The only way to understand wolves, hummingbirds, and other animals is to gather "personal" and "private" information about them, such as by putting cameras in their homes, or tracking collars around their neck.

A video camera in a birdhouse.		A radio collar on a wolf

The only way we can understand humans is to gather as much detailed information about ourselves as we gather about animals. We must be able to differentiate between an environmental influence and a genetic influence. That requires us to eliminate secrecy and maintain a People database that has detailed data about everybody's life and genetic characteristics, and the lives and genetic characteristics of our parents and grandparents. That database will allow us to compare everybody's genetics and environment to determine what affects our life, and how.

For example, a recent report claims that older Americans are more likely to have a stroke if their parents got divorced while they were children. If that report is accurate, the only way to understand how divorces are increasing the chance of strokes would be to analyze detailed data about everybody's genetic and environmental characteristics.

If we had a People database with detailed data about everybody, we would undoubtedly discover that the people who are most likely to have unpleasant marriages and divorces are those with some inferior genetic characteristics that interfere with their relationships.

Our behavior during courtship and marriage closely resembles that of apes and other animals, which is proof that our genetic characteristics dominate our behavior with the opposite sex. Therefore, the people who have the most trouble forming pleasant and stable relationships with the opposite sex are likely to have less desirable genetic characteristics. For example:

•		The people who are the most deceptive, secretive, and dishonest with potential spouses.
•		The people who are suffering from such mental disorders as OCD, ADHD, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder. Those problems can cause them to be miserable, anti-social, irritating, violent, introverted, selfish, or develop abnormally strong attractions to alcohol, dangerous recreational activities, obnoxious pranks, pet animals, gambling, or drugs.
•		The people who have so little interest in a relationship that they choose a spouse according to his wealth, status, or sexual appearance, rather than his personality and compatibility. The royal families of Europe, and many of the other wealthy and famous people, seem to be in this category.

The people who have miserable marriages, or who get divorced, have inferior genetic characteristics to those who form pleasant and stable marriages. Therefore, their children are likely to have inferior genetics. Their children would not inherit a gene to have strokes, however. Rather, they would inherit an inferior mind and/or body, which results in a detrimental effect on their health.

Our health is affected by our decisions, such as our meals, our sleeping habits, our use of alcohol or drugs, and our recreational activities. The people with mental problems will, as a group, make inferior decisions about maintaining their health, which can result in them having more health problems even if they were born with a healthy body. The divorce of their parents does not cause them to have health problems. Rather, their health problems are the result of inheriting inferior genetic characteristics.

If we could analyze everybody's life, we might discover that the children of divorced parents are suffering from more than an increase in strokes. They might also be more likely to be overweight, alcoholic, have gambling problems, and have more debt.

To complicate this issue, a divorce alters the social environment of children, and that can have an indirect effect on their health. For example, the children will have one less parent to provide guidance, and usually the parent that is missing is the father. Since mothers are more likely to pander to their children, an analysis of children being raised by divorced mothers might show that those children tend to have a less healthy diet, get less exercise, and have less pressure to learn, work, think, and deal with criticism.

To add more complexity to the issue, an analysis of people over the past few centuries would show us that divorce has been increasing faster than genetic defects have been increasing, which means that some of the divorces are the result of changes in our social environment rather than genetic degradation.

An analysis of our culture during the past few centuries would show us that the feminists have been increasing divorces by giving people warped views of life and marriage. We would also discover that the Hollywood celebrities and billionaires are inadvertently causing an increase in divorce by encouraging people to become more concerned with wealth and fame than human relationships.

After the Jews killed President Kennedy, they began pushing the "do whatever feels good" philosophy, which undoubtedly increased divorces by encouraging people to become more selfish, inconsiderate, and abusive, and by putting more emphasis on sex and less on affection and socializing.

We don't have a People database yet so we cannot analyze and compare people to determine what is different about those who have miserable marriages, and historians are not yet providing us with honest or accurate analyses of history, so we cannot analyze how changes in our culture have affected marriages, but the point of the above paragraphs is that we need such a database in order to understand why we behave the way we do, and what is affecting our health, goals, attitudes, marriages, and culture.

However, it will be emotionally unpleasant for us to gather information about ourselves because:

1)	We become frightened when we notice that somebody is observing us because have the fear that most animals have; namely, that a creature that is observing us is likely to attack us.
2)	We have intense cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy, and to attract a spouse, and that causes us to want to impress people, not let them know the truth about us. We want to hide the characteristics that we are embarrassed about.

In order to gather information about humans, we must change our culture to put us under pressure to be honest about ourselves. If we were raised in a culture that promoted the concept that humans are a species of ape, and that it is idiotic for us to be ashamed of our animal characteristics, and that we benefit by knowing the truth about ourselves and each other, then we would have an easier time being honest about our crude characteristics.

All throughout history, every culture has been promoting the anti-evolutionary fantasy that we are a creation of a supreme being, or that we are like clay, and those philosophies cause people to be ashamed of their sexual organs, body odors, digestive system, and some of their emotions.

The anti-evolutionary fantasies cannot provide sensible explanations for why we have a temper; a nose that produces excessive quantities of mucus; or a digestive system that creates stinky waste products. Those fantasies also cannot explain why we have trouble controlling our consumption of food; why our bodies produce odors; why we dribble droplets of pee; why we have orgasms in our sleep if we don't have sex or masturbate once in a while; and why some people commit crimes, have bipolar disorders, or have problems with alcohol, cocaine, or gambling.

The people who believe those anti-evolutionary fantasies develop an unrealistic view of humans that conflicts with what they notice about their body and mind. Their reaction is to be embarrassed or ashamed of their mucus, masturbation, farts, body odors, temper, selfishness, arrogance, and sexual cravings. It also causes them to make the stupid assumption that they will protect children by preventing them from learning about or seeing naked bodies, childbirth, breast-feeding, and sex.

If children were raised in a culture that taught them that they were a species of ape, and that each of us is a unique jumble of genetic characteristics, they would become adults who would have an easier time acknowledging their animal characteristics and genetic defects. They would also realize that it is idiotic for somebody to deny his crude characteristics and pretend to be superior to other people.

Those adults will be more willing to be observed by scientists because they would not be afraid that the scientists would discover that they have animal characteristics.

Our clothing styles provide evidence to support the theory that we will become accustomed to being observed simply by changing our culture. The children who were raised in a culture in which the women hide their head become adults who are terrified at the thought of women showing their naked head in public.

By comparison, the children who have been raised around naked heads have no embarrassment or fear of it. We are not afraid that somebody will notice that our face has imperfections, or that our teeth are crooked, or that our face is ugly.

Furthermore, each group of people believes that their culture is intelligent and sensible, and that other cultures are stupid or disgusting.

If we could travel back in time to when nudity was common among our ancestors, and demand that they keep their bodies hidden, and that they hide themselves when they give birth and breast-feed babies, they would regard us as lunatics.

People today are terrified of naked heads, naked bodies, breast-feeding, sex, body odors, and earwax because we are animals. We become accustomed to whatever culture we were raised with, and we become frightened at the thought of doing something different. We also assume that our culture is perfect, and that other cultures are disgusting.

The anti-evolutionary culture is causing us to be embarrassed and ashamed of our body and mind, and especially what we do in bedrooms and bathrooms. That results in us being secretive and deceptive about ourselves, which makes it difficult to find compatible spouse and friends, and makes it impossible for scientists to adequately study humans.

We will be able to form better relationships, and get a better understanding of ourselves, if we stop the secrecy and deception. This requires us to stop being ashamed of our animal qualities.

We need to alter our culture, and provide ourselves with leaders who can admit in public that they fart; have mucus in their nose; and dribble pee.

We also need our leaders to admit that they have selfish, angry, and irrational thoughts on a routine basis, and that they occasionally have trouble controlling their cravings for food and status. We need leaders who can admit that they are apes.

If we restrict our leadership positions to people who can publicly admit to having animal characteristics, and who design the school curriculum to teach children about our animal characteristics, then everybody will be less ashamed of themselves, and that will allow us to study the human race, and compare ourselves to animals.

That type of culture will provide us with a lot of benefits, such as allowing us to use rinsing tunnels. It would also allow us to experiment with clothing and furniture. For example, some women complain that men tend to spread their legs when we sit, but we do that because we have organs between our legs, and the clothing and seat cushions add to the problem by adding material to that area.

I removed some of the foam in the crotch area, and that makes this cushion more comfortable.

If we can acknowledge that men have sexual organs dangling between their legs, just like male animals, then we would be able to experiment with our furniture and clothing, and we might eventually develop some comfortable variations.

We don't expect women to wear elastic bands around their chest to press their breasts into their rib cage in order to hide their breasts, and we should not expect men to pretend that there is nothing between our legs. It is idiotic for us to be ashamed of our sexual organs. We have the body of an animal, and we should acknowledge it and design our clothing and furniture to deal with it.

All of us occasionally behave in irrational, selfish, emotional, and idiotic manners, but every culture encourages us to be ashamed of that behavior, rather than admit to having animal characteristics. Every culture promotes the more pleasant fantasy that we are a creation of a supreme being, or that we are like pieces of clay.

We admit to having crude behavior only when we can benefit from it, such as when we can get pity for it, or when we are under pressure to admit to it.

In order to understand human behavior, we must allow scientists to gather as much surveillance video as we can tolerate, and gather all of our medical data, school records, and job performance reports. This requires a significant change in our culture, and it requires a complete change in leadership.

Specifically, our culture must teach children that humans are animals, and we must have leaders who admit to having animal qualities rather than pretend that they are perfect creations of a supreme being. By acknowledging that we are animals, we will be less embarrassed about our crude characteristics, and more willing to allow scientists to gather information about us.

If we had surveillance video of the entire human population during the past million years, most of us would be embarrassed of some of the behavior of ourselves and our ancestors, but that video would allow us to understand how apes evolved into humans, and which behavioral characteristics are inheritable.

This news article claims that "An epidemic of vicious school brawls" is fueled by cell phones, but if we had surveillance video of all of the students, we would notice that only some of the students with cell phones are getting into fights. If we also had detailed surveillance video and data about the lives of the parents and other relatives of all of the students, we would be able to determine whether the students who get into fights seem to be inheriting characteristics that make them more likely to get into fights.

Likewise, we would be able to determine whether the children who have abusive parents, and who become abusive to their own spouse or children, are learning that behavior from their parents, as every culture is insisting, or inheriting it.

When the software that analyzes surveillance video becomes more advanced, it will be able to help us understand ourselves in many ways. For example, by observing bleeding and scabs on our skin, the software can help us identify who among us has a better ability to heal from cuts and surgery.

The software would also notice that some people cut themselves more often than average. That would allow us to determine whether they have a problem with their coordination or concentration, or whether it is because their job exposes them to risky activities, in which case we might be able to reduce the injuries by altering their working conditions or safety equipment.

Analyzing the behavior of children in surveillance video, and then analyzing them when they become adults, would help us to determine which behavioral characteristics are symptoms of problems. For example, do children who enjoy making loud noises, such as popping balloons, tend to become adults with behavioral problems? Do the children who spend more time crying or having tantrums become adults with undesirable behavior? Do the children who complain about doing household chores and want to "have fun" become adults who try to avoid about "work", learning, thinking, and responsibility?

Every culture as of 2024 promotes the theory that almost all of our behavior is the result of our environment. Every culture believes that hoarders, alcoholics, drug addicts, and criminals are the result of such environmental issues as poverty, being bullied at school, or learning the behavior from parents or other children. However, those theories are based on what we want to believe, not on scientific evidence.

If we could collect surveillance video of everybody's life, it would help us determine how many of the problems we suffer from are due to the environment, and how many of them are due to genetic characteristics of our brain.

For example, surveillance video of all of the alcoholics would show us how many of them have been able to stop drinking, and of those reformed alcoholics, how many of them ended up with some other problem, such as marijuana, religion, collecting items, pet dogs, or sports. Those particular reformed alcoholics are evidence that there is something wrong with their brain, and even though they had the ability to stop drinking, they could not fix their mental problem, so they merely replaced alcoholism with some other, less destructive activity.

For another example, surveillance video of everybody would help us determine why some people put so much effort into trying to become billionaires, famous celebrities, or government officials, and why some of them are willing to commit crimes in order to become wealthy and famous. We would be able to compare those people to their brothers and sisters, and to other people in a similar environment, and that would help us determine whether their obsession with wealth and status is genetic or environmental.

Surveillance video would also help us understand why some people become obsessed with religion. Many or most people assume that the religious fanatics are among the best behaved, most honest, most dependable, and most loving people. In the USA and Europe, most voters prefer a candidate who shows a strong interest in religion.

However, if we had surveillance video of everybody's life, we would likely discover that all of the religious fanatics are suffering from serious mental disorders. We would likely discover that there is a significant difference between the genetic characteristics of a person who believes in a supreme being, and a person who becomes obsessed with religion, just as there is a significant difference between a person who drinks a beer once in a while, and a person who drinks every day to the point of intoxication.

Most people assume that religious fanatics are kind, loving, nonviolent, and gentle because they frequently quote remarks in the Bible about loving one another and treating people with respect. However, there are a lot of police reports about crimes committed by religious fanatics.

For example, Douglas Benefield would classify as a religious "fanatic" because he would do such things as send Bible verses to his daughter every morning. but his temper was so bad that one time he fired a gun towards the ceiling of his home.

He ended up getting killed by his wife, who claimed that she killed him in self-defense, and that he was trying to poison her, although we will never know the truth because there is no security video of the event, or evidence that she was poisoned.

After his death, his brother, Dave, wrote this document which can help us understand why he and his brother became so religious. Dave became a religious fanatic when he was in college in order to control his undesirable behavior. Dave described it as:

That should make us wonder if his brother also became a religious fanatic in order to control his undesirable behavior.

Dave also believes that God's "spirit" communicated with his spirit. He wrote:

That should make us wonder if his brother also believed that God was talking to him.

People who believe that God is communicating with them have a dangerous mental disorder because they might imagine God telling them that it is acceptable for them to have sex with children, or to steal items from a corporation because they deserve the items, or that they should beat their children or spouse because they are possessed by the devil.

If we had surveillance video of everybody related to Douglas Benefield, we might discover that their family has been passing mental disorders from one generation to the next, and that it is results in some or all family members having bad tempers, or "an insatiable desire for partying", or some other significant behavioral problem. We might discover that a lot of the family members use religion to control their bad behavior.

Surveillance video would also help us determine whether his wife, Ashley Benefield, was correct that Douglas was poisoning her, abusive, and killed his previous wife, or whether she was suffering from mental disorders that caused her to imagine such things.

Ashley was 24 years old and Douglas was 54 years old when they met each other, and they got married 13 days later. If we could analyze everybody's life and compare people to one another, we might discover that most, or all, of the people who get married so quickly, and who also have such large age differences between them, are suffering from serious mental disorders.

The people related to Douglas Benefield might be embarrassed to have scientists analyze them, and schools use their family to teach children about human behavior, but they should be glad that they can provide scientists with information about human behavior, religion, murder, and other issues. Likewise, all of us should be willing to contribute information about ourselves and our families so that we can all get a better understanding of the human race.

Some people are willing to donate their dead body to medical research, and we should be just as willing to donate information about our lives to the research of humans. We should not let the people who are ashamed of themselves intimidate us into allowing secrecy and deception.

Eliminating secrecy and collecting data about everybody will provide us with a lot of benefits besides helping us understand human behavior. For example, it makes it easier for the police to resolve crimes; it allows us to reminisce about our past; it allows us to know where our family members and friends are without having to bother them with phone calls; and it allows us to deliver packages directly to people no matter where they are in the city.

Here are eight examples of the value of eliminating secrecy, tracking people, and collecting surveillance video and other data.

The existing cultures provide everybody with so much secrecy that it is impossible for us to know who is calling us on the phone, or whether we are being called by a person, a computer, or a business. The existing cultures also tolerate such a high level of crime that criminals can get away with using a fake phone number.

By allowing the city computer's to track everybody, and identify people by their face and voice, the computers will know who is making a phone call. This allows the computer to identify who is making the call, regardless of which phone he uses. It will also allow the computer to let a person know whether he is being called by a person or a computer.

That level of surveillance will provide us with a lot of options that are impossible in the existing culture. For example:

•		A person could specify to his phone that while he is in a restaurant, he does not want any voice phone calls, and will only accept text messages. By having the city computer track everybody, the computer would know when he enters and leaves a restaurant, so he would not have to turn his phone on or off, or change any of the settings on his phone. The computer would do it automatically every time he goes into the restaurant.
•		A machinist who is making a complicated component on a CNC milling machine could put a small "wrist phone" on his arm, and take a bicycle ride, and tell the phone to block all calls except from that particular CNC machine. By tracking everybody, the city computer would know when he was finished with his bicycle ride, and it would then allow all phone calls to go through.
•		We could tell our phone that if a particular person calls us during the next two hours, to give him a particular message. For example, in the image below a woman has borrowed a phone from a friend to call her daughter, Linda. The city's computer recognizes who she is, and that allows the computer to know that she is referring to her daughter when she says "Call Linda". The computer checks to see if Linda is near a phone, and if she has a specified what to do with phone calls. In this example, the computer responded with the message that Linda specified in case her mother called her before dinner. If Linda's mother had not asked to call Linda, the computer would have deleted Linda's message at dinnertime. If Linda had specified a different message if one of her friends called her, then they would have received a different message than her mother. That feature allows us to avoid bothering a person with unnecessary messages. It is similar to changing the recorded message on an answering machine, except that this feature allows us to have specific messages for specific people, and for specific times, rather than one generic message for everybody. Also, we don't have to record our own message. We have the option of telling the computer what the message is, and the computer uses its own voice.

As the computer software gets better at analyzing the behavior of people, the surveillance video of children will eventually be able to help us to improve our school curriculum.

For example, the Schools Minister could arrange for one school to provide the children with exercises in giving orders to a robot. That might help the children figure out how to explain their thoughts more accurately.

Children do a terrible job of explaining themselves because they assume that what they know and see is what other people know and see. This is most obvious when they play the game of hide and seek, and they assume that when they close their eyes, nobody can see them.

Giving children practice in controlling robots might help them learn how do a better job of explaining their thoughts.

By having software analyze the surveillance video of the children who have had to give orders to robots, and comparing them to the children who have not had such exercises, we might discover that the children who get practice controlling robots become better at communicating with one another, their teachers, and their parents.

It would also show us which particular exercises are the most useful for helping the children. For example, the children might not learn anything if all they do is tell a robot to play music, but they might improve their communication abilities when they have to get two or more robots to work together as a team.

Comparing the children in different schools will also allow the Schools Minister to determine which type of curriculum is causing the children to be more neat in their classroom, or have fewer arguments or injuries during their recreational activities.

Likewise, analyzing the surveillance video and other data that is collected about the teenagers in Teentown would help to show which curriculum is causing the teenagers to develop more useful skills, have less arguments, maintain the best health, and have fewer accidents with vehicles, knives, and slippery surfaces.

It would be difficult to determine which school curriculum is the most productive when we don't collect data on the behavior of the children. Secrecy is detrimental. We need to gather data on ourselves, and compare ourselves to one another.

A small percentage of the population today is classified as a "hoarder", but the secrecy that we provide everybody makes it impossible to determine who should be classified as a hoarder; what causes people to become hoarders; and whether men or women are more likely to become hoarders.

This document claims that both men and women are equally likely to be hoarders, but this document claims that some studies have shown that women are more likely to be hoarders, and other studies have shown that men are more likely to be hoarders.

Women have a reputation for being more neat and clean than men, but the television programs about hoarders, such as Hoarders, and Hoarders; Buried Alive, make it seem that women and homosexual men are more likely to become hoarders. The television producers arrange for people to help the hoaarders clean their home, but the women seem to spend more time whining about being abused, misunderstood, and insulted.

The reason there is so much confusion about whether men or women are more likely to become hoarders, and why some people become hoarders, is because we provide people with so much secrecy that it is impossible to properly study the human race. Many researchers depend upon volunteers to provide information or participate in experiments, but volunteers are never a random sample of the population. Furthermore, when people realize that they are participants in a research program, their behavior often changes from what it would otherwise be.

By eliminating secrecy, we will be able to collect more accurate data about human behavior, and that will give us a much better understanding of the similarities and differences between men and women, children and adults, and different races. That will allow us to get a better understanding of hoarding, OCD, bipolar disorders, alcoholism, and other problems.

Although most of us don't have those problems, that is not justification for ignoring these issues. There is no dividing line between a "normal" person a person with an OCD problem, or between an alcoholic and a normal person.

Even more significant to all of us, there is no dividing line between a "hoarder" who has a lot of "junk", and a "wealthy" person who has a lot of "luxuries".

Although some hoarders have such serious mental problems that they allow their home to become full of rotten food, trash, rats, and human and animal waste, most hoarders collect items that have value. Some hoarders have such extensive collections of clothing, dolls, beer cans, comic books, vinyl records, or toys that they could create a museum display or a retail store.

Some hoarders gather items that they plan to use, such as creating art to decorate their home, give as gifts, or sell to the public; fixing broken items to use or sell; gathering scrap to sell to recyclers; or gathering items for a collection. However, after they gather items for a project, they put the items aside because they don't have the desire to work on the project. Instead, they gather items for another project. They repeat this cycle over and over, and eventually their house is cluttered with projects that they never finish.

