will allow their children to be admitted, but even though that often (or always?) results in their children getting into college, it is not considered to be a crime.

A crime is whatever we want it to be. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in previous documents, we tend to make decisions according to our emotions, rather than our intellect. We react to crimes rather than think about them. If a crime has a strong effect on our emotions, such as a murder, we become angry at the criminal and want to hurt him. If a crime does not stimulate much anger, such as cheating in the stock market, we consider the criminal to be committing a trivial crime, and we do not want to hurt him very much. Some people might even admire his cheating as a "clever" money-making technique.

In order to create a more sensible environment, we must stop using our emotions to create policies for crime and start thinking about what is the most intellectually sensible. For example, what is the difference between these two men:


a)
Irving bribes a school official to let him rape one of the children.

b)
Moshe donates money to the school in the hope that the officials allow him to rape one of the children.

In all nations today, only Irving would be considered to be a criminal, but I would say that Moshe is a more destructive criminal than Irving because he is deceptive. When we allow people like Moshe to get away with their crimes, we are essentially breeding criminals to use deceptive tricks, which makes it more difficult for us to realize that they are committing crimes, and more difficult for us to find evidence of their crimes.

Kastron should be as strict as militaries and businesses

As I have mentioned many times, the leaders of businesses and militaries require everybody to behave properly. This results in people frequently complaining about "excessive" strictness. For example, some military bases have set certain areas to be off-limits for cell phone calls, and this can result in some people becoming irritated by the "oppressive" laws that prohibit behavior that is "not hurting anybody".

Some of the people who have lived in Germany and Japan complain that those nations have too many laws, and the laws are too strict.

Instead of complaining that the rules are too restrictive, we should investigate the issue. Why do militaries, businesses, Japan, and Germany impose such intense restrictions on people's freedom?

I predict that an analysis of history would show us that the reason Japan and Germany have been so successful during the past few centuries is because they put a lot of restrictions on freedom, and set high standards of behavior. By comparison, the nations that have lower standards, or provide more freedom, have more crime, chaos, inefficiency, corruption, and shoddy products.

Likewise, an analysis of militaries and businesses will show us that the most successful organizations were those that enforced high standards, even when it seemed unnecessary.

Animals need to be under pressure

The reason we benefit by setting high standards is because humans are animals, and we were designed to be under pressure at all times. During prehistoric times, people were under pressure by nature, but now that we are circumventing nature, we need to put pressure on one another.

If we provide ourselves with an environment in which there is no pressure on us to behave properly, then we will at slowly adapt to that situation, and this will result in us becoming increasingly selfish, irresponsible, lazy, parasitic, and unhappy.

For an example, if the military were to remove the rule that prohibits the use of cell phones in certain areas, initially nothing would change. Only a few people would occasionally use a cell phone in those areas. However, as the years passed, more people would use phones in that area, and eventually it might increase to the extent at which people are behaving like the ordinary citizens who bump into each other, walk into objects, and sometimes lose their temper, as this video shows.

I suggest that Kastron set high standards for everybody, including during our leisure time. I also suggest we go one step further and encourage citizens to get involved with maintaining high standards rather than expecting the police to deal with all of the bad behavior. An example are the women in the photos below who are sitting or kneeling on loaves of bread at a market.








The face of the woman who was kneeling on the bread was blurred, but we should not protect or pity the badly behaved people. We should expose the people who are irresponsible or destructive, not tolerate their abusive behavior.

I suggest that the Kastron government maintain a database that has details of everybody's life, and if a person sees somebody doing something irresponsible, such as kneeling on loaves of bread, they should send a photo of it to the security force, and the security force should put that information into the person's database. This will allow everybody, including the security force, to pass judgment on who among us is behaving appropriately, and who needs to be put on restrictions or evicted.

A “tattletale” is a responsible citizen

In order for this policy to be successful, the people in Kastron must change their attitudes towards "tattletales". There are so many badly behaved people in the world today that every society is under pressure to regard tattletales as undesirable, but it would make more sense to regard the tattletales as responsible citizens who are trying to maintain high standards.

