The Meals Ministry is responsible for investigating nutrition, digestion, allergies, and other food related issues, and using that knowledge to determine what type and quantity of foods the farms should produce. They also set standards for the meals at restaurants in order to ensure that all of the restaurants are providing healthy meals. They must set different standards for the restaurants that serve children, such as requiring lower levels of sugar.

The Meals Ministry is also required to ensure that the farms, food processing businesses, and restaurants are producing food that is safe to eat, so this ministry must set and update rules on the production and distribution of food, and periodically inspect the businesses that handle food. This ministry has a role that is similar to the FDA, but only for food, not medicines.

The Meals Ministry has the authority to conduct experiments on the public, such as having one particular school provide children with meals that use lard as the primary oil, and another school that uses olive oil.

Although the concept of a government experimenting on the public might seem cruel and dystopian, allowing the public to have the freedom to choose their meals is allowing parents to conduct experiments on their children.

However, the Meals Ministry is required to continuously monitor the health, physical abilities, mental abilities, and attitude of the children in order to determine the effect that their experiments are having. Since there is no secrecy, all of the data about the children is available to the scientists. That allows them to notice if one group of children is showing signs of problems, in which case they can correct the situation and learn from it.

By comparison, when parents provide food for their children, they cannot continuously analyze their children or compare them to other children. Therefore, they will not realize whether they are providing food for their children that is causing allergies, digestive problems, acne pimples, or blood sugar problems.

It is better to have a group of scientists conduct experiments on us than to give everybody the freedom to conduct uncontrolled and unsupervised experiments on themselves and their family members.

Since there is no secrecy, and the government officials have to post a document to explain each of their policies, the Meals Ministry must post a document to explain and justify every experiment. This allows everybody to pass judgment on whether a minister is authorizing an idiotic or dangerous experiment.

Since all of the ministers are of equal authority and are allowed to reject requests, the other ministers can refuse to participate in an experiment. For example, if the Meals Minister were to authorize an experiment in which radioactive tracers are put in food, the minister that is responsible for producing the radioactive items has the authority to reject the request to provide the radioactive tracers. The public also has the option of posting a document in the Suggestions category to cancel the experiment and replace the Meals Minister.

In a free enterprise system, the primary concern of farmers, restaurants, and other businesses that produce food products is to provide food that appeals to consumers. Unfortunately, most consumers are more concerned with the visual image, flavor, and texture of foods than they are with its health benefits or pesticide levels.

We can create a food product that is extremely appealing simply by combining sugar, salt, oil, and an artificial flavor. Our emotions for food did not evolve for this modern era, so the Meals Minister cannot set standards for meals according to what the public likes the best. He must design meals that taste good, of course, but his primary concern is providing meals that are beneficial.

The Meals Minister will frequently encounter issues that require him to make an arbitrary decision about a food product, such as whether to produce another variation of a cracker, or whether to raise peacocks for meat. In a free enterprise system, consumers settle the arbitrary decisions, but this Constitution requires the ministers to make arbitrary decisions according to what would be most beneficial to the City Elders. The Meals Minister cannot pander to the Elders. Rather, he considers what would provide them with the best life.

The Meals Minister must set standards for meals according to the Health database that the Knowledge Division of the World Government creates. He has the authority to make decisions that are impossible in a free enterprise system and a democracy. Six examples are:

There are a lot of "experts" on nutrition who give us contradictory advice on which foods we should not eat together. For example, this expert claims there are six raw food combinations that wreak havoc on our health, such as avocados with nuts, eating fruit for dessert, and nuts with olive oil. The expert who wrote this document frightens us by claiming there are 22 deadly food combinations, such as milk with fruit or coconut, and chicken with pork.

Our distant ancestors did not have to make decisions about which foods to eat together because they had a tendency to eat only one food at a time. For example, when they caught a pig, they would eat pork, but nothing else. When they found a vegetable or a fruit tree, they would have eaten a small amount of that particular item, but nothing else.

Today we gather foods from around the world and mix them together into excessively large meals. We did not evolve to eat gigantic meals of foods from around the world, so we should research the issue of which foods can be mixed together, and which should be separated by some period of time.