What is the difference between:

a)	The hoarders who have so much clothing that their home is cluttered with it.
b)	These wealthy people who have more shoes than they can wear.

Both groups are collecting more items than they need or use, but the wealthy people arrange their horde in a clean and orderly manner. Therefore, we could say that the primary difference between a "hoarder" who has cluttered his house with items, and a "wealthy" person who has a large collection of items, is that the wealthy people have enough self-control to limit their purchases to the items that they can fit in their home; are better able to organize their possessions; and have the ability to complete their projects. The wealthy people could be described as "neat and talented hoarders".

The hoarders insist that all of their items are valuable, and they have tantrums when the people who are helping them clean their house discard items without their approval. However, the wealthy people would also have tantrums if somebody were to discard some of their "unnecessary" shoes, clothing, or other items.

Furthermore, many wealthy people have homes that have with rooms they do not need and never use, and they would have tantrums if they were forced to move into a smaller home that is the size that they actually use.

Some of the wealthy people also have automobiles they don't need, and boats they rarely use, just like some of the hoarders that have automobiles or boats cluttering their yard.

There is no dividing line between people

If we could thoroughly understand the human mind, we would discover that there is no dividing line between a hoarder and other people. We would discover that everybody could be described as a "hoarder", but that we differ in how dense and messy our horde is.

At one extreme are the people who don't want many material items in their home, and at the other extreme are the people who want a lot of items.

We also differ in how we organize, clean, and maintain our horde of items. One extreme are the people who are so messy that they have rats living in their horde, and at the other extreme are the people with OCD who arrange their items so neatly and precisely that it looks like a robot did it.

People who are messy are not necessarily hoarders. Some messy people want a "normal" amount of material items, but they don't have a "normal" interest in cleaning or organizing the items. Some messy people are wealthy, also.

Likewise, some OCD people are hoarders, but their horde of items is so neatly arranged and clean that we are likely to regard them as "collectors".

We don't understand the human mind well enough to be sure who should be classified as OCD, a hoarder, or mentally ill. For example, Jay Leno has a large collection of automobiles. Is he "enjoying his wealth", or is he "suffering from a mental disorder"? Is he an "organized hoarder"?

Jay Leno says that he has dyslexia, and he boasts that: "The one great thing about being dyslexic is you tend to focus like a laser beam." He boast about being dyslexic, but there is no evidence that people with dyslexia improves a person's life.

Rather, there is evidence that humans are arrogant and have intense cravings for status, and these emotional characteristics cause us to boast about ourselves. We will even boast about qualities that are detrimental, such as ADHD and dyslexia.

People who are suffering from low self-esteem or internal pains will also frequently look for opportunities to boast about themselves in order to make themselves feel better. Boasting, especially about mental problems, is more likely to be a sign that the person is suffering, not enjoying life.

Although nobody understands what dyslexia is, or how the different variations of it affect our behavior and thoughts, we can be certain that there is no dividing line between the people with dyslexia and the people without. All of us have physical and mental problems. The difference between us is that some people's problems are more serious.

Since we are extremely arrogant and want to be at the top of the social hierarchy, we resist looking critically at ourselves and admitting that we have mental and physical imperfections. Instead, we ignore or boast about our imperfections. For example is Tim Cook boasted that his homosexuality is "among the greatest gifts God has given me", and Sam Altman and some other wealthy people have boasted about their ADHD, or whatever mental problem their suffering from.

Some people with bad tempers or irritating personalities respond to criticism with a sarcastic and arrogant remark similar to: "That's the way I am!" They refuse to consider that they have mental defects, and that they should make an effort to improve their behavior.

It is idiotic for us to boast about our mental or physical problems. Mental disorders interfere with life. An example is that Michael Phelps had a mental disorder that resulted in him becoming a wealthy and famous athlete, but he was miserable the entire time.

Homosexuality allows men to become wealthier because they don't have to provide financial support for a wife or children, and some other mental disorders can help a person become wealthy or famous, but those mental disorders are not gifts from God or helping the people to enjoy their life. Those people are suffering, and their craving for wealth and fame is likely to be a desperate attempt to feel better about themselves and enjoy life.

We need a certain amount of material items to fit into our modern society, but we cannot improve our lives simply by acquiring hundreds of shoes, a gigantic house, or more automobiles. Likewise, we need friends because we are social animals, but we cannot improve our lives simply by increasing the number of people who know us.

All of us are defective, but the people who are struggling for wealth and fame, and especially those who are committing crimes for it, are likely to be suffering from defects that are more serious than the typical people. They reacted to their misery by assuming that they can find happiness through wealth and fame, but they are mistaken. They are wasting their life, and they degrade other people's lives when they get involved with crimes and abusive behavior.

The hoarders also show signs that they are suffering from mental and physical disorders that are more serious than the typical people. Some of them are lonely and react by collecting dolls or pet animals that they use as substitutes for friends. Some react to their misery by titillating themselves by shopping, or by imagining that they will create a collection of items that will impress other people. Some hoarders are also suffering from physical disorders that results in them wanting to lounge rather than clean up after themselves, which results in their house filling up with trash.

All of us occasionally become frustrated, angry, and unhappy, and we often react by trying to make ourselves feel better by insulting other people, eating, shopping, having sex, or fantasizing about being famous, or a hero, or talking with Jesus. However, some of us are better able to keep our idiotic reactions to an insignificant level so that we don't get into debt, become obese, or ruin our relationships.

Every culture considers a person to be "successful" when he acquires an above-average amount of material wealth or fame, but we should consider a person to be successful only if he enjoys his life. And we should admire only the people who contribute something of value to society, and treat us with respect.

Has Jay Leno been successful with that definition? Or has his dyslexia or other mental disorders been causing him to suffer, which in turn has resulted in him spending his life seeking extreme wealth and fame?

Should we admire Jay Leno? Did he become famous and wealthy because of his contributions to society? Or did he get involved with the crime network that dominates the entertainment businesses?

Is Leno enjoying his gigantic mansion in Beverly Hills and large automobile collection, and his other gigantic mansion in Newport? Or is he suffering from a mental disorder, and trying to make himself feel better with mansions, cars, and other material items, just like the hoarders who try to make themselves feel better by shopping, or like the obese people who try to make themselves feel better by eating?

We are so arrogant that we believe we understand ourselves extremely well, and we boast about our characteristics, including characteristics that detrimental.

Those of us who do not have a noticeable problem with ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, bipolar problems, asperger's, or schizophrenia, cannot understand what the people who have those problems are feeling. Likewise, they cannot understand what we feel.

If all of us could experience life as other people experience it, I suspect that everybody would come to the conclusion that the people who are having the most pleasant lives do not necessarily have a lot of material wealth or fame.

I suspect that everybody would agree that mental problems are not "gifts". Rather, they make life miserable. I think everybody would agree that it is much better to have an average amount of material items and excellent mental health, than to be wealthy and have mental problems.

I also suspect that we would discover that the people who cheat are having the most miserable lives because they are tormenting themselves by living in fear that people will learn the truth about them. The people who are honest are having the most relaxed and pleasant lives.

Everybody realizes that the messy hoarders are suffering from a mental disorder, but we have such a strong attraction to material wealth that we tend to admire or envy the wealthy people who arrange their horde in a neat manner.

Our craving for material items causes us to assume that the wealthy people are better people than the rest of us, and getting more enjoyment from life, but if that were true, we would have noticed that the wealthy people have more stable and pleasant friendships and marriages; fewer problems with alcohol, gambling, drugs, loneliness, and pedophilia; and have no desire to get involved with crimes or crime networks.

Statistics about divorce show that the wealthy people have as much of a problem with marriages as ordinary people, and that divorce rates increase when people become wealthier. This divorce lawyer believes that wealthy couples have high divorce rates because "money translates to more stress in a committed relationship." This divorce lawyer believes that it is because "being wealthy can create freedom."

There are no analyses of the hoarders to determine whether they have more problems with marriage and friendships than the majority of people, but the television programs about hoarders make it appear as if most of them are lonely, and are frequently fighting with their family members and spouse.

A more likely explanation for why so many hoarders and wealthy people have trouble forming pleasant and stable relationships is because they have a stronger attraction to material items than they do to people. Many of them could be described as "anti-social".

The wealthy people appear to have a wonderful time at their dinners, parties, and recreational activities, but do they truly enjoy their friends and spouse? Do they socialize when they get together? Or do they get together only to show off, intimidate other people, and feel important? Or do they look for opportunities to exploit or blackmail one another?

The secrecy that we provide everybody makes it impossible for us to know exactly how the wealthy people treat one another, but we can see that a lot of them have problems with their marriages and friendships, and are involved with crimes or pedophilia.

During the Middle Ages, many of the kings and queens and other wealthy people would choose a spouse and friends according to the financial and political benefits of the relationship, and there are still people today who are behaving in that manner. If everybody in the world behaved like them, none of us would have pleasant friendships or marriages. Instead, we would all be looking for ways to exploit one another.

We should not envy or admire people who regard material items as more important than friendships. We should not let them into influential positions, either, because they promote the gathering of material items rather than teamwork and friendships. Their lives are spent selfishly satisfying their abnormal cravings for wealth and status, and they have little or no interest in improving our cities, or treating us as friends.

We must eliminate secrecy, pass judgment on other people's personalities, and restrict the government officials to the people who truly enjoy human relationships, rather than people who have abnormally intense cravings for status, pampering by servants, and material items.

Our social affairs should be designed to be pleasant and relaxing. We should enjoy the people at the affairs, not try to exploit or intimidate them.

Most people would probably claim that they enjoy their life, but how would any of us know if we are truly enjoying life when we have never experienced any other type of life?

This issue is most noticeable with children who grow up in miserable conditions. They don't realize that they are miserable until they discover how other children are living.

Some alcoholics might believe that they are enjoying their life, but if they could experience life as some of us experience it, they would come to the conclusion that they are actually suffering, and that their craving for alcohol is the result of a serious problem.

Likewise, the billionaires undoubtedly believe that they are enjoying their wealth, but if they could experience life as other person, they would also come to the conclusion that their craving for wealth and status is because they are searching for happiness, not because they are enjoying life more than the rest of us.

It is impossible for us to know who is truly enjoying life unless we can experience life over and over, each time as a different person, and in a different era.

If we could experience life as other people experience it, we would discover that many of our prehistoric ancestors actually had a more pleasant life than most people today. We would also discover that after people start restricting reproduction and experimenting with their culture, the people thousands of years in the future will be as well adapted to their modern world as our prehistoric ancestors were adapted to theirs, and that they will have a wonderful life as a result.

Experiencing life in the distant past and the distant future might bring us to the conclusion during the past few thousand years, and for the next few thousand years, people are in a transition period, and that all of us are suffering to a certain extent because our body and mind has not yet adapted to the changes we have made to our environment.

Although we cannot experience life as different people, we can collect data about everybody's life, and that will help us make decisions about who is enjoying life, and what brings us happiness. We would be able to observe the billionaires, for example, and determine whether they are truly enjoying their wealth, or showing symptoms of mental disorders. We would be able to observe the people who gamble, have lots of pet animals, or have body piercings, and pass judgment on whether they are enjoying their lives, or suffering from something.

Every culture assumes that hoarders are a tiny group of misfits, so hoarders are regarded as unimportant, but this Constitution requires the schools to teach children about hoarding because it is a very important issue that everybody should understand.

The hoarders are not a different species that we can ignore. There is only a subtle difference between hoarders and the "normal" people. All of us have strong cravings for material wealth, land, and food. These cravings were necessary for prehistoric people, but they cause significant problems for us today, such as:

	•	People take jobs according to its financial benefits.
	•	Nations fight with each other over land boundaries and the fish in the oceans.
	•	Husbands and wives argue about money and material items.
	•	People go into debt as a result of purchasing more items than they can afford.
	•	People commit crimes in order to increase their material wealth.
	•	People have so many items that they have to put some of them into attics, basements, closets, storage lockers, and their yards.
	•	Businesses fight with each other over customers.
	•	People whine about their low income, even if they are extremely wealthy.
	•	People, especially men, gather material items to show off and impress women, rather than because they need them.

Every culture considers the hoarders to be tormenting themselves by collecting excessive amounts of items, but no culture considers that the wealthy people are also tormenting themselves by gathering excessive amounts of jewelry, clothing, houses, land, automobiles, and other items.

Likewise, no culture considers the "ordinary" people to be tormenting themselves as a result of their struggles for material wealth and land. Every culture considers that the "finer things in life" to be large homes, expensive automobiles, and lots of material items.

However, it would be more accurate to describe most people as tormenting themselves and their families by not controlling their craving for material items because most people are wasting money on items that they don't need, and cluttering their house, closets, garage, and attic.

The same concept applies to people with OCD. There is no dividing line between the people with OCD and the rest of us. All of us have some OCD because it was a beneficial characteristic in prehistoric times.

For example, a prehistoric woman who was obsessed with keeping herself, her children, and her home clean, would have reduced the chances that she and her children were bitten by insects, poked by thorns, or infected with bacteria.

That disorder is troublesome today because there are so many worthless, idiotic, dangerous, or detrimental activities that we can become obsessed about. For example, a woman with an obsession for cleaning can torment herself and her family, and waste a lot of money, because our homes today are very large, we have lots of clothing, and we have lots of items in our homes. Our homes also have sinks, showers, laundry machines, and dishwashers that allow us to waste a lot of time and money on cleaning ourselves and our items.

Likewise, a prehistoric woman who was obsessed with checking on the health and safety of her children would have been a very protective mother. Modern children are no longer in danger, so a mother with that obsession would waste her time. She might also be so protective that her children do not learn how to do chores, take care of themselves, or deal with criticism.

A prehistoric man might have become obsessed with hunting pigs, or making fur coats, flint knives, and arrowheads, but those obsessions would have been beneficial to him and his family. Today a man can become obsessed with lots of worthless, idiotic, dangerous, or detrimental activities, such as setting a world record, becoming a billionaire, or ensuring that light switches have been turned off.

There is no dividing line between the hoarders and the rest of us. All of us have cravings for material items and land. The difference between a hoarder and the rest of us is that most of us can control our cravings well enough to prevent our house from becoming cluttered.

Every culture is promoting the theory that we will improve our lives by gathering more material items, but none of us needs more material items. Rather, we need better culture.

We are not suffering from "poverty". Rather, we are suffering because we are animals. For example, we suffer because:

•	We have a craving to fight for food, leadership, material items, a spouse, and land.
•	We prefer to ignore issues that we dislike, and believe unrealistic fantasies that are more pleasant.
•	We have a desire to trust and be submissive to whoever gets into an influential position.

We don't need more material items. Instead, we will improve our lives significantly by understanding our emotional desires and fears, making more intelligent decisions about what to do, and experimenting with improvements to our leadership, school curriculum, courtship activities, economic system, cities, recreational activities, television programs, and other culture.

We need better policies for crime, abortion, euthanasia, nudity, marriage, work, and raising children. We need a better understanding of human and animal behavior, and what truly makes us happy. We especially need to develop restrictions on reproduction so that the human mind evolves to fit our new era, and to reduce the number of people with mental and physical disorders.

Our natural tendency is to ignore, ridicule, torment, or pity the hoarders, alcoholics, criminals, heroin addicts, and other people who behave in a manner that we disapprove of, but we should study them because they have the same genetic characteristics as the rest of us, but by having unusual behavior, we can more easily notice some of those genetic characteristics.

Some people became hoarders after they suffered from brain damage, such as strokes or concussions, but brain damage did not cause those people to become a hoarder. Rather, the hoarding tendency was already in their brain, and the brain damage merely allowed it to have a greater influence over their behavior.

Brain damage cannot give us a characteristic that our genetic characteristics did not provide for. For example, no amount of brain damage will cause a human to behave like a dog or a cat. Likewise, brain damage to a dog cannot cause it to behave like a squirrel or a human.

Brain damage can only result in some portion of the brain being incapacitated, thereby allowing other portions to have a greater influence over our behavior. Therefore, people with brain damage can help us understand our own characteristics.

A few people have become better at math after suffering from brain damage, but the brain damage did not improve their math abilities. Rather, it merely gave them greater access to the math abilities that was already in their DNA.

By studying the hoarders, we can get a better understanding of all of us because we all have strong cravings to gather items, have friends, and be admired. We want large houses and lots of furniture, art, kitchen items, tools, and clothing. We also want a lot of cars, boats, jet skis, snow skis, snowmobiles, bicycles, televisions, computers, and/or musical instruments.

When the majority of people behave in a certain manner, we are not likely to notice it, and if we do notice it, we consider it to be normal and acceptable.

However, when we encounter somebody who has unusual behavior, we will notice that his behavior is bizarre. If we laugh at, ridicule, or ignore the unusual person, we learn nothing about him or ourselves. However, if we realize that the person has been designed according to the same genetic blueprint as the rest of us, then we will realize that whatever is causing him to be bizarre is a characteristic that all of us have. Therefore, by studying his bizarre characteristic, we can get a better understanding of ourselves.

For example, some of the women in the television shows about hoarders would purchase items but not bother to open up the package. That is evidence that they are get enjoyment from acquiring the item, not from using the item.

This bizarre behavior make sense when you realize that many female animals expect gifts of food from the male animals. Therefore, when women are unhappy, one of the ways they can make themselves feel better is to give themselves gifts.

Women want to be pampered Queens, and men want to be their servants.

The women don't necessarily need the item that they are giving to themselves. Rather, they want to be given a gift. They want to feel as if they are a pampered queen.

With modern technology, such as online shopping and retail stores, a woman can titillate herself by having UPS deliver gifts to her, and by having retail stores clerks provide her with gifts.

Those television programs also show that many of the husbands allow their wives to waste money on shopping because they want to please their wives rather than provide them with guidance.

When we realize that hoarders have the same mental characteristics that all of us have, then we will realize that whatever is causing them to become hoarders is a characteristic that is inside of our minds, also. They are not a different species with different mental characteristics. The hoarders are just an extreme version of "normal" people.

When we realize that there is only a subtle difference between the hoarders and the rest of us, then it is easier for us to notice that all of the criticism we have for hoarders applies to almost all of us, but to a lesser extreme. For example:

•		Some of the hoarders cause themselves significant financial problems by purchasing more items than they can afford, but a significant percentage of the "normal" people also torment themselves with debt and financial problems because they also purchase more items than they can afford.
•		Some of the men who are married to a hoarder are tormenting themselves and their children by being submissive to their wives rather than providing leadership, but there are lots of "normal" men who are also tormenting themselves and their children by being submissive to their "normal", non-hoarding wives.
•		Some of the hoarders have so much stuff that they have to move out of their house, such as this couple who moved into a camper in their driveway. However, a significant percentage of the "normal" people have so much stuff packed into their closets, attic, basement, or garage that they cannot use those areas for what they were designed for. For example, some people cannot get their automobile or bicycles in their garage, and they cannot use some of their closets for clothing, because they are using their garage or closet to store unnecessary items.

•		Some hoarders purchase so much food that a lot of it spoils, but that is also happening to a large percentage of the "normal" people.
•		Some hoarders purchase so much clothing, jewelry, or shoes that they cannot wear them all, but there are lots of "normal" people, especially women, who purchase more clothing, jewelry, or shoes than they use.

The hoarders are tormenting themselves because of their inability to control their craving for material items, but the majority of people are also tormenting themselves, although to a lesser extent, as a result of being unable to control their craving for material items.

Our desire to titillate ourself is causing a lot of problems. Modern humans must understand that we have animal cravings that were intended for a prehistoric environment, and that we need to make sensible decisions about when to titillate ourselves and when to suppress our desires. For example, what is the difference between:

1)	A woman who titillates herself by giving herself gifts that she doesn't need.
2)	A man who titillates himself with sexual pornography.
3)	A man who titillates himself by boasting about himself, insulting other people, or purchasing items for status.

The only difference between those three people is that they are titillating themselves with different types of pornography. However, only the men who titillate themselves with sexual pornography are criticized in the cultures as of 2025.

A woman who gives herself gifts that she doesn't need should be described as masturbating. The gifts that she gives to herself should be described as "gift pornography".

A woman who titillates herself with gifts is not improving her life. She is wasting her money, wasting her life, causing herself financial troubles, and cluttering her house with unnecessary items.

Likewise, a man who titillates himself with sexual pornography, or by insulting other people, or by showing off his goldplated cell phone, is not improving his life. He is wasting his life. Excessive masturbation can also interfere with his relationships.

Children must be educated about these issues to help them avoid the mistake of assuming that they will improve their life simply by titillating themselves with some type of pornography.

Of course, some people are unable to understand these concepts or control themselves. Those people need to be regarded as inferior people, and they must be prohibited from reproducing. This modern era requires people who can make much better decisions about what to do with their life and how to treat other people.

All of us would have a significantly more pleasant life if we could control our craving for material items to such an extent that we share the material wealth. This requires us to regard other people as family members, rather than as potential enemies.

One of the most significant advantages to sharing the wealth is that we can provide ourselves with much better cities. The reason is because if we can regard ourselves as members of a gigantic family that shares the wealth, then the city becomes a gigantic mansion for our family members.

