|Don't expect simple solutions
Most people have simplistic solutions to the world's problems.
For example, they believe that we can improve the world simply by eliminating
some laws, or passing a few new laws, or by reducing taxes, or by imposing
carbon taxes. Communist leaders believe they will improve their nation
through even more idiotic techniques, such as getting control of more land
or resources, or stealing technology from other nations. Unfortunately,
life is not that simple. A nation, business, and other organization is
just an intangible concept inside people's minds. We cannot improve
an organization by reducing taxes or stealing technology. There are only
two ways to improve an organization:
1) Improve the concepts that create the organization,
ie, develop better "culture" or "human software". This requires that people
exert enough self-control to suppress their fear of the unknown, stop following
their ancestors, and start experimenting with better economic systems,
more useful social affairs, and a more productive school system.
Both of those methods are difficult. Both require a lot of effort from
us, and both are going to result in emotional discomfort. Therefore, the
only way we are going to improve society is if people can change their
attitudes and look at culture in a manner similar to how athletes look
at physical activities. An athlete is willing to put a lot of effort into
his activity and tolerate a lot of emotional discomfort. Likewise, we must
put a lot of effort into improving society, and we must be capable of tolerating
a lot of emotional discomfort. Improving society will not be "fun"; it
will be "work". The work will be enjoyable only if you develop an attitude
similar to an athlete who ignores the emotional discomfort, and enjoys
the people, the benefits, and whatever else he can find to enjoy.
2) Improve the minds of the members, ie, develop better "hardware",
such as by preventing chemicals that cause brain damage from damaging a
fetus, restricting reproduction to the better quality people, and evicting
people who do not fit in.
We cannot please everybody,
so who do we please?
There is no way to design a society to give everybody what
they want. America promotes the concept of a "democracy" in which we try
to satisfy the majority of people, but that philosophy doesn't work well
because the majority of people are too apathetic, selfish, and mentally
lazy to take an active role in society. The majority of people don't like
to think, discuss issues, research issues, analyze anything, or experiment
with the unknown.
It is idiotic to give the majority of people what they want because
the majority of people have no idea
what they want. They mimic other people, just like stupid animals,
and they occasionally pick up ideas from advertisements, entertainers,
and salesmen. They behave like a herd of sheep that wanders about aimlessly
with no idea of where they have been or where they are going. To make this
problem worse, they are easily manipulated by religious fanatics, crime
networks, salesmen, and whoever happens to be an authority.
The majority of people have such a resistance to thinking that most
of them have never noticed that they have no idea what they want from life.
They don't seem to realize that they are mimicking one another. Most of
them seem convinced that they have contemplated life and have figured out
the correct religion, clothing styles, holiday celebrations, and sports
Instead of pandering to the majority of people, we should design social
activities, recreational activities, museums, schools, businesses, and
other aspects of our culture according to what we think will be best for
the human race. We should provide guidance to the majority of people,
not try to please them, and we should especially not try to please the
badly behaved, stupid, or psychotic people.
For example, many Americans believe that Halloween should include "pranks",
such as throwing eggs on people's houses, pushing outhouses on their side,
and throwing toilet paper in trees. My personal opinion is that those pranks
are "vandalism". I don't think they are amusing. Every society has to make
decisions on who they want to please, and who they want to suppress. This
applies to more than just Halloween. We have to make decisions on who we
want to please in regards to public artwork, the layout of the city, the
transportation system of the city, the recreational areas, the parks, and
Military units, businesses, and other large organizations have to deal
with the same issue. They often provide "cultural services", such as cafeterias,
artwork in their hallways, recreational areas, childcare services, parties,
dinners, and gardens. What type of artwork do they put into their hallway
and reception area? What type of food should they offer in their cafeteria?
Should they arrange for a Christmas party, and if so, what type of party?
If they have a Halloween party, do they want to encourage pranks, and if
so, what type of pranks?
In order to improve our culture, we need to analyze the advantages and
disadvantages to all aspects of our culture. There is a benefit and burden
to everything, and we should continuously look for ways to reduce the burden
and increase the benefit.
The same concept applies to material items. Each item has a burden,
such as requiring raw materials, requiring people to work on an assembly
line, and creating waste products. We should design all products so that
they provide a benefit that outweighs their burden.
In a previous file I criticized the American holiday of Halloween. The
burden of this holiday is that a lot of people must produce candy, costumes,
and other Halloween paraphernalia. The burden is increased by the people
who promote pranks. The burden is further increased by the high level of
crime in America, which causes some parents to discard the candy that their
children collect, and replace it with candy that they purchased themselves.
Does the benefit of this holiday outweigh the burden? What is the benefit?
Unfortunately, the benefit and burden of a cultural activity depends
upon your particular view of life. To some people, the pranks are a benefit
of Halloween. There is no right or wrong way to design culture. We simply
have to agree with one another on what we want for the future of the human
race, but discussions about this issue are going to result in lots of disagreements.
If the people are not capable of compromising on issues that have no right
or wrong, then they are not going to be able to experiment with
changes to their culture. They will instead just argue with one another.
If a group of people are capable of discussing these complex issues
and compromising on policies, then they will be able to start conducting
experiments with their culture, and through the years their social affairs,
holiday celebrations, museums, recreational facilities, and courtship activities
would become increasingly beneficial and less burdensome.
However, it should be noted that some members of society will disagree
with the changes to their culture, and so from their point of view, society
will get increasingly worse every year, not increasingly better. Those
people must be classified as "misfits", and they should be prohibited from
reproducing. This brings up an issue that I've mentioned in other documents,
and it's very important to understand. Specifically, we are affecting the
future evolution of the human race even if we do not restrict reproduction.
By choosing certain types of foods, economic systems, social affairs, and
schools, we determine who among us is well adapted, and who is not, and
that in turn can affect who is successful in reproduction.
In the world today, some of the people who are most successful with
reproduction are the idiots, religious fanatics, and people who cannot
form stable relationships. We alter the evolution of the human race even
if we do not restrict reproduction. It would make much more sense for us
to take control of this process by passing judgment on who should reproduce
rather than letting it happen in a chaotic, unsupervised manner.
