Many people can accept the evidence that humans evolved from apes, (a Bonobo is in the photo to the right), but most people resist the concept that human culture evolved from ape culture, and that our culture is still very similar to that of an ape.

This document adds to the concepts in the Overpopulation and Dystopia documents to show that our modern problems, such as pollution, corruption, obesity, homelessness, crime networks, and loneliness, are the result of our ancestors developing technology while following ape culture.

If we assume that humans are a creation of a supreme being, or that our mind is like a piece of clay that molds itself to the environment, we will not be able to find a sensible explanation for any of our social problems, or a solution to them.

In order to solve a problem, we have to find the cause of the problem. A simple example is that if we assume that crime is due to "evil" people, we will never understand or reduce crime.

By understanding that humans are a species of ape, we get a better understanding of our culture, and we can get ideas on how to experiment with our culture to make it better adapted to the technically advanced world that we have created for ourselves. Three examples are language, food, and pornography.

Animals make certain noises when certain emotions are stimulated, and human languages evolved by adding words to those emotional noises. We continue to make noises to express our emotional feelings, such as when we groan, grunt, or laugh, but we usually use words to represent emotions.

For example, our swearwords represent emotional feelings rather than intelligent concepts. A human who swears at somebody is behaving like a dog that barks at another dog. (More information in this earlier document.)

Since swearwords represent emotional feelings rather than intelligent concepts, they can be replaced with symbols (image to the left), or by icons of barking dogs (image to the right).

We also frequently use adjectives to express an emotion, rather than to clarify the concept of the sentence. For example, the person who posted this security camera video describes the crime as occurring "in broad daylight". The first person who used the word "broad" as an adjective for daylight was using the word to express his surprise that the criminal committed the crime during the day, rather than try to hide his activity by committing the crime at night.

The first person to describe daylight as "broad" was using the word in a nonsensical manner. It was as idiotic as saying the crime occurred in narrow daylight, heavy daylight, or loud daylight. His mind was looking for a way to express his emotional feelings, and it picked "broad".

When other people decoded his remark, the word "broad" would not have clarified "daylight", but all humans have the same mental characteristics, so other people would have also been surprised about the crime occurring in the daylight. Therefore, everybody would have realized that the word "broad" was expressing an emotional feeling rather than describing the daylight.

There were undoubtedly other people who described an event with a different adjective, such as "in clear sunlight", but the expression "broad daylight" was mimicked more often than the alternatives, causing it to become a common expression of the English language.

We must acknowledge we are animals to understand language

Describing a crime as occurring in "broad" daylight is using the word to express an emotional feeling, rather than provide an intelligent description of the sunlight, which is using the word in a manner that is similar to a dog that barks to express its emotional feelings. Therefore, we could replace the word with an image a barking dog:

"the crime occurred in daylight".

We cannot understand why we have swearwords, or why we pronounce certain words in certain manners, or why we have such expressions as "broad daylight", unless we can understand and acknowledge that human languages evolved from the noises of animals, and that humans are still doing the equivalent of barking and growling.

The emotional words do not interfere with our informal conversations, but they can be confusing when they are used in educational materials, especially for children who are in the process of learning a language. For example, the narrator in one of the PBS nature documentaries describes a group of seals as "100 strong". What is the difference between:

Nobody knows what the difference is, not even the author of that documentary. He undoubtedly used the word "strong" to emphasize his surprise that seals form such a large group. In such a case, the narrator of the documentary could have barked like a dog instead of saying the word "strong", and a transcript of the documentary could use an icon of a barking dog like this:

It was a group of 100 seals.

People are also using the word "strong" in the name of their organization, such as 10strongforacure, Be50Strong, 50-strong.us, 100strong, 100strongfoundation.ca, and 100-strong-billings.

We are attracted to the word "strong" because animals evolved for a deadly battle for life, and strength is necessary to survive the battles. The word "strong" stimulates pleasant emotions, whereas words similar to "weak" stimulate unpleasant emotions. As a result, we do not want to describe our organization as the "100-Weak".

Another example of this behavior is a PBS documentary about penguins in which the narrator says that there are "more varieties of penguins in New Zealand than any other country on Earth".

The phrase "on Earth" doesn't clarify the concept since the Earth is the only planet that we have countries on. It is as idiotic as saying "There are more varieties of penguins in New Zealand than any other country in the Milky Way Galaxy."