The Meals Minister has the authority and responsibility to support research into these issues, set rules for the restaurants to follow, and continuously adjust those rules as we learn more about ourselves.

We do not yet know which oils are best for us. Should we eat lard, corn oil, olive oil, walnut oil, chicken fat, or the fat from cows milk? Furthermore, we don't know which processing method is best for oils, such as whether the extra-virgin olive oil is better than refined olive oil. We also don't know much about how oils go rancid over time, and whether we should refrigerate or freeze them.

The democracies allow everybody to claim to be an expert on food, and this results in thousands of contradictory videos and documents about foods and nutrition. Many people believe that they are experts on foods because they have read a lot of those documents or watched a lot of videos, but the lack of leadership in a democracy and a free enterprise system results in us becoming educated from information that is sometimes false, exaggerated, or idiotic.

Furthermore, the low standards for business executives, lawyers, judges, and other people in influential positions results in a lot of deception and confusion. For example, in April 2007, US marshals seized 10,000 cases of extra-virgin olive oil because it was mostly soybean oil, and the University of California at Davis said that more than 67% of the common brands of extra-virgin olive oil in California were fraudulent.

To make the issue more confusing, the North American Olive Oil Association claims that they test nearly 200 olive oils every year, and only 2% of them are fraudulent. They also claim that the FDA tested 88 extra virgin olive oils and that the rate of adulteration was "low".

Who do we believe? Are 67% of the olive oils fraudulent, or is it only 2%? And why isn't it 0%? And is there any evidence to support the claim that olive oil is better for our health than other oils? Or is that just propaganda from the olive oil businesses?

Another confusing issue is what is "organic" food? Is a food that was fertilized with sewage sludge better for us than food that has been fertilized with minerals that were mined from the earth?

In a free enterprise system, each consumer decides what to believe, and each consumer assumes that he has made the correct decision. In reality, all of us are like blind men feeling an elephant. None of us knows what is best for our health, or who is lying to us, or who is honest but inadvertently spreading lies that they picked up from other people.

An ad in the 1952 Ladies Home Journal. Is lard a valuable addition to our diets?

Many Americans have been frightened to eat lard, but we eat pork fat when we eat pork. Is there scientific evidence that pork fat is less healthy for us than the fat in milk, olives, chicken, corn, hemp seeds, or fish?

Many people claim that butter is healthy, but is lard much different than butter?

Has anybody found evidence that vegans have better health, or live longer, than the people who eat lard or other animal fats?

Or did the fear of lard come from dishonest, abusive business executives who were competing with lard?

This article describes Procter & Gamble's "revolutionary advertising techniques" to promote Crisco, but were those advertisements truly "revolutionary"? Or were they "deceptive", "abusive", or "criminal"?

Or did the fear of animal fat come from scientists who noticed that the people who have had heart attacks had cholesterol blocking their veins, and who then assumed that the cholesterol was coming from their diet? If they made that assumption, that is as idiotic as assuming that a person with constipation ate too much dry food or did not drink enough water, and a person with diarrhea did the opposite.

Some people claim that "red" meat is unhealthy, including the white meat of pigs, but if that were true, then scientists would be able to identify the molecules in the meat that cause trouble, and they would be able to show that chicken, fish, grains, and other foods don't have much or any of those molecules. However, no scientist has identified anything dangerous in red meat.

No society cares about the quality of the information that we are provided. This allows businesses, citizens, children, and lunatics to create a fear of a food, and to promote a particular food.

If historians were doing a better job of analyzing human history, they might be able to determine where the fear of red meat came from. Perhaps it came from the businesses that produce chickens, or perhaps it came from vegans or animal-rights activists. Or perhaps it came from doctors who noticed that some of their patients had fat clogging their arteries, and assumed that the fat had come from beef and pork because it had a similar appearance.

For all we know, red meat is dangerous only when we eat excessive amounts of it. Everything in life has to be held within boundaries. We need water, oxygen, protein, iron, salt, vitamin A, and other things, but too much of them will kill us.

In a free enterprise system, every consumer has to figure out for himself who to trust, and what to believe, but it is foolish for us to believe that we are experts on food and health simply by reading some of the documents that other people and businesses have provided.