We must watch for excessive
The majority of people follow the philosophy that when they
find something they enjoy, they should do it again, and again, and again.
The end result is that many people do something to excess, such as collecting
material items, winning awards, eating food, and drinking alcohol.
I've mentioned one example in previous documents; namely, women's cosmetics.
Young, single women have a strong craving to make themselves look attractive
and put themselves on display. During prehistoric times, this resulted
in the young girls putting some effort into cleaning themselves and wearing
nice clothing, but today women are getting carried away with hair products,
jewelry, makeup, and clothing.
Women are submissive because they evolved to be taken care of by men,
but most men today are so overwhelmed with the complexity of modern life
that they cannot properly care for themselves or their daughters or wives.
Instead of providing guidance to the women, men are exploiting them by
encouraging them to purchase cosmetics, surgery, diamonds, skin creams,
hair removers, and tattoos.
I think the women are using cosmetics to an excessive amount. I think
life for both men and women will become noticeably more pleasant if we
reduce the emphasis on cosmetics, such as restricting cosmetics to certain
social activities. We could go even further and not allow women to have
cosmetics in their homes. We could restrict cosmetics to a few selected
buildings that are scattered around the city. They would be similar to
the cosmetics sections of retail stores. Those cosmetics centers would
be closed most of the time, and they would open for certain social affairs.
When those centers were open, the women would have free access to all the
different types of makeup, jewelry, and decorative clothing.
It might seem cruel to restrict a woman's access to cosmetics, but we
are not cruel to deny somebody the opportunity to satisfy their cravings.
We have to look to the advantages and disadvantages to these issues. There
are a lot of advantages to restricting cosmetics. For example, it will
reduce the overall consumption of cosmetics, which reduces the number of
people that we need to produce cosmetics and deal with the trash that cosmetics
create. If we create a society that does not have a peasant
class to do such work, it is imperative that we eliminate as
much unnecessary work as possible.
Another advantage to restricting cosmetics is that we reduce the burden
that women have imposed upon themselves. Most American women have cluttered
their bathroom with cosmetic items, and they waste some of their time every
day fooling around with jewelry and cosmetics. By restricting jewelry and
cosmetics to the cosmetic centers, and prohibiting women from taking cosmetics
to their home, their homes will be noticeably less cluttered, especially
the bathrooms. The women will waste less of their time on cosmetic-related
activities, thereby giving them more time for something more enjoyable.
Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have any cosmetics, and I cannot see
any reason to believe that women have improved their lives or their relationships
with cosmetics. I think cosmetics have become extreme today because women
are getting carried away with their attempts to look pretty, and businesses
are getting carried away with their cravings for money.
Since women are submissive, as cosmetics increase in popularity, the
women feel more pressure to join the crowd and use cosmetics, also. There
are now so many women using cosmetics that most women believe that they
them in their daily life. Our prehistoric ancestors were comfortable in
their natural state, but many women today feel uncomfortable to be in public
I think that life would actually become more relaxed and pleasant for
both men and women if we prohibited women from taking cosmetics to their
home, and if we restricted their access to cosmetics to only certain social
affairs. We should consider cosmetics and jewelry to be occasional entertainment,
not a daily necessity.
We should also consider whether we want to produce permanent hair dyes.
There seem to be two primary uses for hair dyes. One is that people with
gray hair want to look younger, and the other is that young people want
to change their natural hair color. Should we provide dyes for either of
Hair dyes require a chemical industry, and we don't know exactly how
those chemicals affect our health or the environment. Even if the dyes
are completely safe, what benefit do they provide us? Are they improving
anybody's life? Do they provide a benefit that is greater than the burden
As I mentioned in a previous file, I think the reason so many older
people want to dye their gray hair is because they never truly enjoyed
their life. Gray hair makes them sad because it reminds them that they
are getting old before they enjoyed life. We don't fix this problem by
encouraging them to pretend they are young. We will reduce this problem
when we start experimenting with improvements to society to make it easier
for us to find friends, activities, and a compatible spouse. I think that
when more people have a truly satisfying childhood and adulthood, they
will have an easier time growing old.
Many young people dye their hair simply to change the color, but why
do they want to change the color? I think it is because they are unhappy
with their life, and they have come to the false assumption that the grass
will be greener on the other side of the fence. However, if a person cannot
enjoy life with his natural hair color, he is not going to enjoy life with
a different hair color. We are not improving anybody's life by allowing
them to change their hair color. The only way we can help unhappy people
is to tell them to take a critical look at themselves, and start experimenting
with changes in their attitude and life.
The businesses that produce hair dyes are encouraging people to believe
that they look better with dyed hair, and that people will like them better,
but I don't think an 80-year-old person with dyed hair looks better than
a 80-year-old with natural gray hair. I think that older people with dyed
hair end up with a mismatch between their skin and their hair.
Likewise, businesses encourage young people to believe that they will
become better looking and more popular if they change their hair color,
but I think they look worse, especially if they have dark
hair and are trying to make it blonde. Those people end up with what I
would describe as a sickly, yellow color. Also, I don't like the dark roots,
or the mismatch between their blonde hair and their dark eyebrows. I think
they look worse than if they were natural.
Women are not improving their lives by changing
their hair color or putting black coloring around their eyes.
The majority of people never think about life. They just mimic
other people, especially the people they admire, such as entertainers.
If the entertainers were better behaved than the ordinary person, then
it would be desirable to encourage ordinary people to mimic the entertainers,
but most entertainers behave in bizarre, self-destructive, neurotic, and
idiotic manners. We do not benefit when people imitate the entertainers.
Many women have become convinced that they must put black pigments around
their eyes, as in the photo of Madonna.
is even more extreme. While a subtle amount of black makeup can have an
interesting effect on women with dark hair and dark eyebrows, such as the
Japanese or Africans, I think it looks awful on women with light skin and
blonde hair. Too much of it can make it look like they are partly dead,
or suffering from heroin addiction.