Another example of this behavior is when somebody describes a person as being a "spitting image" or a "dead ringer" of somebody else. We also describe something that is accurate as "dead on". The words "spitting" and "dead" in those expressions represent emotions, not intelligent concepts.

There are so many people using the word "spitting" and "dead" to emphasize an issue that those words have become phrases in our dictionaries. Those words stimulate emotions, but neither of them are pleasant, so we ought to find some pleasant alternatives. Describing somebody as the "spitting image" of somebody is almost as unpleasant as describing him as the "vomiting image" of somebody, or the "diarrhea image".

If we used icons of barking dogs to express our emotions, rather than words, it would be more obvious that some of our words represent emotional feelings rather than intelligent concepts. We would also notice that the documents produced by scientists and engineers do not have many icons, but journalists, fiction writers, politicians, ADL officials, advertisers, salesmen, and other people who are trying to titillate or manipulate us have lots of icons in their documents.

Why do we have so many irregular verbs?

In order to understand the human mind, body, and culture, we must understand and acknowledge that a fertilized human egg goes through a development cycle that shows our evolution for the past billion or so years. For example, at a certain stage of our development, a fetus is similar to a fish, which is evidence that some of our earliest ancestors were fish.

Furthermore, by observing how children develop into adults, we can at get an understanding of our more recent past. For example, young children start to speak when they do not have a good understanding of the past or the future, and they do not have the vocal abilities to pronounce certain sounds.

That is evidence that our prehistoric ancestors began to speak when they were still so stupid that they did not have a good understanding of the past or the future, and they did not have the vocal abilities to make the wide variety of sounds that we can make today.

Eventually our ancestors had enough intelligence to become aware of the past and the future, so they began adding verbs to describe those concepts, but they did not realize that they should follow a pattern with verbs. They just created new noises, resulting in "irregular verbs".

Since our prehistoric ancestors did not have had the vocal abilities that we have, analyzing the pronunciation of words can help us understand how language developed, and the vocal abilities of our prehistoric ancestors. It might also help us understand their environment, such as the cold climate of Russia.

Incidentally, most children also seem to go through a phase at which they enjoy creating nicknames for each other, and creating new words, and that could be evidence that our distant ancestors were doing that, also. From my casual observations of people, the members of crime gangs, and many of the people in jail, seem to be more likely to have nicknames for one another than the typical person, and that could be evidence that their mind is more primitive. They might have a brain that is more similar to that of our distant ancestors, which would explain why they have trouble fitting into our modern society, and why they seem more interested in such animal behavior as marking their territory (usually with graffiti), fighting over territory, and to intimidating other people with weapons, swearing, status products (such as expensive jewelry), threats, and angry facial expressions. If we had a People database with details of everybody's life, we would get a better understanding of the differences between our minds, and notice that some people are behaving more similar to apes.

Children need to understand what language is

Language is a tool that we can use to transfer thoughts from one person's mind to another, but like any tool, it can be used for destructive purposes, such as deceiving people about the Apollo moon landing or the Holocaust.

Language is like a knife or a gun. Specifically, it is a tool that can be used to improve our lives, or it can be used to exploit, hurt, or manipulate people.

Every culture puts restrictions on how we are allowed to use knives and guns, but no culture has many restrictions on what people can do with language. The reason is because most people don't have a good understanding of what language is. Many people have heard the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword", but they don't fully understand the concept.

Language is more powerful than a sword because language allows us to transfer information to other people's minds, and the information in our mind is has a significant effect over our lives. That information influences the foods we choose to eat, how we treat other people, which social activities we participate in, and what we believe about the Holocaust. That information also determines whether we know what a sword is, and whether we want to use a sword as scrap metal, or whether we want to use it to kill criminals.

AI software can improve our language

The Schools Ministry is required to design schools so that the older children get more of their information from software and less from human teachers. However, the software must set a good example on how to use language, rather than imitate the people who use language in an irrational manner.

We have to expect humans to use words in emotional manners when we are having casual conversations, but the Schools Minister is required to ensure that children are taught to avoid the emotional words when they are creating documents that are intended to convey an intelligent concept. For example, news reports, scientific documents, user's manuals, and repair manuals should be serious, not full of emotional words.