This constitution makes the Meals Minister responsible for providing the public with guidance on foods. He is required to work with scientists to set policies for food, and to routinely update those policies as scientists learn more about health issues. Furthermore, the Database Ministry, and the Knowledge Division of the World Government are required to ensure that information is accurate.

This constitution creates an economic system in which scientists are given projects by the city government, not by businesses. This allows scientists to study issues without any pressure to promote a particular food or other item.

Since nobody knows much about health or food, the policies that the Meals Minister creates for food will always be assumptions. In regards to oils, the Meals Minister cannot claim to know which oils are best for us, so he cannot tell the restaurants that they must use a particular oil. Instead, he must work with scientists to develop a sensible policy based on what they know at the time.

For example, one possibility is to require the restaurants to use a variety of oils rather than just one. If there is evidence that olive oil might be healthier than the others, then the restaurants would be told to use olive oil more often. That type of policy would provide people with a mixture of oils that is dominated by olive oil. As we learn more about which oils are healthier, the mixture would be adjusted accordingly.

Another possibility is to let every restaurant chef choose which oils he wants to use, but require him to identify those oils in the descriptions of the meals. Consumers would then choose the restaurants to eat at. By developing software to keep track of the foods that people eat, everybody will become part of an experiment to help us figure out which oils are the healthiest.

The free enterprise system provides us with as much sugar as we want, and in whatever form we want, such as edible decorations.

There are a variety of decorative sugar items, such as sugar sprinkles, sugar glass, and sugar toppers. Some of them are colored sugar, and others are a mixture of colored sugar and hydrogenated palm oil.

The decorative sugar items should be classified as unhealthy foods because we cannot enjoy the sweetness of the sugar unless the sugar particles have time to dissolve in our mouth, but we do not chew our food to such an extent that all of the large sugar particles are crushed and dissolved.

Therefore, we end up swallowing large amounts of sugar particles that we never enjoy the sweetness of. This causes us to consume sugar that we don't get any pleasure from, which is essentially the same as injecting sugar into our veins.

If we could determine the "pleasure per calorie" of our food items, those that are decorated with particles of sugar would have a low value. It would be healthier for us to use sugar only to sweeten foods, rather than as decorations.

The Meals Minister must work with scientists to set a policy for the restaurants in regards to the amount of sugar they can use in a particular food product. That puts restrictions on our freedom to eat sugar, and the freedom of chefs to use sugar in recipes, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

The same concept applies to salt. The large salt crystals on pretzels, bagels, and other bread products are visually attractive, but they causes us to consume excessive amounts of salt.

The Meals Minister is required to experiment with healthier methods of decorating food products.

The Meals Minister has the authority to prohibit the decoration of foods with sugar and salt crystals, and restrict decorations to powdered sugar and salt. He could also allow a less troublesome type of decorations, if there are any, such as nanocellulose or gelatin.

In a free enterprise system, the businesses that produce chicken eggs are competing to attract the attention of consumers, and this results in some of them boasting that they provide their chickens with vegetarian diets, or that their chickens are "free range", or that their chickens don't eat soybean products. There are also businesses that sell supplements, such as YolkProud, that can be fed to chickens in order to make their yokes more orange.

The Meals Minister is authorized to work with scientists to determine the best way to raise and feed chickens, rather than let consumers or business executives make the decisions. He must set a policy according to what is best for our health, not according to what consumers are attracted to.

In a free enterprise system, businesses encourage consumers to drink excessive amounts of their beverages, some of which have such high levels of caffeine that we ought to wonder if they created those beverages in an attempt to make their customers addicted to it. (Compare the levels of caffeine at this site.)

Caffeine does not cause much trouble for us compared to alcohol, heroin, and many other drugs, but our social environment would be slightly more pleasant and peaceful if we could live among people who do not have any addictions to any drug. Furthermore, producing coffee and tea is a labor-intensive process, so it would be best to reduce or eliminate that labor.

Ideally, everybody would be in such excellent health that nobody needs any type of stimulant, in which case we would design meals and drinks for pleasure and health, rather than to compensate for genetic disorders.