The ordinary people are easily influenced by entertainers, businesses,
crime networks, and religious fanatics. The people in leadership positions
of governments, businesses, science, schools, and sports should provide
people with guidance, not exploit them or pander to them.
What is the benefit to contests
Another example of how we get carried away with attempts to
titillate our emotions are "contests", such as athletic contests, spelling
contests, beauty contests, and food eating contests. Men have cravings
to be the dominant male, and women have cravings to be the center of attention,
and so both men and women have a strong attraction to contests. However,
we should not engage in an activity simply because our emotions are titillated
by it. We should ask ourselves whether the benefits are worth the burden.
Ideally, the leaders of society would know how many contests they are
holding every year, what level of resources and labor each contest requires,
and what the benefit for each contest is. However, in the world today,
I don't think anybody has any idea how many contests we are holding every
year, or what burden they impose on society.
There are possibly millions of contests every year in the world.
There are also lots of awards given for scientific achievement, art, and
engineering, such as the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards.
Every contest is a burden on society, and most require the contestants
to put time and effort into the contest. What do we gain in return for
all of this work? I don't think we gain anything of value. I think all
societies have become carried away with trying to titillate their cravings
for status and attention.
I think that we would have a more pleasant life overall if we reduced
the emphasis on winning contests and collecting awards. I think we should
design social activities to provide us with greater benefit than some momentary
titillation. Recreational activities, for example, should be designed to
provide us with exercise and socializing. I don't think we benefit by designing
them to be competitive battles for trophies. Social events should be designed
to help us meet people, try new activities, or learn something new, rather
than to get an award.
Men are getting carried away
The intense emotional craving to be at the top of the hierarchy
is causing many men to get carried away with seeking awards, trophies,
impressive job titles, gigantic mansions, and other status items. Women
inadvertently encourage this behavior because they prefer men who are at
the top of the hierarchy.
Sports would have been fun, casual events thousands of years ago, but
our craving to be important and gather material items has caused sports
to slowly evolve into extremely competitive events in which the winners
receive large amounts of money and fame.
The extreme emphasis we put on winning sports events is encouraging
a lot of professional athletes to use drugs in order to boost their performance.
This is encouraging amateur athletes, including teenagers, to use drugs
to boost their athletic performance.
The bodybuilders inadvertently increase
the popularity of drugs by using them to give themselves a body that resembles
a comic book superhero. (I am using the word "bodybuilder" to describe
people who develop muscles merely for the visual effect, not because they
use their muscles in athletic events or their job.)
Bostin Loyd holds a world record for Honesty in Bodybuilding
Athletes will be disqualified from their events if they get
caught using these drugs, so I am not surprised that all athletes deny
using drugs, but there is a bodybuilder, Bostin Loyd,
who admits to using drugs. He has made
some videos to give an honest description of his drug program (such as
and this) and
how he injects oil into his muscle (such as this).
He also admits to the problems he suffered from, such as lactating breasts,
and how he once caused some type of nerve damage and swelling from an injection
of oil into his arm.
Although Bostin Loyd is only 21 years old, both of his parents were
bodybuilders, and he has been involved with bodybuilding for years, so
his description of bodybuilding may be quite accurate. If he is typical
of the bodybuilders, then the laws against steroids and other drugs are
as ineffective as the prohibition laws. He claims that it is impossible
to win a bodybuilding contest without drugs. He uses the T3 thyroid
hormone, insulin, human growth hormone, steroids, and some other hormones,
in addition to injections of oil into his muscles.
Lying about steroids may
The bodybuilders are giving themselves artificial bodies,
and they make ordinary men look inadequate. However, since most athletes
and bodybuilders deny using drugs, they create the illusion that we can
look and perform like them simply by getting some exercise. Some naive
men may join gyms in order to become more like an athlete or bodybuilder,
and then discover that they need drugs in order to achieve their goals.
Since they already started the process of developing their muscles, some
of them may decide that taking a few drugs will be worth the risk and expense.
Sports organizations, magazines, and television programs add to the
problem by giving us a deceptive view of athletes and bodybuilders. They
promote the excitement of sports and of winning prizes, but they
don't show the unpleasant aspects, such as the drug use, the medical
problems, and the long-term effects. In a free enterprise system, businesses
are concerned only with profit, and there is more profit in entertaining
people with excitement than there is in offering them serious analyses
I think we will create a better society if we force ourselves to be
more honest with one another. Television should provide us with honest
documentaries about what athletes and bodybuilders have to go through in
order to create their impressive bodies, and they should show us what happens
to the athletes and bodybuilders when they are over 50 years of age.
Most people believe that honesty will ruin their life, and as a result,
the majority of people constantly lie to one another, lie
to themselves, and create phony images to impress other people.
Where is the evidence that lies are helping us? I think that if we were
to experience life in a society in which honesty was common, we would never
want to return to the dishonest, deceptive society that we live in right
Most people also believe that we can control human behavior through
threats, jail, rewards, and punishments. When are we going to accept the
fact that we cannot control human behavior through these techniques?
The laws against alcohol during the 1920s did not stop alcohol use. Rather,
prohibition provided profit opportunities for crime networks, and
it also resulted in contaminated, low-quality, and diluted alcoholic drinks.
The same problem is occurring with the drugs that athletes and bodybuilders
use, and with other illegal drugs.
When we try to control human behavior, we encourage people to lie about
their activities and we provide job opportunities for criminals. We must
start experimenting with other methods of dealing with our social problems.
For example, as I will discuss in more detail later in this document, we
may be able to reduce drug use among athletes and bodybuilders by reducing
the emphasis on winning events. By providing phenomenal amounts
of money and fame to only the winners, and by ignoring everybody else,
we encourage people to push themselves to absurd limits to win. This does
not cause drug use or cheating, but it encourages it.
Is our extreme emphasis on winning a sports event really making the
sports better in some way? I don't think so. I think we should analyze
our purpose for playing and watching sports, and experiment with different
attitudes towards sports and recreation.