In order to help the children learn how to use language properly, the AI software must be designed to watch for improper use of language, and interrupt the children to let them know what they should be saying. This requires that the software have the attitude of a policeman, rather than a clown.

We must have an authority of language

In order to create software that encourages the proper use of language, we must have an authority of language to set the rules. Since no culture has an authority of language, every language has been slowly changing, but not many of the changes are for intelligent reasons.

Most of the changes to language are the result of people who accidentally misuse words; immigrants who use words from their native language; journalists and other people who use words in abnormal manners in order to titillate or manipulate us; and by people who are upset by certain words, such as the feminists, homosexuals, midgets, and other people who whine that certain words are insulting.

The Knowledge Division of the World Government is the authority for language. The computer programmers must design software to follow their rules for language, and the Schools Ministry must ensure that the schools are following those rules, also.

We cannot develop a better language yet

Every language is irrational and confusing, but we do not have the time or knowledge to create a better language as of 2024. That is a task for the future generations. However, we can make some simple improvements.

For example, the ignorance about language has resulted in every culture encouraging the detrimental concept of having a "large vocabulary". A large vocabulary is useful if all of the words are unique and represent an intelligent concept, but it is detrimental to have words that are duplicates of one another. For example, there is no difference between "proffer" and "offer".

Trying to impress us with duplicate words is as idiotic as trying to impress us with duplicate music notes.

The duplicate words require children to waste some of their childhood memorizing them, and they cause confusion to the people who did not learn them.

There is no benefit to having duplicate words. It is as idiotic as encouraging the use of duplicate symbols for music, architectural drawings, and math, or duplicate words in a computer programming language.

Our languages also have the problem of words that have more than one definition. An example is the word "light", which can mean light in weight, or the light from the sun.

This is another problem that the future generations will have to deal with, but we can make some improvements today. For example, the author of this news article wrote:

It would be more sensible if he had used the word "except" instead of "save". The Knowledge Division is authorized to provide rules for language, and the AI software must be designed to watch for people who use language incorrectly, and interrupt them to let them know that they should be using a different word.

The educational software should get children accustomed to using language properly.

It is impractical for the adults to ensure that the children are using language properly because it would take too much of our time, and be very frustrating for us and the children.

However, robots could easily handle this task, and the children will not be able to manipulate or argue with robots.

Although some people accidentally use words in the wrong manner, many people do it deliberately because they are trying to impress or intimidate us. We inherited the craving of animals to get to the top of the social hierarchy so we, especially men, are frequently looking for an opportunity to appear intelligent, educated, and important.

The Schools Minister is required to dampen that crude, animal behavior, and teach children that the most intelligent people are those who can express their opinions more clearly than other people. Children must be taught to impress people with their ideas, not with "colorful language".

Incidentally, describing a language as "colorful" is another example of how we use adjectives to represent emotions rather than intelligent concepts. This is why the dictionaries cannot give a sensible definition for "colorful language". For example, the Cambridge.org dictionary says that the "words are often used together". That is as useless as defining "broad daylight" as "these words are often used together".

Words are not derogatory or insulting

The inadequate understanding of what a language is, and how it evolved from animal noises, is also causing some people to whine that some adjectives and pronouns are insulting to women, midgets, fat people, African Americans, homosexuals, Jews, retards, and other people.

For example, feminists have been complaining for decades that certain words are "sexist" and insulting to women, such as the words chairman, policeman, and fireman. This has resulted in people switching to such words as chairperson, chairwoman, policewoman, and firewoman.

The AI software must be designed to point out to children that the word "policeman" is not the same as two words "police man", just as "watermelon" is not a "water melon". A "police man" is a man, but a "policeman" is not male or female. Likewise, a "human" refers to both men and women, and transgenders.

No words is insulting to anybody. A word is just a symbol on paper, or a sound wave in the atmosphere. A word is insulting only if our mind chooses to interpret it as an insult.

We frequently use words in an attempt to hurt another person, but nobody is obligated to react by feeling pain. For example, if a white person refers to a black person as a "nigger", the black person is not obligated to pout or have a tantrum.

The black person has lots of options, such as wondering why the white person used the word. Was it because the white person is angry? If so, about what? Or was he merely mimicking the way black people speak to one another? Or was he making a joke, or trying to emphasize some concept?

