Mental diversity prevents unity
As the intellectual
and emotional
differences between people widen, it becomes increasingly difficult for
them to compromise on what is the most sensible and desirable culture.
This
will result in an increasing number of arguments, pouting, fights,
insults, protests, and cheating.
If the majority of people
agree on an issue, then they can force their beliefs on the minority
that disagrees, but that is likely to result in rebellion and fights.
The only way to reduce the fights over cultural issues is to reduce the
mental diversity between us so that our minds become more compatible.
Physical diversity prevents
unity
As the physical
differences between people widen, it becomes increasingly difficult for
us to get along with one another. For example, the midgets, dwarfs,
fat people, ugly people, and people with
defective sexual organs are frequently whining about discrimination,
insults, homophobia, and offensive language. The future generations
will have even more diverse physical characteristics, resulting in even
more whining.
Some people believe that we can increase unity and reduce the whining
by changing our language, such as switching from "his" and "hers"
to "them", "ze", and "zim"; by referring to midgets as "little people";
and by referring to fat people as "plus sized" people. However, the
lack of unity is not
due to
our language. Therefore, nothing
will improve by changing our language.
Expecting people to become
friends and love one another simply by changing our language is as idiotic as
expecting animals to become friends with each other after training
them to change some of the sounds they make.
Some other people believe we can reduce the whining by building more
bathrooms with handicap access; providing restaurants, trains, and
airplanes
with seats for tall, short, and obese people; and by providing
wedding gowns for obese women. Although those changes can make life
more comfortable for the physically unusual people, it doesn't stop
them from suffering, or do anything to reduce the number of unusual
people in the future generations.
Likewise, we can make life more comfortable for the people who have
unusual medical problems, such as Crohn's disease, by providing them
with special meals, but that doesn't do anything to reduce these
problems in the future.
The only way to reduce these problems and increase unity is to reduce the physical diversity
between us so
that we become more compatible.
Diversity causes loneliness
As we increase the
diversity in a society, such as increasing the
number of races, cultures, intellectual levels, physical
characteristics, medical problems, and mental disorders,
we increase the difficulty of finding a compatible friend and
spouse.
There has been so much diversity in intellectual characteristics during
the past few centuries that it has been difficult for the most
intelligent people to find friends and a spouse. Although we don't know
much about the lives of Galileo, da Vinci, Archimedes, and other
people, most of the unusually intelligent people appear to have had
lonely lives. Some of them, such as
Galileo, were also insulted or harassed.
Although nobody knows why Leonardo da Vinci wrote in a mirror style,
the Museum of Science in Boston promotes
three possibilities:
|
1) |
To prevent people
from stealing his ideas.
|
|
2)
|
To avoid harassment
by religious fanatics.
|
|
3)
|
To prevent ink from
getting onto his hands because he was left-handed.
|
I doubt theory #3. The museum says that he used his right hand to write documents for
other people, and that he would only use his left hand and a mirrored
style when he was writing notes to himself. There is also evidence
that he was ambidextrous. This implies that he wrote in a mirrored
style to hide his notes from
other people.
I think that he wanted to hide his notes because he worried about being
insulted by other people. The reason that I believe this
is because when I was writing the ideas that I eventually posted on the
Internet, I wrote in a deliberately sloppy script simply to make it
difficult to read in case somebody saw them. I never felt comfortable
discussing my opinions about life with other people, and I suspect that
many people throughout history have had the same problem.
Increasing
the diversity increases
the arguments and loneliness.
|
Many people today are already arguing with each other during dinner and
other social affairs. The arguments over Donald Trump in 2016 were so severe
that journalists were providing suggestions on how to avoid fights with
family members.
The arguments will get worse if we don't
control reproduction. If we continue to allow the human gene pool to diverge and degrade, there will e ventually be
such a wide variety of mental and physical characteristics and
deformities that the few intelligent and healthy people will be
dominated by savages, retards, sickly people, and lunatics.
Each generation will find it more difficult to form friendships and
marriages, and to
have conversations with other people. Eventually everybody will be so
incompatible that
everybody is lonely.
By comparison, when we control reproduction to reduce diversity and
defects, people will become increasingly healthy, honest, intelligent,
responsible, and compatible.