I also suspect that some problems will diminish simply by providing
ourselves with more pleasant cities, a more sensible economic system, and
more social activities. A lot of people in the world today are lonely
and unhappy, and when we are miserable, we look for ways to feel
better, such as through drugs, shopping, food, winning awards, sex, and
If we can improve our society so that we have an easier time finding
jobs and friends, and be less irritated by crime and corruption, and provide
ourselves with lots of activities to participate in, then I think a lot
of people will discover that they don't want to spend so much of their
leisure time sitting in front of a television, getting drunk, winning awards,
or playing with their dog. They will prefer to go out into the city and
do something more enjoyable.
Steroids are like vitamins,
not like cocaine
Our government treats steroids as if they are dangerous drugs,
but they should not be put into the same category as cocaine or
heroin. Steroids and other hormones are vital chemicals that our
body needs. They are no more dangerous than oxygen, water, vitamins,
minerals, glucose, and salt.
Animals and humans are biological robots that operate on chemicals.
We need a lot of chemicals, but every one of them must be maintained within
a certain range. If we do not get enough oxygen, salt, or water, we will
die, but excessive amounts will kill us, also.
When an athlete suffers medical problems as a result of excessive amounts
of steroids or other hormones, many people become frightened and assume
that the hormone is dangerous. By comparison, when a college student guzzles
an alcoholic beverage and dies as a result, nobody becomes frightened that
they will die if they have an alcoholic drink.
Later in this document I have a section about "fear mongering". Many
people believe that they can control human behavior with frightening stories,
but this technique is ineffective. It is better to be honest
about steroids and other hormones. It is better to admit that these are
dangerous chemicals. They are vital chemicals that all of us need.
If a person is naturally low on a particular hormone, then he may benefit
by taking supplements of that hormone. Those people should not be described
as "drug users" because they are not taking the drugs for cosmetic purposes,
recreation, or to impress other people. They are simply trying to maintain
The issue of hormone supplements is more complex than the issue of water
and oxygen. If a person is low on water, he can fix the problem simply
by drinking some water, but this technique doesn't necessarily work with
hormones because our body manufactures, regulates, and reacts to hormones.
When we take a hormone supplement, our body will react by reducing its
To further complicate the issue of hormones, sometimes a person who
needs a hormone supplement can reduce or eliminate that need by changing
his diet or lifestyle. For example, some people become diabetic when they
become obese, in which case they need insulin, but after some of those
obese people had gastric bypass surgery or forced themselves to control
their diet and get exercise, they reduced or eliminated their need for
There are three aspects to hormones that make the issue rather complex:
1) Each of us differs in our ability to produce hormones.
2) Each of us differs in our ability to regulate the production
and distribution of hormones.
3) Each of us differs in our ability to use hormones.
Consider how these concepts apply to the water faucet in your kitchen.
If you open your water faucet, but only a few droplets trickle out, the
problem could be at one or more of these three areas:
1) The production of water, such as reservoirs or wells.
2) The pipes and valves that distribute and regulate the water to our
3) The faucet in our kitchen sink.
If only a trickle of water comes out of your kitchen faucet, you are
not necessarily going to solve the problem by telling the city to put more
water into the reservoir, or to increase the water pressure in the distribution
Now consider how this applies to hormones. If a person is low on a hormone
because his body cannot produce enough of it, then it is equivalent to
a city that doesn't have much water in the reservoir, and therefore, giving
that person hormone supplements may help him. However, if his body is capable
of producing adequate levels of hormones, but if his body is defective
and deliberately maintaining a low level, then when he takes hormone supplements,
his body will react by assuming it has produced too much, and it will reduce
its own production. The person then needs additional hormones to compensate
for the reduction of natural hormones. This process will continue until
his body gets to the point at which it stops reducing its own production.
That type of person will need extreme levels of hormone supplements because
he will be fighting with his body.
Some of the athletes who took steroids discovered that their testes
began to atrophy. This is an indication that their body responded to the
supplements by shutting down its own production. This should make us wonder
if his testes were the only organs that reacted to the high steroid levels.
Did his heart, liver, or pituitary gland react?
To further complicate the issue of steroids, some people may produce
adequate amounts of a hormone, and their body may maintain a "normal" level
of that hormone, but their body may not be using the hormone properly.
Giving hormone supplements to those people could be dangerous because it
would be equivalent to a city increasing the pressure in the water pipes
in order to force more water out of a defective faucet that cannot open
If a person's body cannot produce adequate amounts of a particular hormone,
then supplements may help them become "normal". However, the men who are
taking hormones to build abnormally large muscles are not trying
to maintain their health. Rather, they are trying to become like comic
book superheroes. They are using hormones to do the equivalent of cosmetic
||Everybody should maintain good health, but the men who use steroids,
drugs, and intense exercise programs in order to look like Superman have
become carried away with their fantasy of looking like a comic book
We should encourage people to accept what the human body is in its natural
Animals and humans have certain physical characteristics. We
are genetically designed to be a certain height, have a certain shape,
and have certain-sized muscles. A normal, healthy human body does not
resemble Superman. There is no way we can look like the superheroes except
through artificial methods, such as absurdly intense exercise programs,
hormones, and drugs. The men with naturally high levels of hormones, such
as those with acromegaly,
may be able to look like superheroes with certain intense exercise programs,
but those people are evidence that abnormally high levels of these hormones
have unpleasant side effects.
Who can justify big muscles?
Our prehistoric ancestors needed large muscles, and
so do people who work in physically demanding jobs, but as technology advances,
fewer people use their muscles at their job. The sedentary workers should
on a regular basis in order to maintain their health, but they have
no reason to build gigantic muscles.
If there was a public database that had information about everybody's
life, we would be able to examine the jobs and leisure activities of the
men who are involved with developing large muscles. This would allow us
to determine how many of those men are actually using their muscles.
My impression is that most men are building gigantic muscles merely
for the visual appearance. Some of them compete in bodybuilding
contests, some are actors or models, and some are merely trying to impress
other people. Since they never use their muscles for anything of value,
they are "bodybuilders" rather than "athletes".