The Meals Minister has the authority to set policies for caffeine. He can experiment with such policies as limiting the quantity of coffee or tea that a person can have each day, or requiring the coffees, teas, and other drinks to have such low levels of caffeine that nobody becomes dependent upon caffeine.

If we discover that some people have a peculiar medical disorder that improves with large amounts of caffeine, those people would be allowed to have large amounts, but healthy people don't need or benefit from caffeine, so it would be best if the restaurants were not causing people to become addicted to an unnecessary substance.

Some foods have extremely high levels of certain vitamins or minerals that can be unhealthy if we eat excessive amounts of those foods. For example, liver has such high levels of vitamin A that it cannot be a primary food source, and Brazil nuts have excessive amounts of selenium.

The Meals Minister can put restrictions on such foods to reduce the chances that people eat excessive amounts of them, such as prohibiting a restaurant from serving large amounts of liver on a routine basis, and by prohibiting people from promoting liver as a healthy food, such as this BBC article.

We might have evolved a dislike of liver to prevent ourselves from eating an excessive amount of it, as I suggested here, but we might benefit by having small amounts of liver once in a while.

Some people eat liver when it is in the form of liverwurst or liver paste, but those products tend to be just a blend of liver and fat, and sometimes with meat and spices. I think a tastier version of liver paste is a blend of liver with one or more vegetables, such as corn, peas, beets, carrots, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts, and with miso paste for flavor. In addition, onions, vinegar, and spices can be added, as well as a small amount of fat, such as beef fat, lard, olive oil, or hemp oil. That provides a more nutritious liver paste, and with much less fat. A small amount of Stevia or sugar will compensate for the bitterness of the spices and vinegar.

By making appetizers with a small amount of that type of liver paste, a person could get a small amount of liver without being annoyed by the flavor.

Furthermore, by making the liver paste with oils that don't harden when frozen, such as hemp and walnut oil, and with miso pastes that don't harden when frozen, and with enough of certain vegetables, and with some Stevia or sugar for sweetening, the liver paste can be frozen into popsicles for hot summer days. That would provide children with a popsicle made from vegetables and a small amount of liver.

The Meals Minister must cooperate with the Foods Minister of the Economic division, and with the Restaurants Minister of the Social division, to plan the type and quantity of foods for the farms and ranches to produce. Since the People database identifies all of the people in the city, and how much food they ate in the past, the Meals Minister will be able to plan how much food the farmers must produce, thereby reducing the amount of wasted food.

Bad weather and other unexpected problems will occasionally result in a shortage of some food items, but nobody would be hungry even during extreme disasters because there would always be some dry and frozen foods. Furthermore, if a disaster was so serious that it actually caused a shortage of food, a city could import food from other cities.

Due to genetic variations, some people will not enjoy the foods that have low sugar levels for various reasons, such as being more sensitive to bitter chemicals, less sensitive to sugar, or having a greater craving for sweet foods. Regardless of what their problem is, they need restrictions on the reproduction.

As mentioned several times in this constitution, after we have decided what type of culture we want, we must ensure that every generation will accept and follow that culture. If we allow the people who dislike the meals to reproduce, then every generation will have more people complaining about the food, and eventually everybody will demand their own special meals.

Prehistoric humans who had abnormal desires for food were less successful in life and reproduction. We like certain foods and dislike certain other foods because of the suffering and deaths of our ancestors who liked or disliked the inappropriate foods. For example, the reason we are appalled by the scent of waste products and rotten meat is because we did not evolve to eat those foods. Our ancestors who ate those foods were less successful in life.

We are no longer allowing nature to ensure that our children have appropriate desires for food, or appropriate digestive systems, livers, or other characteristics. We must now do what nature was doing for our ancestors. We must decide who among us has the appropriate genetic characteristics for the next generation. This includes passing judgment on whether a person enjoys the foods that we have decided to be part of our culture, and that they are capable of digesting those foods properly.

In the free enterprise system, businesses and restaurants pander to their customers, but the Meals Ministry is required to treat people in the same manner that a farmer treats animals.

