Animals did not evolve to be pampered, or to become a leader through inheritances. Instead, animals evolved to continuously compete for food, water, a place to sleep, and a position in the social hierarchy. We need and benefit from competition.

Animals want to do the minimum amount of work possible. A competitor inspires us to put more mental and physical effort into our activity, which causes us to be more productive, think more intelligent thoughts, and be more efficient. It also causes us to be more critical of what we are doing so that we can do a better job.

Without competition to push us into doing something, we become lazier, more arrogant, and sluggish. We become similar to a pet dog.

In order for us to get the maximum benefit from competition, we need to understand why competition is beneficial so that we don't react to competition with anger, envy, cheating, or pouting.

An example of how ignorance about this issue can cause us to misinterpret competition is a remark made by Moungi Bawendi, who won the 2023 Nobel chemistry prize. He said that high school was so easy for him that he never bothered to study, and when he entered Harvard University, he assumed it would be easy, also. However, he was shocked when he failed his first chemistry exam at Harvard:

His failure caused him to realize that he was now competing with people who were more talented than his high school classmates, and he reacted by putting much more time and effort into learning the material. However, he interpreted the situation incorrectly. His advice to other people was to "persevere" when they encounter problems.

His response is similar to the popular expression: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." That is the animal attitude of continuously repeating a failed policy. That is not sensible advice today.

Bawendi believes that he excelled at Harvard because he "persevered", but in reality, he excelled because he reacted to failing the competition by putting more effort into studying, and because he had the intellectual ability to do better.

To rephrase that, Harvard put him into a more difficult competition, and he reacted by putting more effort into learning.

He had the ability in high school to be a phenomenal chemist, but he was competing with students who were so inferior to him that he didn't have to put any effort into winning the competition with them. Therefore, as with all animals, he did the minimum amount possible.

When he went to Harvard, he was put into a competition with students who were more equal to him, and so the competition became more intense, and that stimulated him into putting more effort into learning.

Bawendi believes that he became successful because of "perseverance", but he became successful because:

1)	He was put into a competition that was more appropriate for his particular intellectual abilities. If he had chosen a college with less intelligent students, or if Harvard had been giving good grades to all students regardless of their performance, or if he had been a pampered, wealthy Prince who had his own private chemistry tutor who gave him good grades simply because he was a Prince, he never would have put much effort into learning chemistry or developing his intellectual talents.
2)	He reacted to his failure in a sensible manner; specifically, by putting time and effort into studying. He did not react by cheating in the next test, or by sabotaging the other students, or by having a temper tantrum, or by making excuses, or by hating the teacher.
3)	He had the genetic, intellectual potential to excel as a chemist. A person who doesn't have the genetic characteristics necessary to be a scientist will never be a scientist no matter how much he "perseveres".

Bawendi is an example of how we evolved for competition. Competition helps us to develop our talents. We become spoiled, arrogant, lazy brats without competition.

Our natural tendency is to be relaxed, and not put much effort into what we are doing. We put a lot of effort into our activities only when an emotion has been stimulated by something internal, such as hunger, or external, such as when we see a dangerous predator coming towards us, or when person competes with us for something.

Animals evolved an intense desire to win their competitions, and so we put a lot of effort into beating our competitor at whatever we are competing for. For example, when a prehistoric man created a better flint knife, he would have gotten a lot of attention and impressed a lot of people, and that would stimulate the other men into competing with him to create a better tool so that they can become the center of attention.

We enjoy competitions, but our ancestors never realized that they should ensure that their competitions were beneficial. As a result, individual people, religions, businesses, and other organizations created competitions with no regard to their value. They have given us thousands of competitions that are worthless, dangerous, or destructive, such as competing to eat Tide pods..

To make the situation worse, our intense desire to win a competition results in people putting a lot of time and effort into winning those idiotic competitions. This is resulting in people developing worthless skills, such as this man who is/was practicing to walk 10 km in 8 hours on his hands.

To improve upon the situation, this Constitution prohibits citizens and organizations from creating competitive events and other social activities. The ministers are the only people who can authorize a social activity, but everybody is encouraged to post suggestions for activities. This puts people into competition to create the most beneficial competitions, leisure activities, recreational activities, customs, social clubs, and other culture.

The people who create activities or other customs that turn out to be beneficial will get credit for it. That will help them qualify for certain types of jobs, and it will improve their social credit score.

