The Wikipedia describes a social credit system as a credit rating and blacklist that the Chinese government is developing. Many people are worried that other governments will mimic the Chinese social credit system. They warn us that it is a potentially dangerous system because a government could use it for selfish purposes.

Nigel Farage is concerned that "bad actors" might use the system for diabolical purposes, and this article claims:

The article quotes a warning from Dr. Samantha Hoffman:

A concept that I have mentioned many times is that animals react to problems by either running away or by becoming violent. Humans must exert some self-control over our animal emotions and react to problems by analyzing them and looking for solutions. It is idiotic for us to frighten ourselves with the potential dangers of social credit systems because almost everything has potential dangers:

•	A police department can be used to investigate crimes, or it can be used protect a pedophile network and allow the government to eliminate its critics.
•	A business can be used to provide us with some beneficial products, or it can be used to produce products that are shoddy, deceptive, or dangerous, and it can expose the employees to unsafe working conditions and dangerous chemicals.
•	The Internet can be used to provide us with information, or it can be used to spread propaganda and lies.

Many of the frightening predictions of how we will suffer from a social credit system have actually been routine aspects of our lives for decades. For example, the authors of this article use a large, bold font to emphasize the potential problems of a social credit system:

However, all of us will already suffer a "downgrade" for bad driving and debt because all of the insurance companies and banks have their own variation of a social credit system. For example, bad driving can cause our insurance fees to go up, or have our insurance canceled, and debt can make it difficult for us to get a loan from a bank, or a credit card.

Furthermore, both bad driving and debt can also cause us to be "downgraded" by our friends, relatives, and other individual citizens. For example, it can make it more difficult for us to find a spouse, and it can cause some of our friends and relatives to avoid us, or abandon us.

To make that article even more absurd, their fear that we will be punished if we get caught stealing is as disgusting as them claiming: "We must stop social credit systems because they will punish us for murder and pedophilia!"

Social credit systems will punish us for stealing!

Those authors of that article, and all of the other people who are frightening us about social credit systems, are not likely to be as stupid as they appear. They are more likely to be criminals who are trying to trick us into becoming frightened of a social credit system. And the most likely reason they want us to oppose a social credit system is because they are frightened that it will expose them as criminals.

We cannot improve our lives by frightening ourselves. An adult who frightens himself with imaginary scenarios of government abuse is behaving like a child who is frightening himself about the possibility of monsters under his bed. An adult should react to the possibility of government abuse by looking for ways to reduce that possibility.

The social animals could be described as having a simplistic variation of a social credit system. The reason is because they pass judgment on one another in order to stratify into a hierarchy. They do not treat one another equally. Rather, the animals that have a "higher social credit score" get better treatment, such as first access to food.

When animals evolved into humans, that social credit system became more advanced. Specifically, our prehistoric ancestors passed judgment on one another's clothing, behavior, grooming habits, tools, and other characteristics, and they used that information to determine who they wanted to associate with, who they wanted to marry, and who they regarded as inferior or dangerous.

Each of us maintains a social credit system in our mind. Each of us routinely passes judgment on other people's behavior, clothing, eating habits, drug use, temper, and honesty. We maintain a database inside our mind that has information about other people, and we use that database to determine who we should trust, who we want as a spouse, and who we want as a friend.

We also use that information to determine whose opinions are most likely to be intelligent, and who has a history of making stupid or deceptive remarks. We also maintain information about businesses, schools, and nations. We also pass judgment on groups of people, such as Muslims, black people, white people, and Catholics.

Many businesses, sports groups, orchestras, and other organizations have their own variation of a social credit system. For example:

•	There are also some businesses that we refer to as "credit agencies" that collect data about us and give us a "credit score".
•	Organizations such as the ADL and the SPLC maintain a variation of a social credit system, but they give low scores to "anti-Semites", Holocaust deniers, white supremacists, and "hateful" people.
•	Automobile insurance companies give us a "social credit score" according to our driving habits. The people with the low scores pay higher fees, and some people are denied insurance because their score is so low.

There could be millions of businesses, Zionist organizations, political groups, and other organizations gathering information about us to use in some variation of a social credit system, and for the purpose of rewarding or punishing us for our behavior.