If a person uses a word to insult somebody, then it is the person who is insulting, not the word. Describing a word as insulting is as idiotic as complaining that the barking of a dog is insulting, rather than complaining about the dog.

To complicate this issue, if a person interprets a word as insulting, but it was not intended to be an insult, then that person has hurt himself by misinterpreting the word. For example, some people become angry if we use the "wrong" pronoun, such as referring to them as "him" or "her" instead of "zim", "zer", "they", or "them". They are tormenting themselves by interpreting other people's words as insults.

Blaming a word for being insulting, and demanding that people use a different word, does nothing to improve life for anybody. It is as worthless as training dogs to make slightly different barking noises.

It is especially idiotic for African-Americans to complain that the word "nigger" is insulting when white people use it, but not when black people use it. If it were true that the word "nigger" is insulting, then nobody should use it.

However, the word "nigger" is not insulting, which is why black people use it in ordinary conversations. It's just another innocent symbol. It is our interpretation of a symbol that determines whether it is insulting.

If a black American interprets the word "nigger" as insulting, it is because he chose to interpret it as an insult. Whatever pain he feels is self-inflicted. Likewise, if a white person is insulted when a black person calls him a "cracker", it is because he chose to be insulted by that word, and if a woman is insulted when she is referred to as a "girl", it is because she chose to torment herself by interpreting the word as an insult.

If a person were to use the word "nigger" as an insult, then it is the person who is insulting, not the word. However, black people are not obligated to respond to insults with temper tantrums or pouting. They have the option of ignoring the angry person. They also have the option of laughing at the person and asking him if has the vocal abilities to pronounce the word "Negro".

Nobody has the freedom to modify language

Every culture gives people and organizations the freedom to use language in any manner they please, and whine about any word they please. Everybody has the freedom to create new words, and use language in nonstandard manners. Even children are free to create new words. No culture has an authority for language. The dictionaries and school teachers are passive observers of how people use language.

This constitution changes the situation by making the Knowledge Division of the World Government the authority for language. This constitution prohibits people from making changes to our language. If a person has an idea on how to improve language, he must post a document in the Suggestions category to explain it.

The second example of how our culture has evolved from animal emotions can be seen with our attitudes towards food. Animals eat whatever tastes good to them, and they eat until they are no longer hungry. However, wild animals never suffer from health problems or obesity because the food that tastes good to them is healthy for them. Also, the competition for food prevents them from eating excessively, and forces them to get a lot of exercise.

When humans settled into cities, they began increasing their production of food, and their homes and clothing protected them from cold weather, thereby reducing the amount of energy that their body needed. A few centuries ago the situation changed even more dramatically when people began producing large amounts of sugar, and machines began to reduce the amount of physical labor that most people were doing.

Our hunger emotion and digestive system evolved for prehistoric people who had to eat a lot of food in order to provide themselves with enough energy for their tasks, and to stay warm during cold weather. Although we have no idea how much food prehistoric humans ate, it appears that the people in medieval England were eating very large meals. However, not many medieval people were overweight, except for the "parasitic class" of people, such as the Kings, Queens, and church officials.

During the past century, food has become so abundant, and we are so well protected from cold weather and physical labor, that even the unemployed people who survive on welfare can easily become obese. We produce so much food that some pet and wild animals have become overweight.

What is the difference between:

An alien from another planet would likely describe both of them as being in an environment that they did not evolve for, and do not have the knowledge, self-control, and/or intelligence to deal with.

Likewise, there is not much of a difference between a human who eats whatever tastes good, and the crows in the photo below that eat whatever appeals to them.

People are not becoming overweight because of advertisements, "junk food", bad parenting, McDonald's restaurants, or stupidity. Rather, people are overweight because we developed technology that has altered our environment, but we have not adjusted our culture or genetic characteristics to compensate for those changes. Four of the changes that we must adapt to are:

•	Technology allows us to produce excessive amounts of food.
•	Technology reduces the amount of food our body needs for energy and heat.
•	Technology allows us to create unhealthy foods, such as cotton candy.
•	Technology allows us to produce meals from foods and chemicals that are unnatural for us, such as grains, prosciutto, and animal milk. We are eating those foods before we know how they affect our health. For example, we don't know much about the health effects of lectins, glyphosate, or insecticides in grains.