A farmer wants the animals to enjoy their meals so that they are willing to eat their food, but his primary goal is to figure out what type of meals will keep them in the best health. This has resulted in farmers discovering that it is best to change the meals as the animal grows older. For example, some of the chicken farmers provide three different types of foods for chickens according to their age:

They also adjust the quantities of food according to age:

The differences in those foods is so small that a farmer could feed all of his chickens the same food regardless of their age, but the attitude of the chicken farmers is to maintain optimum health, not adequate health.

The Meals Ministry is required to have the same attitude with people. Specifically, the Meals Ministry is required to investigate human health issues and adjust the meals to provide us with the optimum mental and physical health.

As we learn more about how food affects us, the Meals Ministry might discover that men and women should have slightly different diets, in which case the Meals Ministry has the authority to order the restaurants to provide different meals for men and women. They might also discover that pregnant women and elderly people should have slightly different diets, in which case the restaurants would be required to provide them with different meals.

A restaurant executive also has the option of discriminating against people in order to make it easier for him to create certain types of meals. For example, an executive could choose to provide meals only for pregnant women, or only for elderly people, or only people with a particular food allergy. That allows him to efficiently produce meals for a particular group of people who need a similar type of meal.

An executive could also discriminate differently on different days of the week. For example, an executive could restrict Monday evening dinners to women, and Tuesday could be for married couples.

The goal of the restaurants is to provide everybody with healthy meals in a pleasant environment, and to do so in an efficient manner. Nobody suffers if one executive wants to work only one evening a month, and another executive wants to make dinners only for elderly people, and another executive only wants to make breakfast.

As our technology for tracking and observing people gets better, it will become easier for computers to figure out how meals are affecting our physical activities, digestion, behavior, sleeping habits, allergies, farting, constipation, diarrhea, blood sugar, and blood pressure.

Eventually robots will be able to adjust meals for each person according to his health, physical activities, allergies, and other criteria.

Everybody would be able to choose the type of meal he wants to eat, such as tacos, burgers, or a spinach quiche, but the robots would adjust the quantity of food in a meal, and its salt, sugar, vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other ingredients, to fit each person.

The businesses in a free enterprise system create food products in order to appease consumers, and this can result in food products that are visually stimulating, or which follow a tradition that people have become accustomed to. There is not much of a concern about the process of eating the food.

For example, many restaurants are providing burgers that are so tall that it is impossible to fit them in our mouth without squashing the burger, which causes juice and other ingredients to dribble out, and which causes the bun to become soggy and break into pieces.

The dribbling makes a mess of our hands, face, and table, which in turn increases the number of napkins that we use. Children often wipe their messy hands on their clothing or the furniture, which increases the need to wash clothing or furniture. The burger also becomes increasingly unpleasant to look at as we get closer to finishing it.

Although consumers have become accustomed to messy burgers, the Meals Ministry cannot follow traditions, or care what the consumers want. They should design food products according to what is best for society.

This constitution requires the ministers to reduce undesirable labor to the minimum, so the Meals Minister should experiment with meals that are less messy, thereby reducing our use of napkins and the labor and resources needed to clean the table. He should also experiment with meals that are nearly as visually attractive at the end of the meal as they were at the beginning.

For example, the Meals Minister could prohibit the traditional shape of burgers and require the meat to be formed into a narrow cylinder, and placed in a bun that is narrow enough for us to get into our mouth without needing to squeeze it. It would resemble a thin version of the American hot dog (drawing to the right).

That design would significantly reduce the dribbling problem, and the problem of the bun becoming increasingly soggy. It would make meals much less messy, especially for children, compared to the traditional tall, round burger.

Not many people enjoy working in a restaurant, so we should design our meals so that robots can prepare them. There are already a lot of machines producing food products, such as crackers, pizzas, pies, and quiches, and by modifying our recipes, we could have machines create even more of our meals.

If a food item can be frozen, robots at restaurants would warm them up when we want them. For the food items that are not practical to freeze, we could develop machines that are small enough for a restaurant, and then the machines would make them as we want them.

By designing recipes and baking techniques for robots, the employees of the restaurant would be needed only to do the chores that robots cannot do, such as inspecting ingredients and discarding those that are moldy or stinky.