However, none of the people who are encouraging a fear of social credit systems are encouraging us to be afraid of the Zionist groups or businesses that collect data about us, maintain a social credit system, and punish those of us they don't like. Likewise, the people who create fear of government censorship don't show any concern about the censorship by Google, YouTube, ABC, CNN, and other businesses.

Nobody is satisfied with their own, personal social credit system. Instead, we want to know the scores that other people have set. For example, we frequently ask our friends or relatives for their opinion about somebody, such as their opinion about a presidential candidate, or our potential spouse, or one of our neighbors. We are essentially asking for their social credit scores of other people.

This would be more obvious if a woman asked her friend: "What social credit score have you given to Bob?", instead of asking "Do you think I should go on a date with Bob?"

Likewise, it would be more obvious if a man asked his wife, "What social credit score have you given to our next-door neighbors?", instead of his asking: "Should we invite our next-door neighbors to dinner?"

Every person, and a lot of organizations, routinely pass judgment on other people's behavior, and the behavior of organizations, and we give those people and organizations some variation of a social credit score. We use those scores to determine how to treat people and organizations. For example, we try to avoid the people and organizations that we give a low score, and we give better treatment to the people and organizations that we give a high score.

The people who are frightened of the social credit systems are behaving like a frightened rabbit that is hiding in the bushes. They are not providing us with intelligent analyses of the concept. As mentioned near the beginning of this document, it is probably because they are criminals.

The people who promote fear of social credit systems are fearmongers, not leaders. Many sections in this Constitution explain why we should investigate the people who have bizarre or undesirable behavior rather than ignore them or make excuses for them, and fearmongers are another example of undesirable behavior.

The fearmongers should be investigated because they might be criminals who are trying to manipulate us. If we decide that they are honest people who are merely frightened of something, then we should regard them as unacceptable for an influential position. We should ignore their fears rather than become frightened by them.

The fearmongers, criminals, and other badly behaved people are analogous to broken gears in a transmission, and we should not let them manipulate us.

The People database has an entry for each of us, and our entry contains all of our medical data, dental data, school records, and employment history. A lot of the information will be opinions, such as the job performance reviews and the comments by school teachers.

When a person does something beneficial for the city that is outside of his job, such as finding a way to improve a holiday celebration, or identifying a government official who is incompetent, he will get credit for his achievement by having a description of it put into his database entry. Those achievements will help him qualify for certain jobs, and it will cause him to develop a reputation for being capable of finding improvements to our culture, which will cause people to take his future suggestions more seriously.

Conversely, a person who does something that is annoying, or who makes idiotic proposals, will have a description of that failure listed in his database entry. The more failures a person has, the more difficult it will be for him to get certain types of jobs. It will also cause him to develop a bad reputation.

The most important differences between the People database and social credit system that we keep inside our mind are:

•	Accuracy The People database is maintained in the city's computers, and computers can retain information accurately, whereas the information that we keep in our mind can disintegrate over time, and develop inaccuracies.
•	Secrecy The People database cannot be secretive. It must be available to the public so that everybody can see what is in it. By comparison, every person can keep his social credit information a secret, and he can lie about it. Therefore, we can never be certain if we know the truth about what somebody else thinks about us, other people, or an organization.
•	Value If we could access the data that is inside each person's mind, we would discover that most people have "average" or "below-average" analyses of other people and organizations, and they have given slightly different social credit scores as a result of our different intellectual and emotional characteristics. For example, we would find that a lot of people have given a high score to the Pope, president Biden, Queen Elizabeth, Al Gore, or Lady Gaga. By comparison, the People database is maintained by government officials who must meet high standards for intellectual and emotional characteristics. Also, everybody is permitted to complain about information that they believe is inaccurate, and those complaints must be investigated. If some information is determined to be inaccurate, then it must be edited and improved. This allows the People database to be of much higher quality than the idiotic opinions of the majority of people, which in turn makes the People database much more useful.

A social credit scoring system can be dangerous when we allow it to be secretive. For example, the ADL has a database in which they give many of us a score on our anti-Semitism. I suspect that Israel also has such databases. However, no culture gives people the right to see or complain about the scores that the organizations are providing giving to us.

We also have no right to know whether the organizations are providing their secretive databases to other organizations. For example, it is possible that the ADL is providing their social credit scores to other businesses and organizations in order to prevent them from hiring the "anti-Semites" and "white supremacists", and to allow them to know which political candidate, journalist, and business executive they should support, and which to oppose.