A man who builds up his muscles for his job is doing society a favor
by enabling himself to do a better job, at a faster rate, and with fewer
injuries. However, bodybuilders are a burden on society because, as with
obese people, they consume excessive amounts of food and produce excessive
amounts of waste products, but they give society nothing of value
in return. To make the situation worse, bodybuilders inadvertently cause
other men to become bodybuilders because they make the normal men look
There is no right or wrong to these issues. Bodybuilders are not a significant
burden on society, so if people enjoy bodybuilding, then it is worth the
burden. As I mentioned in a previous document, virtually everything
we do could be described as "wasteful" or a "burden". We don't need attractive
clothing, for example. We simply have to decide what we want for the future
of the human race. This requires that we are capable of discussing
these issues and compromising on policies.
There is not enough time, labor, or resources to do everything that
we would like to do. We have to decide which activities are most important
to us. How much bodybuilding should we encourage? When is a man going "too
far" with his bodybuilding? How many expensive drugs and hormones should
we provide to the bodybuilders? When is a woman going too far with her
cosmetics or breast implants? How much of society's resources should we
put into decorative clothing? How much of our resources should we put into
bicycle paths? How decorative should we make our foot paths and bicycle
paths? Should we add decorative LED lighting along our paths to make it
easier and more enjoyable to walk or ride bicycles at night? Should we
create artificial canals for our city, and if so, how decorative should
they be? Should we put lights in the water of the canal? Should the canals
have concrete walls, or should we make them out of decorative rocks?
To complicate the issue of how society should use its labor and resources,
not conduct a poll of the
population. The reason is because most people have no idea what
they really want. Everybody knows what they are doing right now, and everybody
has fantasies of what they want for their future, but they don't have a
good understanding of themselves, or their options for the future, or how
their desires can change by making other changes to society.
If we conducted a poll of the population today, we would find that many
people claim to enjoy bodybuilding, pet dogs, video games, watching football
on television, or collecting stamps, but they are basing this on what they
know right now, not what their options are. If they were to experience
life in a futuristic city that offered a wide variety of free activities
to both observe and participate in, and a city in which it was easy to
travel by foot, bicycle, or train, and a city in which it is easier for
people to make friends, I think a lot of people would discover that they
want to change some of their leisure activities.
Lots of men are involved with bodybuilding, and lots of women are involved
with cosmetics, and lots of people spend hours every day with their pet
dog, their video games, or their television. How many of these people really
enjoy their leisure activities? How many people are involved with an activity
simply because they don't know of anything better to do with their leisure
time, or because they feel pressured to participate by their friends, spouse,
or family members?
If we were living in a more friendly, homogenous city with significantly
less crime, and if there were lots of free activities for us, and if people
were encouraged to experiment with new activities, I think a lot of people
would develop different leisure activities.
We should learn to enjoy
Our society does not encourage children to learn about themselves,
discover their abilities and limitations, and accept what they are. Children,
especially girls, are taught that their natural condition is unpleasant,
and that they need hair dyes, fingernail polish, tattoos, jewelry, piercings,
hair creams, and other artificial items in order to become attractive.
Our free enterprise system does not encourage us to be natural because
businesses want to sell products, and that requires convincing us that
our natural condition is inadequate, and that their product will make us
better. Why don't we ignore those businesses? Why are we so easily convinced
that their product will improve our lives? Why don't we encourage people
to be "natural" and enjoy the human body that they were born with?
The reason is because it is not natural for animals or humans
to be happy with what they are. The competitive battle for life encourages
animals and humans to show that they are better than other animals.
Women developed a craving to look pretty and groom themselves. They
do not feel comfortable in their natural state. They want to be prettier
than natural. The men developed a craving to show that they belong at the
top of the social hierarchy and are capable of providing a family with
food and protection from danger.
Neither men nor women feel comfortable looking for a spouse in our "natural"
state. Rather, we want to do something to make ourselves more impressive.
Our emotions give us the impression that our natural state is unattractive,
and this causes the women to groom themselves, and it causes the men to
show off their material wealth and strength.
Our prehistoric ancestors had such a low level of technology that their
emotional cravings could never get out of control. The craving that prehistoric
women had to look pretty caused them to keep themselves clean, pull the
knots out of their hair, and produce attractive clothing. Today, however,
our technology allows us to produce an incredible amount of cosmetic products,
and this is causing women to get carried away with their desire to look
pretty, and businessmen exploit the situation with lots of worthless products.
Prehistoric humans would groom themselves each day, but the women today
are not "grooming" themselves. Rather, they are spending an excessive
amount of time and resources on a futile attempt to become better than
human. They are wasting hours every week on lipstick, hair dyes, eyeliners,
piercings, nail polish, shampoos, jewelry, and other cosmetics.
Likewise, the men today are not merely grooming themselves. Many of
them are wasting a lot of time, and risking their health, with steroids,
oil injections, muscle implants, intensive exercise programs, piercings,
hair creams, and other cosmetics.
A prehistoric man would rarely get a female by waiting for a female
to come to him. The men who were most successful in reproducing were those
who had a craving to pursue the females and impress them with their status,
material wealth, and courage. As a result of this competitive pressure,
men did not develop a craving to be honest about themselves, or to discuss
issues with women, or to consider a woman's compatibility. Rather, they
developed a craving to pursue and impress the women. Likewise, the women
didn't develop any interest in being honest with men, or discussing issues
with men, or analyzing a man's compatibility. They developed a desire to
put themselves on display, passively watch the men pursue them, and wait
for one of the men to titillate them.
We could rephrase these concepts by saying that we evolved emotions
that encourage us to create phony images of ourselves and deceive a potential
spouse into thinking that we are better than we really are. Our emotions
do not want us to be "natural" or honest. Our emotions encourage us to
create the impression that we are special; that we are better than other
When we follow our emotional cravings rather than make intelligent decisions,
the women will spend excessive amounts of time trying to be the prettiest
woman, and the men will spend excessive amounts of time trying to create
the impression that they are the greatest man.
It was impossible for our prehistoric ancestors to get carried away
with their emotional cravings, but it is very easy for modern humans to
hurt themselves. For example, our body needs food, but after we have eaten
what it needs, the excess will hurt our health. Many people are also hurting
themselves with their attempts to look attractive, such as by abusing Botox
or other injections in their lips or muscles.