A lot of people criticize "junk food", but nobody has a sensible explanation for what "junk food" is. Many people assume that whatever food is produced by a "fast food" restaurant is junk food, but from my simplistic observations, the beef burgers that are made by fast food restaurants are nearly identical to those made by people at home, and by expensive restaurants.

Throughout my life I've heard people claiming that pork will cause gout, and that "red meat" is unhealthy, but meat has probably been a part of the human diet for millions of years, so it is more sensible to believe that pork and other meats are unhealthy only when we eat excessive amounts of them, or when we have certain genetic disorders that make it difficult for our body to properly process meat.

Humans must evolve to fit our technology

Our technology has altered our environment significantly. The size of our stomach and digestive system is excessive for our modern era, and so is our craving for sugar. Our genetic characteristics are outdated, and this requires the human mind and body to evolve to fit it. This requires restricting reproduction to people who are better adapted to our technology.

We must pass judgment on which of the people are overweight or malnourished because of inheritable genetic characteristics, and prohibit them from reproducing, or restrict them to a few children. We must also restrict the reproduction of the people who have allergies or other troubles with the foods that we have decided to make a regular part of the human diet.

We must use self-control until we have evolved

Until the human race has evolved to fit our technically advanced world, we must exert a lot of self-control over our cravings for food. We must experiment with our culture so that we do a better job of controlling how much we eat, and ensuring that our meals are healthy.

The primary method that this constitution advocates to improve our eating habits is to prohibit kitchens in the homes. Everybody must get their meals at restaurants that create meals according to guidelines of the Meals Ministry.

The Meals Ministry determines how much sugar is in the food products, and the Events Ministry determines what birthday parties are like.

The Meals Ministry is responsible for determining the amount of sugar and other ingredients in the foods, and they are required to set different standards for children and adults.

The Meals Ministry is required to ensure that children are exposed to a variety of foods so that they don't become finicky adults, and that they become accustomed to foods with low sugar levels.

The government has total control of culture, so they are responsible for determining the foods, clothing styles, activities, and attitudes of the holiday celebrations, birthday parties, weddings, and other affairs. This allows the government to experiment with all of the social affairs to make them more sensible, healthy, safe, and beneficial.

For example, birthday parties evolved to fit the emotional cravings of adults, not to be beneficial to children. Adults, especially women, are titillated by the giggling and smiling of children, and this has resulted in adults developing birthday parties that stimulate the children into doing a lot of giggling and smiling, thereby providing the adults with lots of titillation.

However, the adults achieve this extreme titillation by providing the children with lots of gifts, pampering, praise, and large amounts of sugar, all of which is detrimental to the children because it causes them to become accustomed to such culture.

Parents are designing birthday parties for their own enjoyment, not for the benefit of the children. They use their children as objects for their emotional gratification. A birthday party is essentially a sex toy that parents use to masturbate with.

An extreme example are the parents who provide "smash cakes" for the birthday parties of their one-year-old baby. Those parties are designed to titillate adults, not to be beneficial to the baby. The baby is just a toy that the adults use for their entertainment.

Some women complain that men are sexist and abusive for treating women as sex toys, but women treat children as entertainment devices. Women complain when men grab at them and try to kiss, smell, and touch them, but that is what women want to do with children.

Some women insult men for being "perverted" for being attracted to their hands or feet, but many mothers are attracted to their baby's hands and feet, and many mothers kiss their baby's feet.

There is only one blueprint for a human, so if we are male, we develop an attraction to women, but if we are female, that same emotion is altered to an attraction to babies and children. Since there is no dividing line between male and female characteristics, a lot of mistakes can be made, such as a man who develops a woman's attraction to children instead of an attraction to women.

Women are not better than men; rather, men and women are different. Men should stop treating women as entertainment devices, and women should stop using children as entertainment devices. Everybody should consider how they affect other people's lives.

It was sensible for prehistoric parents to do whatever caused their children to giggle and smile because prehistoric parents could do only beneficial things for their children, such as provide them with food, warmth, and affection, or remove splinters from their fingers.