The Database Ministry of the Quality Division is the only group authorized to maintain a social credit system. Although there will not be any insurance companies in this economy, if there were, they would have to put their information about people in each person's entry of the People database. They would not be able to maintain their own, secretive database. Likewise, if there were banks in this economy, they would have to put the credit information in each person's database entry.

Everybody is free to post a complaint about the information in the People database if they feel some of it is inaccurate. They can do this for their own entry, or for somebody else's entry. For example, if a person believes that somebody was given credit for an achievement that should have been given to somebody else, he can post a document to explain his supporting evidence.

This constitution requires reproduction to be restricted, and that requires that we pass judgment on who should have unlimited reproduction freedom, and who should be restricted to one or two children, and who should be prohibited from reproducing. The social credit system is one of the sources of information for making a decision on who will reproduce.

Specifically, people with the lowest scores are prohibited from reproducing or have restrictions. This constitution will initialize the percentages as: the 10% with the lowest scores are prohibited; the 10% above them are restricted to one child; the 10% above them are restricted to two children; and the remainder, 70% of the population, can have as many children as they please.

However, in addition to judging people by their social credit score, which is only an indication of their behavior and mind, some of the 90% who can have children will have additional restrictions, or be prohibited from reproducing, because of inheritable genetic disorders. The medical information in the People database will be used to determine who has genetic disorders that are so serious that they should have restrictions or prohibitions on reproducing.

A modern society has to deal with a lot of issues that cannot be settled through scientific research or intelligent reasoning because there is no right or wrong to the issue. An example is whether we should decorate our city with the Shits On Stix statue. Another example is whether nudity should be permitted at any of the public swimming areas or parks.

Our arbitrary decisions affect the evolution of the human race, so we should consider what we want the future humans to be. For example, if we choose to become vegans, then the future generations will evolve into vegans because they will lose their emotional enjoyment of the taste and texture of meat, and they will lose their ability to digest it.

However, the only people who will understand that concept are those who have the intellectual ability to understand it, and who have the emotional ability to accept it. If the people who make the arbitrary decisions cannot understand evolution, or if they have an emotional preference for a religion or the clay theory, then they will make the arbitrary decisions without any concern for how they will affect the future evolution of the human race.

No society is aware of the concept that somebody has to make arbitrary decisions. Every group of people are still behaving like wild animals. Specifically, each person does whatever he pleases, and they fight with one another for dominance.

For example, in Australia, the artist who created the poop balls, and the citizens of Australia who were interested in supporting or opposing a, argued with one another until they got tired of arguing and settled on painting the balls black so that they look less like poop.

There are also lots of people around the world arguing over what type of foods we should eat, such as whether we should eat cows, horses, pigs, algae, insects, cats, or dogs.

Likewise, there are people who argue over whether nudity should be allowed in public areas, and there are people arguing over whether women should wear a niqab, hijab, or burka. Some people argue over whether to circumcise baby boys.

There are also a lot of people arguing over how to change our language. For example, GLAAD created this list of words and their definitions, and some words which are supposed to avoid using. They boast that the Definitions were drafted in collaboration with other U.S.-based LGBTQ community organizations and leaders. However, the people they describe as "leaders" are not what other people regard as leaders.

The arbitrary issues are not being settled in an intelligent manner. Instead, people argue with one another incessantly. This can result in one particular group of people dominating a particular issue for a while, and years or decades later another group becomes larger or more aggressive and they dominate.

The arguments have been going on for thousands of years, and they will continue to go on forever if we don't choose some group of people to make the decisions.

Whenever people have to fight with one another to settle a dispute, the people who form organizations will have an advantage over the individuals. Furthermore, the organizations that are diabolical and deceptive have an advantage over the honest organizations.

An example of how the diabolical organizations can dominate our culture is that they have succeeded in altering our immigration policies to allow them to bring millions of immigrants into the USA and Europe, and they have succeeded in convincing some nations to pass a law against "Holocaust denial".

As discussed here, by not having an authority to settle the arbitrary decisions, we have anarchy, and anarchy results in endless fights between individuals and organizations, and the most diabolical of the criminal organizations have the most influence. Our culture is being determined by the endless battles between the organized religions, the WEF, the world.minds, the Horasis, the ADL, the SPLC, the JDL, and thousands of other organizations.