By regarding the city is a giant home for all of us, none of us have to build, maintain, purchase, rent, or sell our own homes. The family builds and maintains the homes, swimming pools, offices, retail stores, factories, parks, gardens, farms, and bicycle paths.

We do not have to mow our own lawns, maintain our own home, or clean our own swimming pools. Likewise, the businesses do not have to build, maintain, or purchase the structures they need, or deal with landscaping around the structure.

By regarding the city is a big family, the economy can become much more efficient because we don't have to provide businesses or individual citizens with construction materials, tools, landscaping equipment, and other supplies. This eliminates all of the people and businesses involved with packaging and selling small items for consumers and businesses. The individual citizens would also be free of dealing with government regulations in regards to home improvements.

The free enterprise systems provide citizens and businesses with construction materials and tools, and that creates a tremendous waste of resources because the supplies are provided in certain quantities, and the leftover materials are usually discarded in the trash, even though some other citizen or business could use them.

It is much more efficient for a group of people to work together to design, build, and maintain a city. It also allows the city to be designed so that all of the neighborhoods are visually compatible with one another, and all of the doors, windows, plumbing fixtures, and other items are following the same standards.

Likewise, it is more efficient for a city to do all of the landscaping, rather than have every business and citizen be responsible for a tiny plot of land. The city will not need to produce thousands of tiny, noisy, low quality lawnmowers, gardening tools, gopher traps, or other equipment. Instead, the city will have higher quality, quieter, and more efficient landscaping tools, such as robotic lawnmowers and robotic rat catchers.

Furthermore, a city can afford landscaping equipment that is advanced enough to operate in the middle of the night while most people are sleeping.

The lives of the citizens in such a city will be more pleasant because nobody will have to deal with the maintenance of their homes or yards. Nobody will have to live in a home that is being renovated, either, because everybody will be free to move to some other home when their home needs renovation.

During the past few years, some of the city governments in Italy have been offering houses for one euro. However, the owners have to spend a lot of their time and money fixing the houses and dealing with government regulations and taxes.

It would be less expensive and faster for the Italian government to fix all of the houses, and then sell them at a higher price. It would also reduce the amount of wasted construction materials and tools. However, that requires a different attitude towards life. It requires that we stop promoting the prehistoric attitude that each person is responsible for his home, and start regarding ourselves as members of a family or a team who work together and share the wealth. We must be willing to give up the freedom to have our own home and own a plot of land.

However, we cannot create that type of city when our leaders are neurotic, selfish, anti-social pedophiles who want to be pampered Kings and Queens. We need leaders who consider human relationships to be more important than material wealth and status. We need leaders who treat us as friends rather than as servants. We need leaders who live with us and work with us, rather than censor, intimidate, exploit, deceive, and arrest us.

Even more important, we cannot expect a group of people to want to share items when they speak different languages, follow different clothing styles, holiday celebrations, and meals, fear one another, and accuse one another of white supremacy, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and white privilege.

If we restrict a city to people who are compatible, honest, friendly, and responsible, and who can share all of the bicycles, electric vehicles, drones, kayaks, children's toys, baby carriages, 3D printers, and other items, then we would need garages or storage areas for material items. We could reduce the size of our homes, and eliminate the chores involved with storing, cleaning, and maintaining those items.

Eventually robots will be able to deliver and remove tools and batteries.

None of the carpenters, technicians, or mechanics would have to purchase or maintain their own tools, or store their tools in their home. They would borrow whatever tools they needed, and return the unneeded tools to the city.

Even more important, instead of producing a lot of low quality tools for each person to own, we would produce a smaller amount of high quality tools that we share.

We could also apply this concept to expensive clothing. For example, instead of allowing women to purchase expensive clothing for weddings, anniversaries, and other social events, they would borrow the clothing and give it back to the city when they are finished, and then another woman would be able to use it.

We have a lot more clothing options when we share the clothing.

By sharing clothing, we would be able to create durable and intricate clothing with materials and techniques that would be too expensive to be practical in a free enterprise system.

This would allow women to wear hundreds of different, beautiful outfits during their life that have expensive gemstones, sequins, lace, velvet, embroidery, iridescent fibers, and even tiny LED lights.

They would have access to clothing items that are more durable, beautiful, and decorative than the free enterprise system is producing, and they would not have to be bothered with cleaning the items, or storing them in their home, or sell them.

It would also allow men to have high quality clothing for social affairs without having to be bothered with storing or cleaning them.

As suggested in a previous document, we should also experiment with letting the women design and choose the clothing that the men wear for social affairs so that we stop the men from dressing like penguins or slobs. This allows the women to do such things as arranging for a dinner at a green restaurant and providing the men with a green outfit. The men or women would return the outfits to the city on some other day.

For another example of the benefits of sharing items, instead of manufacturing a large number of low quality electric scooters for each family to purchase for their children, we would produce a smaller quantity of high quality scooters that are more reliable, quieter, easier to maintain, and more comfortable. Instead of storing the scooters in our homes, the scooters would be available for free in stores scattered around the city.

Parents would not have to provide their children with scooters. When children want to ride a scooter, they would go to one of the scooter stores, take one of the scooters, and ride it around. When the children are finished with the scooters, they leave them at any of the locations for dropping off material items. By being intolerant of crime, the children would be able to do this without adult supervision.

The city would be responsible for charging the batteries and maintaining the scooters and other electric vehicles. The vehicles would be higher in quality than they would be for consumers in a free enterprise system, and they could be equipped with advanced equipment, such as cell phones with GPS so that the city's computers could track the location of all of the vehicles. That would allow the children to drive the vehicles into the surrounding forest without their parents worrying about them getting lost.

Instead of displaying a map for the children, the vehicles could speak to the children to tell them how to get to a particular pond or picnic area, and how to get home.

By putting tracking devices in cell phones and electric vehicles, and by tracking people with surveillance cameras, it would safe for children to wander around by themselves during the winter.

When somebody wanted to use a 3D printer, telescope, microscope, or CNC laser cutter, he would go to one of the social clubs, and he would have access to much higher quality equipment than would be possible for consumers in a free enterprise system.

We would also improve our lives significantly if we can share food to such an extent that we can provide everybody with free meals at restaurants, and avoid putting kitchens and dining rooms in the homes. That has tremendous advantages, which is why schools, cruise ships, and businesses provide meals to their members.

Another advantage to getting all of our meals from restaurants is that most people don't have to learn anything about storing and preparing foods. Everybody assumes that they are an expert on food, but we are all ignorant about it, and we have conflicting information about it. Some of the conflicts are mentioned in this document. For some additional examples:

•		There are disagreements on the best ways to store fruits, oils, and other foods in order to maintain optimum flavor and nutrition; allow the fruit to ripen properly; and reduce problems with bacteria and mold.
•		There are disagreements on whether bananas or tomatoes should be stored in a refrigerator or other cool location, and whether butter, olive oil, nuts, pies, oregano, cinnamon, and breads should be kept in a refrigerator or freezer.
•		There are disagreements on whether it is healthy to fry foods in oil, and what the maximum temperature of each oil should be when frying.
•		Everybody is also ignorant about the fruits that produce ethylene gas or other chemicals, and how that affects the manner in which we store fruits.
•		There are some people who believe that they can sprout walnuts by removing the shell, which breaks the walnut seed into pieces, and then putting the pieces into water, but do the pieces truly sprout? Or does the walnut seed die when it is broken into pieces? Should walnuts be sprouted by putting cracks or holes in the shell so that water can get in and out, thereby allowing the seed remain alive and be rinsed to remove tannic acid and other chemicals?
•		Some people have posted complaints on the Internet about the large percentage of dried figs that have a bad taste, but very few people seem to understand why. As I pointed out here, we ought to consider growing figs in sealed greenhouses. I created this video to explain it.

When we are capable of sharing items to such an extent that we can get our meals from restaurants, then the Meals Ministry can arrange for food scientists to investigate these issues and set policies for the restaurants, farms, and food processing businesses, and the majority of people don't need to know the scientific details about storing and preparing foods.

By sharing material wealth, the shopping malls will be full of restaurants, lounge rooms, social clubs, and stores, and we will have free access to all of them. Since everything is free, nobody would be pressured to purchase anything, and there would be no advertisements to convince us to desire something, so it would be very relaxing to wander around the retail stores to see what is available, and try the different items. We would be able to eat any of the restaurants, relax at any of the lounge rooms, and visit any of the social clubs.

Instead of wasting our time trying to decide which material item to purchase, we would be able to experiment with all of the bicycles, cell phones, furniture, and other material items.

Since advertisements are prohibited, none of the Internet sites would have any type of pop-up advertisements, and nobody would be able to make money from Internet videos, or by being a social media influencer, so the Internet would have significantly fewer idiotic and worthless videos and messages. The ministers could also prohibit such options as subscribing to somebody's videos so that we don't have to deal with people telling us over and over to "Subscribe and Hit The Bell Icon".

By being intolerant of crime, the shopping malls would not need security guards, and none of the windows would need security grates. Walking around the shopping malls would feel as if we are walking around a giant mansion that we share with our friends, and all of the stores and facilities would feel as if they are rooms within the mansion.

We would be able to pick up cameras, clothing items, or furniture from the shopping malls whenever we pleased, and without money or credit cards, and we would return the items when we were finished with them, or when they needed maintenance.

By setting high standards for the people, young children would be able to wander around the stores to pick up and return items without any fear, including at night.

Although the restaurants and some other facilities would be open only for certain hours, some facilities would be open all night. For example, the stores that provide medical items could be open all day and night. Since the items are free, none of the employees would have to work during the night. Anybody who needed a medical item would be able to walk in and take whatever he needed.

Since everybody would have to meet higher standards, only the truly dangerous medical devices and drugs would have restrictions. The other medicines, such as insulin and thyroid hormones, would be freely available to adults without prescriptions.

By allowing the computers to use facial recognition, computers could prevent children from having access to the medicines and other dangerous items.

The pharmacies, and other retail stores, would provide adults with items without human employees, and at any time of day or night, while protecting children from them. The computer would also prohibit adults who have been put on restrictions from having access to certain items.

The stores that offer recreational equipment would also be open all day and night to allow everybody, including children, to get and return items late in the evening, early in the morning, and during the night.

For example, teenagers who want to go to snorkeling could go to a shopping mall early in the morning to pick up the items that they need. They would not have to wait for stores to open, or wait for employees to be in the store.

The retail stores would feel as if they are rooms in our home, and that they contain material items that belong to us. The restaurants would feel as if they are our dining rooms, and the lounge rooms and social clubs would also feel as if they are are rooms in our home. The city would feel as if it is our home, rather than the possessions of businesses or kings and queens.

All of the recreational facilities would also be free. By setting high standards for people, the children would be able to walk or ride bicycles to their recreational facilities, including the facilities in other neighborhoods, without any fear, even at night.

Although every neighborhood would be similar in its size and layout, they would all have different architecture and vegetation, so it would be enjoyable to visit the different neighborhoods.

Every neighborhood would be slightly different in appearance, and everything in the city would be free, so we would have less of a desire to travel to other cities and more of an interest in visiting the neighborhoods in our own city.

As mentioned in many documents, this type of culture requires the city to set high standards for people. Everybody must be willing and able to be responsible with community property.

There is no dividing line between the hoarders and the rest of us. We all have a craving to gather material items and land, and all of us probably have some items that we don't need or use. Some of us also have some portions of land that we never use, and some people have rooms in their homes that they never use. It is also likely that all of us have some trash sitting in our automobiles, garages, or homes.

We could describe all humans as "hoarders". The majority of people are "typical hoarders", a minority are "extreme hoarders", and another minority are "mild hoarders".

The reason we want to gather material items and land is because we are animals. Animals do not share things. Instead, they fight for land, water, food, and sleeping areas. The males also fight for females.

This brief video shows a man opening the hatchback of his car to provide some monkeys with bananas, and notice how similar their behavior is to that of the people when the retail stores open their doors for Black Friday. It is also similar to how children react when their parents put food on the table.

Our technology allows us to produce more material items and food than we can possibly use, so it is senseless for us to fight one another for land, food, and material items. Therefore, if we can control our cravings and fears, we will be able to significantly improve our lives by creating a completely new social environment in which we share everything with one another, and treat other people as friends and team members rather than as enemies.

Animals have a strong craving to control an area of land, mark their territory with pee, and chase other animals away from it. Humans inherited that characteristic, but we use fences or logos to mark our territory. This results in us creating cities that provide us with independent homes on nearly rectangular plots of land, and separated by fences.

	A South American wolf marks his territory with pee.		Humans mark their territory with fences.

Our craving to have our own plot of land results in cities that are spread out over a very large area, which is makes it difficult and time-consuming for us to travel around the city. Although the author of this news article describes the aerial views of the cities as breathtaking, many of us consider our cities to be ugly.

We cannot stop our craving to have possession of items and land because it is designed into our brain, but if we can suppress our craving to the point at which we can share land and material items, we will have a lot more options for how we design cities.

The people who don't have enough self-control to share items and land will be miserable misfits in such a culture, and the people who have such an extreme craving for material items that they become hoarders, billionaires, or criminals will have an even more difficult time enjoying life when they must become ordinary people who share the material wealth and land.

Therefore, the only way for us to create a society in which people enjoy sharing the wealth is to restrict reproduction to the people who are better able to do it. This requires passing judgment on who has trouble sharing wealth. This will require telling some of the wealthy people that they don't qualify for reproducing.

We assume that the wealthier people are better than the poor people, and having a better life, but some of them seem to be more neurotic and unhappy than the ordinary people.

According to this survey in 2024, 43% of the Americans who have an income over $100K per year have credit card debt. Of those people, 62% of them have had the debt for more than a year. Their debt is not the result of poverty, racism, Holocaust denial, or bad luck. Rather, they have debt because they do not have enough self-control to make sensible decisions about how to spend their money. They are analogous to obese people who cannot control their food consumption.

Those of us who don't have intense cravings for material items cannot understand how wealthy people can be in debt, or why wealthy people would want to commit crimes to become wealthier. There is some subtle difference between the way our brains think.

Likewise, those of us who can control our consumption of alcohol cannot understand why some people become alcoholics. Those of us who are not interested in raping children cannot understand why some people are doing that.

There have been numerous attempts to help people who have problems with hoarding, alcohol, crime, obesity, and OCD, but nobody has found a way to cure any of those problems. A small percentage of the people with those problems eventually learn how to control themselves, but they continue to suffer from the mental disorder because it is coming from their genetic design, not from ignorance.

We do not have the technology to change the circuitry in a person's brain. We cannot cure a person who has a problem with hoarding, alcohol, gambling, heroin, or food. A person must have the desire to change his behavior, and he must also have the ability to control his emotions to such an extent that he can make better decisions.

However, even if a person can control his problem, he is still the same person with the same problem. For example, some alcoholics have been able to stop drinking, but they cannot cure themselves of whatever mental or physical disorder caused them to become alcoholics. Many of them realize that they still have the problem, and that causes them to be fearful of becoming an alcoholic again, so they avoid drinking alcohol.

If an alcoholic could be truly cured of his problem, he would have no fear of alcohol. He would be able drink alcohol whenever he wanted without fear of becoming an alcoholic, just like those of us who don't have any problem with alcohol.

Likewise, we cannot cure the billionaires of whatever problem they are suffering from. In order for the billionaires to enjoy living in a world in which we share the wealth, they must have the desire and ability to control their cravings. If they cannot control their cravings for status, pampering by servants, and material wealth, they will be unhappy misfits in a culture that treats them as ordinary people.

The billionaires who have such intense cravings for wealth and status that they are committing murders and other serious crimes will have an even more difficult time living in a world in which they are ordinary people and must obey the laws. They are analogous to a drug addict who is willing to murder people in order to get more drugs.

The wealthy people who are willing to commit serious crimes to get more material items have a brain with a significant disorder. Perhaps they are extremely anti-social, or perhaps they have abnormally intense cravings for wealth or status, or perhaps they are suffering from a mental disorder that we don't yet have a word for.

Whatever their problem is, if they cannot control themselves, there is nothing we can do to control them. We should not tolerate their excuses, such as blaming their bad behavior on being bullied in school, or because their mother died when they were young.

We cannot cure anybody of their mental problems. The only useful thing we can do is require the schools to educate children about human behavior, and provide them with practice in dealing with problems, failures, and criticism. The children who become adults who cannot control themselves must be regarded as inferior people. Those that are destructive need to be evicted or euthanized, and those that can control themselves should be prohibited from reproducing.

The military is aware of this concept. They put potential members through a training course, and they observe how the recruits react. Those who cannot improve themselves are rejected. The military does not give them pity, or tolerate their excuses, pouting, temper tantrums, or other bad behavior.

We must apply this policy to children, also, but our emotions want us to pamper children, not put them through difficult mental and physical training programs, and get rid of the defective children. We become upset when children cry or pout, and we want to help them deal with their problems.

The photo below shows an obstacle course that is designed for the entertainment of children. It is acceptable to provide children with entertaining recreational activities, but we must do more than entertain the children.

The Schools Ministry is required to treat the children in a manner that is similar to military recruits. Specifically, they must put children through a variety of physical and mental obstacle courses to help them develop and identify their talents, desires, limitations, and disorders, and to help them become accustomed to criticism, problems, failures, leadership, and thinking.

Those training programs will also help the school officials determine which of the children needs medical help, shows potential for leadership, or should be prohibited from reproducing.

Life is a deadly obstacle course

The people who oppose genetics and evolution want to believe that life can be wonderful for everybody, but in reality, life is more accurately described as a deadly obstacle course, in which everybody suffers to some extent, and only a few are successful at enjoying their life.

A sperm and egg have tremendous challenges to create a healthy baby. Some of the fertilized eggs die before they are born, and the others create babies with various defects in their bodies and minds.

After birth, every person has endless problems to deal with. However, some of us do a better job of learning from our mistakes, and learning from the mistakes of other people. Some of us also have better control of our emotions, and some of us make more intelligent decisions.

The prehistoric children who were not well adapted to the challenges of life tended to die young, just like the young, wild animals. That resulted in adults who enjoyed life.

Life is a deadly obstacle course, and most people fail to enjoy it.

Today, however, most people are such misfits for our modern environment that they have trouble dealing with life's problems.

Most people torment themselves, their friends, and their family members because of their inability to make sensible decisions about money, debt, marital conflicts, food, and alcohol.

They waste a significant portion of their life whining, cheating, crying, fighting, pouting, hating, and fantasizing that they will "soon" find happiness with money, fame, drugs, sex, a spouse, or heaven.

Whether we enjoy our life depends upon our decisions, not other people or mysterious concepts, such as poverty or racism. Although our parents have a tremendous effect on our childhood, once we become an adult, we can do whatever we please, and our life becomes our responsibility.

For example, a woman who has a miscarriage has to make a decision about how to deal with it. She can choose to deal with it in a sensible manner, or she can choose to waste her life and irritate other people by repeatedly reminding herself of the miscarriage in order to stimulate sadness.

Children today need to be taught that it is difficult to create life, and we must expect every generation to have a lot of miscarriages, infant deaths, and genetic defects that are so serious that the baby should be euthanized.

They also need to be taught that when we use our technology to allow a defective child to survive, we allow him to suffer. There are millions of people in the world suffering from bipolar problems, migraine headaches, alcoholism, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis, and other serious problems. Some of the defective people have so much trouble making a living that they join crime networks, or become homeless or parasitic. Many of them develop low self-esteem, or become angry, envious, depressed, or suicidal.

Nature deals with the problem of defective creatures by putting them through a deadly battle for survival, and we must do something similar with our children. We must stop treating children as "bundles of joy" and start treating them as "young humans".

The Schools Ministry is required to put children through "intellectual obstacle courses" to determine their mental characteristics, and prepare them for our modern social environment. The children with the best mental characteristics will improve their behavior and get a better understanding of themselves when we put them through intellectual obstacle courses, but the children who react with violence, pouting, hatred, excuses, or crying must be regarded as inferior children.

Unlike the existing schools, which allow students to keep information about their performance a secret, the Schools Ministry is required to put detailed data about them in their entries of the People database.

The data about a child in the People database will help the child, his parents, and the government officials make decisions about the type of jobs the child should consider, and whether there is any medical technology to improve his health.

The human brain needs to evolve

Our minds were not designed to deal with the complex problems of our modern world. Our arrogance, selfishness, fear of the unknown, craving for status, and sexual inhibitions are too extreme today. We have trouble cooperating with one another, sharing material wealth, keeping the planet clean, controlling our emotions, and forming stable relationships. We want to entertain ourselves, not deal with difficult problems. We fight, cheat, deceive, manipulate, and hate one another.

Furthermore, our emotions did not evolve for the large and dense populations of our modern cities. We evolved to live among a small group of people who we know intimately. We were not designed to live among thousands of strangers. Or high population density requires that we alter the way we interact with people. For example:

•		We want to greet people when we meet them, but we will irritate one another and ourselves if we greet every person we pass by in the streets, elevators, and stores. The people who live in densely populated areas need to ignore most of the people that they pass by.
•		We giggle at farts, but when we are living among thousands of people, all of whom are farting all throughout the day and evening, it becomes irritating when people make remarks or jokes every time somebody farts.
•		Women enjoy getting compliments from men, but when they are living among thousands of strangers, they will be irritated if hundreds of men make remarks about how pretty they are. Modern men must be able to control their attraction to women. We need to restrict courtship to specific activities and prohibit men from pursuing women in public.