It will create a society in which people do not have to be finicky
about their friends or spouse because they will be living among people
that they enjoy and trust.
Diversity is especially
detrimental to children
The most important thing to
children are friendships with
other children. Therefore, it is more important for children to be
among compatible children than it is for adults to be among compatible
adults. Adults are much better able to deal with loneliness.
As the children
become more diverse and defective, the few healthy children will be as
lonely as if they were living in an insane asylum.
|
As we increase the
diversity, we make it more difficult for the children to feel
comfortable around one another.
The wider the diversity, the more they suffer.
The children with desirable
characteristics will suffer, also. For example, an usually
pretty, well behaved, and intelligent girl will suffer abuse from the
envious and badly behaved girls,
and she will be pestered by the badly behaved boys.
Since children have a natural desire to torment the misfits, increasing
the diversity will cause more of the children to be tormented.
Some of the tormented children will react with anger and violence,
especially the tormented children who have mental disorders. An
example
is Elliott Rodger. Both boys and girls ignored him because they didn't
like him, and he reacted to the loneliness and rejection with anger,
hatred, and envy.
Eventually we will have
access to robots. This
will result in an increasingly large number of people arguing over what
sort of restrictions should be imposed
on robots.
When the AI
software is helping children in school, there will be arguments over
which words the software is allowed to use, and what the
software should refuse to do. The Jews, for example, are certain to
demand that the software prevent "Holocaust Denial" and
"anti-Semitism".
There will also be arguments over the visual
appearance
of a robot. For example, some midgets, dwarfs, and short men might
complain that tall
robots are insulting, and some ugly people might complain that the
robots are so good-looking that they harm the self-image of ugly people.
We cannot resolve our
differences peacefully
We cannot resolve the
differences in our intellectual and emotional characteristics through
"reasoning" because there is no way for anybody to
provide evidence that his desires or characteristics are superior.
It is also impractical to have one group of people dominate the others
with physical force because that creates hatred, resentment,
rebellion, sabotage, and violence.
The only way to create a peaceful and pleasant world is to reduce
the mental and physical differences between us to the
point at which we
become compatible enough to be friends.
That requires one group to get control
of reproduction and impose their particular standards on the other
people. That will allow each generation to become more similar to the
dominant group of people. Eventually that will create a society in
which the people are similar enough that they can get along with each
other peacefully.
However, getting that established will require a group of people to use
physical force to get control of society and set the rules for
reproduction.
The human race is too diverse
During prehistoric times,
there was no significant diversity within a
tribe, and the diversity between
the tribes was irrelevant because the tribes did not have much
contact with one another.
Today, however, everybody in the world is essentially one large team.
We interact and affect one another. Therefore, it is mandatory that
everybody today be able to live in peace with everybody else. This
requires us to reduce the
diversity to the point at which we become capable of living in peace
and cooperating
with one another. The three differences that we must reduce are:
1) intellectual, 2) emotional, and 3) physical.
| 1) |
Intellectual
differences.
The difference between the most stupid and most intelligent people must
be reduced to the point at
which the stupidest people have enough intelligence to fit into society
properly. For example:
|
•
|
The
majority of people must have enough intelligence
to be able to
understand that humans are a species of ape that follows the same
genetic rules as other animals. That
will allow them to understand:
|
–
|
Why
we need
restrictions on reproduction. |
|
– |
Why we must
design our social activities,
work environment, economic system, crime prevention policies,
and other culture according to the characteristics of a animal. |
|
– |
Why we must
stop treating children as
"bundles of joy" and put them through a probation
period. |
It does not matter if a person wants to believe that a supreme being
created the universe or whether the universe created itself in a Big
Bang, but everybody today must understand evolution, and it is
especially important to restrict the influential positions to people
who show an above-average
understanding of evolution.
We must stop ignoring the evidence that the people who cannot
understand evolution are mentally inferior.
They are either intellectually incapable of understanding the concept,
or they are emotionally unable to accept the evidence of it. They
cannot provide us with sensible analyses of our problems, or sensible
guidance.
There have been, and will always be, endless conflicts between them and
us, and they will never stop
pushing for the irrational and cruel policies that appeal to them, such
as punishments, jails, rehabilitation programs, monarchies,
inheritances, wars, and missionaries.