We don't want people to notify the police about issues that truly are trivial, such as calling the police when somebody puts the fork on the "wrong" side of a dinner plate when he sets the table, but we should not ignore people who are destructive. We should not be intimidated by them when they insult us for being a "tattletale".

However, citizens will not be willing to identify criminals unless they feel confident that the police will protect them from retaliation. Katie Piper is just one of many people who have so little confidence in the police that they were afraid to expose a crime, and ended up suffering as a result.

Furthermore, it is useless or dangerous for citizens to identify criminals when the police and other people in leadership positions are protecting criminals, as they protected Jerry Sandusky, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Peter Nygard, and Larry Nasser.

In order for ordinary citizens to be willing to get involved with exposing criminals, we must have much better and much more honest leadership. We must restrict voting to people who can make wise decisions about the leaders of our police and courts.

If we can provide Kastron with an honest legal system, then it will be possible for us to reduce crime to very low levels, and that will inspire the citizens to help to maintain the low crime levels.

We treat dogs more sensibly than humans

The people who train dogs are treating the dogs in a more sensible manner than how we treat humans. One significant difference is that the people who train dogs do not try to change a dog's behavior through punishments. Instead, they observe the behavior of the dogs, and the dogs that cannot behave properly are evicted from the training course.

Many people realize that dogs have genetic characteristics, and that different breeds of dogs have slightly different genetic characteristics. For example, in this article about why Labradors are used as guide dogs, the author points out that it is because of their "nature".







We can trust guide dogs because
we evict those that misbehave.

We cannot trust humans
because we pity the criminals.


Unfortunately, all societies are refusing to believe that humans are animals, and that the concepts that apply to animals apply to humans, also.

If a security force would regard humans as animals, then the people who misbehaved, including government officials, would either be put on restrictions or evicted from the city, rather than punished or pitied.

That policy would create emotional conflicts between the security force and the people who misbehave, which would create an unpleasant environment for us, but allowing the badly behaved people to disrupt society makes life even more unpleasant. It is better to let the badly behaved people suffer than it is to let them ruin life for everybody else.

It will be easy for mothers to raise children in Kastron

A woman's natural desire is to be fed, protected, and pampered by her husband, while she spends the day taking care of children and socializing with other women, but that type of life was possible only in prehistoric times. Life for women today is dramatically different for many reasons, such as:



Birth control allows women to limit themselves to only a few children, so women today don't spend as much time giving birth and taking care of babies.


It is much easier for mothers to take care of children today, so they don't have to spend so much time on childcare.


As soon as the children are old enough for school, the mothers don't have to take care of children during most days.


Women are living so much longer that they are usually becoming grandmothers or great-grandmothers, which means that they have several decades without any children to take care of.

A prehistoric woman spent most of her adult life taking care of children, but women today have a tremendous amount of time for other activities. Unfortunately, we are not adjusting our culture to deal with this dramatic change. Instead, many women waste a lot of their life at home on unnecessary or idiotic activities, such as watching television, eating excessively, playing with pet dogs, shopping, or doing chores that they should have made their children do.

In Kastron, the mothers will have even more leisure time. One reason is because none of the homes will have kitchens or toys. Therefore, mothers will not need to shop for groceries, make meals, or do much housework. Instead, mothers will take their children to the public facilities to get meals, and to play with other children.

Another reason mothers will have a lot more leisure time in Kastron is that when the children become 12 to 14 years old, they will move to Teentown. The mothers will only take care of pre-teen children.

Certain jobs could be set aside for mothers

The mothers in Kastron will not have to spend much of their time raising children, and they will not spend much time on household chores since the homes will essentially be bedrooms, so what are they going to do with all of their leisure time?

We could let them waste their time watching television and eating, but I think it would be better to alter our culture to provide mothers with jobs. However, Kastron allows for discrimination so, as I suggested earlier in this document, we should restrict certain jobs for mothers, and give them different working conditions and hours so that they have time to deal with their children.

I suggest we give mothers first preference for the jobs that involve children, such as at the schools, Teentown, restaurants for children, medical facilities for children, and recreational activities for children. The childless women, including grandmothers, would have second preference for those jobs.