Some of our modern grooming procedures are not dangerous, but they are
For one example, many women have been convinced by cosmetic companies that
they need to trim or alter their cuticles. For another example,
women are shampooing the natural oils out of their hair and off of their
skin, but unless the woman is suffering from defective oil glands, those
oils are beneficial, and they give the women a nice scent, to men at least.
After removing their natural oils, they have to replace them with artificial
creams and fragrances.
In prehistoric times, emotional cravings could never get out of control
because the men and women had to spend most of their time trying to survive
and raise children. Furthermore, prehistoric people didn't have access
to steroids, hair dyes, or Botox.
Technology provides us with phenomenal options, but most people don't
put any significant thought into their options. Instead, they try to titillate
their emotions, just like a stupid animal. The end result is that a lot
of people are putting a lot of time, effort, and resources into modifying
their physical appearance in an attempt to look better. This encourages
other people to do the same so that they don't look inferior. If people
were truly improving their lives or relationships with these activities,
then they would be beneficial, but I don't see any evidence that these
products are helping anybody.
Every year people go to a greater extreme in an attempt to make themselves
become more visually attractive. At the beginning of the 20th century,
only a minority of women in America were piercing their ears and using
cosmetics, but today there are lots of men with pierced ears, and some
men are wearing cosmetics, also. Cosmetic surgery is also becoming increasingly
||People today are going to extremes with breast implants, bodybuilding,
Botox, and cosmetics.
The people in the future will have more advanced drugs, surgical techniques,
and cosmetics. How much more extreme will they be?
Will most of the men in the future take drugs and look like Superman?
Will most women have breast implants, lip injections, and artificial eyelashes?
Will most people undergo several cosmetic surgeries to improve their nose,
eyebrows, ears, and chin?
Tattoos are also becoming popular, and as more people become
accustomed to putting designs in their skin, I would not be surprised if
some cosmetic business develops a "skin dye" that allows us to change
the color of our skin. The "fashion magazines" would respond by providing
exciting articles about how the latest trend is to dye your skin purple,
or multicolored, or glow-in-the-dark pink.
Maintaining good health is beneficial, but we cannot improve
our lives or our relationships by transforming ourselves into non-human
creatures. Many people are getting carried away with their emotional cravings
to become more attractive. A person who doesn't enjoy himself in his natural
state is not going to enjoy himself in an artificial condition. He will
continue to be the same person with the same miserable life.
Instead of encouraging people to believe that the
latest trend is muscle implants or lip piercings, we should
tell people that the latest trend is to exert control over your emotional
cravings, force yourself to think seriously about how you are going to
benefit from your activities, and consider your options for the future.
How can we reduce steroid
It ought to be obvious that we cannot control steroids, or
any other drug, with rewards or punishments, and that we ought to experiment
with some other policy. If we can find enough people who are willing to
create new cities and experiment with social technology, I would suggest
that one of the cities experiment with sports that don't have any winners
or losers. People would participate in sports simply for exercise, entertainment,
When families and friends get together for parties or holidays, they
frequently engage in sports that don't have winners or losers, such as
the "Marco Polo" game that people play in a swimming pool. Sometimes friends
play competitive sports, and they sometimes consider one of the players
to be a winner, but they play the sports for fun, exercise, and to socialize,
not to win a prize. The winner doesn't get anything for winning.
Why is there so much emphasis on winning sports events and providing
the winner with an enormous prize? I think it is because men have intense
cravings to be dominant and to collect material items, and for many centuries
men have been inadvertently putting pressure on sports to offer increasingly
larger prizes of money and fame. To rephrase that, the men who cannot control
their emotional cravings are inadvertently pushing sports into becoming
absurd competitive battles for gigantic financial rewards. Or we could
describe it as: men are getting carried away in their attempt to satisfy
their craving for dominance.
If a city did not provide any type of financial rewards for winning
a sports event, nobody would be able to make a living through sports. There
would be no professional athletes in such a city, unless the city government
decided to support some. In such a case, those athletes would be hired
by the city for a specific purpose, such as to put on entertaining shows,
or to arrange sports and recreational events for schools, city festivals,
or leisure activities. The athletes would be government employees.
However, unlike athletes today, their job would not be to win sports events.
Instead, their job would be to entertain people, or help children with
physical activities or health, or arrange for recreational events for the
city, or something else that is more useful to society than merely winning
Since those type of athletes would be "government employees", they would
have an attitude towards their job that is similar to other employees.
Specifically, they would not be interested
in risking their health or life. They would be more cautious about drugs,
concussions, and risky stunts. As a result, they would seem to have less
motivation and more of a concern about their health compared to the professional
athletes of today, but so what? Do our lives really improve when
athletes have such an intense craving to win a contest that they push themselves
to such extremes that they hurt their health and give each other concussions?
I don't think so.
In a city in which the professional athletes are government employees,
and there is no prize for winning a sports event, most sports events would
probably become so boring that nobody wants to watch them. For example,
would we enjoy watching some government employees play football or rugby?
How about watching some government employees throw javelins or run 100
meters? I don't think so.
The only government employees who would be interesting to watch would
be those who are involved with truly entertaining sports, such as certain
types of gymnastics, dancing, and ice-skating. When a school or military
drill team performs for an audience, they don't have any winners or losers,
or any competitive battle, but they are interesting to watch. We would
quickly get bored watching the same drill team or dancers, but in a city
that encourages people to experiment with new activities, the people are
certain to develop a wide variety of new sports that we cannot imagine.
In addition to hiring athletes to entertain us, I think a city would
want to hire some athletes to arrange for sports and recreational events
for the city residents. The purpose for these athletes would be to encourage
the people to get out of their house and participate in recreational
events rather than watch other people. The athletes would design different
events for people of different ages and abilities, and the purpose for
the events would be to provide the people with exercise, socializing, and
entertainment rather than for trophies or prizes. These athletes might
also be useful for arranging recreational events for people during their
hour in order to encourage office workers to get some exercise while
they are working.