The only way
we can create a peaceful world is to stop pandering
to the anti-evolution people. We need to restrict the people in
influential positions to those who can accept the evidence that humans
are apes, and are not afraid to
tell the anti-evolution people that they are mentally inferior.
The majority of people are religious, and this results in every culture
promoting religion. Although many schools teach evolution, they give
only partial support to it.
For example, they do not teach
children that their personality is genetic, or that they inherited the
emotions of an ape, or that there are differences between male and
female humans and other animals.
There are some schools that are dedicated to teaching religion, and
many schools also have classes that teach students that humans are like
pieces of clay.
The schools must stop pandering to religious people. Two of the many
issues that they should not be afraid to explain to students are:
| 1) |
People who believe in heaven cannot be killed.
If there is a heaven, then we cannot kill the
religious people. We can
only
send them to a wonderful paradise. Therefore, the religious people should not fear
death. They should not oppose abortion, assisted suicide, or
euthanasia, because killing a fetus is sending him to heaven to grow up
in paradise. Likewise, assisted suicide and
euthanasia is preventing a person from unnecessary suffering and
allowing him to get to heaven sooner.
As I pointed out in a previous document here, if
somebody in heaven would send us a video of their lives, we would want
to die as soon as possible.
Recently a religious fanatic posted this video of
images that show what heaven might be like, and the AI software came up
with some images that are so creative that it might give you some ideas
on what we could do with our cities. The image below is
one of the hallways that the AI software assumes is in heaven. Imagine
something like that as one of our hallways, underground walkways, or
subway stations.
Likewise, if there is a hell, and if it is anything similar to this
video, who would want to commit a sin?
We must restrict the top leadership positions to people who have the
courage to tell the religious people that if
they believe in heaven, they are hypocrites and
idiots
if they fear death, and they are cruel to
prevent assisted suicide and force the terminally ill people to suffer
on Earth rather than enjoy Heaven.
|
2)
|
God cannot be both powerful and helpless.
The religious people believe that God has the ability to create a
universe, but if he truly has that much power, then he would have
control over all of the
animals and humans. Therefore, the humans that perform abortions,
assisted suicide, and euthanasia are doing so because God is allowing it. If God
did not want us to do those things, then we would not do them,
just as we do not eat spiders or eucalyptus leaves.
If this is his
universe, and if we are his
creations, then we do only whatever he wants us to do.
Likewise, if God wanted us to believe a particular religion, then he
would have told us what to believe, rather than allow us to create
thousands of
different religions that change
through the centuries.
Some religious fanatics claim that whatever happens is because God
wanted it to happen, but if that is true, then everything that I am
writing in these documents is because God has wanted me to write it.
That doesn't prove that God agrees
with everything I am writing. Rather, he wants me to get these issues
out into the public.
The religious people claim that God is incredibly powerful, but they
also claim that he is so helpless that he needs humans to
search for and kill the heretics, witches, and other people.
A few centuries ago Matthew Hopkins claimed to be
the Witch Finder General, and even in 2024 there are still some
religious people believe that they are God's
soldiers. Although almost all Christians have become tolerant of
heathens during the past few centuries, some Muslims are still tormenting
and killing
people for not following their religious rules.
Our leaders must have the courage to tell the religious people that
they are hypocrites when they
claim that God is powerful, while at the same time claiming that God is
so helpless
that religious people must help him torture or kill the "evil" humans.
They are also hypocrites when they claim that God created all people
equally, and that he loves all people, while at the same time claiming
that some people are evil and
must be killed.
|
The anti-evolutionary people cannot live in peace with those of us who
believe that humans are apes. Our philosophies are incompatible.
One of the reasons is because they will not accept responsibility for
their behavior. Instead, they blame the environment, the devil,
poverty, anti-Semites, white privilege, sexists, racists, their
parents, or some other idiotic concept.
Another reason is because they are more intolerant of us than we are of
them. For example, we don't send missionaries around the world to
convert religious people; we don't promote our beliefs on public
buildings or currency, such as demanding that they be inscribed with
"In science we trust"; and we don't try to convert Christmas or other
holidays to become a celebration of evolution.