We cannot improve our world with material items, fusion reactors, or colonies on the moon. We cannot improve the world with prayer, pity, or punishments. Our problems are the result of the decisions that we make, so the only way to improve the world is to improve the behavior of people.

We can improve our behavior to a certain extent with education, but not everybody will respond appropriately. Furthermore, education can only help us make better decisions. It cannot improve any of our emotional or intellectual characteristics.

The only way to bring significant improvements to human behavior is to improve the genetic characteristics of the human brain. This requires analyzing everybody's mental characteristics, passing judgment on who has the characteristics that we want for the next generation, and prohibiting the others from reproducing.

That requires eliminating secrecy; collecting video and other data about everybody; comparing us to one another; and making arbitrary decisions on who among us has the higher quality characteristics. In order to make those arbitrary decisions, we have to decide what sort of physical and mental characteristics we want the future generations to have.

This constitution advocates that humans should be sociable creatures. We should enjoy working together, and getting together with one another for meals, recreation, and social affairs. The women and children should be able to trust the men, and depend upon them for guidance.

The people who want to live alone or with a dog, or who want to be a pampered King or Queen, are regarded as having anti-social characteristics.

We will improve our healthcare if we can develop the technology to collect data about everybody's physical activities, medical drugs, foods, sleeping habits, and other issues regarding our health, and if we also collect information about the environment, such as the humidity, temperature, and pollen.

We cannot expect a person to be able to analyze himself and determine what is medical problems are, and we cannot expect doctors to do that, either. For example, by the time I was about 25 years old, I suspected that I get cold easier than most people, but if I had mentioned that to a doctor, most of them would not have considered it to be of importance. They would most likely have responded that it is because I was thin, and that I needed to eat more food and develop a thicker layer of fat.

However, if we had a People database with details of everybody's life, and if we had software to analyze and compare us, that software might have noticed that I have a greater similarity to the people who have problems with thyroid hormones or energy production than to people who have thin layers of fat.

For another example, if we could collect data on everybody's meals, consumption of water, recreational activities, and environmental conditions, we would get a better understanding of why some people are developing kidney stones.

An analysis of that data would show us whether kidney stones are occurring in certain families, and if so, how much of it seems to be genetic and how much of it is due to their eating habits.

Most people would be embarrassed to have such detailed data about them collected and available to the public, but it would help all of us to understand our health issues. Nobody would suffer from that database, except for the people who choose to suffer by repeatedly telling themselves that they are suffering.

Our prehistoric ancestors knew what other people were eating, and when other people went to the creek to drink water, but they did not suffer from that lack of secrecy. We will not suffer from a lack of secrecy, either.

My mother's recent medical problem is an example of how useful surveillance data can be for healthcare. During the final months of 2022, when my mother had just turned 90 years old, she was occasionally having problems with her heart, sometimes losing her appetite, having diarrhea, and occasionally making remarks about how she wished she would die and end the misery. She had fainted a couple times, also, because her heart wasn't beating properly. I assumed that she was dying from old age, or suffering from the Covid vaccine.

Her heart would occasionally beat in an irregular manner, and sometimes stop beating for second or so. She went to a heart doctor to find out what was wrong. He gave her a device to wear on her chest for a week to record her heartbeat, but he could not figure out what was wrong with her. However, he prescribed some medications for her.

My mother goes to a water aerobics class in the morning as a way of getting exercise, and there were two times that I know of when she experienced problems with her heart, and her friends at the class took her to the hospital. The doctor at the hospital didn't know what was wrong, but he adjusted her heart medications.

In January 2023, she asked me to pick up one of her medications, Donepezil, from the pharmacy. I was curious as to what it was, so when I got home I searched the Internet to learn about it.

As is typical of all medicines and other products, different businesses, government agencies, an individual doctors were posting slightly different information about the drug. This document at drugs.com says that "Donepezil boosts the effects of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter that is noticeably depleted in people with Alzheimer's disease."

However, I don't think my mother has Alzheimer's disease, and from what I could determine, we do not yet have the technology to measure a person's level of acetylcholine while he is alive, so there is no way to determine whether my mother has a "noticeably depleted" level of it.

My mother was given a prescription for Donepezil because she had been complaining about her short-term memory, so my sister decided to help her by arranging for her to visit a neurologist to find out if there is something he could do to improve her memory.

Like most people, my sister doesn't want to acknowledge the evidence that all 90-year-old people have problems with their short-term memory, and many of them will die within five years. Instead of accepting the evidence that all of us deteriorate and die, most people put lot a lot of time and money into futile, and sometimes painful, attempts to prevent deterioration and death.

A doctor cannot determine whether a person will benefit from Donepezil. He can only prescribe it, and then tell the relatives of the patient to observe the effect. Giving somebody Donepezil is experimenting with them.

Unfortunately, most people have such a difficult time with reality that they do not want a doctor to be honest and tell them something like:

The label says "Take 1 tablet by mouth nightly"

The side effects are so serious that the instructions advise patients to take the drug at night before they go to sleep so that most of the side effects occur while they are asleep. However, like most people, my sister had no interest in reading the instructions.

My sister told my mother to take a Donepezil tablet in the morning with her other medications. This would explain why my mother felt the most miserable in the morning.

Many of the complaints that my mother had been making during the previous months matched the side effects of Donepezil. For example, she was having problems with her heart, and this document warns us that "Donepezil is the only agent — among all AChEIs used to treat dementias" that is known to cause heart problems.

This document warns us that "Donepezil may cause heart rhythm problems that can lead to an irregular heartbeat and fainting." That is one of the symptoms my mother had, also.

I printed the side effects on a couple sheets of paper, showed them to my mother, and she was so horrified that she decided to stop taking the drug. However, when my sister discovered that my mom had stopped taking it, she had it temper tantrum and demanded that my mother continue taking the drug because she insisted that the doctor knows what is best, and we must follow the doctor's advice.

Like most people, especially women and children, my sister has no desire to do any research or think. She expects the authorities to take care of her. She trusts the authorities, and so does my mother.

I have known only one man who would thoroughly read instructions before using something he had no experience with, and it might not be a coincidence that he also had some type of bipolar problem, and he was an alcoholic for decades. He put up a tremendous resistance to doing something new in his life. He would follow a routine over and over. I suspect that his fear of doing something different caused him to read instructions before doing something he was unfamiliar with. If so, that would be an example of how a particular mental problem can be beneficial in some situations.

Like all women, my sister gives orders to people, as if they are her children, and so she ordered my mother to continue taking the drug. She also reprimanded me for giving medical advice because I am not a doctor.

Originally the doctor prescribed 5 mg pills, but when my mother and sister told the doctor that it wasn't helping her memory, and neither of them said anything about the side effects, the doctor doubled the dosage to 10 mg, which made the side effects even worse.

My sister bought a pillbox for my mother to ensure that she takes her medicines every day. When I visited my mother, I would secretly remove the tablets, and that would allow my mother to feel good for a few days before my sister visited her and put the tablets back into the container.

For a couple of months I would remove the pills and tell my mother to stop taking the drug, and my sister would order her to take it. One day I took a photo of the Donepezil container that says to take the drug at night, (the photo farther up), and I emailed the photo to my aunt. I asked my aunt to email the photo to my sister and try to convince her to notice that the pill is supposed to be taken at night. I also attached a document with some of the side effects of Donepezil. I was hoping that my sister would listen to an older woman.

Somehow my aunt convinced my sister to look at the instructions, and my sister finally realized that the drug was dangerous, and told my mother to stop taking it. Ever since then, my mother has not had heart problems, or wished that she was dead. However, she is still taking a bunch of other medicines that she probably doesn't need as a result of the doctor who didn't know that her heart problems were the side effects of Donepezil. One of those drugs is Eliquis, which she pays almost $800 for every month.

I have given up trying to explain to my mother and sister that they should reevaluate all of my mother's medicines. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with most people. Most people want to entertain themselves, not think, learn, or look critically at any of their established beliefs.

It is especially difficult to have an intelligent conversation with women. Our culture must acknowledge the evidence that women do not think as well as men, or want to think. They want to be pampered Queens. They claim that they want to be equal with their husband, but in reality they follow authorities and their peer group, and they want to be taken care of.

Children have that same attitude. They claim that they want the freedom to make their own decisions, but they don't truly want to be independent. As with women, they want to be taken care of and pampered, and they want to follow their peer group.

Men are not much better than the women and children, however. All of us claim that we want to be independent, and have the freedom to do as we please, but in reality we also follow our peer group, and are submissive to whoever is in a position of authority. Some men are so childlike or feminine that they comfort themselves by fantasizing that God or Jesus will take care of them.

We have these hypocritical and irrational desires because we are animals, and we have emotions that provide checks and balances on one another. We have an emotion that causes us to want to do as we please, but we also have emotions that cause us to want to be a member of a group. These conflicting emotions prevent us from becoming too independent, or from becoming too submissive.

In prehistoric times, the people who were too independent or too submissive would suffer. The battle for life resulted in people developing emotional characteristics that were suitable for that prehistoric environment.

Today, however, we are preventing nature from eliminating the abnormal people. This is resulting in some people who are abnormally independent, and abnormally submissive. Every generation is becoming more diverse in their intellectual and emotional characteristics and defects.

Today we need to observe everybody and pass judgment on who has the characteristics we want for the future generations. We must also acknowledge the evidence that men and women have different personalities, and that women and children need more guidance and less freedom than men.

Women and children believe that they need independence and freedom, but they evolved and emotional desire to be submissive to men, and taken care of by men. Unfortunately, most men are so confused by the complexities of the modern world that they cannot take care of themselves, so we cannot expect them to take care of their wives, children, or society. Instead, most men pander to their wife and children, and some men exploit women and children for profit or sex.

We need to change our culture so that we have leaders who can provide guidance to the public. We must acknowledge the evidence that the majority of people cannot make sensible decisions about life.

We must also change our attitude towards medical care and acknowledge that we don't know much about medical problems. The public is putting pressure on doctors to pretend that they have solutions to our medical problems, rather than be honest and admit that there are lots of medical problems they cannot understand or fix. The public is also pressuring businesses to provide them with cures for wrinkles, obesity, and baldness, which the businesses cannot cure.

Donepezil should have a warning.

Doctors and businesses should be honest, rather than pander to the public. For example, the label for Donepezil should have a warning on it, as in the image to the right, to remind the patient that it is an experimental drug with serious side effects and minimal benefits to only some people, rather than a medication that has been proven to be useful and safe.

The people who want doctors and businesses to provide them with fantasies of how they will be cured of old age, wrinkles, memory problems, cancer, and obesity, rather than be told the truth, must be regarded as having an unacceptable mind for our modern era, and they should be prohibited from reproducing. We should stop feeling sorry for them, stop pandering to them, and stop altering our culture in an attempt to reduce their crying, pouting, and tantrums.

Those people have a similar attitude as the religious people who refuse to believe that they will rot like an animal when they die, and who prefer to believe that they will go to heaven. It was acceptable for prehistoric people to have idiotic beliefs about life, but modern humans need the emotional and intellectual to understand and accept unpleasant scientific evidence.

The problems my mother was having with Donepezil is just one example of how we cannot expect doctors, who see patients only a few minutes once or twice a year, to know how to solve a person's medical problems. Furthermore, when people see more than one doctor, such as when they go to a neurologist for one problem, a heart doctor for problems with their heart, and another doctor for digestive problems, none of the doctors will realize that they are just one doctor prescribing medications unless the patient remembers to provide that information.

Doctors provide their patients with a form for them to list their medicines, allergies, and other information, but my mother could not remember all of the drugs that she was taking. She never told the heart doctor that she was taking Donepezil. Furthermore, most doctors don't have any experience with Donepezil.

The only way to ensure that doctors have accurate information about their patient's health history is to eliminate secrecy and gather data about everybody's life. A doctor can then look in the database to learn about the patient.

Medical technology is becoming so complex we should develop software that can analyze a database of everybody's health information to provide both patients and doctors with help in understanding their medical problems.

Eventually we will be able to create software that can analyze video of us as we eat, sleep, walk, sneeze, cough, interact with one another, use the bathroom, and work at our jobs. That software will help us notice that some people are suffering from side effects of a medication, or suffering from a health problem.

By having the software analyze the behavior of people who use drugs, we will get a better understanding of what combination of drugs is the most risky, and what the most common side effects are.

The more complex our drugs and medical procedures become, the more important it is for us to collect health information in the People database, and develop software to help us analyze medical issues.

In addition to improving our software, we need to improve our customs in regard to health services. Specifically, patients should regard doctors as "medical assistants", rather than as "medical gods". Patients should take an active role in their medical care.

Patients should learn about their medications and its side effects, and use the People database to compare themselves to other people. Adults should regard a doctor as helping us to take care of ourselves, rather than have the attitude of a child who expects a doctor to take care of him.

Every culture encourages doctors to make all of the decisions, and their patients to be passive, but we did not develop that culture because it is intellectually sensible. Rather, it is because the majority of people do not have the desire to learn about their medical problems or treatments. Most people want to be taken care of, like a child.

In order for us to provide better healthcare, we must eliminate secrecy, gather medical information about everybody, and require everybody to get involved with their healthcare by learning about their problems and medications.

One of my mother's friends is another example of how we will benefit by eliminating secrecy and collecting data about drugs and health issues. I don't know all the details, but she was in the hospital for sepsis when she was about 90 years old. She had lost a tremendous amount of weight and was on the verge of dying.

One day a different doctor took over, analyzed the medicines that she was taking, and gave her new prescriptions. Within days she was feeling much better, left the hospital, regained her weight, and was back to her normal life. She is another example of people who were suffering from the medicines they were taking.

If we had a database with everybody's health information, we would do a much better job of understanding how medicines are affecting us; how we differ in our reactions to medicines; and which combinations of medicines are the most dangerous.

The people who are promoting secrecy are interfering with our understanding of ourselves, and our health. They must be regarded as savages in a human world. They are dirt in the transmission.

We have nothing to fear by putting "personal and private" information about ourselves into a database, and by having surveillance cameras scattered around the city. Rather, we have a tremendous amount to gain from it. We must stop being intimidated by the people who whine about needing secrecy, and we must avoid being deceived by the people who give us idiotic reasons for secrecy.

Many women claim to be innocent victims of abusive boyfriends and husbands, and many men claim that they are single or divorced because women are cruel or disgusting. However, if we had detailed surveillance video and data about everybody's lives, we would discover that everybody is at least partly responsible for the problems they have with their friendships and marriages.

We can do this to a certain extent with some of the people who appear on reality television programs. By analyzing their interactions with other people, we can show them that a lot of their problems are the result of their behavior.

For example, in the Hoarders television series, many of the hoarders get into arguments with their family members, and they accuse their family members of not treating them properly, or some other type of abuse, but the video provides evidence that the actual reason that they get into arguments is because they have irritating personalities and behavior.

If we had surveillance video of everybody, then the people who complain about their spouse, friend, family member, or coworker could analyze video of themselves interacting with that person, and determine whether they are truly being abused, or whether they have an irritating personality. However, most people would refuse to look at that video, or they would refuse to look critically at themselves and look for ways to blame the other people for their troubles.

The athletes who become successful are one of the few groups of people who truly want to look critically at themselves and their behavior. They want their coach to record their performance on video, and then point out where they made mistakes, or how their performance can be improved. Almost everybody else would put up a fight if somebody recorded them on video and then played that video to them to point out why people are irritated with them.

No culture encourages people to record video of a friend or family member, and use that video to help the person understand why he is having troubles in life. Every culture is encouraging people to be "polite", but every culture is defining polite as providing praise and compliments, even if they are false, and avoiding critical remarks.

We would create a more pleasant society if our culture regarded politeness to be helping people to improve themselves, such as pointing out to a friends that his zipper is open, or that he has food on his chin or mucus on his nose. We should also consider a person to be polite when they help us improve our interactions with our spouse, friends, and coworkers.

Unfortunately, the only people who will regard constructive criticism as "politeness" are the people who are capable of looking critically at themselves, and who have a desire to improve themselves. They seem to be a small minority of the population. Although a lot of people insist that they want to know the truth, most of them have tantrums or pout when the truth is something they dislike.

If we had surveillance video of everybody, an analysis of the video would show us that the people who are having trouble in life are suffering because of their particular mental and physical characteristics, not because other people are cruel, racist, anti-Semitic, or sexist. An example are the people who react to constructive criticism by pouting or having tantrums, rather than learning from it.

To make this issue more complex, some of the problems we cause ourselves are not due to "bad" characteristics. Rather, they are due to characteristics that are no longer appropriate in our modern era. An obvious example is that we have a tendency to eat excessively, but that is not because we are "bad". It is because our craving for food and sugar evolved for a prehistoric era.

For another example of emotions that are no longer appropriate, women have a natural desire to be pleasant, which results in them frequently giving people compliments and praise, especially their children. If we had surveillance video of our prehistoric ancestors, we would notice that this characteristic caused the prehistoric women to make people feel good and develop confidence, as mentioned here. Those women helped to maintain high morale and good attitudes.

However, as society became increasingly complex, that type of deception became increasingly detrimental. For example, when a modern woman tells her friend that she loves her new hairstyle, but which she and her other friends dislike, then she encourages her friend to wear a hairstyle that she and her friends dislike, and if her friend learns the truth, it can create a problem with their friendship.

Likewise, when a woman lies to her husband that she enjoys the way touches her or has sex with her, she will encourage him to continue that irritating behavior, and if her husband learns the truth, that can create problems for their marriage.

Women have a strong desire to deceive people, but not because women have "bad" characteristics. Rather, they inherited characteristics that are inappropriate today.

Likewise, men have strong cravings for status and sex, but not because we are "bad" people.

We are in an environment that is unnatural to us, and this requires us to understand our behavioral characteristics and use our intelligence to make better decisions of how to behave. However, we cannot understand human behavior when we allow people to be secretive and deceptive.

This constitution advocates installing as many security cameras as we can tolerate. The more surveillance we do on ourselves, the more data we will have to understand ourselves.

The surveillance video will also make it easier for us to resolve our conflicts, and help us to understand why some people are having trouble in life, and what they can do to improve their situation. It will also help us determine who should reproduce.

Every culture is putting so much emphasis on the winning of sports contests that thousands of athletes around the world want to use video to record their performance, and then analyze it to see how they can improve their performance.

There are businesses dedicated to providing athletes and coaches with video analysis services, equipment, and software. For example, the Onform company claims that there are more than half a million coaches and athletes using their services, and in more than 150 nations, and that company was founded only four years ago in 2020. And that is only one of many companies providing that type of service.

Onform is only one of many companies that provide athletes with assistance in analyzing their performance.

The athletes that are successful want people to analyze their performance and show them how they can improve themselves.

The athletes do not react to constructive criticism by pouting or having temper tantrums.

Instead, they appreciate constructive criticism. They regard a coach as incompetent and worthless if the only thing he can do is give them praise.

By comparison, the majority of people react to criticism with anger, insults, hatred, sarcasm, or by ignoring it. They treat criticism as if it were an attack by an enemy. They have no desire to improve their behavior. They want us to give them praise and awards, not constructive criticism.

There is no company that offers the service of recording a person's life in order to help him become a better person. There is no company that offers to put cameras inside a person's home, automobile, or office, or to attach cameras to our clothing, so that they can collect video of how we interact with other people, how we spend money, how we shop for food, and how we treats our coworkers and family members. Nobody asking for an analysis of his life or his personality.

There are some people who have such an intolerance of criticism that they try to get revenge on people who criticize them. This is most noticeable with gang members and communist dictators. They often try to kill people who criticize them.

The Schools Ministry, and especially the Teentown Ministry, are required to change that attitude by giving the children exercises in analyzing themselves and one another so that they become accustomed to giving and receiving constructive criticism, and looking for ways to improve themselves. The children must be taught to figure out what their talents and limitations are, and learn to accept what they are rather than pretend they are something they want to be.

The schools are required to teach children that the highest quality people are those who learn about life and themselves as they grow older, and who improve themselves and their relationships. The people who never learn anything or improve themselves are like animals that merely exist from one day to the next.

The people who want secrecy and praise, or who whine about being criticized or judged, are dirt in a transmission because they interfere with our understanding of ourselves and other people.

Furthermore, it is important that we analyze everybody, and not give anybody secrecy. If we analyze only a group of volunteers, or a small section of the population, we can come to inaccurate conclusions.

For example, if scientists study the school performance of children who come from poor families and are hungry all the time, the scientists could come to the conclusion that breakfast is the most important meal because they will notice that giving the children some food in the morning helps them to relax and concentrate on their schoolwork.

However, if the scientists were to study the typical American children, they would discover that that most of them are eating excessively, and that they benefit by having a smaller breakfast, or skipping breakfast and eating only lunch and dinner.

The only way we can understand ourselves is to understand what is different and similar between us and other people, and between us and monkeys, dogs, and other animals. We need to study all humans and other animals in order to truly understand ourselves.

We are not cruel to analyze people, apes, or dogs, and pass judgment on their mental or physical characteristics. We are not cruel to tell a person our opinions about him, either. Most people's opinions are "ordinary" rather than "intelligent", but none of us will be harmed by listening to somebody's opinion, even if it is an idiotic opinion.