If a person doesn't have an adequate understanding of his emotions, he might develop the Marquis de Sade attitude that he must do whatever brings him pleasure, and avoid whatever causes an unpleasant feeling. However, when a person understands the purpose of his emotions, he will realize that he will have a better life when he uses his intelligence to decide what to do. For some examples:

•	If a person assumes that he enjoys eating because food is a source of pleasure, he might decide to eat whatever is most pleasurable, and in whatever quantity he pleases. By comparison, if he understands that we get pleasure from eating certain foods in order to make us eat the foods that are appropriate for our body, then he will realize he needs to control that craving and make intelligent decisions about what, when, and how much to eat, so that he provides his body with appropriate nutrition.
•	If a man believes that he enjoys sex because sex is a source of pleasure, then he is likely to believe that the more sex he has, the more satisfying his life will be, and that when a woman denies him sex, she is causing him to suffer. By comparison, if a man understands that the purpose of his sexual craving is to entice him into reproducing and remaining with the women, then he will realize that he doesn't need a lot of sex in order to enjoy life, and he doesn't need to push women into having sex with him, and it doesn't matter how many women he has sex with.
•	If a person believes that his confidence in his physical abilities is because he is exceptionally talented, then he might get involved with activities that he cannot perform adequately, with the result that he suffers or dies. Examples are the people who believe that they can climb a mountain, or do a backflip on a bicycle, but who hurt or kill themselves in the process because they overestimated their abilities. Likewise, if a person believes that his confidence in his opinions is because he is a super educated, super genius, he will be an irritation to everybody when he gives them lectures, and he will disregard constructive criticism and conflicting opinions, thereby making it impossible for him to learn from other people and improve his opinions. By comparison, if a person realizes that he inherited the extreme level of arrogance of an animal, then he will realize that he must control his arrogance. He will realize that he needs to look critically at himself, consider other people's opinions, and treat other people as friends rather than as inferior creatures.
•	If a person believes that his fear of something is because it is dangerous, then he will impede progress by resisting new ideas, and make it difficult for him to improve his own life. By comparison, if a person understands that he has a fear of the unknown because animals must be cautious with something new, then he will realize that he needs to control that fear, make intelligent decisions about what is truly dangerous, and be willing to consider new ideas.
•	If a person believes that his desire to pray to a God, or bow before Queen Elizabeth, is because that is what God wants, or because that is what we should do when we meet a queen, then he will allow himself to be dominated by incompetent and corrupt people. By comparison, if a person realizes that his craving to become submissive to people in leadership positions is because that craving allows animals to form a social group, then he will realize that he needs to control that craving and use his intellect to pass judgment on whether his leaders deserve their position.
•	If a person believes that his craving to protect children is because children are "bundles of joy" and "precious resources", then he will be horrified by abortion and the euthanasia of children. By comparison, if a person realizes that animals evolved an intense craving to take care of babies because and animal's only purpose in life is to reproduce, then he will realize that he needs to control that craving so that he can ensure that each generation is healthy, honest, and enjoys life. He will be more concerned with the quality of a child's life.

Nature puts animals into a deadly competition for life, and the people who do not understand that, or who do not regard humans as animals, will misinterpret the history of the human race. For example, when they discover that most prehistoric children died at a young age, they interpret those deaths as evidence that prehistoric people were suffering. They regard prehistoric life as brutal and sad.

A more accurate view of prehistoric life was that the people loved life. It was not brutal to the survivors. It was brutal only to those who died young. The adults who survived the competition for life benefited from those deaths because it gave them a society in which they lived among adults who were in excellent mental and physical health.

One of the concepts that this constitution promotes is that most people are "average". However, to complicate the concept, the adults of a prehistoric tribe were better-than-average. The reason is because nature killed the children who were below-average in physical and mental health. The end result was that the adults were better-than-average compared to their children.

The same situation occurs with animals. The reason we never see any sickly or neurotic adult animals is because the inferior animals die while they are young. This leaves adults animals who are better-than-average compared to their children.

The only exception are pet animals because they are not in a deadly competition for life. A lot of pet animals are sickly or neurotic, and would have died if they had to compete for life.

People who don't understand competitions will also misinterpret an increase in the number of deaths as an increase in suffering, and a reduction in the number of deaths as a time of happiness and pleasure.