Until we start experimenting, we
will never know for sure what we would enjoy the most. The first people
to experiment with gliders had no idea that their crude devices would develop
into the airplanes that we have today, and the first city to experiment
with sports will not have any idea of what sports will become after centuries
We are fools to be frightened of experimenting with social technology.
We should start the experiments now, before we die of old age. All
we need to do in order to experiment with sports and other social technology
is find the ability to push ourselves into tolerating the emotional discomfort
that results from discussing these issues, and then we must push ourselves
into tolerating the emotional discomfort of experimenting with sports.
Is that really so difficult? I suppose it is for some people, but until
you give it a try, you will never know if you have the ability to do it.
The CrossFit athletic events
are a bit more advanced
In addition to removing the winners and losers from sports,
we could also alter sports to reduce injuries from physical contact and
risky stunts. Many people who enjoy football, hockey, and rugby would probably
respond that safe sports would be boring,
but the CrossFit
athletic events are increasing in popularity despite the fact that they
don't have any physical contact or risky stunts.
The CrossFit events are a random collection of physical tasks, such
as running, swimming, pushing a sled on the grass, carrying a heavy ball,
flipping a heavy object over and over, climbing a rope, and riding a bicycle.
In addition to being safe, it provides the contestants with tremendous
exercise. Different events put different muscles to use. A person who participates
in lots of events will exercise virtually every muscle in his body. By
comparison, most sports events give exercise only to a few muscles. For
example, the American baseball players give tremendous exercise to their
jaw muscles by chewing on tobacco and bubblegum for several hours.
The CrossFit events are much more appropriate for exercise, and the
lack of physical contact and risky stunts eliminates the injuries and concussions
that are common in contact sports. The CrossFit events have winners and
losers because the athlete who finishes an event first is considered to
be the winner of the event, but we could modify the sport so that nobody
gets any prize for being first to complete an event. That would eliminate
the concept that some people are winners and most people are losers. People
would participate merely to exercise, socialize, and entertain themselves.
Of course, without winners or losers, the events would have to be modified
to make them less intense. They are currently designed for people with
absurd levels of physical strength and stamina, and who will push themselves
to absurd extremes. However, we could easily design a variety of events
for people of different ages and physical abilities. In such a case, a
person would join the events that were designed for people of his particular
Why would a person want to participate in a sports event in which there
are no winners? That would be like asking, why would anybody want to play
Marco Polo with their family? Why would anybody want to take a bicycle
ride with his friend? Why would anybody want to take a walk through a garden
with his spouse? The answer is that you would join these recreational events
to socialize and get some exercise. Furthermore, by designing some amusing
events, the exercise can be entertaining in addition to useful.
By eliminating the winners and losers from the CrossFit events, and
by altering the events to make them more suitable to ordinary people, we
will create sports events that are safe, entertaining, and useful for exercise.
We could go one step further by making some of the events useful for
For example, instead of having people push a sled across a grass field,
they could each push a roller over the grass at a city park to aerate the
soil. Instead of carrying a heavy ball a certain distance, they could carry
some rocks that are going to be used to build a footpath or a plaza. Instead
of lifting weights, they could dig holes for planting flowers or bushes.
In our cities of today, we dislike and fear the people we live with,
and so we don't have any interest in doing anything useful for our city.
Besides, most people don't want to spend much of their leisure time in
their city. They spend most of their leisure time in their house, or at
the house of a friend.
However, if we were living in a more advanced city that was designed
for human life rather than business activity, as I've described in other
documents, there would be lots of free social and recreational activities,
and we would prefer to spend a lot of our leisure time outside of our home.
If we also did a better job of controlling immigration and providing ourselves
with proper leadership, then we would enjoy the people we lived with and
consider them to be our friends. We would consider the city to be our home.
In that type of city, we would be much more willing to participate in a
sport that allows us to do something useful for our city while we get some
When we design exercise events that do something useful for society,
then in addition to providing us with exercise, recreation, and socializing,
we benefit from the satisfaction of doing something useful. For example,
imagine that the photo below shows a path in the park between some of the
castles of your city. If you participated in a "sport" in which you walked
or rode along that path to assist with the grinding of tree branches into
mulch or the maintenance of the path, then in addition to getting some
exercise and meeting some of your neighbors, you would get more pleasure
from walking or riding along that path than if other people were maintaining
Most people believe that they will get the most pleasure from
life if they can become rich and spend their time sitting on a throne while
being pampered by servants, but your emotions are fooling you. You will
get more satisfaction from life if you participate
in activities, even if it is only a small participation. If you assist
with the planting of some flowers in the city, then whenever you walked
past those flowers, they would mean more to you than if somebody else planted
I should remind you that although it might seem easy to experiment with
new sports, since all animals and humans have an emotional resistance to
making changes to our lives, it will require us to put some effort into
pushing ourselves into giving the new sport a fair chance. Our emotions
will cause every new activity to feel uncomfortable and idiotic, and this
is especially true with recreational events because all recreational events
truly are idiotic.
There is no way to design a sport or recreational event that is "intelligent".
However, it is possible to design an
event that provides us with some useful exercise, socializing, or entertainment,
and we can also design an event to do something useful for society. It
is also possible to design sports and recreational events that reduce injuries,
and reduce the burden on society, such as reducing land and resource requirements.
experiment with courtship activities?
Experimenting with courtship activities, or any other aspect
of our culture, requires that we be willing and able to deal with failure.
Everybody involved must understand that experimentation always results
in more mistakes than successes, and that there are always lots of unexpected
problems. The people should expect problems and try to learn
from them rather than be shocked about them or whine about them.
It might seem easy to experiment with culture, but the reason I am putting
so much emphasis on it in this document, and often repeating myself, is
because I don't think many people are ready right now to experiment with
culture. To understand why I make that accusation, consider the success
of CrossFit gyms.
In 2005, there were 13 CrossFit gyms in the world, but today there are
more than 7200. These gyms have become very popular, but
are tens of thousands of people around the world paying a fee to become
a member of these gyms? What do the customers expect to receive in return
for their membership? Why are so many people willing to pay a fee to suffer
extreme levels of physical discomfort?