To complicate this issue, some of the complaints that people make about us are actually the result of problems that they have. This occurs frequently with children. For example, a child might criticize his parents for being cruel for not giving him a toy that he wants, but his parents are not cruel. Rather, by denying him what he wants, he experienced some emotional discomfort, and since he doesn't think very well or have much of an education, he misinterprets that unpleasant emotional feeling as cruelty by his parents.

In that situation, the child is giving his parents a worthless analysis of their behavior, but the parents will not be harmed by listening to his idiotic criticism, unless the parents choose to let themselves be hurt by his remarks.

It can be useful to hear another person's opinion about us, even the opinion of a child or an idiot, because it can help us to understand how they think, and how they interpret us. Even though we might not learn anything about ourselves by listening to their analysis, we might learn something about their mind, which can be useful if we have to interact with them occasionally.

For example, the manager of a factory would benefit by getting a better understanding of how his employees think. Their analysis of him, and their analysis of other issues, might be stupid, but it can help him to understand their particular emotional and intellectual characteristics, which can help him make better decisions about how to manage the team.

For another example, parents, teachers, and other adults can benefit by listening to a child's opinions because that can help the adults to understand what the child needs in regards to advice and education, and whether the child is suffering from some emotional, medical, or intellectual disorder.

By putting surveillance cameras around the city, and by using tracking and facial recognition software, we will be able to perform analyses of ourselves and one another, which will help all of us to get a better understanding of humans and the problems we experience.

It would be embarrassing for us to have somebody show us a video in which we are making stupid remarks or decisions, or getting into idiotic arguments with our spouse, coworkers, or friends, but it would be beneficial to all of us, just like the video analyses of athletes is beneficial to them.

We want engineers to improve their products; architects to improve their structures; and scientists to provide us with an improved understanding of the universe. We should also want the people we live with to improve their behavior and decisions.

We live for only a few decades, so we should stop fearing embarrassment. Our lives are so short that we should not waste any of it on worthless activities, such as being embarrassed of our animal characteristics. We should try to maximize our satisfaction from life. We should learn to enjoy analyzing video of ourselves, and using the analyses to understand ourselves and other people, and improve our relationships and lives.

In the Hoarders television series, each hoarder is provided with a large group of people to clean his home, and they often provide the hoarder with a new refrigerator, stove, furniture, and counseling services.

If society benefitted by helping the hoarders, then it would be justifiable to put that much labor and resources into helping them clean their home, but the Hoarders do not give anything in return for the help. Many of them resume hoarding after the cleaning crew is gone.

When we provide healthy, respectable children with an education, we benefit from their skills when they become adults. We also benefit by helping healthy, respectable adults become more educated, or get a more useful job, or find a spouse. However, when we clean the house of a hoarder and provide him with new furniture, we are giving pity and handouts to a person with significant mental problems, and we get nothing in return. We cannot solve problems with pity and handouts.

Giving handouts to an adult who cannot take care of himself is as detrimental as a farmer putting his labor and resources into helping the retarded, sickly, and elderly animals. Farmers realize that they must put their labor and resources into taking care of the healthy animals, and euthanizing the retarded, elderly, and sickly animals.

By comparison, the television series Hoarders, Buried Alive, doesn't clean the person's house or give them any furniture. It only provides them with some assistance and advice in cleaning their house, and some of those people end up learning to become somewhat capable of keeping their house clean.

America has a lot of organizations that give pity and handouts to homeless people, alcoholics, retards, criminals, hoarders, and lunatics, but none of those organizations are doing anything to reduce those problems. The only hoarders, alcoholics, and other people who have improved their behavior were the few who had the desire and ability to improve.

We cannot improve our world with pity or handouts, but that is a common policy in every culture. The USA even gives pity and handouts to entire nations, such as giving them handouts of food, technology, and military weapons, and giving them handouts when they suffer from floods or earthquakes. However, instead of improving those nations or the world, the handouts make the problems worse by allowing the hungry people to raise more children, thereby creating more hungry people, and by providing technology and weapons to cultures that cannot handle it.

The only way to improve our world is to experiment with our culture, such as improving our educational and economic system, and restrict reproduction to the people who are better able to take care of themselves and fit into this modern world.

The problem of student debt is an example of how we can reduce problems by changing our culture. There are millions of people who have significant debt from when they were students in college, and they are putting pressure on the government to eliminate that debt. The Biden administration has agreed to eliminate some student debt, but that is a handout to certain students, not a solution to the problem of student debt. A more sensible reaction is to understand why so many students have significant debt, and then experiment with our culture to reduce that problem.

An investigation would show us that one reason that so many students end up with a tremendous debt is because the colleges are providing worthless educations at high expenses. Therefore, we can reduce the debt problem by experimenting with the school curriculum to make it more useful, and experimenting to make it less expensive.

An investigation of student debt would also show us that some of the people who are getting into debt are making foolish decisions about how to spend their money. Those particular students are showing evidence of ignorance and/or an inferior mind.

We can significantly reduce the problem of student debt by changing our culture. For example, by eliminating money and providing everybody with free homes, education, food, and material items, nobody can get into debt. That type of culture will also eliminate all of the other problems associated with money, such as carrying wallets, and having to deal with friends and relatives who want to borrow money from us.

Eliminating money will not solve every problem, however, because it will continue to be possible for people to make idiotic decisions. For example, it will be even easier for people to become hoarders when they have free access to all material items; it will be easier for people to become overweight when they have access to free food; and it will be possible for people to abuse a lot of material items when they have free access to them.

No matter what type of culture we have, there will be misfits who cannot make sensible decisions. Therefore, every culture must acknowledge the unpleasant fact that the creation of life is an extremely complex process; that most people are average or below-average in their genetic characteristics; and a small percentage will be misfits.

Every culture must follow the practices that have been successful for farmers. Specifically, we must take care of the healthy people. The only sensible way of dealing with misfits is to evict those that are destructive, put the other on restrictions, and impose restrictions on reproduction to keep the number of misfits to as low a level as possible.

No matter what our culture is, the misfits will suffer. However, there is no benefit to making everybody suffer. The misfits might regard us as being cruel and selfish for putting our time and resources into providing ourselves with a wonderful life while they suffer, but we are not responsible for their suffering. They suffer because all living creatures are haphazard jumbles of genetic characteristics, and there will always be defects and detrimental combinations of genes.

Prehistoric men and women would have had wonderful relationships because they evolved for that environment. Today the relationships between men and women are so miserable that many people are afraid to get married, including people in leadership positions.

Some people are so lonely that they are forming friendships with animals, material items, fictional characters in television programs or books, or computer generated people. However, providing lonely people with a substitute for a friend or spouse is not solving the problem. It is as idiotic as giving a homeless person a toy house so that he can imagine himself living in it.

The lonely people also degrade our social environment by having abnormal relationships. For example, their dogs contaminate our cities with poop, noise, fleas, and pee, and some of their dogs bite or kill people.

They also have a bad effect on our economy because they provide financial support to the businesses that provide those substitutes, and the people who are bitten by dogs add a burden to our healthcare services. It would be better if they were supporting businesses that provided something useful for us.

We would have a much more pleasant, clean, safe, and quiet environment, and more useful businesses, if we lived among people who could form friendships with people.

Even worse are the lonely people who become angry, such as Elliot Rodger, who threw coffee on a couple he was envious of. People are also troublesome when they develop the "sour grapes attitude" and complain that people are awful, or that the opposite sex is disgusting, or that they don't want friends or a spouse. We would have a more pleasant social environment if everybody had a pleasant attitude, and there were no bitter, angry, or envious people.

In a free enterprise system and a democracy, the businesses and government officials pander to the lonely people by providing them with pet dogs, sex robots, and dating services, but it would be more sensible to experiment with our culture to improve relationships. This requires that we eliminate secrecy so that we can observe men and women, and it requires increasing the restrictions on our freedom so that the government can experiment with culture.

Some people believe that men and women will have a more successful marriage if they live together first. We provide people with so much secrecy that we cannot be certain if that is true, but some studies suggest that the people who lived together before they get married are less likely to have a successful marriage. This has been referred to as the "cohabitation effect".

Why would a man and woman have a wonderful relationship while they are dating, or while they are living together, but not when they are married? If we could collect data about everybody's life, we would undoubtedly discover that one reason is modern men and women are no longer under pressure to treat their spouse in a sensible manner.

Women evolved for an environment in which they were taken care of by their father, and then their husband. Prehistoric women were terrified at the thought that their father or husband would not come home from hunting. They were grateful when he came home. They appreciated the men. They were under pressure to attract a husband, and be nice to him.

Likewise, the prehistoric men were under pressure to treat their wife and children with respect. If a man treated his children as sex toys, or if he was abusive to his wife, everybody would have noticed. The prehistoric people didn't have any laws or police to stop them from attacking abusive men. Prehistoric women could also abandon a husband and get involved with another man without being hindered by laws regarding divorce or marriage.

Today, however, there is no pressure on us to treat our spouse or children with respect. We also have the secrecy to abuse our family members without anybody noticing.

If we could observe single people before and after they get married, we would discover that while we are single, we are under pressure to treat our partner with respect, but once we get married, the pressure is gone, and we are free to behave as we truly want to behave.

When we are single and dating, or when we are living together, we are in a "probationary period". We are being observed and judged. We are analogous to an employee who was just hired and is on probation.

When we get married, the probation period is over, so we are free to behave in whatever manner we please. At one extreme, the people who are the most honest will not change much after their probationary period, but at the other extreme are the people who changed significantly.

Surveillance of the population would help us determine whether men or women are the most likely to change their behavior after marriage, and which aspects of our behavior is most likely to change.

That knowledge can help us understand human behavior, and improve our relationships. It will also help the Courtship Ministry design activities to counteract our deceptive behavior; help the Schools Ministry improve the curriculum about relationships and marriage; and help the Reproduction Ministry determine who should be prohibited from reproducing.

One reason that couples get divorced is because they disagree on how to spend their money. Prehistoric people never argued about that because they didn't have any money, and they could only collect as much stuff as they could carry during their nomadic travels.

Humans did not evolve for an environment in which there is money, credit cards, online shopping, gambling, investments, and phenomenal amounts of food and material items. Modern humans must have a much better understanding of our emotional cravings, and have enough self-control to make intelligent decisions about what to do.

We also need to understand the differences between men and women so that we can design work environments and recreational activities that are more appropriate for us, and so that married couples can make better decisions on how to treat their spouse.

The Hoarders TV series is profit-making entertainment, not a scientific study of hoarding, so we must be cautious about making conclusions about human behavior from that television series. However, it makes it appear as if men are more likely to collect tools, broken items that they plan to fix, and mechanical devices, and women are more likely to collect items for children, items for their home, and clothing for themselves. Women also collect a lot of things that they describe as "sentimental".

Some of the episodes show that both the husband and wife appear to be equally involved with hoarding, but as the cleaning crew removes items from their home, the women put up much more resistance than the men.

In one episode, a man's wife was threatening to leave him if he did not stop his hoarding, but as the cleaning crew began to remove items from their home, it became obvious that the hoarding was the result of the woman, and her husband was so submissive that he was allowing the hoarding, and he was allowing her to blame him for the hoarding.

We cannot assume that the television series is showing a random sample of the hoarders, but it creates the impression that women have a stronger desire to collect items, more trouble controlling their spending of money, and more trouble controlling their craving to hoard items.

The women also seem to be more likely to blame their hoarding on other people or events, such as the death of a family member, a divorce, or their husband, rather than acknowledge that they caused the mess. When the women are able to admit that they are the source of the mess, they tend to do so with a "feel sorry for me" tone of voice and attitude.

It is possible that women are more likely to become a hoarder because they evolved to be pampered by men. Men want to go out into the world to find and create things, and we want to bring things back to our family. Women, by comparison, want to "remain home" and receive gifts from men.

Women assume the gifts from men will continue forever, so they don't plan for the future. When they are children, they assume their parents will take care of them, and when they choose a husband, they assume their husband will take care of them.

Men want to become wealthy mainly so that we can provide a home, food, and other items to our wife and children, not because we want the items for ourselves. Although there are some men who have a strong desire to gather material items for themselves, the "normal" men want to be givers of things, and women want to be receivers.

After the women have been given things by men, they give a lot of it to their children. The women then become the givers and the children become the receivers.

Women evolved to be submissive to men, and taken care of by men. They want to be pampered and loved, not alone. When a woman's husband dies and she has no one to take care of her, she can become unhappy and frightened. That misery can cause a woman who doesn't think very well, or who has mental disorders, to do inappropriate things to make herself feel better, such as shopping, becoming a mother for pet dogs, eating excessively, using alcohol or other drugs, or trying to look pretty with jewelry, clothing, and cosmetics. As a result of those inappropriate reactions to being alone, those women can become hoarders, obese, or in debt.

A similar situation can occur when a woman with mental problems has a mentally ill or submissive husband. Instead of getting guidance from her husband, she is like a child who has submissive or mentally incompetent parents. Those women and children have to become their own leaders and make intelligent decisions, but if they cannot do so, they hurt themselves.

We need leadership, not freedom

Giving a woman or child the freedom to make their own decisions is useful only if they can make better decisions than their husband or parents. Otherwise they benefit by having a husband or parents to be their leader, and provide them with guidance.

That concept also applies to men. Specifically, giving a man the freedom to make his own decisions is useful only if the government is so incompetent or dishonest that the ordinary man can make better decisions than the government officials.

All of the existing governments are so incompetent and dishonest that ordinary men can make better decisions about life, but we would all have a better life, and the world would be more beautiful and peaceful, if we could provide ourselves with leaders who can provide us with guidance.

The human mind evolved for a prehistoric era, so all of us need help in dealing with the complexities of our new world. All of us have more freedom than we can handle. All of us occasionally hurt ourselves or other people as a result of making a stupid decision about what to do. For example:

•		Giving us the freedom to own material items is causing most people to get into idiotic competitions to have the most items; get into debt; and clutter their homes and garages with items that they don't need.
•		Giving us the freedom to eat whatever we want, whenever we please, and in whatever quantities we please, is resulting in many people becoming overweight or sickly.
•		Giving us the freedom to find a spouse in whatever manner we please and whenever we please is allowing us to irritate one another at our jobs and social affairs; deceive one another about our history and behavior; and get into miserable relationships.

Most men realize that children need more leadership than adults, but most men are afraid to consider or admit that women need more leadership than men. Men want to appease women, not upset them.

It was acceptable for prehistoric men to pander to the women because the women wanted sensible things, such as food, tools, and protection from wolves. Also, it was impossible for a woman to hurt her family by getting into debt, becoming obese, or becoming a hoarder.

Today, however, men need to be able to differentiate between when they are providing their wife with leadership, and when they are pandering to her irrational desires.

Likewise, parents need to differentiate between when they are taking care of their children, and when they allowing their children to develop bad attitudes and get involved with worthless or destructive activities.

Parents are not providing leadership when they provide their children with excessive amounts of food, or when they "protect" them from work, disappointments, failures, and criticism.

Our modern technology makes it very easy for parents to provide a child with what he needs to survive, but modern parents need to do more than feed their children. They need to prepare children for a complex, technically advanced world.

Both men and women are guilty of extramarital affairs

Surveillance of the population would also help us to understand how many married couples have extramarital affairs, and how many affairs they have, and why they are having the affairs. We would also notice that both men and women are involved, but that the women are more likely to avoid responsibility.

For example, Martha Stewart advised women to divorce a man who has an extramarital affair. She said that a man who has an affair is "a piece of shit". She admitted to having an extramarital affair, but she did not criticize herself or other women who have had affairs as "a piece of shit".

My mother's sister married a man who women considered extremely good-looking. (Albert Hood, on page 129 in the Ladies Home Journal, described farther down). He had a lot of affairs while they were married, and I have heard my mother and her sisters describe him as "evil" as a result. However, I never heard them criticize the women who were involved with the affairs.

If a man is an evil piece of shit for having an affair, then the women who are involved with affairs are also evil pieces of shit.

Likewise, many women insult older men as "dirty" or "perverted" for having fantasies of having touching, kissing, or having sex with young adult women, but if those men are dirty, then a woman is dirty if she has fantasies of grabbing or kissing the babies of other women.

If we could read minds, we might discover that almost every woman occasionally has a fantasy of having an affair with a wealthy, famous, or good-looking man, which would explain why they don't want to accuse women of being evil for having affairs. We might also find that almost every woman wants to grab and kiss the babies of other women.

Some women have admitted to having desires to steal other women's babies, but they don't condemn themselves, or women, for such thoughts.

Men are just as selfish and hypocritical. We want to have sex with every woman we are attracted to, but we don't want our wife to have affairs, and we are protective of our daughters.

We cannot understand or reduce the problem of extramarital affairs when everybody is hiding or justifying their affairs and insulting other people for having them. Both men and women must acknowledge the evidence that all humans are a species of ape, and that we all have crude, animal characteristics. We must stop pretending that we are better than other people.

Women blame men for extramarital affairs, but it is impossible for a man to have an affair unless there is a woman willing to participate in it. Therefore, both men and women should take the blame equally, unless one of them deceives the other into believing that he is single.

To complicate this issue, as mentioned in some other documents, we should also consider the possibility that humans evolved to secretly have affairs as a way of producing more genetic variations in the children. If so, it is idiotic to criticize ourselves for a desire that is built into our brain.

Hatred and insults will degrade our social environment and our lives, rather than improve our marriages. We need to eliminate secrecy so that we can study ourselves, and we need to experiment with our culture to encourage more appropriate behavior and suppress the undesirable behavior.

Our minds need to evolve for our new era

Our emotions evolved to make us do things. For example, our desire for sex is intended to trick us into reproducing; our attraction to children is to trick us into taking care of them; hunger is intended to make us eat; and thirst is intended to make us drink water.

However, our emotions evolved for a primitive environment, and they are inappropriate today. We need to study ourselves and figure out which emotions we should suppress, which should be encouraged, and which should be bred out of us.

Both men and women also need to become more intelligent, more willing to think, more willing to learn, and more willing to look critically at themselves and favorably at other people. We also need to be able to enjoy other people rather than regard them as potential enemies.

Elon Musk promotes GLP-1 inhibitors to help people lose weight, whereas Robert Kennedy believes:

Neither of those men have solutions to the problem of diabetes or obesity. Elon Musk is correct that those drugs can help people lose weight, but that is not a solution to the problem of excessive weight. The only solution is to restrict reproduction to the people who don't need those drugs.

Kennedy is also correct that if we provided appropriate meals for everybody, we would significantly reduce the problems of obesity and diabetes. However, it is impossible in a free enterprise system and a democracy to provide people with appropriate meals because every person has the freedom to choose his meals; the businesses are in competition to pander to the consumers rather than provide them with guidance; and the government officials are competing to appease their particular supporters, rather than provide guidance.

The only way we can ensure that everybody is eating appropriate meals is to treat them like prisoners who are forced to eat the meals that the government gives them. However, that would be an unpleasant social environment. We don't want to be prisoners, or prison guards.

This constitution advocates eliminating the freedom of citizens to purchase food and make their own meals, and require them to get meals at restaurants that follow the guidelines of government officials who are zoologists with above-average intelligence and self-control.

However, by giving everybody free access to all of the restaurants, it will be possible for people to become overweight, sickly, and anorexic.

The only good solution to the problem of people who are overweight or poorly nourished is to restrict reproduction to the people who are capable of making sensible decisions about their meals. That will eventually eliminate the problem of people who are struggling to lose weight, who are anorexic, and who need weight-loss drugs.

By restricting reproduction to the people who can control their eating habits, the people in the future will be able to relax at restaurants and enjoy their meals without any concern about becoming overweight or sickly.

The human race must evolve for our new era. We cannot solve our problems with drugs, pity, handouts, punishments, or rehabilitation programs. We must pass judgment on who has the characteristics we want for the future generations, and restrict reproduction to those people.

The ideal situation is for people who are so healthy and well adapted to this modern world that they don't need any weight-loss drugs, insulin injections, thyroid medications, aspirin, or allergy medications.

Everybody should also be able to relax around material items without struggling to suppress their craving to steal or vandalize the items. Every man should be able to relax around women and children, including naked women and children, without struggling to control his craving to grab at or have sex with them.

Every person should be able to learn from constructive criticism, rather than struggle to control his pouting, temper tantrums, hatred, and violence. Everybody should be able to get to sleep without drugs, and get up in the morning without suffering, and without any need for caffeine, nicotine, or other stimulants. Everybody should be able to look in the mirror and enjoy what they see rather than hate themselves and wish for cosmetic surgery.

The only way we can create that ideal world is to eliminate secrecy, observe everybody, and pass judgment on who has the appropriate genetic characteristics for the next generation.

One of the most obvious reasons for eliminating secrecy and collecting surveillance video and other information about us is to enable us to solve crimes.

Every nation has more crime than businesses, orchestras, militaries, and other organizations. In order to improve this situation, a nation must operate more similar to a business or military.

This Constitution requires every city to maintain a People database that has a list of every citizen in the city, and to install a surveillance system that has facial recognition abilities. That allows the Security Ministry to know the approximate location of every person in the city at all times.

That makes it impossible for a person to be in the city illegally, and if somebody was murdered, raped, or kidnapped, the surveillance data would show approximately where the crime occurred, and who was in that area at the time. Nobody would be able to fake their death, either, or move to another neighborhood with a different name.