One method of making it easier for robots and machines to make meals is to make the food items in thinner sections so that they cook faster. I created a video years ago to show that we can rapidly provide ourselves with freshly ground, whole grain breads by making the bread in sheets rather than as loaves.

We can reduce the time to cook such foods as lasagna, quiche, apple crisps, and pies by making them much thinner. That allows a restaurant to provide quiches, breads, and other meals on demand, rather than ahead of time, thereby providing us with freshly baked meals. That would also reduce food waste because the machines would make only as much food as necessary.

One problem with thin food items is that they cool down quickly, but that problem can be solved by providing us with a small portion on warm plates. After we have finished eating the small portion, a robot would provide us with another small portion.



This allows us to have a meal in which every portion of it is warm and freshly baked. It also allows us to extend the meal over longer periods of time by having a delay between the different portions of food.

The small portions also give us the option of having a meal with a variety of foods. For example, we could start our dinner with a small portion of a broccoli quiche, and then have a small portion of pork, and then a small portion of a lasagna.

Those small portions also give us the option of eating different portions of a dinner at different restaurants. We also have the option of doing something before we have another portion, such as taking a walk around the area to enjoy the sunset, or going somewhere to listen to music or participate in karaoke.

By providing those type of options for dinner, the city would feel as if we are living in a giant mansion that has a variety of dining rooms and recreational areas for us to choose from.

We assume that we like certain foods because we enjoy their flavor and odor, but the memories that we accumulated during our life have a significant effect on which foods we like.

Our mind is in a dark and isolated skull, so we interpret the world by comparing the data coming from our eyes, ears, mouth, and other senses, to that data we collected during our life. Our mind looks for similarities and differences. When we notice that something we are looking at is similar to something we have seen in the past, then the new item "reminds us" of that past item.

This happened to me when I decided to grind my own beef burgers, and the texture and flavor reminded me of when I was a young child and there were a few times when I spit out partially chewed meat to look at it for some reason, and then I ate it again. As a young child, I did not care about people spitting out food and then eating it again, but as an adult, those memories stimulated unpleasant feelings, so it caused me to dislike the ground beef burgers. I had to push myself to eat those burgers until I had enough pleasant memories of them to dominate the unpleasant memories.

Another reason that some food will be unpleasant is if it is different from every food was seen before, it can trigger our fear of the unknown, which causes us to be afraid of it. An example of that situation is when I provided people with Mochi ice cream. Another example is when I made bread with curry powder and onions for a woman who never had anything similar to it; she considered it to be unappealing, but her reaction was more of fear than of a dislike of the flavor.

In order for adults to enjoy the incredible variety of foods that are available to us, we must expose children to a variety of foods with different flavors and visual appearances.

In order for the restaurants to provide us with truly pleasant meals, they must do more than ensure that the food tastes good, has a nice visual appearance, and can be eaten without making a mess. They must also be concerned with what type of memories that the food stimulates.

On page 140 of the article in the Ladies Home Journal (described here) is an ad for Hydrox cookies. Although I don't eat either Hydrox or Oreo cookies, those cookies are useful an example of how we can like or dislike a food due to the memories it evokes. Those cookies are also another example of why we need to develop a better economic system than free enterprise, and why we must pass judgment on the mental characteristics and behavior of the people in influential positions.

1)