Since it is much more efficient to feed and care for groups of children, rather than have every woman feed and care for her own children, there will not be enough jobs for all of the women. However, in Kastron the jobs can be part-time, and as seldom as one afternoon a month. This will allow a lot of the women to have an opportunity to work with the children. The part-time jobs will also be more suitable to the grandmothers.

I also suggest that the Kastron government dampen the tendency of adults to arrange worthless competitive events for children. For example, in the USA, children are often pushed into having soccer games in which they are expected to put a lot of emphasis on winning, and the parents are often sitting along the boundaries of the soccer field, eating excessively, and yelling at the children.



Instead of competing with men, women should get involved with arranging and supervising activities for both children and adults.
I suggest that the Kastron government experiment with children's activities that are more relaxed and beneficial. We should stop pushing the children into believing they need to win events.

We should stop producing trophies to stop people from becoming obsessed with collecting them.

The competitive activities for children should encourage the children to get some exercise and enjoy nature and other people, not win a trophy.

The women could also arrange for non-competitive activities, such as taking children to a farm, factory, warehouse, forest, and dog park so that they can learn about the city and interact with animals. The women could also take the children to a facility to let them experiment with arts and crafts activities and musical instruments, and encourage them to discover their talents and desires.

All throughout history the women have been doing things with and for children, and arranging social activities for the adults, but the feminist movement has caused women today to compare themselves to men, and try to prove that women can do whatever men do. We should change that situation by pushing the women into ignoring what the men do and get more involved with arranging activities for children and adults.

Women are not leaders

The feminist movement has caused many women to believe that they are just as talented as men in leadership. Although some women have proven themselves to be useful as managers for many situations, they are not appropriate for the leadership positions that require exploration or intelligence.



Women spend more time than men praising, hugging, and touching each other. The people who think this is a coincidence, or due to the way we raise children, should be regarded as nitwits who are inappropriate for leadership.
We should stop tolerating the feminist belief that men and women are identical in their mental qualities. Women, as a group, have a lower interest in exploration, are more fearful, are less intelligent, and they are especially useless for dealing with criminal behavior because they have a strong desire to feel sorry for and take care of people. They want to be mothers, not security guards or soldiers.

Women also have a more difficult time handling criticism than men. Women want to be taken care of, praised, pampered, fed, and protected, not criticized. When women play recreational activities, they need a lot more praise than men.

We should also stop tolerating the feminist belief that men are holding back tears, and that we want to cry just as often as women and children. We should acknowledge the evidence that women cry more than men, and for the same reason that children cry. Specifically, they want somebody else to deal with their problems.

We must allow men and women to be different

During prehistoric times, the men were under pressure to find food, make tools, and protect the tribe. The women were dependent upon men, and that put them into a submissive role. Today women are capable of taking care of themselves and their children, so a husband is optional. This allows women to dominate their husband.

For example, some women put pressure on their husbands to take time off from work to be with them when they give birth, and some women want their husbands to take time off to be with them when they have a miscarriage, and to spend hours, or days, comforting them, pandering to them, and crying with them.

We need to acknowledge that men and women are different. The feminist attitude that a husband can be the best friend of his wife is nonsense. Our culture should encourage women to expect their best friends to be women, and they should expect to spend most of their leisure time with women and children, not with men.

The romance novels are also promoting nonsense, such as the attitude that a woman should expect a man to spend enormous amounts of time chasing after her, flirting with her, and entertaining her, and that a wedding will be the most exciting time in her life. Courtship is a brief event in life, and weddings are even more brief. Men put too much emphasis on sex, and women put too much emphasis on courtship and weddings.

Why were women discouraged from drinking alcohol?

Prior to the twentieth century, a lot of men pressured women into avoiding tobacco and alcohol. Many feminists complained that women were being oppressed by the sexist men, and that women were being denied their freedom. Rather than analyze the issue and provide the women with intelligent guidance, most men pandered to the women. For example, the Phillip Morris company created the Virginia Slims brand of cigarettes in 1968.

It is idiotic to claim that the reason men pressured women into avoiding alcohol and tobacco is because men are "sexist" because there is no evidence that our male ancestors got together and agreed to be abusive to women. I mentioned earlier that history will never be a real science unless we change our attitudes on humans. The people who believe that there is such a thing as "sexist men" are as foolish as the people who believe that some people are possessed by the devil, or that some people are suffering from a conflict between their Id and Superego. The pressure on women to avoid alcohol and tobacco came about for some other, more serious reason.