The people in those organizations frequently give one another awards and praise in an attempt to intimidate us. For example, the Great Minds website praises Peter Singer, a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, as a "leading moral philosopher" and a "renowned animal liberationist", and The World Minds organization describes him as "the world’s preeminent ethicist". He has also received many awards, such as the Berggruen Prize in 2021.

Peter Singer is one of many people who are promoted as a super educated, super genius by the organizations that are trying to determine our future. Those people and organizations are battling for control of our culture and future, but how many of those renowned and preeminent people are providing us with intelligent guidance or advice?

Peter Singer, for example, advocates a vegetarian diet. In this interview, he claims that it has improved his health, although he eats mussels, clams, and oysters. His reasoning for eating some animals is that some of them do not have a nervous system or brain, so they don't feel pain. He wants us to stop eating meat partly because of the pain that we inflict on animals when we kill them, but mainly because of "their lifelong suffering in factory farms".

However, he has no evidence that animals are suffering when we kill them, or that they suffer on the factory farms. As I pointed out years ago here, it is more likely that the animals on the farms are having a more pleasant life than the wild animals, and they especially have a more pleasant death. Wild animals die in an incredibly cruel manner, such as being eaten alive, or dying slowly from malnutrition, diseases, broken legs, or parasitic infections.

Furthermore, animals produce a lot of babies, and most of them suffer a cruel and painful death. Very few of them have a pleasant childhood, or survive long enough to become an adult.

If we truly want to stop animals from suffering, then we should exterminate every animal on the planet so that none of them have to suffer nature's brutal battle for life.

Peter Singer believes that he has developed an intelligent policy for us, but my opinion is that he has created an idiotic policy that is based on his particular emotional feelings, and his particular intellectual characteristics, which I would describe as defective.

All of the other people who are involved with the WEF, the ADL, and other organizations, also believe that they are providing us with intelligent policies, but I don't believe that we are getting anything of value from them.

They are not helping us to understand human behavior, animals, crime, divorce, or nutrition. They are not improving our schools, economy, cities, transportation systems, or recreational activities. They never say anything that I consider worth saving for the future students to learn from.

They are not encouraging discussions, curiosity, constructive criticism, research, or exploration. Rather, they censor, suppress, ignore, insult, blackmail, bribe, intimidate, and murder their critics and competitors, and they try to stop discussions about such issues as the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, the differences between men and women, and thousands of other issues.

They are not getting into those influential positions because of their leadership abilities. They seem to be getting into influential positions by joining crime networks. They seem to be abnormally aggressive, selfish, deceptive, and cruel people who grab at what they want, rather than earn their position by impressing us with intelligent opinions.

They are not interested in improving the world. They are interested in becoming wealthy, famous, and important. Many of them also seem to have abnormal cravings for sex. They want us to be their servants, not their friends or team members. They want to suppress and control us, not work with us or make our lives better. They want us to pamper and worship them, not criticize or compete with them.

In a democracy, the only way we can resolve the differences between us is to fight with one another, but people like Peter Singer have an advantage over everybody else because they are part of a diabolical network that suppresses the rest of us.

It is idiotic for us to continue allowing our culture to be determined by people and organizations that fight for control. We need an authority to settle the arbitrary decisions, but that creates the "infinite loop" problem of who chooses the authorities, and who chooses those people, and so on.

This constitution advocates making the arbitrary decisions by getting the opinions of a subset of the adult population that we regard as having higher quality minds, and use them to settle the arbitrary decisions. As mentioned here, that subset will be referred to as the "City Elders". But how do we choose those people?

This constitution advocates selecting them by taking a certain percentage of the adults who have the highest social credit scores. This constitution initializes the situation by setting the age to be between 40 and 75, and the percentage to 20%. Therefore, of the men and women within that age range, the 20% with the highest social credit scores are considered members of the City Elders.

This creates the dilemma of ensuring that the people creating the social credit scores are honest. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make people be honest. There are no laws or sets of checks and balances that can force people to be honest.

As mentioned many times, an organization is only as good as its members. The only way we can improve an organization is to raise standards for its members, and especially for its leaders.