We cannot live
in peace with people who
cannot understand genetics and evolution.
|
We must stop treating the anti-evolution people as if they
are intelligent. They have the mental characteristics of a prehistoric savage, and that makes
them detrimental in our modern
era. People today must meet higher
intellectual standards.
However, in order for scientists to be successful with the claim that
they are intellectually superior to the religious people and people who
believe the human mind is like clay, the scientists must meet higher
standards, also.
Specifically, they must be able to admit that they don't know how
the universe was created, or the details of how humans evolved from
apes, or what happened to the large dinosaurs, or whether there is life
on
other planets. Scientists must be able to control their arrogance and
publicly say the words: "We don't yet
know much about..."
When scientists promote theories that have as little evidence as Noah's
Ark, they will instigate fights with the anti-evolutionary people. For
example, the concept that Cro-Magnon man appeared suddenly from
nowhere 30,000 years ago is just a variation of creationism, and so is
the Big Bang theory. To make The Big Bang Theory even more absurd, a
religious fanatic is given the credit for creating it. It
is just a trivial variation of creationism.
Likewise, the scientists don't have any evidence of dark matter or dark
energy, so it is absurd for them to criticize religious people for not
having evidence for heaven, hell, God, Dionysus,
or Buddha. The scientists who believe in dark matter have "faith" in that theory, not evidence. They
are behaving exactly like the religious fanatics who
"have faith" that Adam and Eve gave birth to all of the different races
of humans. Those scientists attack or ignore their critics
rather than discuss the issue, just like religious fanatics attack or
ignore their critics. Those scientists are also looking for evidence to
support their theory, just like the religious fanatics who look for
evidence of Noah's Ark.
Are scientists superior to religious fanatics?
An important issue that modern humans have to deal with is
determining who among us should be considered as having superior mental
characteristics, and who should be prohibited from leadership
positions. For example, are scientists truly better than religious
fanatics? Both groups promote unsupported theories. That would make the
scientists equal to the
religious fanatics, not
superior.
However, scientists and religious fanatics are not equal in
their attitudes about who should live and who should die. Both groups
support the killing of people, but there is a significant difference
between them. Many
scientists support the killing of certain criminals, and some also
support the killing of defective fetuses and children, but many
religious fanatics support the killing of people who have different
beliefs.
Fortunately, the religious people today are not as violent as the were
in the past. For example, a few centuries ago some religious fanatics
in Spain conducted an inquisition that lasted for a few centuries. We will never know how
many people they harassed or killed directly by the
Inquisition, and indirectly by supporters of the Inquisition,but we
know
that some people were burned alive,
such as Giordano Bruno,
who was
burned in 1600.
Even though both groups support the killing of people,
scientists are superior
because they only support the killing of
defective and dangerous people, whereas religious fanatics insult,
harass, arrest,
torture, and kill people simply for having a difference of opinion.
That make scientist superior because it is possible to create a
wonderful society with people who want to
kill defective people, but the people who want to censor, ignore,
arrest, kill, or torture people who have a different opinion will
prevent both technical and social progress, and create a social
environment of fear and hatred.
All anti-evolutionary people are inferior
The same concept applies to people who believe that the human mind is
like a piece of clay. They also support the censorship, rehabilitation,
torture, arrest, hatred, and killing of people who disagree with them.
In order to improve our lives, we need to get a better understanding of
ourselves and our problems. That requires us to do more than tolerate
differences of opinion. We need to be able to discuss differences, and
we need to be able to learn from constructive criticism. We must
encourage curiosity and exploration, also. We cannot expect the world
to improve when we live among people who want to hate, kill, or torture
whoever has a difference of opinion. Those people are like dirt in a
transmission.
|
|
•
|
As technology
advances, machines do more of the intellectually simple jobs, resulting
in every generation needing greater intelligence in order to find a
job. If we don't increase the intelligence of each generation, then
there will be an increase in the number of people who become unemployable
parasites.
|
|
•
|
Advances in
technology causes our homes, transportation devices, telephones,
software, and other material items to become increasingly complicated,
resulting in people needing greater intelligence in order to
properly use and maintain the items.
|
|
2)
|
Emotional differences.