For example, the Overpopulation document pointed out that the eruption of Krakatoa might have been the reason so many animals and plants died in 536. Historians misinterpret the deaths as a time of suffering. In reality, animals, plants, and people are dying every day, and Krakatoa merely created a temporary rise in deaths for some of the Earth's creatures.

Whenever something in the environment changes, there will be a reduction in the population of some animals and plants, and an increase in the population of others. However, the suffering and deaths are not random. Rather, the lower quality individuals are the most likely to die. This results in an improvement in the genetic qualities of the creatures who remain alive.

An anthropologist or historian who doesn't have a good understanding of evolution or genetics will assume that 536 was a miserable time for people, animals, and plants. However, although every person may have been inconvenienced by the changing climate, when the climate returned to normal, the survivors benefited because a lot of the inferior people had died. They were now living among better quality people.

The potato famines of Ireland also improved the genetic quality of the Irish people as a result of the lower quality Irish people dying or emigrating to the USA.

This deadly competition for life is what allows evolution to occur. Therefore, when changes in the environment cause the number of deaths to increase, the event could be described as "an increase in the rate of evolution," rather than as a "time of suffering". It could be described as a "genetic housekeeping", or as a "removal of genetic trash".

Many athletes inspire themselves with the expression: "No Pain, No Gain". That expression applies to every type of competition, not just athletic competitions. The free enterprise system, for example, puts people into a deadly competition for survival, although today we have a variety of welfare programs to prevent the losers from dying. If we were to allow the losers of the free enterprise system to die, then we would improve the genetic characteristics of the human race.

That expression also applies to evolution. As a competition for life becomes more deadly, more creatures will die, but that will increase the rate that they evolve.

All of the modern competitions are idiotic, and they should be replaced with competitions that do something to improve our lives, such as inspiring good attitudes, or producing something useful for our city. The losers of those type of competitions benefit almost as much as the winners. However, the losers will not benefit unless they have an adequate understanding of their emotions and of competitions.

If a person is ignorant about his emotional cravings, he is likely to assume that he has a craving to win because winning will bring him pleasure and make his life worthwhile. He will also assume that the losers are going to suffer. This can result in him tormenting himself and other people in an attempt to win. This is most obvious with the people who try to win casual recreational activities. For example:

•	A person might decide to cheat in order to win. This can hurt him by causing him to forever worry about being exposed as a cheater, and he will have to continue to cheat in order to continue fooling his competitors into believing that he is the most talented.
•	A person might decide to put enormous amounts of his time into practicing the competition, which can interfere with his friendships, marriage, and family.
•	A person might decide to repeatedly purchase "better" equipment or "better" training, and the money he spends might put himself or his family under financial pressure.
•	A person might react to losing a competition by having temper tantrums, or becoming envious, sad, or angry if he loses the competition.

If a person understands these concepts, then he will realize that he does not have to win a competition; the winners do not need to be given prizes; and the losers do not suffer.

Furthermore, he will realize that it is idiotic to get involved with competitions that are worthless, dangerous, or destructive, such as competing to drink the most beer within 10 minutes. He will instead want to get involved with competitions to inspire himself and other people, thereby allowing everybody to benefit from the competition, including the "losers".

Some of the competitions that were beneficial in prehistoric times are absurd today. For example, it was beneficial for prehistoric people to compete to have the most and the best material items because that inspired them to create better tools and clothing items. Today, however, our technology allows us to produce so much material wealth that people are wasting their life by competing to have the largest collection of material items, the largest house, and the largest yacht.

Animals enjoy competition, but they do not care what the competition is. Modern humans must exert enough self-control to analyze a competition, and design it to be beneficial and safe. We must design competitions that inspire us to develop our talents and become better people.

Recreational competitions can inspire us to get some exercise, and intellectual competitions can inspire us to learn something, or create something for the city.

However, we cannot create beneficial competitions unless we are willing to acknowledge that each person is genetically unique, and that there are differences between men and women, different ages, and different races.

As mentioned at the beginning of this document, Moungi Bawendi did not have a beneficial competition until he got into Harvard. Schools must acknowledge that some people are more talented in certain physical and mental activities, and they need to put those unusually talented people into competitions with one another, rather than with the ordinary people. Likewise, the ordinary people need to be in competition with one another, rather than with the people who are below-average.