I suspect that the custom of discouraging women from using tobacco and alcohol developed for the same reason that women developed a desire to put a lot of time into grooming and displaying their hair, fingernails, and toes. I pointed out in a previous document that thousands of years ago, the higher-quality women were more talented at grooming and making clothing. They would have had the highest quality, cleanest, and most attractive clothing, hair, fingers, and toes.

The men who had an attraction to clean clothing, hair, fingers, and toes were inadvertently attracted to the highest quality women, and that gave them the highest quality children. A man who had a stronger attraction to a woman's legs, belly button, or ears would not have been concerned if her hair was tangled in knots, or if her clothing was filthy, resulting in him getting involved with a woman who was inferior to the others, thereby resulting in lower quality children. The end result is that the women who dominated were those who put a lot of time and effort into grooming, and displaying their clean hair, clothing, fingers, and toes.
 
A similar situation may have occurred with the drinking of alcohol and smoking cigarettes. Specifically, a man who preferred a sober woman would have had fewer children with birth defects, and his children would have been raised by a more competent mother. By comparison, a man who preferred women who enjoyed drinking with him would have had lower quality children, and his wife would have been a less effective mother with a greater chance of dying while her children are still young. The end result is that every generation had a slightly higher percentage of boys who had a preference for sober women.

Has alcohol or tobacco improved life for women?

The feminists boast that they have provided women with the freedom to use alcohol and tobacco, but has that freedom actually improved the life of any woman? Actually, has any man benefited from the freedom to use alcohol or tobacco?

I suspect that the only people who benefit from alcohol and tobacco are those who are suffering from certain types of physical or mental disorders. For example, the people who have bipolar problems or depression seem to become slightly more sociable, friendly, and happy when they are slightly intoxicated. The alcohol seems to increase their chances of getting a job, attracting friends, and attracting a spouse. Likewise, the nicotine in cigarettes seems to help the people with problems related to energy or concentration.

I don't see how anybody in good mental or physical health can benefit from either alcohol or tobacco. I think it would be more accurate to put alcohol and tobacco into the category of "medical drugs" rather than a "freedom" that we benefit from. They are "medical" drugs in the same sense that marijuana is a medical drug. Specifically, it helps certain people with certain medical problems.

The feminists boast that they have improved life for women by giving them the freedom to drink alcohol and use tobacco, but I would say that they have done the equivalent of making marijuana legal. They haven't done anything to improve the lives of healthy women.

However, I am not suggesting that we take away the freedom to use alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, heroin, aspirin, or other drugs, and I do not support the policy of trying to control people's use of those items by frightening them with deceptive information about the dangers of drugs, or by threatening them with punishments. Actually, as I described in other documents, I think we should make all of the drugs legal, and give people access to medical drugs without a prescription.

We should give people as much freedom as possible, and ensure that everybody has access to honest information to help them make wise decisions. Instead of trying to control people, or cure them of their idiotic behavior, it is more sensible to restrict reproduction to the people who have the characteristics that we want for the future generations.

The feminists boast that they have improved life for women by making it acceptable for them to drink and smoke, but the only way to truly improve life for women is to restrict reproduction so that the future men and women don't want drugs, and are less violent, selfish, dishonest, paranoid, neurotic, ugly, stinky, and stupid. That will create a world in which the men and women love life and one another.

Who will create a better city?

A better city requires people who want to work in a team

We have a dilemma to deal with. Specifically, creating a better city and better culture requires people who are willing to work together as a team to design, build, and maintain the city, and to experiment with our culture.

We cannot create a better city if most people insist on being the leader, or if they demand the freedom to do as they please, or if they insist that we create the city "correctly".

We need to find people who are willing to learn a skill and work in a team for the benefit of the city. We need people who realize that there is no right or wrong to any issue, so we must discuss our options and be able to compromise on which experiments to conduct with our lives.

It is especially important to find people for management positions who will work with the team, and for the city, rather than look for ways to exploit the team, suppress their competitors, and become pampered royalty.

Can you become one of the people who helps to create a better life for the human race?