Today, however, our technology allows parents to hurt their children with unhealthy and excessive quantities of food, toys, and candy. Parents can also encourage bad attitudes, such as when they pamper their children to such an extent that they grow up to be spoiled, arrogant brats. Parents are also causing trouble for their children by allowing television and schools to provide them with feminist concepts, religious nonsense, and Zionist propaganda.

The Events Ministry has the authority to control birthday parties and other celebrations, but they must design them to be beneficial to society and the human race. They must judge the activities according to how they affect people's lives, attitudes, behavior, relationships, and health, and what sort of advantages and disadvantages they have for society, such as the labor and resources that they require, and the trash and noise that they create.

The apartments are intended only for sleeping, resting, and grooming, so they will be too small for birthday parties and other events. Although people are allowed to have friends visit them in their apartments, they cannot have parties in their apartments. Instead, the Neighborhoods Minister must ensure that all of the neighborhoods have plenty of public facilities for social and recreational events, so parents who want to have birthday parties for their children, or when friends want to have a party, they must use the public facilities. That will ensure that people in the apartment buildings are never bothered by the noise or traffic of the parties.

The Events Minister has the authority to determine what type of parties people can have, so they will be able to prevent smash cake birthday parties, or whatever other event they consider to be detrimental, wasteful, idiotic, or obnoxious. The Meals Minister has the authority to determine what people can eat, so they can restrict the sugar that children have during their meals, parties, and holiday celebrations.

We do not benefit from the freedom to eat wherever we please.

Everybody is also restricted to eating at the designated restaurants and picnic areas, rather than wherever they please.

There is no benefit to allowing people to eat food in other areas, such as the museums, swimming pools, theaters, classrooms, offices, factories, recreational areas, social clubs, apartments, and video rooms. Therefore, food is prohibited in all of those facilities.

By restricting food to designated eating areas, we prevent people from leaving crumbs and food waste in public areas, and from contaminating furniture and doorknobs with food from messy fingers. It also reduces the number of insects, rats, and mice in those areas.

Since there is no money in the city, if the Meals Minister authorizes something that resembles a food vending machine, it will provide the items for free, and it will only be in the areas designated for eating. Nobody is permitted to operate food stands along sidewalks or city parks, either, which will make the city streets and parks more visually attractive, and less messy and smelly.

The Dining Ministry is responsible for setting the hours of the day that food is available at the restaurants and picnic areas. This allows them to prevent or control the eating of food between meals, and it allows the restaurants to shut down between meals in order to reduce labor and resources.

Allowing the government to have this much control over food is putting a lot of restrictions on people, but it is very similar to what all families and businesses follow. For example, parents don't let their children eat whatever they please, whenever they please, and in any room of the house that they please. Likewise, businesses put restrictions on when and where the employees can eat.

Allowing the government to control our eating customs and other activities will put tremendous restrictions on our freedom, but if the voters can provide responsible and competent presidents, then we will benefit from the restrictions. We will have a more pleasant life when everybody is following sensible culture rather than giving everybody the freedom to behave like a stupid animal.

All cultures regard the word "pornography" to refer to an item that was designed to stimulate sexual emotions, but this Constitution advocates using the word to refer to any item that was designed to stimulate any emotion. Furthermore, it should refer only to the stimulation that has no benefit to us.

For example, a piece of bread stimulates our emotions when we are hungry, but the bread should not be referred to as pornography because it was not intended simply to stimulate us. Rather, it was intended to provide us with food and nutrition. However, a candy bar could be described as "food pornography" because it was not intended to provide us with anything of  value. Rather, it was intended only to titillate us.

There is no dividing line between when something is stimulating us for a beneficial reason, and when it should be considered pornography, but we should make that distinction. That allows us to consider bread to be a "food", but a lollipop would be "food pornography".

Likewise, a photo of a naked woman would be considered beneficial if it is intended to help a doctor identify the locations where she has burns from a fire, but it would be considered as"sexual pornography" if it is intended only to stimulate sexual emotions.

By defining pornography in that manner, the items that we classify as "pornography" are unnecessary for human happiness, so we should consider restricting or eliminating them.

To complicate the issue, something that is not pornography can be used as pornography by people who want to do so. For example, a person could use the photos in a cookbook to stimulate himself rather than to learn how to make the items.

Likewise, a person could drive through a neighborhood of expensive houses in order to stimulate himself, in which case he would be using the houses as pornography, which is what Mark Cuban would do when he was younger. A person could also use the photos in a medical book to stimulate himself sexually.