Our emotions are irrational,
so it is impossible
for us to agree on emotional issues, such as whether our homes should
be identical and arranged in geometric patterns, (as in the photo below).
Should
we live in identical homes, such as those in Dubai
(to the right) or China?
Should homes or office buildings be arranged in in a grid pattern?
|
|
 |
Our emotional differences also cause us to disagree on whether we
should work 40 hours a week or only 20 hours a week; how we
should decorate our city; and whether our culture should promote
alcohol at weddings, dinners, and other social affairs.
Emotional differences also make it impossible to agree on social and
recreational activities. One of the most popular activities in the
world has been participating in religious activities. This has resulted
in almost every city having at least one facility for religion, and
those facilities are often among the most decorative and expensive
buildings in the city. It has also resulted in the production of
enormous numbers of religious books and paraphernalia.
During the past few decades, watching fictional television programs and
professional sports has become extremely popular.
Should our culture support the sacrificial
killing of a baby, diaper fetishes,
Wicca,
LARP,
cosplay,
furry
fandom, or NAMBLA?
Each of us has a different idea of what is beautiful, ethical, moral,
polite,
honorable, and pleasant. For example, is it immoral to euthanize a
retarded
child? Or is it immoral to allow a retarded child to suffer a lonely,
miserable
life, and force his parents to suffer the burden of taking care of him?
Arguing over which opinion is "correct" is as idiotic as arguing over
whether an apple tastes better
than an banana.
Another example is whether it is acceptable to promote activities that
result in brain damage, such as rugby, football, horseback riding, and
boxing, or whether we should alter those activities to make them safer.
Most people do not consider
brain damage to be significant, but this
Constitution considers a person to be guilty of murder if he causes or allows brain
damage. For example, the Courts
Ministry is required to regard these two people as murderers:
|
•
|
A criminal who causes brain
damage to a person, such as by kicking him in the head, or
hitting his
head with a
brick. |
|
•
|
A business
executive who is aware
that concussions are causing brain damage but ignores it
because he is more concerned with profit. |
 |
| The NFL executives are not
leaders. They are aggressive, selfish, murderers. |
The NFL executives suppressed
the dangers of concussions because they were
worried that they would make less profit if football was changed to
make it safer, but there is no evidence to believe that people would
stop watching football if was safer.
It is conceivable that switching to flag football would make the games more popular
because preventing the players from grabbing and tackling each other
would make it easier for them to run with
and catch the ball, thereby allowing for a lot more spectacular runs
and catches.
The NFL executives should be described as intellectually defective and selfish murderers who were more
concerned with absurd amounts
of money than in human life. And to make the situation even worse, it
is possible that they would have made football more popular, and made more profit,
by switching to flag
football.
Most people do not consider the NFL executives to be "murderers"
because animals do not care
about the quality of their life of that of other animals.
One of the reasons we have so many problems in this world is because we
don't care about the quality of life, especially not the lives of other
people. We don't care that orphans, homeless people, and runaway
children are used by pedophile networks. We don't care that some
athletes are suffering from brain damage or become permanently disabled
from joint problems. We don't care about the retarded people who have
lonely, miserable lives.
Should our culture put more emphasis on the quality of life? If so, in
what way? For example, should we arrange for schools or government
agencies
to provide retarded people with recreational activities and help them
form friendships? Or should we euthanize them?
Since our emotional preferences are irrational, there is no way we can
resolve our differences through discussions. All throughout history the
only method to resolve differences has been to fight with one another
until one group dominates the others.
The only way to resolve our differences peacefully is
to reduce the
emotional differences between us to a level at which we have enough
compatibility to compromise on what to do. It is not necessary for people
to be identical, but if we cannot resolve our issues
peacefully, then we are too diverse.