Adults who cannot handle reality are misfits

In June 2023, an Australian professor at Swinburne University published the results of her analysis of some Australians who had their DNA analyzed. She claims that nearly 67% of the people were "distressed" by the results. The most common reason for the distress was discovering that they were related to somebody who was badly behaved, and the second most common reason was discovering they were related to somebody who had been treated cruelly.

The author wondered if the businesses that provide DNA analyses should provide a warning that we might discover some unpleasant information about our ancestors. However, this constitution regards such a warning as being as idiotic as requiring biology books to have a warning that we might become upset by the evidence that humans evolved from animals.

Although we have different ideas about what classifies as "bad behavior" and "cruel treatment", if we had complete video surveillance of all humans during the past few million years, we would discover that all of us have some ancestors who "behaved badly" or were "treated cruelly".

The people who cannot handle that knowledge should be regarded as mentally incompetent. They are as troublesome as the people who cannot handle the truth about the pedophile networks, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, and the Apollo moon landing.

Years ago I mentioned that most people would be horrified if they could read other people's minds because most people have such a difficult time dealing with criticism that they would be unable to handle all of the critical thoughts that people had about them, and women would be horrified by the sexual thoughts that pass through a man's mind.

Being able to read minds would provide us with the truth about what people really think, but how many people can handle the truth? Every culture is encouraging us to hide the truth in order to avoid upsetting people, but this constitution has a different attitude. We should regard people who cannot handle the truth as having an inferior mind.

If our government had been maintaining a publicly accessible DNA database, we would be able to learn the truth about our ancestors, and that of other people. We would be able to discover if Michelle Obama is a man or woman. We would also discover that there has been a lot of adultery in a lot of families. The people who cannot handle that type of knowledge should be described as having an unacceptably crude mind for our modern era.

Most of the Europeans who emigrated to Australia, the USA, and Canada, were the losers who were looking for an easier way to make a living, or trying to get away from ridicule and rejection, or trying to escape from the police. England also evicted some of their criminals. Therefore, most of the Americans, Canadians, and Australians have a lot of embarrassing ancestors.

If we could look farther back into our ancestry, we would discover that we are related to some crudely behaved animals. The people who cannot handle the evidence that we have animal ancestors should be regarded as inferior people. We should not pander to them, or alter our culture to fit their mental problems. Every adult should be able to acknowledge evolution, and notice that humans look and behave like apes.

We must expect irrational behavior from animals

We cannot expect perfect behavior from an ape, so we must expect all of us to routinely be influenced by the crude cravings and fears that we inherited from our ape ancestors.

If we had complete video surveillance of the human race during the past few million years, we would find that everybody has routinely made idiotic, selfish, embarrassing, or appalling decisions as a result of our desire to titillate some emotional craving, such as our craving to be respected by our peer group, or to stop the titillation of an unpleasant emotion, such as our fear of the unknown. We would also notice that the younger a person is, the more he is influenced by his emotions.

It is absurd for a person to be "distressed" to discover that his ancestors occasionally behaved in a crude manner because all of us occasionally behave in crude manners, and our ancestors were more ignorant than us. Therefore, we should expect our ancestors to have behaved more like an animal than we do today.

Our ancestors a few thousand years ago were living in nomadic tribes, like apes, and it is impossible for our brains to have evolved to fit our modern, technically advanced societies in such a short amount of time, especially considering that there has never been any attempt to breed humans.

The human mind has not yet evolved for the world as of 2025. Most people's minds are designed for a nomadic tribe.

If we had the ability to analyze our DNA and determine everybody's level of evolution, we would discover that most people today have a brain that is still genetically similar to our ancestors in perhaps 5000 BC, and that a minority of the population have a brain that is more similar to the people of 15,000 BC, and that nobody can has a brain that has adapted to the technically advanced societies of 2025.

Likewise, the human body has not yet completely evolved for our era, such as sitting in chairs for hours at an office, dealing with artificial lights late at night, and dealing with our modern foods, such as grains, nuts, and sugar.

We might have to restrict reproduction for hundreds of generations before we can truly describe human behavior as "intelligent", and before our body can handle our modern lifestyle and foods.

The people who cannot handle the evidence that they, their ancestors, and everybody else has a mind and body that is similar to that of an ape are people who cannot handle reality. They are people who want to withdraw into a fantasy world.

I am capable of noticing and acknowledging the animal-like characteristics in myself and my ancestors. For example, my uncle looked into the issue of why his grandfather, emigrated from Italy to the USA, and his conclusion was that it was because he got his girlfriend pregnant before they were married, which was considered terrible in that era.

He emigrated to get away from the ridicule and criticism, and after he got established in the USA, he brought his girlfriend over. However, I am not interested in hiding from that embarrassing behavior, or pretending that it is inaccurate. I can accept that my great grandfather did something embarrassing.

In addition to all of the useful applications of surveillance video, it can also be a form of entertainment. For example, when we arrange a party for somebody, we could take videos segments of his life to show at the party, and when we become elderly, we will occasionally enjoy watching some of the video of ourselves when we were younger, and the video of our friends or family members.

The people in the distant future will also enjoy watching some of the video of us, just as we would enjoy watching some of the video of our distant ancestors, if we had such video.

An article published in June 1952 by the Ladies Home Journal provides another example of why we should regard the People database and surveillance video as both valuable and entertaining. The article is a description of life in my mother's family at that time, and it has some of their history.

The article was written by journalists who got their information about the family by observing them for a short period of time, and by interviewing them.

The article was intended to appeal to the women who read the Ladies Home Journal, rather than to provide scientists with accurate data about the lives of a human family. Therefore, the journalists would have ignored the information that they thought would be unappealing, which gives a distorted view of the family. Also, my relatives certainly biased the information that they provided to the journalists in order to make themselves look better and avoid embarrassment.

The photographers were also biasing the photos because their goal was to create photos that appealed to the typical woman, rather than a group of scientists. For example, they took quite a few photos, but published only those that they thought were the most attractive. They gave some of the other photos to my grandparents, which is why I know they did not use them all.

If, instead of that paper magazine article, we had unedited surveillance video of the family, we would have a more accurate and detailed understanding of how they lived and behaved.

The article shows how a working class family dealt with life.

The article was written to show women how my grandparents, with six children, were surviving on what I assume was a typical "working class" income in 1952 in the small town of Ramsey, New Jersey.

The article has photos and descriptions of their life, how they spent their money, but it doesn't provide information about the finances or life of other American families. Therefore, I have no idea if my grandparents would be considered a "typical" American, working class family in regards to their income, meals, spending habits, clothing, recreational activities, and other aspects of their life. This is an example of why we need to gather information about everybody.

There are four separate articles, each written by a different journalist:

Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141	This is the main article. It is a description of the family and their financial situation. My grandmother's name is Lorene, and she named one of her daughters Lorene.
Page 132 Page 138	This article is about my mother (Joanell) and her sister trying to lose weight, with some advice about curling hair. (Lorene controlled her weight throughout her life, but my mother gained weight.)
Page 134 Page 135	This article shows some clothing items, with my mother and her sister as models. The photographer gave my grandparents the unused photos, but the colors have become distorted. Two of those photos are: Lorene, and Lorene and Joanell
Page 136 Page 137 Page 155	This article has some of the food recipes my grandmother used at that time.

The main article mentions that my grandparents traveled to California during the depression to find a job, but it doesn't provide any details. My mother says the trip reminds her of the Grapes Of Wrath story, except without the criminal activities. She also says that the dust was truly miserable when they were traveling through the dust bowl area.

If there had been surveillance video of everybody at that time, we would be able to create some interesting documentaries about life in that era, such as how people traveled around to find jobs during the 1930s, and how they dealt with the dust in the Midwest. The video would also help us understand that the dust was partly, or primarily, caused by the ignorance and irresponsible behavior of humans, not "bad luck" or "bad weather".

If my grandparents had been living in a city with surveillance cameras everywhere, including inside their home, we would be able to watch them as if we were living with them. We would then learn a lot more about their lives compared to that magazine article.

Surveillance video provides us with details that people are too embarrassed or ashamed to talk about, or that they ignore because they assume it is unimportant or boring.

The surveillance video would be useful for comparing people to figure out why some people enjoy life and others suffer.

For example, the article shows the expenses of my grandparents' family, and although their income was low, they were supporting six children, living in a house, and had enough food for my mother and her sister to become overweight. They also had a telephone, which only about 62% of families had, and a refrigerator, which only 80% of American families had.

If we had surveillance video of all other Americans, we would be able to compare my grandparents' family to other families, and we would discover that there were some families with the same or higher incomes, but who were suffering financially.

Comparing the families would make it easy for us to realize that the people who suffer financial problems are not suffering from "poverty", low incomes, debt, bad luck, the devil, discrimination, or sexism. Rather, their suffering is the result of their mind's decisions, such as how to spend money, how to treat other people, and how to spend their leisure time. For example, surveillance video would show us that:

•		Some families waste electricity by opening the refrigerator to get one item, and then a few minutes later opening it again to get another item, and so on, rather than getting all of the items at one time.
•		Some people go to the market to get some food, and then an hour or so later they travel to the market again to get another item, rather than planning their trips so that they don't waste so much time and money on traveling.
•		Some people waste heat when they cook items because they believe that water needs to be boiling to an extreme in order to cook vegetables or potatoes.
•		Some people waste soap when they clean dishes and themselves because they assume they need a tremendous amount of soap suds in order for the soap to function properly.

Those type of observations would enable the school officials to alter the curriculum to provide children with information on how to deal with our modern world.

Prehistoric parents did not need to teach their children much of anything, but modern children need to be taught how to deal with a technically complex world. However, we cannot expect parents to provide an appropriate education. Our schools must prepare children for our modern world, and surveillance video will help the school officials figure out what type of curriculum is most useful.

Although improving our school curriculum will help children deal with the modern world, there will always be a small percentage of the population that is below-average in dealing with the world because our decisions are only partly due to our education.

Our decisions are the result of processing the information that we picked up during our life, and our genetic characteristics determine how we process information. Most of us have been exposed to almost the same information, so the reason we have such different thoughts is primarily because of the differences in our genetic characteristics and defects.

For example, almost everybody is exposed to the same information about evolution and religion, but some people dismiss the evolutionary information, whereas other people dismiss the religious information. This causes people to have significantly different opinions about life even if they were raised in the exact same environment and exposed to the exact same information.

Likewise, most of us were exposed to the same information about gambling, shopping, alcohol, and other issues. Some of us processed that information into sensible decisions, whereas other people repeatedly make terrible decisions about how to spend their money, who to become friends with, whether they should by state lottery tickets, and how much alcohol they should drink.

If we had surveillance video of everybody, we would discover that the people who have problems have repeatedly made bad decisions. Their suffering is not due to a lack of money, discrimination, or bad luck, or something environmental.

Surveillance video would show us that everybody occasionally has "bad luck", but some of us deal with it in a sensible manner.

For example, my grandparents were victims of bad luck when burglars took everything in their house, and they also lost possession of the house, but they found a way to deal with it, and soon saved enough money to purchase another house.

If we had video surveillance of the entire human population during the past few thousand years, we would notice that a lot of people were victims of bad luck. Comparing how those people reacted to their problems would help us understand why some people can overcome the bad luck, and others become victims of it.

We would discover that the people who cannot overcome their bad luck are not suffering from a shortage of money or opportunities. Rather, they suffer because they are routinely making bad decisions.

My grandfather did not make much money, but the family adjusted their spending to deal with their income. I did the same thing. Throughout most of my life, I didn't make much money, but I adjusted my spending to match my income, so I never had any financial troubles, and always had money in a savings account. I was shocked at how many people were making a lot more money than I was, but were always on the edge of financial troubles, or in debt.

Having debts is not necessarily a problem because our free enterprise system has evolved to encourage us to borrow money to purchase homes and other items, but the people who have trouble making payments on their debts are having that trouble because of their decisions about how to spend their money, not because they have a "low" income.

There are millions of people in the USA and Europe whining about the difficulty of making a living, but it is extremely easy to make enough money to survive in our modern era. This is why unskilled, uneducated, and stupid people can sneak into America illegally and make a living.

Some people would respond that "surviving" is not "enjoying" life, but a person who is surviving today is living beyond the wildest dreams of the Kings and Queens a few centuries ago.

A person in 2024 in America, Japan, Taiwan, or Europe who is "surviving" has a wider variety of better quality and better tasting foods than the people centuries ago, and he has access to them all year. He can also live in a home that has showers, toilets, sinks, kitchens, ovens, refrigerators, beds, electricity, a heating system, and windows made from sheets of clear glass. He also access to much better medical and dental technology.

Even more important, he has access to the Internet, which provides him with a phenomenal amount of information, and information is much more important to us than material wealth

A person who is "surviving" today is not suffering, unless he does not have the mental or physical qualities necessary to enjoy our modern era. For example, if he uses the Internet only for entertainment and shopping, then he will not benefit from it, and if he uses grocery stores only to buy candy bars, wine, and potato chips, then he will become sickly rather than enjoy the incredible foods of our modern era.

Unfortunately, modern societies have become dominated by people who have a mental disorder similar to that of obese people, but instead of eating excessively, they have uncontrollable cravings for material wealth and status. They promote the attitude that we must be extremely wealthy in order to enjoy life, and many of them are willing to commit crimes and/or abuse us in order to gather more wealth. They are a detrimental influence on our culture.

The people who suffer from constant financial troubles, as opposed to temporary financial troubles, are not suffering from a shortage of money. Rather, they are suffering from an inability to produce intelligent thoughts.

They have lots of excuses for their financial troubles, but their problems are self-inflicted. Some of the self-inflicted financial problems that I have personally witnessed are:

•	Spending money on gambling, alcohol, jewelry, pets, Hollywood movies, and other unnecessary or harmful items.
•	Purchasing replacements for damaged clothing, furniture, bicycles, and other material items, or paying people to repair their items, because they were too incompetent or irresponsible to maintain their items properly.
•	Purchasing expensive foods that they don't need, such as soda, candy, breakfast cereal, and potato chips.
•	Purchasing meals from restaurants rather than making their own meals.

Another reason some people have so many problems with life is that they waste a significant amount of their time pouting, daydreaming, watching television, hating other people, criticizing other people, insulting other people, and being envious of other people.

While millions of Americans and Western Europeans whine about their "low" income and the difficulty of making a living, millions of people in other nations are trying to get into our nations to take the "miserable, low-paying" jobs.

One way to understand the issue is to imagine what would happen if we could build a time machine that allows us to go back in time, and which also allows people from the past to come to our era. If those machines existed, many people would enjoy going back in time to observe people at different times, and learn about our history, but not many people, if any, would want to remain in a previous era.

However, I suspect that most of the people from the past would want to move to our era and live with us, just like the migrants from Africa and Asia are doing today. I suspect that even the wealthiest people of the Middle Ages would prefer to be a poor, illiterate, unskilled welfare recipient in the USA. They would not only prefer our material wealth, they would also enjoy the knowledge that we have.

Likewise, the poor people today would prefer to remain a poor person in our era rather than be a wealthy person of the Middle Ages.

Or imagine if the Time Machine allowed us to travel into the future. In such a case, if we were to travel to different times in the future, all of us would find that there is an era that we prefer, even if we were one of the "poor people" of the future. However, I don't think anybody from the future would want to move to our era, even if they could be a billionaire in our era.

The human mind cannot accurately predict the distant future. We create assumptions of the future by modifying what we know about the present and the past, but that provides predictions that are only slightly accurate for the next few years, not the next thousand or million years.

If we could travel into the distant future, we would be amazed and shocked by their improvements with culture and technology, and we would come to the conclusion that even the most wealthy people today are living in miserable, ugly, overcrowded, filthy, and dangerous cities, and that everybody is suffering from idiotic and crude culture.

Although we cannot predict what the future culture and technology will be, we can be certain that the future generations will eventually control reproduction, thereby creating a world in which everybody is in excellent mental and physical health, good-looking, intelligent, talented, responsible, and honest. Their world would resemble some of our fantasies of heaven.

We cannot predict what future factories will look like or what they will produce, but we can be certain that they will be automated to such an extent that not many people will be needed to work in them, and their waste heat would be used for something, such as heating swimming pools, buildings, or greenhouses.

They will undoubtedly put some factories underground, and design others to be decorations for the city. The text-to-image software cannot predict future factories, but the image below might give you some ideas of what is possible.

By putting the factories underground and in tall buildings, more of the Earth's surface can return to its natural, wild condition, and there would be more land for parks and recreational areas.

Every existing culture encourages us to spend our lives fighting for material items, trophies, food, status, and sex, but that is animal behavior. If we could travel into the future, it would help us understand that we cannot improve our lives simply by gathering more material items or having more sex.

Traveling into the distant future would make it easier for us to realize that we we will create a much more pleasant life for ourselves if we can work as a team and share the wealth, and if we find the courage to experiment with better government systems, recreational activities, courtship activities, job environments, and other culture.

We don't need to be billionaires with giant yachts, or be pampered by servants. Rather, we need to become friends and team members, and we need to improve our culture.

By collecting surveillance video and other information about everybody, and putting it into the People database, we will be able to get a much better understanding of human behavior, and the differences between individual people, men and women, and different races. The remainder of this document will show how the People database will help us understand the following six issues:

Page 141 of the Ladies Home Journal shows the family's expenses, but it doesn't explain why "Louis' lunch" was $120 per year. That was a lot of money for about 250 lunches in 1952. Although prices were different in different areas of the nation, this site shows that chicken was 43 cents a pound, a loaf of bread was 12 cents, and ground beef was about 30 cents a pound. With those prices, a person could make a lunch for himself for less than 10 cents.

My grandmother told me that she wanted to make a lunch for Louis to carry to work, but he refused because he felt it was degrading to carry a lunch like a peasant. He worked at a bank, and he wanted to buy his lunch, like the successful men in the bank and other businesses. The result was that he wasted some of the family's money in an attempt to feel important.

If he had worked at factory where the other men were eating a lunch that their wives had made, he would undoubtedly do the same, but he was surrounded by men who were buying lunch.

My grandfather was suffering from low self-esteem. His father emigrated from Italy by himself, without knowing anybody in the USA, without much money, and without knowing English, but he quickly learned English, and became a successful contractor. His two brothers became very successful, also. One became a doctor, and the other started a successful vending machine business.

I suspect that my grandfather suffered from the same genetic disorder that I have, which is a problem with energy production. I suppose I inherited my low energy levels from him rather than my other three grandparents.

In the photo of him, (to the right) he is taking a nap in his backyard, and that is how I remember him.

I never saw him do anything physically strenuous. He would walk slowly, and most of the time he would sit in a chair to read a newspaper, watch TV, or take a nap.

He was frequently taking naps after dinner, and I don't think that is a coincidence. From my own personal experiences, a meal requires a lot of energy for digestion, and those of us who have trouble producing energy can feel tired after eating because our body seems to divert a lot of our energy to digestion. This can make us want to relax after eating, or take a nap.

I recommend that we investigate people who want to take a nap after eating to find out if they have an energy related problem. We should not disregard unusual behavior. There is a reason some of us behave abnormally, and the reason is because there is something different or abnormal about us. Understanding what is different can help us figure out if we can reduce the problem through hormones, drugs, or diet, and it can help us make better decisions about who should have restrictions on reproduction.

Getting back to the issue of why my grandfather wanted to buy his lunch, he suffered from low self-esteem, but instead of accepting his low level in the hierarchy, he reacted like most men; specifically, by wasting money on an attempt to make himself seem important.

In addition to purchasing his lunch, he also purchased an automobile that was more expensive than it should have been.

My grandmother was irritated by his wasting of money on lunch and automobiles, but she could not stop him from doing it. Men have such intense cravings for status that many men will hurt themselves and their family in an attempt to feel important. A man's strongest emotional craving is not for sex. It is for status.

If we had complete surveillance of the human population, we would find that there are some men who go to even more extremes than my grandfather in order to feel important, such as lying about their education and previous jobs, or cheating their relatives in order to get more money. Some teenage boys and adult men are so desperate to feel important, have so little self-control, are so selfish, and/or have so little concern for other people, that they join crime networks.

My grandfather assumed that he was impressing people by purchasing his lunch and driving an expensive automobile, but the people who knew him were not impressed. Rather, they thought he was a jerk for wasting the family's money.

The only people who might have been impressed were strangers, but even if some of them had been impressed, neither he nor his family would have benefited from it.

A man is wasting his family's money when he tries to impress strangers with his material wealth. Furthermore, those men are detrimental to society because they encourage bad attitudes among other people. For example, my grandfather was working as a bank teller, so it is possible that some people with similar incomes were envious of his expensive car and lunches, and his ability to have six children, a house, a telephone, and other material items.

Rather than be impressed by him, they might have been intimidated, thereby lowering their self-esteem. That in turn could interfere with their marriage, and their relationship with their children. If any of those men responded by trying to improve their status by purchasing an expensive car, or by purchasing their lunch, they would then hurt their family and themselves even more. If they decided to commit crimes in order to get more money, they would cause even more trouble.

If we had complete surveillance of the human population, I suspect that we would discover that the people who show off are having a bad effect on society because they are causing some people to become envious, suffer from low self-esteem, and get involved in detrimental competitions for status.