Furthermore, the transgender men who have been winning competitions with women have provided us with enough evidence to justify putting them in their own competitions.

In order to create beneficial competitions, we must pass judgment on abilities of the contestants, and separate them into different competitions according to their abilities. This requires eliminating secrecy, collecting data on everybody's life, and passing judgment on other people's abilities.

The people who whine that we are hurting their feelings when we pass judgment on them, or who try to intimidate us into allowing them into a competition that they don't fit in, should be regarded as behaving like an animal.

A person who repeatedly wins a competition is wasting his life because he will be in a similar situation as Moungi Bawendi during high school. A person who frequently wins the competition should get into a more difficult competition. This requires a significant change in our culture.

Every culture today is promoting the attitude that the purpose of a competition is to win. A person who frequently wins a competition is praised as a talented person. We must change that attitude and regard the purpose of a competition to inspire one another, develop our talents, get some exercise, meet new people, or do something useful for the city.

When a person consistently wins a competition, he should be told that he is wasting his life, and that he is intimidating the other contestants rather than inspiring them. He should be told to get into a more difficult competition.

Our culture should teach us that we should be involved with competitions that we lose as often as we win because we should compete with people who are more equal to us. Our purpose for getting into the competition should be to improve ourselves and inspire other people, not to win.

Repeatedly failing a competition is detrimental, also. When a person consistently loses a competition, he is likely to develop low self-esteem or become sad, angry, or envious. He might also decide to cheat. The people who repeatedly fail a competition should be told to get into a competition that is easier.

The people who fail should not follow the popular attitude of "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." Instead, they should analyze their abilities, and try to find something that they are more productive at.

Animals regularly get involved with deadly competitions, so they put tremendous effort into winning. When they lose their competitions, they die. The losers are not awarded a second, third, or fourth place prize. Therefore, it is sensible for an animal to risk his health and life in order to win his battles.

Humans inherited that attitude that we must win. This can be seen in athletes who come in 2nd place, but who are upset with themselves for not winning. We can also see this with scientists, engineers, carpenters, and other people who are extremely talented, but who become upset when they are not considered to be the "best". We admire their talent, but they torment themselves.

It is absurd for modern humans to put extreme effort into winning a competition because we are rarely in life or death competitions. There are only a few people, such as those in law enforcement and the military, who actually get into deadly competitions.

Most people should suppress their desire to win their competitions, and put the emphasis on enjoying the competition, and inspiring themselves and other people.

If we are hiking in a forest and encounter a hungry wolf, then we will be in a deadly competition with that wolf, and it makes sense for us to put our maximum effort into winning, even if it means risking our health and life. However, very few people will encounter a deadly competition.

Today we need to reduce the effort that we put into a competition. For example, when we are in school and trying to learn a useful skill, we should put only as much effort into studying as we can sustain on a long-term basis. If the only way a student can win the competition for good grades is by studying 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, whereas everybody else in the class needs only 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, then if that student were to get a job in that field, he will be in a job that he is substandard at.

He will either have to spend more time working in order to achieve what his team members achieve during the normal workday, or he will be less productive than his team members, in which case he might be fired, and he might irritate his team members with his incompetence. Either way, he will torment himself and ruin his life.

The type of student will be especially detrimental to society if he gets a job in which he can hurt other people, such as a surgeon. His work will be inferior to the other surgeons, and he will need more time to accomplish his tasks, and he will make more mistakes.

For another example, if a person is trying to become a construction worker, but his body is so weak that the only way he can compete with the other men is to take steroids, amphetamines, or other drugs, then he will also ruin his life. He should get a job in which he is more equal to his coworkers.

Every culture promotes the animal attitude that has been expressed as: "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing!" That attitude encourages people to put extreme amounts of effort into winning, but with no regard to whether they achieve something of value by winning.

That attitude causes many students to put tremendous effort into getting good grades and diplomas, but with no regard for whether they learn anything of value, or whether they inspire other students. The difference between a student who is struggling for good grades, and a student who is struggling to learn something of value, is subtle but important.

The ministers are required to dampen our craving to win by designing competitive events that do not emphasize winning. This Constitution recommends not producing any type of trophies, or giving winners any special attention or privileges. If the winners are to get something, it must be something insignificant, such as a carved watermelon that they share with everybody.