When we have so much diversity that we cannot resolve our emotional
differences, we create a society in which a certain percentage of the
population will be uncomfortable
or angry misfits because they will be living among people who
routinely
do things that irritate their
particular emotions. Some more examples of this problem
are:
•
|
Clothing.
| A
society that
is dominated by people who prefer a simple
style of clothing, such as the Google executives (photo to the
right), will cause the people who want decorative
clothing to become uncomfortable misfits. |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
•
|
Drugs
If the
majority of people want
alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, or other drugs, the minority that
does not want drugs
will become uncomfortable misfits.
|
•
|
 Inhibitions
If
the majority of people want women to hide
their breasts when they breast-feed, the minority that does not want to use "breast-feeding
burqas" will be the uncomfortable misfits.
|
•
|
Grooming
If the
majority of people disapprove
of green hair dyes, body piercings, or tattoos, then the minority who
wants those things will become
uncomfortable misfits.
|
•
|
Furniture and
Architecture
If a society
is dominated by people who want furniture and architecture to have
simplistic designs, such as the IKEA style, then the people
who want the Gothic, rococo, or other decorative styles will be
uncomfortable misfits who regard the architecture and furniture as
monotonous, bland, depressing, and ugly.
Conversely, a society dominated by people who like the decorative style
will cause the minority who prefers a simple style to be uncomfortable
misfits who regard the architecture and furniture as tacky, gaudy,
disgusting, and
ugly.
For example, the photo below
shows California's most expensive home as of 2023. I consider it to be
ugly and
dreary. I would not even want
warehouses or factories to look like
that house. I would
describe it as an "extreme IKEA" style, or "prison style". I don't like
the backyard, either. I like grass, but not
surrounded by ugly concrete structures.
For another example, I consider some of the Russian
subway stations to be much more attractive than those in Chicago.
It is impossible
to create a city in which everybody enjoys the architecture of the
homes,
offices, parks, swimming areas, plazas, and other structures when we
have so much
diversity that some of us consider a structure to be ugly
and others describe it beautiful.
|
•
|
Sexual behavior
If the majority of people disapprove
of pedophilia, anal sex, sex
robots, prostitution, orgies, S&M, bestiality, or coprophilia,
then the minority of
people who approve of those
things will be misfits.
 An anonymous,
secretive person published this
document with the title "Zoophilia
Is Morally Permissible", and a professor at Princeton
University, Peter Singer, responded
that the article was "thought-provoking".
This
company creates
plastic dogs for men to have sex with (image to the right),
in addition to other types of sex dolls, such as a pregnant woman.
There is nothing right or
wrong about zoophilia, but in order to create a peaceful world,
everybody must agree on whether it is acceptable or not.
There are already incompatible
sexual practices between us, and this is resulting in a lot of
secretive sexual behavior, and a lot of crime networks, fights,
divorces, blackmail, and murders.
If everybody had more compatible sexual
characteristics, there would be no way to blackmail somebody over his
sexual behavior. Sexual blackmail is possible only when we allow
diversity to become so extreme that a minority of the population is
trying to hide their activities.
For example, Vicki Polin and other people have
claimed that their parents
were were secretly involved with pedophilia and murder rituals, and
Joseph Fritzl
was apparently providing his children as sex toys to other people. We cannot create a pleasant, stable
society when a minority of the population is
involved with secretive and/or illegal behavior.
 In
July 2023, Planned Parenthood promoted
the concept that we should "stop
kink shaming", but what is "kink
shaming"?
One man who was recently arrested
wanted to eat a child. Are we "kink shaming" when we arrest those
people?
Are we kink shaming if we criticize fathers who have anal sex
with their children? Are we kink shaming if we criticize or arrest
people involved
with beastiality,
necrophilia, coprophilia,
or sex with
a dead animal?
If we do not
put limits on our sexual diversity, every generation will have a wider
variation of sexual desires, and there will be more people deceiving
one another about their desires. It
will become increasingly difficult for the people to find a spouse that
they are sexually compatible with. Also, an increasing number of people
will have to hide
what they do to avoid getting arrested, killed, or ridiculed.
Who provides medical support for
dangerous
sex acts?
Every culture allows people to have so much secrecy that we have no
idea how many people are involved with pedophilia, beastiality, and
S&M activities, but this report
claims that the incident of "rectal
foreign body removal" is increasing in England, and this
woman claims that beastiality
is increasing in India.
Who should be responsible for providing medical care to the children
and animals that have been hurt during the sex acts? Who should be
responsible for removing foreign objects from people's butts? Who
should provide anal
rejuvenation services?
Would you
want to
spend your life taking care of rape victims and people who damage their
anus?
|
In a free enterprise system, people compete with each other to provide
those services, but this constitution gives control of the economy to
government officials, and that requires we make decisions about how
much of our labor and resources we put into those services.