In order to create a better society, we must restricted to people who show a better-than-average ability to be an honest, productive citizen. Everybody must be willing to contribute to society, rather than want to be a pampered King or Queen. Everybody must also be willing to earn their position in society, rather than get it through inheritances, deception, marriage, or crime. We must ensure that everybody has a brain that we regard as having appropriate intellectual and emotional characteristics.

We cannot stop people from having violent temper tantrums, or raping children, or vandalizing equipment, or joining a crime network. The only way to improve the behavior of the people is to do what businesses and militaries do, which is to set standards for the members, and evict those who cannot meet them. Therefore, a society will only be as good as the people who have set the standards and pass judgment on who is a member.

The Elders are just a list of people, not an organization. They do not get together for discussions or meetings. Instead, the ministers make arbitrary decisions according to what they think is best for that group of people.

The ministers can conduct polls to determine what the elders like and dislike, but they cannot pander to the elders. Instead, the ministers consider what the Elders like and dislike, but they do what they think is best for them, which is not necessarily what the majority of them want.

For example, if the Neighborhoods Minister has been requested to provide a city park with a particular water fountain, and if he is not sure how many people would like it, he could request the Elders to provide their opinions.

The Elders are not obligated to respond to a request. They respond only if they have an opinion on the issue. The minister can then use the responses from the Elders to determine whether he should approve or disapprove of the fountain.

Likewise, if the Leisure Minister is wondering whether a particular recreational activity should be authorized or terminated, and if he does not want to make the decision by himself, he could request the Elders to provide their opinions.

When a minister wants the opinions of the Elders, he posts a document in the Polls category that explains the issue, and any of the Elders who wants to get involved with the decision can add a comment to the document. This allows everybody to see what the arbitrary decisions are, and how the elders respond. For example, the clothing minister might post a request like this:

Request For Opinion: 2035cmf-15 Clothing Minister John Doe, 27 January 2035 We have been asked to produce some decorative men's jackets for formal social affairs, such as those in the image below. To see or try on the samples, come to Building 5, Neighborhood 16 (B5 N16).

Any of the male Elders who is interested in trying the jackets can travel to that building. He can also post a comment in the Polls category about his opinion of its comfort, appearance, or whatever. The female Elders would also be able to post their comments about the jackets. The minister could then look at their responses, and make a decision about which, if either, to put into production.

Eventually the robots will be so advanced that people could request a robot to bring them samples of the jackets and other items that are being considered, and the robots would travel from one person to the next with the item.

For another example of how the ministers can use the Elders to make decisions, the neighborhoods minister could request the Elders to sketch or use AI software to create art for a particular neighborhood. For example,

Request For Opinion: 2035np-26 Neighborhoods Minister Bob Smith, 27 January 2035 We have been asked to provide Neighborhood 37 with an illuminated water fountain. Two examples with crystal decorations are below. If you want to draw or use AI software to design a fountain, post your images here during the following four weeks, and then let us know which designs you prefer.

In that example, any of the Elders who is interested in getting involved with the design of the fountain can do so either by drawing something with his hands, or by using AI software to design something. Any of the Elders could also specify which of the designs he prefers, even if he did not contribute a design.

The ministers are not required to do what the majority of Elders prefer, but in many situations that is what he will do because his purpose for asking the Elders for their opinions is because the decision is arbitrary, and he is not sure of what to do. Therefore, the minister is likely to give the majority of Elders what they want.

It is also possible that the minister will agree with a minority of the Elders, or he might discover that the Elders have given him an idea that he considers to be superior to all of their suggestions. In that case, the minister would be building on, or improving, the suggestions of the Elders, rather than giving them what they asked for.

The text-to-image software is becoming so advanced that I suspect that the Elders will be repeatedly requested to provide their opinions for artistic issues. The AI software is becoming so creative that it is expanding our options for fountains, city plazas, clothing, wall decorations, door decorations, furniture, stained-glass windows, and other types of art, and that will make it increasingly difficult for the ministers to make a decision about which art to authorize.

A social credit rating is an arbitrary decision, similar to giving a student a grade for an essay test. A person's rating depends upon the person who designed the system. For example:

•	Pedophiles would give low scores to people who oppose pedophilia.
•	A religious fanatic would gives low scores to people who were atheists or the "wrong" religion.
•	Vegans would give low scores to people who want to eat meat.
•	Many Jews would give high scores only to people who had a Jewish mother, and everybody else would be given scores almost as low as cows and chickens.