Since every person is a unique jumble of genetic characteristics, each of us reacts slightly different to competitive activities, and some people react in an inappropriate or destructive manner. For example:

•	Moungi Bawendi reacted to failing a test by putting more effort into studying, but some people react to such failures with anger, envy, cheating, apathy, pouting, sabotage, begging for pity, or violence.
•	Some people react to differences of opinion by thinking about them and learning from them, whereas others insult or ignore them.
•	Some men react to women who turn down their request for marriage by pouting, or by becoming angry or violent, whereas other men remain calm and look for another woman, or they look critically at themselves and wonder if they can become more desirable.

The people who have inappropriate reactions to failures must be regarded as having inferior mental characteristics.We must acknowledge the evidence that the human mind is just a jumble of animal characteristics, and there will always be a minority of the population that are misfits.  They need to be restricted to certain neighborhoods or activities, or evicted.

Democracies put government officials into a competitive battle to attract the most voters. That competition is based on the theory that the voters are honest, responsible, geniuses, and that the government officials will create a wonderful nation by doing whatever pleases the majority of voters. However, history has proven that to be a false theory.

To make the situation worse, modern life is so complex that even the most intelligent people are confused about what to do with their life, and how to deal with the problems of a modern society.

Dealing with modern life requires that we work together to analyze and discuss the issues we must deal with. Furthermore, we will never figure out a perfect solution to our problems. All we can do is continuously experiment with improvements.

Government officials should not compete to appease the public. Instead, the voters must compare government officials according to their ability to find improvements to our culture, and provide the public with useful guidance and analyses. This puts the government officials into a competition to improve society.

This requires the voters to ignore their personal desires and judge government officials according to their achievements in leadership. This creates the dilemma of determining who qualifies as a voter.

It is difficult to determine who qualifies as a voter, and we cannot expect perfection from the voters, but we can certainly figure out how to provide ourselves with voters who do a better job of judging government candidates and officials than the majority of voters in the world today.
(More details are in the Voters and Elections documents.)

People today frequently get into worthless, wasteful, dangerous, and destructive competitions, such as competing to set the world record for the amount of time to ride a bicycle while sitting backwards on it and playing a violin.

The Economic Division is responsible for ensuring that businesses are involved with beneficial competitions, and the Health and Social Divisions are responsible for ensuring that the competitive leisure and school activities are beneficial. The ministers have the responsibility and authority to prohibit the competitions that are dangerous, encourage bad attitudes, or waste labor and resources.

The ministers must judge an activity according to its effect on human life, not according to whether people like it. For example, what are the benefits and disadvantages to society of the Candy Crush game?

Even if the benefits of Candy Crush outweigh its disadvantages, the ministers must consider whether we would benefit even more by putting our labor and resources into some other activity or competition. For example, they might conclude that we would have greater benefits, or fewer disadvantages, by having the computer programmers develop software for robots to catch mice, do gardening chores, or clean our bathrooms.

The ministers might also conclude that the Candy Crush game can be modified to make it somewhat beneficial, such as changing it so that a person needs knowledge about nutrition in order to win.

Or the ministers might conclude that a different type of video game would be more useful, such as a game in which a person has to learn how to fly an airplane or use a bulldozer, or learn carpentry.

It is impossible to figure out which competitions are the best, so we must be willing to experiment with competitions. This requires us to resist the desire to mimic our ancestors, suppress our fear of the unknown, and be willing to try something new.

We must be willing to be critical of our competitions, and discuss their benefits and disadvantages. For example, what are the benefits and disadvantages to having chemists compete to produce the most exciting colors of lipstick?

A more beneficial competition would be to have neighborhoods compete to create the most beautiful foot paths, bicycle paths, plazas, swimming pools, or lightning rods.

Competing to create the most beautiful neighborhood would be beneficial to everybody.

The Social Clubs minister must support public hobbies, and that allows the Social Clubs minister to arrange such competitions as designing the most attractive tiles for the city plazas and foot paths, and competitions to make more comfortable and beautiful chairs and tables for the restaurants, homes, and offices.

When we compete to do something useful for the city, and when there are no rewards for the winner, and no tormenting of the losers, everybody benefits.

When we regard competitions as a necessary and beneficial activity, we will not be afraid to lose a competition. Instead of worrying about who wins or loses, we will try to inspire one another and learn from one another.