The free enterprise system is abusive The lack of supervision in the free enterprise system is favoring the people who are abnormally aggressive, selfish, and dishonest. There are several videos and documents that provide information on the fighting and cheating between the two companies that produced those two cookies. Although I don't know how accurate the analyses are, you might find some of them interesting, such as this video or this article. In addition to fighting with each other, the abusive advertisements of the Oreo company has caused a lot of people to get involved with the idiotic issue of how to eat Oreo cookies, which should be described as manipulating people into wasting a portion of their precious life on a worthless activity in order to increase the profits of a business. Take a look at how many videos and documents discuss the issue of the best way to eat Oreo cookies. The issue of people discussing how to eat Oreo cookies is also another example of the dilemma of how do we know when we are "having fun"? Are we enjoying our life when we discuss the best way to eat an Oreo cookie? Or are we fools for allowing businesses to degrade our culture and manipulate us into wasting a portion of our life on a worthless activity? Although most people have probably never discussed how to eat an Oreo cookie, most of us occasionally waste some time on an equally idiotic activity that we picked up from friends, family members, advertisements, Zionist organizations, charities, or think tanks. For example, many of the "very important people" spend time practicing the game of golf, or comparing their golf scores to that of their friends, or searching for "better" golf clubs and golf balls, but are any of those activities truly more enjoyable or worthwhile than discussing the best way to eat Oreo cookies? Or are those VIPs wasting their time and money, and causing themselves unnecessary frustration and stress? The people who are successful at getting to the top positions of a free enterprise system and a democracy are the people who excel at pandering to, manipulating, deceiving, and exploiting the public. They have no concern for whether we are having a pleasant life. They have no desire to analyze our culture and experiment with improvements to it. This Constitution changes the situation by making the government responsible for culture, and requiring them to routinely analyze the effect our culture is having on our lives, and experiment with improvements to it. The schools are required to teach children that culture is "social technology", and that it should be analyzed and improved just like other technology. The schools are also required to explain to the children that they inherited the emotional desire of an animal to follow traditions, and the schools must give the children exercises to give them practice finding the courage to think new thoughts, look critically at culture, and experiment with culture. For example, the students could be given a question like the one below, and then told discuss the issue with the class: Which discussion is the most worthless in regards to our satisfaction with life: A) The best golf putter. B) The best way to eat Oreo cookies. How do we know when we are doing something that is providing us with a pleasant life? How do we determine if we are wasting our time on something worthless or idiotic? How do we know when we are being exploited by a person, business, charity, religion, or Zionist organization?

2)

The names of food products are important Our mind decodes language by looking in its memory to see what it associates with each word and phrase. When I see the name "Hydrox", my mind gives me images of chemicals, not images of cookies or foods, which makes the cookie unappealing. By comparison, the name "Oreo" causes images of oriole birds and the Baltimore Orioles baseball team to flash through my mind. Although birds and baseball teams do not make the cookie appealing, they do not make it unappealing. A better name for the cookie would be something that reminds me of a pleasant food, such as "chocolate cream biscuit", but businesses don't want to use descriptive names for their products. They want to create a name that they can copyright, and that we will remember. In order for us to get maximum enjoyment from our meals, we need to describe the food in a manner that evokes pleasant feelings. In this previous document, I recommended that restaurants provide high resolution, beautiful, color photos and descriptions of the meals. Unfortunately, we have different ideas on what is pleasant. For example, I don't care for alcohol, but if I did, I would not be attracted to a "grasshopper", or some of the other "funny" names for drinks. I have a lot memories of picking up grasshoppers when I was a child, and having them spit a dark fluid out of their mouth, and poking me with the thorns on their legs. Those memories make the concept of drinking a "grasshopper" very unpleasant. If a company were to offer cookies that had lumps of chocolate, raisins, and nuts, and give it the name of "Vomit Cookies", young children might consider the cookies to be amusing, but I suspect that most adults would refuse to eat them because of the images that would appear in their mind. This concept applies to everything in life, not just food. Our mind interprets everything, so in order for us to enjoy our jobs, clothing, recreational activities, holiday celebrations, and hairstyles, we must interpret them in a manner that evokes pleasant memories and feelings. Businesses and militaries have known this for centuries, which is why they demand that their members maintain clean and orderly work environments, wear clean clothing, and behave in a pleasant manner. They have the attitude of a chef who is creating a beautiful meal. Specifically, they provide their members with a beautiful and orderly social environment. However, businesses do not apply that concept to their customers. Instead, they look for ways of manipulating customers. In order to provide ourselves with a more pleasant social environment, the executives are prohibited from promoting their business and products, and they cannot create names or logos for their products. Instead, the ministers create names for products, and they must be either neutral or promote a pleasant image. Unfortunately, the differences in our genetic characteristics cause us to have different ideas on what is a pleasant social environment is. This is another reason why we must limit the genetic diversity of the human race.