The Behavior Ministry must define pornography according to what they think would be unnecessary for the City Elders, not according to what the public believes is necessary. Therefore, recipes that have photos of food would be regarded as educational rather than pornographic if they are intended to provide people with an understanding of the food, even if those photos are emotionally stimulating. Likewise, medical documents that have photos of naked bodies or sexual organs would be considered educational rather than pornographic if the photos are designed to be educational.

If some people choose to use the photos of the food or naked bodies to stimulate themselves simply for entertainment, the Behavior Ministry must let they do so. They cannot alter the photos to prevent them from doing that. The government is prohibited from altering culture to fit the characteristics of misfits. Culture must be designed for the higher-quality people.

Ideally, the people who behave in abnormal manners would be investigated to determine what is different about them, and whether there is a way to reduce the problem. Their odd behavior would also lower their social credit score, and give them a lower priority for reproducing.

Pornography is a modern problem

Our prehistoric, nomadic ancestors did not have any significant pornography, but modern technology allows us to create photos, videos, and objects that will stimulate every emotion that we have.

In addition to stimulating our pleasant emotions, we can stimulate our unpleasant emotions, such as with horror movies and Halloween masks. The Halloween objects that are intended to frighten people are "fear pornography" because they are designed for the sole purpose of stimulating an emotion, but without any benefit to the person.

The smash cake birthday parties, mentioned earlier and here, are another example of an activity that should be described as pornography because it is intended to titillate the emotions of women, but has no benefit to anybody, especially not the baby.

Women frequently complain about men looking at sexual pornography, but a woman who titillates herself with a smash cake party is behaving in a similar manner as a man who is titillating himself with a sex robot.

Every society puts restrictions on sexual pornography, but no culture is even aware of the concept that there are other types of pornography, such as wedding, baby, and travel pornography.

How does pornography affect our lives?

Since everybody who is alive today grew up in an environment in which we were exposed to a wide variety of pornography, none of us have any idea of what our life or attitudes would be if we had grown up in a society that didn't have any pornography. However, a primitive tribe of people in South America was recently given access to the Internet, and that can give us some ideas on how pornography affect us.

According to one of the adults in that tribe, many of the young men have reacted to the sexual pornography that they discovered on the Internet by becoming more sexually aggressive. He also complains that the younger people have become lazy, and waste a lot of time on social media. A teenage girl has developed the goal of traveling around the world

To some members of the tribe, the Internet is wonderful, but the leaders of the tribe consider the Internet to have had such a detrimental effect on the behavior of the people that they reacted by limiting access to the Internet to two hours in the morning, five hours in the evening, and all day on Sunday.

If we could conduct a scientific analysis of how the Internet has affected that tribe, we would discover that most of those people are using the Internet in the same manner that most people in other nations use it. Specifically, to titillate themselves, not to learn something of value, or do something of value.

Our natural tendency is to do whatever is most emotionally pleasing. Therefore, when we get new technology, we temd to use it to entertain ourselves, and to impress other people.

Those of us in the advanced nations consider ourselves to be highly educated, and superior to the primitive tribes in the Amazon basin, but there is not much of a difference between us. Many Americans and Europeans waste hours a day having silly conversations and arguments on social media, or looking at sexual pornography, travel pornography, or wedding pornography, so we should not be surprised when a primitive tribe in the Amazon basin uses the Internet in the same manner that we do.

In order to truly benefit from our technology, we need to exert self-control over ourselves and use our intelligence to determine what to do with our technology. However, we cannot expect the public to make intelligent decisions. We must provide ourselves with leaders who can provide us with guidance. This requires restricting the freedoms of the people, and allowing the government to control our culture.

What effect would a serious Internet have?

The Internet had a detrimental effect on that primitive tribe because it provided the people with access to social media, pornography, and other useless activities and information. That should make us wonder what effect the Internet would have had on that primitive tribe if it had been restricted to beneficial information. In that case, the Internet would be an extensive, electronic encyclopedia. Would that type of Internet have caused trouble for the primitive tribe in the Amazon? Or would it have been beneficial?