Furthermore, since everybody is provided with a home and other items
for free, nobody will be desperate enough for a job to do something
that they regard as disgusting.
Also, the Employment Ministry cannot force anybody to take any
particular job. Therefore, there is the potential problem that none of
the medical students will want to spend their time learning how to fix
the anus of a person who has damaged it by shoving things into his but,
or fix the anus of a dog or lamb that somebody has been using as a sex
toy. So what should we do if a person or animal has a damaged anus?
If we don't reduce our sexual diversity problem there will be even more
bizarre sexual injuries in the future, such as people injuring
themselves by having sex with robots, and people picking up diseases by
having sex with decomposing dead animals.
This Constitution authorizes the Behavior Ministry to pass judgment on
which sexual behavior we
regard
as acceptable. The people who want to do unacceptable things are free
to do so, but they are prohibited from reproducing.
|
•
|
Crimes and pranks
As technology improves, we have more options for crimes and pranks.
When robots become available to the public, we will have a tremendous
number of options that we don't have today. If we do not limit the
emotional differences between us, we will suffer from an increasingly
large number of people who entertain themselves with pranks that other
people regard as destructive or annoying. There will also be an
increasingly wide variety of crimes.
|
|
3)
|
Physical differences.
We must limit the differences in our physical
characteristics or
else everybody in the distant future will
need a unique diet, humidity level, medical treatments, furniture,
clothing, shoes, recreational activities, and temperature range.
Eventually everybody will also have such different vocal and auditory
characteristics that they pronounce words differently, speak at
different frequency levels, and hear different frequency ranges, which
will make
it difficult for them to communicate verbally.
The differences and defects in our eyesight will also increase. There
will be more people who cannot see certain colors, and an increase in
the number of people who cannot see any colors. There will also be more
people with astigmatism, nearsightedness, and double vision. There will
be an increase in people who cannot see in dim light, and people who
have trouble with peripheral vision.
The immune systems of each generation will also become more diverse,
making
it more difficult for doctors to provide people with medical services.
There will be more of the "bubble boys", and
an increase in people with cleft lips, migraine headaches, and Crohn's
disease.
|
Reducing
diversity and defects requires unpleasant decisions
We need to reduce the
diversity and genetic disorders of every generation, but this is
difficult and unpleasant for
two reasons:
| 1) |
We cannot yet be
certain which characteristics of a person are inheritable,
and
which are due to environmental issues, such as chemicals that interfere
with the development of a fetus. This can result in us making mistakes
about who should have restrictions on
their reproduction.
|
2)
|
We cannot agree on which
characteristics should be classified as undesirable.
For example,
should we classify midgets as having an undesirable
genetic
characteristic? If we discover that
pedophilia is inheritable, should we classify that characteristic as undesirable?
Should we classify people who enjoy alcohol, marijuana, caffeine, or
other drugs as having an undesirable
characteristic? What about the people who want to have dogs as pets?
How about people who want tattoos or body piercings? What about the
people who need caffeine or nicotine?
|
By allowing different cities to have different culture, a person
who doesn't like one particular culture might be able to find a city
that he is comfortable with. However, the cities must have
limits on how different their culture can become because the cities
and people must remain compatible
with one
another.
Reducing diversity will dampen arrogance
Another advantage to
reducing diversity is that it will dampen the arrogance of
the people who are above-average in some characteristic. We are too
arrogant for our modern era, and our modern culture makes this problem
worse by giving praise and awards to people who excel in something,
such as school, making money, acting, singing, getting elected to a
government office, and beauty contests.
However, by restricting reproduction to make people more compatible, we
will continuously reduce the difference between the most talented and
the least talented. This will cause people to feel as if they are more
equal to one another. We won't have such extreme differences between
the most intelligent and the most stupid, or the most coordinated and
the most uncoordinated. By being more similar to one another, we will
encourage friendships and cooperation, and reduce insults and boasting.
Furthermore, by reducing the time people waste on praise and insults,
they are likely to spend more time on something pleasant and
beneficial.
|
The other
races that promote diversity are not interested in diversity,
either. Rather, they are behaving like 