This dilemma affects all types of arbitrary analyses, such as the tests that determine whether somebody should qualify as a pilot or a doctor. It also applies to our tests of animals, such as the determination of whether a dog qualifies to be a guide dog for the blind or handicapped people.

An organization in the UK that trains guide dogs has this PDF list of the characteristics that they analyze, and we need to do something similar for humans. However, there is no way for us to agree on which characteristics of a person we should analyze, and how to rate them, because nobody can prove that his concept of a social credit system is better than somebody else's.

In order for us to agree on a social credit system, we have to reduce the diversity of the human population so that we are more compatible, but that is not going to be easy or pleasant.

We must create a social credit system in the same manner that we create programs to determine who qualifies as a pilot. Specifically, we initiate the process by selecting certain characteristics to analyze, and specifying the rules for the analysis, and then observing the results to see who gets a high score. We then pass judgment on whether those people deserve a high score, and if not, we adjust the rating process until the people that we want to have high scores are getting them.

To initialize the social credit system for this Constitution, the document on reproduction explains some of the mental characteristics that we should pass judgment on, and here are some other suggestions on what to analyze:

Self Control of:

Ability to:

Other

Instead of giving a person one score, a person would have a score for every characteristic in the list. For example, each of us would have a score for our self-control with food, and another score for our ability to learn from constructive criticism.

One of the characteristics in the list above is a person's ability to notice and acknowledge their own talents and limitations. Ideally, everybody would have an accurate understanding of their abilities and limitations. In such a case, when a business needs an employee, they would only have to list the available jobs, and a person would apply only for the jobs that they can do properly.

In reality, many people are so arrogant that they believe that they are experts in everything, and this can result in them getting into jobs that they are average at, or below-average, or a failure. To add to this problem, every culture encourages us to exaggerate our talents. This has resulted in businesses wasting time and resources putting job candidates through interviews and sometimes through tests.

If everybody had an accurate view of their talents and limitations, a business would want to put a job candidate through a test only when the candidate is too young to have a good idea of what he is good at, or when nobody has had much experience with the job.

The people who have demonstrated the most accurate view of their abilities and limitations should have that talent marked in their database entry. That would allow businesses to consider giving them a job without bothering with interviews or tests.

In order for a social credit system to be useful, it must have analyses from a variety of people. A social credit system will not be of much use if only one person contributes analysis to it because that will give us a very biased view of everybody. Therefore, in order for a social credit system to be useful, a lot of people must get involved with providing serious analyses. School teachers, supervisors at work, medical doctors, and other people need to put some effort into providing analyses of people's behavior and characteristics.

This might seem to put a big burden on people who are supervisory positions, but it is much easier to create these analyses than it appears. The reason is because each of us already routinely performs analyses of other people.

As mentioned earlier in this document, all of us constantly judge other people, and all of us maintain a social credit system in our mind. Furthermore, teachers, supervisors, doctors, and other people are also already creating analyses of people, but they are usually keeping them for themselves or their organization. Therefore, to create a useful social credit system, all we have to do is put some effort into creating a more serious analysis, and posting it in the People database.

This Constitution doesn't allow different classes of people, so none of the Elders can have any special privileges, and neither can any of their family members. The Elders are treated like ordinary people. The only difference between them and everybody else is that the ministers will consider the opinions of the Elders when they have to make arbitrary decisions.

The ministers do not obey or pander to the elders. Rather, they only consider their preferences when they must decide what to do about an emotional issue.

Although the Elders do not get any special privileges, they are likely to be treated better than other people simply because that is our natural tendency. For example:

•	We are more trusting of a person that we regard as honest compared to the people who have lied to us.
•	We are more likely to invite a person for dinner or a recreational activity if he has behaved in a pleasant manner, compared to a person who has irritated us.
•	We are more likely to give serious consideration to an opinion from a person who has impressed us in the past with his intelligence, and more likely to disregard a person who has repeatedly made idiotic remarks.

If we design a proper social credit system, then the people who are chosen to be the City Elders will naturally get better treatment by the public simply because the Elders will be the people that we admire the most. The Elders will be the people who have the most impressive behavior; the people we are most likely to trust; and the people who have opinions that we are most likely to listen to.