When we compete with people who cheat, we become apathetic, angry, disappointed, frustrated, or disgusted, and it encourages other people to cheat. Even worse, cheating in certain types of competitions causes tremendous problems. For example, when we tolerate students who cheat to become doctors, scientists, engineers, carpenters, plumbers, and government officials, we end up with incompetent and dishonest people in those professions.

The reason we are so willing to cheat, and are so tolerant of cheating, is because we are a species of ape. Animals have no concept of cheating, and no concern for how they affect the lives of other animals. Animals routinely grab nesting materials, food, and land from one another, but they do not regard themselves as stealing, cheating, or abusing one another. Rather, they regard themselves as taking care of themselves and their family.

Animals have no desire to earn what they want. In addition to grabbing things from other animals, they are not embarrassed to beg for what they want, such as when they beg humans for food.

As humans evolved from monkeys, we became better behaved, but we still have those animal emotions. As a result, we frequently find our emotions encouraging us to grab at what other people have. Although we have a slight desire to earn what we want, we have no inhibitions about getting things for free. For example, we do not regard large inheritances as "cheating". Rather, we regard inheritances as getting what we deserve, and we regard taxes on inheritances as an unfair "death tax".

Some people are so similar to animals that they routinely beg for handouts and donations, and they have created lots of organizations that survive by begging, such as charities, think tanks, and religions.

People who cheat are destructive to society. We must stop tolerating them, ignoring them, and trying to fix their behavior with punishments, rehabilitation programs, lectures, and insults.

We must push ourselves into becoming intolerant of cheating and demand that everybody earn what we want. We must also demand that everybody be concerned for how they are affecting the lives of other people.

The Courts Ministry of the Quality Division is authorized to pass judgment on when a person is so dishonest or inconsiderate that he should be restricted to certain neighborhoods and jobs, or evicted from the city.

One of the important lessons to learn from history is that we must ensure that everybody earn their position. The people who are getting into influential positions through inheritances, marriage, crime, and other types of cheating are an extremely detrimental influence on society and our future. Three examples of how they hurt society:

	1)	The people who get into influential positions through crime are detrimental because they constantly look for ways to eliminate the people who try to expose or arrest them. They are likely to get involved with censorship, murder, blackmail, bribery, false flag operations, and deception. They are also likely to conspire with other criminals to protect themselves and one another, thereby creating crime networks, which is even more destructive than individual criminals.
	2)	The people who get into influential positions through inheritances are detrimental because they pressure the government into promoting inheritances and providing them with special privileges. They are also likely to conspire with other cheaters in order to protect their inheritances and suppress their competitors.
	3)	The people who become influential by creating religions and convincing people that they are spokesmen for supreme beings are extremely detrimental because they demand blind obedience, suppress curiosity, and they encourage the hatred of their critics. Some of them also manipulate people with the fear of hell.

For example, many of the influential people in Europe have been inheriting wealth that has been passed on for centuries. Many of the other influential people are maintaining their positions by suppressing, deceiving, censoring, murdering, intimidating, threatening, bribing, and blackmailing thousands or millions of people.

Some of them also choose a spouse and friends according to whether they can benefit financially from them. That results in fraudulent, abusive, deceptive, and disgusting marriages and friendships.

One of the sad aspects of allowing cheaters to get into influential positions is that the police and military risk their lives to protect the cheaters. Another sad aspect is that the carpenters, engineers, plumbers, and other skilled people waste their lives pampering the cheaters with mansions and absurd amounts of material wealth.

Athletes provide a simple example of how people who are truly talented have no need to cheat, and how detrimental it is to tolerate people who cheat.

The athletes who are truly talented have no fear of competitors. Instead, they enjoy competition. Some of them even train with their competitors because that allows them to inspire one another.

By comparison, a person who can only win an athletic contest by cheating has no desire to train with his competitors. Rather, he is afraid of competition. He wants to suppress, murder, blackmail, intimidate, or sabotage his competitors. He wants to be able to select his competitors so that he can choose the people who are less talented than he is.

If we become intolerant of cheating, then we will have leaders who have no fear of competition. Instead, they will encourage competition as a way of inspiring themselves and everybody else. They will not try to suppress, murder, or intimidate anybody. Rather, they will encourage us to develop our talents become better people.