The people who show off believe that they are impressing other people, but if we had the ability to read a person's mind, we might discover that they are more similar to the pigpen character in the Peanuts comic strip, but instead of spreading dirt everywhere they go, they stimulate envy, sadness, low self-esteem, and other bad attitudes.

If we could set up an experiment in which there are two copies of the earth, and in one of them a lot of the men routinely show off, and in the other the men are willing to be ordinary people, we would likely discover that everybody has a more pleasant and relaxing life when nobody is showing off.

We enjoy and benefit from competition, but the competition must be beneficial. We should compete to improve our lives and attitudes, not to intimidate one another with material wealth.

If we had video of the "personal" and "private" lives of everybody, it would be easier to notice that the relationships between male and female humans is similar to that with falcons and other animals in which the females take care of the children, and the males provide food and protection.

Specifically, women do not have much of an interest in becoming friends with men. Instead, a woman wants a husband who is devoted to her, and who will provide her with support while she takes care of the children. As a result, if a man has trouble supporting his family, his wife is likely to become upset, which can result in her wanting a different husband. My grandmother became one of those annoyed wives.

My grandmother told me that there was a time during the depression when Louis was not making much money, and she decided to move in with a man that she had considered marrying when she was young, but chose not to. I think his last name was something like "Peacock", and that he was extremely religious.

She told me that she took her three children and moved in with Peacock, but after an unknown number of days she came to the conclusion that his higher income could not compensate for breaking up her marriage and taking her children away from their father, so she went back to Louis.

She told me that upon returning to Louis, she decided to have another child, which I consider to be suspicious. The reason she left Louis was because he could not properly support the three children that they already had, so why would she want to have another child with such a man?

I cannot remember her exact words, but she said something to the effect that having another baby would increase the bond between them. However, I suspect that she told Lewis that she wanted to have another child because she was worried that she might be pregnant by Peacock, and by telling Lewis to get her pregnant, if she had a child nine months later, she could convince herself and him that it was his child.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the daughter that she had about nine months after leaving Louis, who they named Lorene, was the only child in their family with blonde hair and light skin. All of the other children inherited the darker hair and skin from Louis, who was Italian. My grandmother was Danish.

My grandmother is an example of women who want men to take care of them. They don't want men to be their friends, and they don't want to support a man.

Was my grandmother unusual for abandoning her husband for not being able to provide enough financial support? If we had complete surveillance of the human population, we would be able to determine how many women during the depression, and during other financially difficult situations, did so.

We would also notice that some of the women who married very wealthy men abandoned their husband when his income dropped to an "ordinary" amount because they had such strong cravings to be extremely wealthy that they would not tolerate an ordinary income. At the other extreme would be the women who remained with their husband until his income was so low that they were about to become homeless.

We would also be able to determine how many of the women who abandoned their husband quickly decided that they had made a mistake, and of those women, how many went back to their husband, and of those women, how many of them had a child about nine months later, and of those women, how many of them or their husbands suspected that the child had a different father.

If we had video surveillance of the human population going back for thousands of years, we would get a much better understanding of the differences in behavior between men and women, and how our attitudes have changed through the centuries.

It would be easier to notice that children have been picking up increasingly unrealistic attitudes of marriage, sex, families, and other issues during the past few centuries as a result of feminists, businesses, Zionist organizations, fiction writers, sports organizations, idiots, and lunatics. I mentioned this concept here in a previous document.

Children today have picked up a lot of unrealistic attitudes towards men, women, and marriage, which causes them to have an increasingly difficult time forming stable marriages.

For example, many men do not understand that women have a preference for men with high status, and who are tall, strong, and energetic. Women are repelled by men who have trouble supporting themselves, or who are short, weak, lazy, or sickly.

An example of how this ignorance can cause trouble is when Chris Morgan had a tantrum in public and complained that women dislike short men. He is correct that women dislike short men, but he misinterpreted the situation as "abusive" rather than as a genetic characteristic of female animals.

If he had been raised in a society in which the boys were taught that women have a genetic preference for men who are taller and older than they are, then he would have realized that he should look for a woman who was shorter than him.

Both men and women have certain emotional preferences for a spouse. Neither of us is "cruel" for having those emotions.

To make the situation more absurd, Chris Morgan did not realize that men also have preferences. Men pass judgment on a woman's personality and physical appearance, and that causes us to dislike certain women.

His tantrum about women disliking short men is as idiotic as a woman having a tantrum because men do not like stupid, ugly, sloppy women with angry personalities.

If children were taught that humans are apes, then they would realize that male and female animals evolved with certain sexual preferences in order to restrict who reproduces. Our preferences are genetic, so we cannot change or control them. Therefore, it is idiotic to complain about our preferences. We need to understand them and find a way to deal with them.

We especially dislike and fear people with deformities, but that is not because we are cruel. Rather, we prefer people who are good-looking because the people who are ugly or deformed on the outside have a higher potential of being defective on the inside. Everybody must be able to understand and accept this concept. We are not cruel for being concerned about what people look like.

Likewise, we avoid people with unusual behavior because those people have a greater chance of having serious genetic disorders. Our brains were designed to fear the bizarre people, which causes us to avoid and dislike the hoarders, homosexuals, drug addicts, criminals, and people who are frequently angry or sad.

The reason we are so concerned about a person's behavior is because the prehistoric people who were the most successful were those who could form stable and productive teams. Today we take care of the weird and abnormal people, and allow them to reproduce, and we help them to raise their children. This is causing the human race to degrade into anti-social, dishonest, irresponsible, ugly, deformed, and sickly freaks.

When we allow everybody to reproduce, we allow every generation to have more variety in physical and mental characteristics. This creates an increasingly miserable social environment for everybody. It creates an environment in which everybody fears, dislikes, and ignores some of the people we life with. It results in some people who are extremely lonely, and others who form friendships with a few people who are scattered around the city, which requires they spend a lot of time traveling to get together. That in turn causes a lot of people to spend a lot of their time with their friends via a phone or Internet connection, rather than in person.

We would have a much more pleasant life if we were living among people we enjoy and trust. That type of environment requires us to restrict reproduction in order to reduce the diversity of each generation.

We would also have a more pleasant life if we could live closer to our friends, such as within walking distance of them. That requires a radically different attitude towards housing. It requires allowing people to discriminate against who they are living with. It requires a city that has a lot of vacant homes scattered around, and it requires letting everybody freely move to any home they please so that they can choose their neighbors.

The article in the Ladies Home Journal doesn't describe the sexual relationship between my grandparents, but the remarks that I've heard from my grandmother and her daughters imply that my grandfather did not satisfy her very well sexually. I don't find that surprising because he seemed to be very low on energy, and that makes it difficult for men to please women.

The people who don't want to believe that humans are monkeys are likely to assume that sex is an entertainment activity, but it evolved only for reproduction. Women have a strong resistance to sex, and it is very difficult for them to be sexually pleased in order to ensure that the men who reproduce are those who have such a strong desire for a woman, and enough stamina, that they have the ability and desire to take care of a woman and children.

Our prehistoric ancestors were in better physical and mental health than people are today, so the women would have been sexually satisfied with their husbands. However, when they settled into cities, the human race began to degrade genetically, and people became more secretive.

For the past few thousand years, and especially the past few centuries, people have been getting married without knowing much about their spouse, and without knowing much about what is "normal" in regards to sexual organs and sexual activities. Some women did not realize that their husband had defective sexual organs, or that he could not perform at sex properly, or that he was too selfish to care about his wife's desires. Likewise, some men did not realize that their wife was sexually abnormal or defective.

People today are so ignorant about sex, and so secretive and deceptive about their lives, that many married couples are likely to be unaware that the reason they are not enjoying sex is because one or both of them have defective physical and/or mental characteristics. Some people might assume that sex is simply an irritating aspect of marriage.

Many men have also been fooled into believing that the more sex they have, the better their life will be, but when a man has excessive amounts of sex, he will get less satisfaction from it, and he can irritate his wife.

By keeping sexual activity a secret, and by hiding our sexual organs, we are allowing every generation to have increasingly defective organs, and increasingly bizarre sexual habits. If reproduction is not restricted to people with better sexual characteristics, the future generations will have trouble having sex, getting pregnant, giving birth, and breast-feeding babies.

At some point in the future the people must force themselves to overcome their sexual inhibitions, examine one another's sexual organs and sexual behavior, and pass judgment on who should reproduce, and who should not.

They will also have to eliminate secrecy so that they can determine which of the men and women are abusive with their spouse and children. Hiding this information is allowing the violent and abusive people to increase in every generation. There are already so many of these people that they are forming pedophile and human trafficking networks.

The churches, day care centers, and organizations for children have lots of members with violent and bizarre sexual desires. Reports about children being sexually abused by those organizations are occurring on a routine basis.

Eliminating secrecy and passing judgment on people sexual behavior will be embarrassing, but it must be done. We will not die as a result of being embarrassed. Embarrassment is just an emotional feeling that we can easily deal with, similar to feeling the coldness of an ice cube. The people who cannot deal with embarrassment should be regarded as too mentally inferior to reproduce.

Homosexuals can help us improve marriages

As mentioned above, studying the hoarders and other people with bizarre behavior can help us understand ourselves, and the same is true of homosexuals.

Homosexuals are not a different species. They have the same mental characteristics as heterosexuals, but there are subtle differences between us. Therefore, analyzing their emotions can help us to understand our own.

Unfortunately, the secrecy that we provide people make it impossible for us to study homosexuals and their relationships, and we cannot adequately study heterosexuals, either.

Furthermore, some or all the AI software is seems to be manipulated to promote homosexuals. For example, Microsoft's Copilot gave me worthless results when I asked: "Do homosexuals have more domestic violence than heterosexuals?"

Since scientists cannot yet adequately study humans, we have to be careful about believing reports about both homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, most reports agree that lesbians and bisexuals have a higher level of domestic violence than heterosexuals and homosexual men.

There are also people claiming that lesbian couples have significantly higher divorce rates than heterosexual couples, and about three times more divorce than the homosexual male couples.

We assume that women are peaceful and loving, but if that were true, then lesbians would have the most pleasant, peaceful, and stable relationships. However, lesbians seem to have much more domestic violence than both heterosexual couples and homosexual men.

Likewise, if women were more peaceful and loving than men, then mothers and daughters would have the most pleasant and peaceful relationships. We provide people with too much secrecy to determine how mothers and daughters treat one another, but from my own casual observations, mothers and daughters fight with each other a lot more than mothers and sons, men and women, and fathers and children.

Some people believe that the high level of divorce and violence among lesbians and bisexuals is because every culture regards homosexuals as disgusting creatures. However, that attitude has been decreasing during the past few decades, so if it were true that their violence was the result of the stress caused by our culture, then that stress and violence should have been decreasing during the past few decades, but no report claims that the relationships of lesbians and bisexuals has been improving during the past few decades.

The analyses of the divorces of heterosexual couples show that women are more likely to want a divorce than men. For example, this document claims that 70% of the divorces were initiated by women. Of the divorces in which the woman has a college education, 90% of those divorces were initiated by women.

Women are more likely to initiate a divorce, especially if they have a college education, regardless of whether they are lesbians or heterosexuals. Why are women so likely to want a divorce? And why are the most intelligent and educated women the most likely to want a divorce?

Women choose their husbands; men do not choose their wives. When humans and most other animals are looking for a spouse, the male is in a submissive position. Men must impress the women. The women make the decisions about which man to get married to.

Since the women are in control, they have the ability to choose the man that they want, whereas the man has to take whichever woman is willing to accept him. Therefore, there should be more women who are satisfied with their husband than there are men who are satisfied with their wife, which in turn means that women should have a lower desire for a divorce.

Furthermore, the more intelligent and educated women should make better decisions than the stupid, uneducated women, so they should have less of a desire for a divorce.

Analyzing animals can help us understand why the opposite is true. When female animals look for males, they do not look for a friend, or for compatibility. They look for a male that is physically strong, high in the social hierarchy, and willing and able to provide her with food and protection. Female animals regard male animals as slaves.

Humans have more advanced behavior than animals, but women are still inheriting that crude, animal desire to find a man that has high status, is physically strong, and is willing and able to provide her with food, a home, and protection.

That animal attitude can result in a woman choosing a man that she doesn't truly enjoy simply because he has a lot of wealth or status, and because he provides her with lots of attention and gifts. This animal behavior is especially noticeable with the women who are chasing after Hollywood celebrities and wealthy men.

Since women regard men as their slaves, a woman is willing to marry a man that she considers to be irritating because she assumes that she will be able to make him become her slave.

By comparison, men look for women that we enjoy being with, and we want to pamper her with gifts. We want to see her smile and giggle. We treat women the way mothers treat their children.

Men and women find a spouse and treat one another in a manner that is very similar to that of the animals because we are animals, and our emotions evolved for a prehistoric environment. The women who were the most successful at raising children were those who looked for a slave, and the men who were the most successful were those who wanted to be a slave to his wife.

A prehistoric, nomadic woman put sensible demands on her husband; namely, pressuring him to bring her and the children plenty of food, tools, and furs, and protect the family from wolves and neighboring tribes.

Her husband would have regarded her demands as his responsibility, rather than the demands of a selfish, irrational, arrogant Queen who was abusing him.

Today, however, a wife can demand a lot of worthless, idiotic, and detrimental things, such as giant houses, absurd amounts of jewelry and clothing, participation in organized religions, and excessive amounts of toys for the children.

Another significant difference between prehistoric people and modern people is that a prehistoric woman was dependent upon her husband for their survival, so she would not want to irritate or leave her husband unless there was another man willing to accept her as his wife. A woman's desire to be a pampered queen was balanced by her need for a husband.

Today, however, a woman with useful skills does not need a man. Those women can raise children by themselves. Therefore, they don't have any pressure on them to counteract their desire to be a queen. This can result in them becoming excessively arrogant and demanding, and getting a divorce for reasons that a prehistoric woman would consider absurd.

Feminists create the impression that women have been abused by their husbands for thousands of years, but the majority of husbands are submissive to their wives.

If we had video surveillance of everybody's life in their homes, we would likely discover that it is the women who are the most demanding and abusive, not the men. That unexpected result can also be seen in some of the television programs about hoarders in which the women whine about their husband making a mess of the house, but as soon as the television program arranges for the house to be cleaned, it becomes obvious that the woman was responsible for the hoarding, not her husband.

Her husband was a submissive slave who was allowing her to clutter the house, and he was tolerating her accusations that he was responsible for cluttering the house.

Most of the women who are hoarders are capable of acknowledging that they are responsible for the mess, so they don't blame their husbands, but when their husbands complain about the messy house, or when they try to discard some of the items, the women whine that their husband doesn't understand them, or that he is abusive, insulting, or degrading. Those women are intolerant of criticism. They want their husbands to be obedient servants.

If men were truly abusive and violent, then the men who are married to hoarders would force their wives to keep the house clean. However, the television programs about hoarders show that the men who cannot handle the hoarding get a divorce rather than force their wives to clean the house, and the other men submissively tolerate the hoarding.

Lesbian couples have a lot of domestic violence, and sometimes murders, because women want their partner to be a slave.

When lesbians get married, both of them are likely to have the typical female desire to be a pampered queen, and that can cause them to get into fights. Each one of them will want the other to be her slave.

A lesbian couple will have a more successful marriage if one of them is as submissive as a husband.

Although the lesbians and the hoarders have noticeably different behavior than the rest of us, they are not a different species. They have the same emotional, intellectual, and physical characteristics as the rest of us, but in slightly different proportions.

All of us gather items and land, and all normal men want to be slaves to their wives, and all normal women want to be pampered Queens. The lesbians and the hoarders are abnormal people who are at the extreme edge of the bell graphs, which makes it easier for us to notice our emotional cravings.

Homosexual men can also help us to understand heterosexual men, and the differences between men and women. The homosexual men form more stable marriages than lesbians because men want to be a slave to their spouse. The exception is when both homosexual men inherited the female desire to be a pampered queen.

Homosexual men can also show us why women, including young girls, evolved such extreme inhibitions about sex. Specifically, if women had the same sexual desires as men, men and women would be having casual sex all the time, even with strangers and children. In such a case, most of the children within a family would have different fathers, and nobody who know who their fathers were. Venereal diseases would also be rampant.

Women are so sexually inhibited that there is not much information about the sexual behavior of lesbians, but if we eliminate secrecy and study lesbians, they would help us to understand the sexual characteristics of women.

The lesbians can help us understand why mothers and their daughters fight so often, and why there have been women who secretly killed their husband, collected his life insurance and house, and then repeated the process with another man. They can also help us understand why women are just as selfish, abusive, and arrogant when they become leaders of society, such as Queens, Hollywood celebrities, and government officials.

Men like to believe that women are wonderful, honest, peaceful creatures, but they are female humans, and that means they are female apes. They are animals, not angels.

Our emotions evolved for a prehistoric environment, not for people who live in a complex, technically advanced, and large society. We need to acknowledge and understand our animal characteristics, and we must restrict reproduction so that both men and women develop more appropriate behavior.

Many of the criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts, and abusive spouses were displaying unusual behavior as children. If they had been investigated when they were children, someone might have discovered that they have a mental or physical problem.

By making the child, his parents, and the Security Ministry aware of his problem, the child might be able to find a way to deal with it, such as through drugs or changes in diet. If the child could not improve, the Security Ministry would reduce the chances that he causes trouble because they would be watching him more closely.

We cannot expect parents, especially mothers, to pass judgment on whether their child is showing signs of physical or mental disorders. Parents tend to ignore or make excuses for their child's odd behavior. Therefore, the Behavior Ministry is required to investigate everybody, and pass judgment on their physical and mental characteristics.

Ignoring the strange behavior of a child is as idiotic as a farmer who ignores the strange behavior of one of his animals, or a mechanic who ignores strange noises from a jet engine.

Children as haphazard jumbles of genetic characteristics. The school officials are required to help each child discover and deal with his particular characteristics, limitations, and defects. When they notice a child with unusual behavior, they are required to inform the Behavior Ministry, and that ministry is required to investigate the child.

As the artificial intelligence software improves, there will be a point at which it can analyze the data in the People database, as well as the video of children in school, at recreational activities, while eating dinner, and while sleeping. That software will help the Behavior Ministry identify the children who have abnormal behavior.

I gave a personal example of how collecting and analyzing data about children can help us determine their mental and physical problems when I pointed out that my ability to run began decreasing at about age 12. The teachers should have reacted to that abnormal behavior by recommending an investigation of my physical characteristics.

This is a list of 40 people who eventually discovered that they were suffering from a medical problem. By routinely analyzing all of children, we will be able to identify many mental and physical disorders early in their lives. Some of those disorders can be reduced with changes in diet, hormones, surgeries, or medications, thereby sparing those children from years or decades of suffering. It will also allow us to make better decisions about who should reproduce.

The article in the Ladies Home Journal provides another example of how observing and comparing children can help us identify potential problems. The three photos in the collage below are of my mother's younger sisters, Marion and Louise. Comparing their facial expressions and posture to that of other children shows that they seem less happy.

Although we cannot determine whether a child is happy simply by looking at a couple of photos, there are other reasons to suspect that something is wrong with Marion and Louise. For example, both my grandmother and my grandfather treated them slightly differently than how they treated the other children. I would describe them as having pity for Marion and Louise, but I never saw them show pity for their other children.

I suspect that my grandparents sensed that there was something wrong with Marion and Louise, but they dismissed it as meaningless personality traits, rather than a significant physical or mental problem.

Furthermore, on page 128, the journalist described Marion as "shy and tart by turns". I never heard of the expression "tart by turns", but I found the expression "by turns" in the dictionary, and so I assume that his remark meant that her moods changed dramatically from introverted to irritating. Then, on page 129, he mentions that she "is slower than her siblings in school", which is a common expression in the USA to mean that she less intelligent then her siblings.

I don't think it is a coincidence that both of those girls became adults with extreme liberal attitudes, whereas everyone else in the family was more conservative. I suspect that those two girls were suffering from some type of physical or mental problem, which in turn caused them to be attracted to the "feel sorry for me" attitude of the liberals.

When scientists study a group of wolves or monkeys, they are not afraid to describe one of the monkeys as deformed, retarded, stupid, or neurotic. Scientists do not describe a stupid wolf as "slower than the other wolves". However, all of us are afraid to be honest with our descriptions of people.

We have extreme levels of arrogance, and we have intense cravings to feel important. We react to criticism with anger or pouting, so there is tremendous pressure on us to avoid being honest about other people's characteristics in order to avoid fights, tantrums, pouting, crying, and revenge. Instead of being honest about our descriptions of a person's intelligence or mental illness, we choose vague phrases to avoid upsetting the person.

Many people describe this as "being polite", but it is encouraging detrimental behavior. For example, it has caused midgets and dwarves to want to be referred to as "little people", and many fat people want to be referred to as "plus sized" people.

The pressure on us to be polite is not improving anybody's life. Rather, it is encouraging deception and avoidance of reality. It causes us to be afraid to be honest, and to decieve people to make them feel good.

This constitution promotes a different attitude. Specifically, that we are polite when we are honest with people. The people who are afraid to be honest with us are "pandering to us", or "treating us as a dangerous monster", and the people who tell us what we want to hear are "jerking us off", or "deceiving us".