One of the purposes for having the City Elders is to allow the ministers to determine what classifies as "art". The ministers are required to define art according to what appears to be the most beneficial to the City Elders, rather than according to what the artists, public, or City Elders want.

As mentioned, by not having an authority to settle arbitrary decisions, such as what classifies as art, the decisions are set by whoever wants to fight for control of the issue. Most people are not interested in getting involved with the battle over art, so the decisions tend to be made by the artists.

This would be wonderful if artists were making decisions that we regarded as beneficial, but a significant percentage of the population consider many of their decisions to be disgusting, unpleasant, idiotic, or wasteful of resources.

One reason that we dislike there are it is because a lot of it was not created to be emotionally pleasant. They created some of their art to express their emotions, such as when the artists with with mental disorders want to express their suffering. Some artists create art to "pay homage" to somebody, and others create art to promote a particular concept, such as hatred of Donald Trump, government, schools, or corporations.

One of the reasons the artists are not providing us with appropriate art is because they frequently create art that is intended to have a message. For example, the Mayor of London has an organization called the Fourth Plinth Commissioning Group that consists of "specialist experts", and they determine the art to put on one of the pedestals in Trafalgar Square.

Of the seven art objects they chose to be in the semi-finals, the two they chose for display on the pedestal are a statue of an obese black woman, which "pays homage to a young, metropolitan woman of colour", and a statue of a person riding a horse that is covered in a shroud, like a ghost. It is described in a manner that makes the SCIgen software seem intelligent:

•	...its sinister connotations will soften into responses to the weather.
•	The equestrian statue's literal transparency means that the plinth will be both occupied and empty.
•	An artifact of a hyperfragmented, paranoid time when public space, consensus, and community continue to dissolve, the work aims to contain irreconcilable narratives without attempting to rewrite them.

Most people are not interested in decorating their city with art that contains irreconcilable narratives, or artifacts of hyperfragmented paranoia. We also do not want art that shows the mental anguish that the artists are suffering from, or their hatred for school, jobs, or government. We also don't want our art to depict garbage dumps, overcrowded apartments, crime gangs, or automobile traffic congestion.

We want our homes and city to be decorated with art that stimulates pleasant emotions, just like we experience pleasure when we look at flowers, butterflies, creeks, clouds, and birds. We want the paintings and statues of people to be pleasant, also. We do not enjoy looking at people who are obese, sloppy, angry, violent, vomiting, crying, or retarded.

When there is no authority to determine what classifies as "public art", then we will be dominated by the people who are successful in fighting for control of the issue. Unfortunately, allowing people to fight for control of us is not likely to give us good leadership. It is more likely to give us leaders who are abnormally arrogant, aggressive, intimidating, deceptive, and selfish. Furthermore, the people who join crime networks will have an advantage over the individuals and the or honest organizations.

The issue of what should classify as art will become increasing important as the AI software improves. It is already a more creative artist, and a better artist, than most humans. It also has the advantage that robots have; specifically, we don't have to deal with temperamental or neurotic human artists, and who can take months or years to create something for us, and who whine about people who modify or make variations of their art.

As soon as the AI software can create programs for CNC lasers, wood routers, and milling machines, and when 3D printers become more advanced and easier to use, it will become easy to turn the designs of the AI software into stained-glass windows, carved doors, furniture, wall moldings, ceramic tile designs, and statues.

The AI software will give us phenomenal options for city decorations, but it is idiotic for us to continue allowing people to fight for control of our government, art, school curriculum, businesses, recreational activities, or any other culture. We need to provide ourselves with sensible leadership. We need an authority to make decisions on what type of art is acceptable for the city.

This constitution gives the Neighborhood Ministry the authority to determine what is and is not acceptable public art. However, they cannot pander to any particular group, especially not children, lunatics, criminals, drug addicts, or antisocial people.

Instead, they must consider the opinions of the Elders, but make decisions that would be most beneficial to them. This concept of doing what is best for Elders rather than what they want is required of all other ministers, such as the Meals Minister.

Some examples on how the Neighborhoods Ministry will set policies for art are:

Example #1: Performance art

It is possible that the majority of people, and the majority of the City Elders, enjoy such "performance art" as this man who was dragged around while a candle was in his butt, but the ministers must decide whether that type of art is truly improving life for the City Elders, or whether it is wasting resources or encouraging detrimental attitudes or behavior.