We should also wonder how pornography and the Internet has affected each of us in the advanced nations. What would our lives and attitudes have been like if we had grown up in an environment in which there was no food, sexual, wedding, or travel pornography, and no Zionist propaganda about the Nazis, Holocaust, white privilege, or UFO's?

Furthermore, imagine that there was no fiction on television or in books, no television game shows, and no professional sports or singers. In that type of environment, we would have to form our own friendships, get involved with our own recreational activities, and do our own singing.

Would that type of environment have provided us with more satisfying friendships, activities, and life?

The only way we are going to determine how to improve our life is to find the courage to experiment with our culture.

The gifts and sweet foods that we provide children at birthday parties is just one example of how our culture has evolved to fit our animal emotions, and that it is inappropriate for our modern era. To summarize a few of other examples:

	•	Our custom of punishing criminals evolved to satisfy our animal cravings to bite, glare at, and kick the people who irritate us. Instead of reducing crime, this custom torments the criminals and wastes our labor and resources, and when prisoners are released from jail, they often have so much trouble making a living that commit more crimes.
	•	Our custom of practicing recreational activities evolved because we have intense cravings to win our competitions. Instead of improving our lives, we waste a portion of our life on the development of useless skills.
	•	Our custom of showing off our material wealth, awards, and college diplomas evolved because we have an intense craving to get to the top of the hierarchy by intimidating people. An extreme example are the products that have no value other than to show off, such as the foods with gold foil. Instead of improving our lives, it stimulates envy, anger, hatred, and pouting.
	•	The custom of designing women's shoes to show their toes evolved because of their desire to show the men how well-groomed they are. Instead of improving life for men or women, it causes the women to deform their feet, suffer from pain, and waste labor and resources on Cinderella surgery.

Our arrogance causes us to believe that our culture is superior to that of the animals, but as of 2024, human culture is just a trivial modification of ape culture. As with the apes and other animals, humans are still doing whatever is most titillating, with no concern for the consequences, benefits, or risks.

It was sensible for our prehistoric ancestors to have the freedom to do whatever they pleased, but today we must exert self-control over our emotional cravings, and push ourselves into thinking about what is truly beneficial for us. We must design culture according to intellectual reasoning, not our emotions.

By experimenting with our culture, we can find ways to improve our meals, leisure activities, clothing styles, and other culture, but no matter how wonderful our culture becomes, we will continue to have emotions that are inappropriate for this modern era.

For example, no matter how we design our meals, we will still have the emotional desire to eat an excessive amount of food, and we will continue to have an excess of attraction to sugar, fat, and salt. Therefore, even when we develop superior culture, we will have to continue exerting self-control over our emotions.

It is unpleasant for us to suppress our cravings for food and sugar because it requires us to fight with ourselves. The ideal solution is to restrict reproduction to the people who have the most appropriate food-related emotions and physical characteristics.

That will cause each generation to have more appropriate cravings for food, and an increasingly smaller stomach and digestive system. That will eventually create people who have an emotional attraction to appropriate types of foods, and who can eat to the point at which they feel full. They will not have to exert much, if any, self-control over their eating habits.

Likewise, it is unpleasant for us to control our cravings to become angry when we encounter problems, so the ideal situation is to restrict reproduction to the people who are better able to remain calm when they experience problems, and who are more interested in analyzing the problems and experimenting with improvements.

It is also irritating to force ourselves to learn something in school. The ideal situation is to restrict reproduction to the people who have the strongest desire to learn. That will eventually create children who want to learn, and don't need any pressure to do so. Those future children will go to school and learn a useful skill with the same enthusiasm that children today have when playing with cardboard boxes.

It is also irritating to control our cravings for sex, so the ideal solution is to restrict reproduction to the people who have more appropriate sexual cravings.

It is especially absurd to have people living with us who have a sexual attraction to children. Those people either torment the children, or they torment themselves by resisting their cravings. Those people should be prohibited from reproducing so that there are fewer of them in every generation.

We have powerful emotional cravings to reproduce, so the only way we can restrict reproduction is to exert a lot of self-control over our emotional cravings.

The people who cannot tolerate restrictions on reproduction must be considered as unacceptable for reproduction. That will reduce the number of people in each generation who want to reproduce like animals, and increase the number of people who are more concerned with the quality of a person's life. Eventually that will create people who can restrict reproduction without whining, pouting, anger, or hysteria.