This modern world is complicated, and people today need to be able to handle criticism and reality. We need to be able to listen to other people's analysis of ourselves. Every analysis will be inaccurate because nobody truly understands anybody, not even themselves, but we cannot be hurt by somebody's analysis, unless we choose to be hurt by it.

Other people's opinions about us can be beneficial because it can help us to understand ourselves, and understand the minds of the people who are giving us the analysis.

A person who cannot handle honesty must be regarded as having a crude, primitive mind that is unacceptable for this modern world. We will have a much more pleasant and relaxed social environment when we don't have to be afraid of people having tantrums, or trying to get revenge on us for making an honest or critical remark. We should design our culture for the higher-quality people, not the people who behave like animals. Somebody has to suffer, and it should be the crude people, not the high-quality people.

When Daryl Smith's mother died, someone in her family posted a video on the Internet that displayed photos of her life. I put portions of four of the photos in the collage below. Notice that one of the boys seems unhappy and different from the others. The video did not identify any of the people in the photos, but I suspect that the weird, unhappy boy is Daryl Smith.

If we had surveillance video of children at school, during their recreational activities, as they eat meals, and as they sleep, and if we had more advanced software to analyze the video, we would be able to identify a lot of the children who are have serious physical or mental disorders.

This section of the Constitution pointed out that a computer could notice differences in the way we speak, stand at tables, walk, and pick up objects. A computer would also be able to notice problems with the way children interact with each other, and whether they have problems with their eyesight, sense of smell, or hearing, and whether they are suffering from such health issues as allergies, excessive drinking of water, and excessive blinking. When the surveillance cameras can measure temperatures, the software would be able to identify the children whose temperature is abnormal. When nudity can be tolerated, the temperature sensors can show which areas of our body have improper circulation, or is too hot.

If we allow video to be collected in our bedrooms and bathrooms, the video would be of tremendous benefit to us because we could request various analysis of ourselves, and request comparisons between ourselves and other people. This would provide us a much better understanding of our particular characteristics and problems.

When toilets are able to analyze waste products, they would allow us to understand how each of us is reacting to foods. Those toilets can also help us understand how our age and activities affect our digestive system. For example, we might discover that young children can get strenuous exercise after a meal without any trouble, but older adults should relax for an hour after a meal in order to avoid disrupting their digestion.

It would also help us determine whether we should be drinking lots of liquid while we eat, or if it is better to drink before or after a meal.

If we could collect the "private" and "personal" data about everybody, it would make it easier for us to understand why we do what we do.

Near the beginning of this document I pointed out that some of my mother's ancestors emigrated from the small town of Mirabella, Italy after being criticized for having premarital sex.

We don't know why my mother's other relatives left Denmark, but they came to the USA as a group. I assume that they were ordinary Danish people, mostly farmers, and that the reason they traveled all the way to an uninhabited area of Iowa was because they wanted to get to an area where they could have appropriate amounts of farmland to create a new town for themselves.

I have no idea why my father's ancestors left Switzerland, but my father told me that his older brother died of diabetes, and that his father (my grandfather) was frequently eat candy during the day, so I suppose the family had some problem with sugar or energy production.

Although I don't have diabetes, I feel better, and can think better, when keep my consumption of food to low levels, especially foods that digest rapidly into glucose, such as sugar and processed white flour. I suspect that my pancreas cannot produce a lot of insulin, or my body has a problem using insulin, in which case I would have diabetes if I ate as much food as the typical American. Or maybe it is my mitochondria that has a problem with energy production.

Sugar does not give me a "sugar high", or more energy. Rather, it makes me feel uncomfortable and interferes with my thinking. This makes me wonder if a child who has a more severe problem than I do would end up feeling even more miserable, or having even more impaired thinking, which could result in his parents assuming that the child is having a "sugar high".

I suspect that my ancestors left Switzerland because they were not feeling good or thinking properly because of whatever this sugar or energy-related disorder is. Perhaps they were hoping that life would be less miserable in the USA.

If we had more details on everybody's private life, we would have a better understanding of why people did what they did, such as why they migrated to a different nation, got involved with a particular sport or business, became a drug addict, or chose to get married, divorced, or remain single.

Example: Drug addiction

Every culture is promoting the attitude that people become addicted to alcohol and other drugs because of their environment, but if we had details data about everybody's lives, including their parents and grandparents, we would be able to make an intelligent guess as to whether a person's drug problems are due to environmental issues, or due to the genetic characteristics of his mind and/or body.

Season 17, Episode 1 of the television series Intervention is about Katherine. It was so depressing that I turned it off after watching half of it, but from what I saw, she has a serious problem with alcohol and other drugs, and she supports her drug habit with prostitution. Her parents allow her to live at home, and they also provide her with some of the money that she needs for drugs.

The producers of the television show claim that her drug and behavioral problems were the result of being raped, which they describe as "abducted and brutally assaulted" rather than "raped". They claim that she became "dependent on a dangerous mix of drugs to mask the trauma."

Although we don't know enough about the human mind or Katherine's genetic characteristics to know exactly why she became addicted to drugs, it is unlikely that the producers of the Intervention television series are correct that it was due to her reaction to being raped. Millions of adults and children have been raped during the past few thousand years without becoming addicted to drugs.

Every culture has such a strong anti-evolutionary attitude that they refuse to consider the possibility that our lives are the result of our genetic characteristics, and that the environment can affect us only to the extent that our genetics allows us to be affected.

Katherine's father is described as having "autism", and both her mother and father are religious fanatics, which is evidence that her parents have low-quality genetics. It was sensible for people centuries ago to be extremely religious, but a person today who becomes a religious fanatic should be classified as having defective intellectual and/or emotional characteristics.

Since her parents have low-quality minds, we should consider that she inherited some low-quality characteristics from her parents and other ancestors. Furthermore, she might also suffer from some additional genetic damage due to random mutations or toxic chemicals.

To complicate the issue, we should consider that the reason she was raped is because she inherited a low-quality mind. Specifically, she went out one evening with her friends to drink, and after a while they went home, but she decided to remain. She then walked home by herself late at night while intoxicated, which is when she was grabbed by a man and raped. She would not have been raped if she had not had such a strong attraction to alcohol, and she would not have had a strong attraction to alcohol if she had had a properly functioning brain.

Her friend Sara, provided a few updates, such as this, to let people know that Katherine was still addicted to drugs, and still causing problems for herself and other people. None of the people who have tried to help her overcome her problems have had success, which is evidence that her behavior is the result of the genetic design of her brain, not some environmental factor that she can eliminate or ignore.

If we could gather surveillance video, medical records, school records, job performance reports, arrest records, and other data about everybody, we would notice that the majority of people who have trouble in life are not suffering from bad luck, anti-Semitism, poverty, sexism, or bad parenting. Rather, they are suffering from low-quality genetics.

Although it is true that some people become victims of bad luck, such as when a tornado destroys a person's home, bad luck is not the reason that a person's entire life is miserable. Bad luck can only cause a temporary problem.

This concept that children inherit characteristics from their ancestors explains why parents who have problems with alcohol, drugs, debt, ADHD, autism, bipolar disorders, and gambling are more likely to have children with undesirable behavior.

It explains why obese parents often have children that have trouble controlling some of their emotional cravings or fears. It explains why the children of hoarders often have trouble controlling their attraction to material items or animals, or have trouble forming relationships with people, or develop some type of OCD obsession.

Surveillance allows us to understand organizations

In addition to understanding individuals, such as Katherine, surveillance data would help us understand the behavior and effect of people who form and join organizations. We would have a better idea of what the members are doing, what their motives are, and what effect they are having on the world.

Every culture gives organizations the freedom to operate in secrecy, but this constitution gives everybody the right to know what other people are doing, including what the organizations are doing.

All organizations belong to the city. They are not independent entities that can do whatever they please. All organizations must be beneficial to the human race and the future generations, and everybody has a right to know what they do, and how they operate, regardless of whether they are a business, a recreational activity, or an orchestra.

By eliminating secrecy and gathering data about all of the organizations, we can pass judgment on which organizations are beneficial, and which need to be terminated because they are abusive, wasting resources, or dishonest.

Example: The Council of Christians and Jews

During 2024, Candace Owens has been exposing some of the Israeli crimes, such as their attack on the USS Liberty. She also exposed the Apollo moon landing hoax, but she doesn't accuse Jews of being involved with that. She has also not yet exposed the lies about Anne Frank's diary or the Holocaust.

Why is she discussing only certain issues and interviewing only certain people? Is she still ignorant about the extent of Jewish lies and crimes? Or are Jews secretly deceiving and manipulating her into avoiding certain issues and people? Or is she a wolf in sheep's clothing? Or is she a Pied Piper?

If we had such extensive surveillance video that we knew what married couples were saying to each other, who their friends were, and what they were talking about, we would know as much about Candace Owens as prehistoric, nomadic people knew about one another.

If we were also observing all of the members of all of the organizations, we would be able to determine whether any of the organizations are providing information to Candace Owens, and whether they are providing information in a deceptive manner so that she doesn't realize that she is being manipulated.

When I first began exposing the demolition of the World Trade Center towers in 2002, I routinely got phone calls and email messages from "wonderful" people who wanted to provide me with information or advice. A few of them fooled me into believing some of their information and advice before I realized that all of them were wolves in sheep's clothing who were trying to manipulate me. And a few of them were trying to set me up for something, such as blackmail or being arrested.

As a result of my experiences, I suspect that Candace Owens is also being contacted by people who pretend to admire her, but are secretly trying to gather information about her so that she can be manipulated, or worse, set up for suicide, arrest, or blackmail.

Candace Owens is married to a George Farmer, and his father, Michael Farmer, is a member of the Council of Christians and Jews, "which provides bespoke Holocaust education for the Christian community." Is Michael Farmer or other people in that organization secretly trying to manipulate her?

Since I am also familiar with the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing trick, I also wonder if Candace Owens is secretly working with the Council of Christians and Jews.

At the end of 2024, Candace Owens was promoted as "Anti-Semite of the Year", but was she given that title because the Jews are really frightened of her? Or is it because they want to give her credibility among the people who are angry at the Jews, similar to how the ADL gave Alex Jones the title of "Conspiracy King"? Are the Jews trying to use her as a Pied Piper to attract the "anti-Semites" over to her and away from the people who are demanding the execution of pedophiles and other criminals?

We provide people and organizations with so much secrecy that we have no idea what the Council of Christians and Jews is doing, or whether they are contacting Candace Owens directly or secretly.

We also have no idea what the ADL, SPLC, and other Jewish organizations are doing, or what the Mormon church, Catholic Church, or Scientology church is doing. We also give secrecy to the Federal Reserve, YouTube, and the Open Society Foundations.

This Constitution promotes the attitude that we have the right to know what every organization is doing to the world, and we have the right to terminate any organization that is not beneficial to the human race. We also have the right to know about the mental characteristics of the people in the organizations, and the people that we are living with.

We have the right to know the mental characteristics of Michael farmer, Candace Owens, Michelle Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and everybody else. We have a right to know what effect they are having on us. Nobody has the right to be secretive about their effect on the world. Everybody is regarded as a team member, and everybody is required to contribute to the team, rather than subvert it or manipulate it. Everybody has an obligation to behave in a respectable manner. Nobody is allowed to be a secretive dictator of the universe.

No organization has the right to educate us about the Holocaust, or anything else. Rather, everybody has the responsibility of providing us with honest and accurate information, and we have the right to verify the information that they provide to us.

We are not "prying into a person's personal life" when we investigate his mental characteristics, friends, spouse, or activities. Rather, we are verifying that our team members are honest, productive, and beneficial; we are being responsible members of the team who are maintaining its quality.

Everybody has a responsibility to help maintain and protect the team the team, which includes protecting children from pedophiles, and protecting everybody from crime networks, dishonest government officials, and deceptive and diabolical organizations. We have the responsibility to ensure that every organization is beneficial.

We have the right to know what effect the Council of Christians and Jews is having on Michael farmer, his son, Candace Owens, and everybody else in the world, and the future generations. We also have the right to pass judgment on everybody's mental characteristics, behavior, and activities.

Michael Farmer said that both of his parents were alcoholics, which resulted in a childhood of “poverty, neglect and shame". The alcohol might have also caused damage to Michael and his sister while they was a fetus.

Every culture promotes the attitude that alcoholism is environmental, but this constitution believes is due to a person's genetic characteristics. Therefore, Michael and his sister were likely to inherit the inferior genetics of his parents.

His sister, Suzan, became an anti-social recluse when she was 38 because of her mental disorders and alcoholism, so she obviously inherited the mental disorders of her parents.

When Michael Farmer was 35 years old, he became a born-again Christian, which is evidence that he also inherited some serious mental disorder. His son, George Farmer, also became a religious fanatic, which is evidence that the mental disorder is being passed from one generation to the next.

Candace Owens married a mentally disturbed man from a mentally disturbed family. She ought to be concerned that her children have inherited those mental disorders.

She should also wonder why she married a religious fanatic after knowing him for only 18 days, and getting a marriage proposal via FaceTime call rather than in person. Perhaps she has mental problems, also.

If we had surveillance video of the population, we would be able to make a intelligent guess as to whether Candace Owens is trying to be honest and expose Israeli crimes, or whether the Council of Christians and Jews is secretly manipulating her.

The only people who benefit from secrecy are the criminals. We must stop letting them intimidate us into being frightened of having our "personal" and "private" lives exposed to the public.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have any secrets, but they did not suffer as a result. They could hear other people's conversations, and they could see how everybody treated one another. Today we have so much secrecy that we cannot be certain whether our leaders, such as Michelle Obama, are male or female. We will benefit by eliminating secrecy. Only the criminals will suffer.

We do not even have to fear people secretly recording our conversations. Our conversation should be considered "public", not private.

In January 2025, the Oregon state government upheld their prohibition of secret recordings of most conversations, but our conversations should be regarded as "public conversations". When we speak to someone, we are passing information to them, and information has more significance to us than food and medicine. Thereore, it is more important for us to verify the value of the information that people give us then to verify the value of the medicines and foods they give us.

When a business provides us with medicine, we do not consider their medicine to be "private medicine." We do not give them the right to provide secretive medicines in secretive laboratories. Rather, we demand that the government be able to inspect their manufacturing facilities and verify the value of their medicines.

Likewise, we do not give restaurants or food processing businesses the right to provide secretive foods in secretive facilities. The government routinely analyzes their facilities and verifies the safety of their food. We do not consider foods to be "private".

If a person were to provide us with poisoned medicines or foods, he would be arrested, and we should be even more intolerant of people who provide us with poisoned information. However, the only way to ensure that we are getting good quality information is to eliminate secrecy so that we can analyze the information and pass judgment on its value.

Men do not beat women and children at random

Surveillance of the population would also help us understand why some women and children are being yelled at, slapped, hit, or beaten by men. The feminists accuse men of being cruel creatures who enjoy tormenting women and children, but men do not lose their temper at random.

Although there are some men who are suffering from physical or mental disorders that cause them to become easily irritated, the "normal" men lose their temper only when they encounter irritating people.

If we had surveillance video of the children who have been hit by their father, we would discover that most of those children were irritating their father, and that those children have inferior or defective mental or physical characteristics that is causing them to behave in an undesirable manner. We would find that only a small number of those children, if any, are well behaved children who were beaten because their father was mentally disturbed.

We would also discover that the children who have mentally disturbed parents are likely to have inherited some mental problems. This results in a family in which mentally disturbed parents are raising mentally disturbed children, which increases the chances of domestic violence.

Adults, especially women, have intense cravings to pamper and protect children, so an adult has to become very irritated in order to hurt a child. Our craving to protect children is so strong that we assume that when a child is beaten, it is because the adult is a cruel, violent creature. We resist the possibility that the child is a defective creature with an irritating personality.

Our attraction to children so strong that we cannot regard them as "young adults". We regard them as innocent, wonderful, "bundles of joy".

Everybody can acknowledge the evidence that some adults are psychotic, violent, dishonest, stupid, manipulative, and irritating, but we don't want to believe that those adults were originally children with mental problems. We want to believe that all children are wonderful.

That distorted view of children makes it impossible to explain why some children become criminals, alcoholics, hoarders, and drug addicts.

It also makes it impossible to explain why adopted children tend to have the mental and physical characteristics of their biological parents rather than their adopted parents. Every culture promotes the fantasy that the children of criminals, lunatics, idiots, alcoholics, and drug addicts are just as wonderful as everybody else's children.

To complicate this issue, some of the bad behavior of children, especially young children, is due to the environment. For example, the parents who believe that children should be pampered and protected can encourage their children to become spoiled brats, and the children who grow up in neighborhoods where there are lots of badly behaved children are likely to pick up some of that bad behavior. However, as those children grow up, they will become better behaved because that bad behavior is environmental rather than genetic.

The same concepts apply to how men treat women. Men have intense cravings to pamper and protect women, so a man will hurt a woman only when he becomes very irritated by her, or if he has some mental or physical disorders that makes him irritable and violent.

Our attraction to women is so strong that when we discover that a woman has been hurt by her husband, we assume that she is a wonderful princess who was beaten by a abusive, violent man. We resist the possibility that she is a badly behaved woman, especially if she is pretty. We want to bow before her and give her gifts, not investigate the cause of the violence.

If we had surveillance video of married couples, we would find that only a small number of women who have been hit by their husband were well behaved women. We would find that most of those women have irritating personalities, and their husband lost his temper.

To complicate this issue, many husbands are partly responsible for the bad behavior of their wives because they pander to their wives rather than provide them with guidance. For example, many husbands allow their wives to waste money on unnecessary clothing, jewelry, and toys. Some men make the problem even worse by supporting the feminists who accuse men of sexism.

There are also men who irritate their wives with their paranoia that she will leave him for another man. Some of those men will try to keep track of what their wife is doing, where she is, and who she is with. They treat her like a slave rather than a wife.

There is no dividing line between a man who is providing guidance to his wife, and a man who is behaving like a dictator. This makes it difficult for husbands to provide leadership to their wives because if they try to do so, they risk be criticized for being oppressive, cruel, and sexist. The feminists are putting pressure on men to be submissive servants rather than leaders.

Most men are so overwhelmed with modern life, and have such unrealistic views of human behavior, marriage, sex, material wealth, happiness, religion, and other issues, that it is impossible for them to provide useful leadership to their wives and children. They cannot even provide useful leadership to themselves. They need to select government officials to provide them with leadership, but they cannot provide themselves with honest and respectable government officials, either.

Misfits can easily raise children today

The prehistoric men and women who could not form stable marriages and properly raise their children were less successful at reproducing. Our modern technology makes it so easy to raise children that people today can successfully reproduce even when they have serious mental disorders and weird personalities. Women no longer need a man to help them raise children, so there are lots of divorced and single women raising children by themselves.

If parents are too incompetent to raise their children, or if they don't want to raise their children, the government, foster parents, grandparents, and other people will take care of their children.

Nature is no longer ensuring that men and women have appropriate mental characteristics. For example, a man who only wants a woman for sex can now successfully reproduce because he can get more than one woman pregnant and abandon each of them, and those women can raise his children by themselves.

If we continue to allow everybody to reproduce, and help the misfits and rapists to reproduce, the human race will eventually degrade into such anti-social and weird freaks that nobody will be able to form a stable friendship or marriage, or work together as a team.

Our minds are preventing pleasant relationships

Surveillance video of the population would show us that the problems we are experiencing are coming from our minds. We are tormenting ourselves and other people by routinely making emotionally pleasant, but idiotic decisions.

We would discover that a lot of our idiotic decisions are the result of following emotions that are no longer appropriate. For example, our courtship procedures are almost worthless today. It is idiotic for modern women to find a husband by putting themselves on display in a public location, acting adorable, and then waiting for a man to titillate them.

We cannot expect to form a pleasant marriage when we try to impress potential spouses by exaggerating our good qualities and hiding the characteristics that we are embarrassed or ashamed of. We need to find a person who likes us for what we truly are, rather than a person who is attracted to a deception. This requires courtship to be an analysis of one another, similar to a job interview.

It is unnatural for us to analyze potential spouses, or to be analyzed by a potential spouse. Men have to be careful about asking a woman her age, or whether she's married, engaged or looking for a husband. When men ask women too many questions, they are likely to become angry and make a remark similar to, "I feel like I'm being interviewed!", or "That is none of your business!", or, "That is personal information!", or, "I don't know you well enough to tell you that!"

This constitution promotes the attitude that nobody has the right to keep secrets or be deceptive about themselves. Instead, we have the right to know who we live with, and who we are considering as a spouse. We have the right to know everybody's age, history, medical problems, sleeping habits, mental disorders, and their preferences in food, recreational activities, art, and television.

We cannot expect people to be honest on their own. We need to gather information about everybody in the People database, and we need to experiment with courtship activities that have supervisors to dampen our desire to create a false image of ourselves, and force us to be more honest. The People database will allow the courtship supervisors and computers to analyze people and provide suggestions on who might be a compatible spouse or friend.

We also need to experiment with our recreational activities, work environments, schools, holiday celebrations, and other culture.

All of us are overwhelmed with this modern world, but some people are better able to deal with it than others. We must observe people, and pass judgment on who is better able to deal with this new world, and put them into leadership positions.