Example #2: Ceiling art

Many of the churches, especially during the Middle Ages, hired artists to decorate their ceilings with paintings. Today some shopping malls are installing gigantic LED monitors on their ceiling, such as this in Chicago, and this in China. It is possible that most people approve of those type of ceiling decorations, but that doesn't justify doing it.

Decorating a ceiling is much more difficult than decorating a wall, but the biggest problem with decorated ceilings is that it is difficult for us to see or enjoy the art because our eyes face forwards. It is much easier for us to look down at the floor than up at a high ceiling. We are designing ceilings for halibut or barreleye, not humans.

This constitution advocates the ceiling art be restricted to more simple decorations, such as colors, moldings, and patterns, rather than beautiful artwork or expensive video monitors. The most expensive art should be restricted to walls, and only the walls that are easy for us to see, and that we are likely to notice. Examples are the walls of a lounge room, restaurant, home, and bathroom.

We are much less likely to notice or appreciate beautiful artwork on the walls of a narrow hallway, or walls of a retail store that are partially hidden by racks of items, or the walls on the outsides of buildings that are partially blocked by vegetation.

Example #3: Animals behaving like humans

A popular type of art in the world today is of animals behaving like humans, such as Mickey Mouse. This is most common in cartoons, books, and art for children.

We are also encouraged to use the AI software to create images of animals behaving like humans, but what is the benefit to us?

Images and videos of animals that behave like humans might not have any detrimental effect on adults, but children are designed to pick up culture, so we must be more careful about what we expose children to.

In a free enterprise system, businesses try to titillate children, but children can be amused by things like diarrhea and vomit. Adults should not compete to exploit children's emotional desires. Instead, adults should compete to figure out how to provide children with the most beneficial childhood.

Do children benefit by constant exposure to animals that behave like humans and speak our language? Do they benefit from dinosaurs that growl, or Halloween monsters that eat children, or ghosts that wander through our homes?

The ideal way to determine what type of art is appropriate for children and adults would be to create several identical copies of the Earth, and give each one a different culture, and then observe the attitudes, behavior, relationships, and goals of the people. That would show us which culture encourages the most beneficial attitudes and behavior.

A more practical method is to expose children in different neighborhoods to different art in their schools, and then observe the effect that it having on their attitudes and behavior.

Until we have some information on the best way to raise children is, this Constitution requires children be provided with realistic information about animals because I suspect that treating animals like humans is giving children an unrealistic view of life, animals, and people. For example, it might be one of the reasons that many people want to kiss or have sex with their pet animals or plastic dogs, and why so many people, hold an animal upside down in their arms, in the manner that they hold a human baby.

If children had a more accurate understanding of animals, they would realize that cats and dogs do not want us to kiss them. Rather, they want to lick our face, and they want us to lick their face. Also, most animals do not want to be held upside down.

Until we know more about these issues, this constitution recommends the neighborhood minister prohibit art in which animals are behaving like humans, even if most of the Elders approves of that type of art. Children giggle at that type of art, but we should not pander to children.

We should make decisions according to what will provide us a life that we enjoy reminiscing about, but who wants to reminisce about Mickey Mouse cartoons or images of grizzly bears dressed like cowboys?

Animals can be used in art if they evoke pleasant feelings, encourage creativity, or emphasize some concept, even if the animals are depicted in unrealistic manners. For example, this image of crystal butterflies around a sleeping fox with crystal ears is unrealistic, and so is this iridescent horse, but they are pleasant images, and some people might like to have those type of images on a wall monitor in their bedroom, or part of their computer background slideshow.

Likewise, images of unrealistic, fantasy landscapes can be pleasant, and unrealistic images of people and machines can also be pleasant.

Images of dinosaurs are acceptable if they are pleasant, but the AI software is mimicking human drawings of dinosaurs, so almost all of the AI images are showing dinosaurs that are displaying their teeth, growling, and angry. There is no reason to believe that dinosaurs were more violent than other animals. Those type of images are giving people an idiotic view of dinosaurs.

The artists who create those images are doing so to titillate people, similar to the way people compete with one another to make the most frightening Halloween displays.

We are not improving our lives when we try to stimulate one another with frightening images. We should design art to make our lives more pleasant, relaxing, and enjoyable.