It should be noted that if a police department forced their prisoners
to do the type of physical exercises that the CrossFit gym members are
undergoing, lawyers would be outraged at the "torture" that the police
are subjecting the prisoners to. And then imagine that the police were
forcing the prisoners to pay for the
Why are the customers of CrossFit gyms paying a fee to push themselves
to tremendous levels of physical exhaustion, pain, and fatigue? Why are
they are paying to torture their bodies over and over, day after day? Why
do none of them whine about the pain or the exhaustion? Most of the people
who join those gyms are not trying to become professional athletes,
so why are they pushing themselves to such extremes?
The CrossFit gyms are not attracting "ordinary" people. If a
random sample of the human population was forced to join a CrossFit gym,
most of those people would whine about the abuse and demand that they be
to quit. The CrossFit gyms are attracting people who want to develop their
muscles and physical skills, and who realize that they must put a lot of
effort into exercising. Gyms, military units, mountain climbing organizations,
and other types of adventure groups advertise themselves in a manner similar
"Are you physically tough? Join our group and
you will be under pressure to push yourself beyond what you thought was
Although the CrossFit gyms attract a small percentage of the population,
there is another small percentage attracted to mountain climbing, and another
small percentage attracted to kayaking, and another small percentage attracted
to some other physically strenuous activity. Altogether, there are probably
hundreds of millions of people around the world who are regularly pushing
themselves into strenuous physical activities.
The reason millions of humans can push themselves into doing physical
activities is because we are animals. An animal spends most of its
life on physical activities, not intellectual activities. Animals evolved
the ability and desire to use their muscles, but they never developed any
craving to think, discuss issues, analyze themselves critically, analyze
their leaders, or experiment with cultural issues, so they never developed
an ability to push themselves into doing such intellectual activities.
As monkeys evolved into humans, we developed an ability and desire to
think, but we are still primarily physical. It is more comfortable for
us to push our muscles than to push our mind. It is easier for us to tolerate
physical discomfort than it is to tolerate the mental discomfort that comes
from research, analyses, and criticism.
By comparison, not many people are interested in pushing themselves
in intellectual activities. There are no business that are intellectual
equivalent of a CrossFit gym. There are no businesses advertising themselves
in a manner such as,
"Do you think you have good control of your emotions?
Can you deal with your fear of the unknown? Can you look critically at
yourself and handle critical reviews of yourself? Can you control your
nervousness when you talk to groups of people? If you are single, can you
be honest with a potential spouse? Could you calmly answer a child's question
about sex? Join our mental gym and you will learn to push your mind and
emotions beyond what you thought was possible."
There are lots of businesses and television programs offering to help
single men and women meet one another, but their method is to put the single
men and women into contact with each other, and then it is up to each of
the men and women to decide if they like one another. This method is not
helping them to find a spouse. This is simply helping single people to
other single people. These businesses are offering to please people,
not push people into controlling their emotions and forcing themselves
to think in a more intelligent manner.
If a person was single because he was having trouble meeting
other single people, then those businesses might help him find a spouse.
However, not many single people are suffering from a lack of contact with
other single people. Rather, they are suffering because the natural method
that men and women use to find a spouse is becoming increasingly inappropriate
in this modern world, especially in nations such as America where the people
are significantly different from one another.
The reason we have so much trouble finding a spouse is because our natural
tendency is to create a phony image of ourself and try to impress and deceive
the other person. A woman's natural emotional craving is to be passive,
make herself look pretty, put herself on display, and then wait for men
to pursue her. A man's natural tendency is to impress the women with their
social status, strength, and gifts.
The end result of this crude, animal behavior is that when single people
meet each other, neither of them learns much about the other person. They
have to get together over and over, month after month, and sometimes for
years, before they can figure out whether they want to marry the person.
Unfortunately, humans don't live long enough for us to spend years trying
to get to know just one person. We must speed up this idiotic process,
Our primitive ancestors could use this idiotic method of finding a spouse
because they grew up in intimate contact with one another. They knew everything
about one another. They knew how other people slept at night, what they
were like when they woke up in the morning, and how often they picked their
nose. There was no secrecy in primitive societies.
Also, our primitive ancestors had such a simple life that they didn't
have to worry about compatibility in regards to smoking cigarettes, leisure
activities, music, pets, or religion.
In order to speed up the process of finding a spouse, we have to devise
some type of "artificial" courtship activity, which I referred to as a
"singles pageant" in a previous document. In order for the singles pageants
to be successful in helping us find a spouse, we must be able to suppress
our emotions so well that we can follow unnatural procedures rather than
do what we want, which is to impress and deceive one another.
We must design the singles pageants to put pressure on us to be honest
about ourselves so that other people can determine whether we are compatible
with them, and whether they feel comfortable with us. We have to stop considering
the process of courtship as a competitive battle. There are plenty of men
and women, so we don't have to rush into a marriage or fight one another
for a spouse. We should relax, and get to know a lot of people before we
make a decision.
It will be emotionally uncomfortable for us to be honest with potential
spouses because honesty is unnatural for us. We have a strong craving
to impress people, not be honest with them. Therefore, the only
people who will be able to truly benefit from these singles pageants are
those who can push themselves to extreme levels of emotional discomfort.
They will be equivalent to the people who join CrossFit gyms, except that
they will be pushing themselves to be honest rather than pushing their
It is difficult for us to be honest with a potential spouse because
our emotions give us the impression that if we are honest, people will
be disgusted with us and we will never find a spouse. This fear would become
true if we were the only honest person, but if everybody
is forced to be honest, then we all become equal.
It might help you to understand this concept if you understand why cheating
is detrimental to schools, sports, science, and other activities. Consider
an athletic contest. If we permit athletes to cheat, such as by taking
drugs, or by sabotaging competitors, then the athlete who cheats will win,
and the honest athletes will eventually respond by cheating also. Eventually
all of the athletes will be cheating. The athletic contest will deteriorate
into a contest of who is the best at cheating.
When single men and women create phony images of themselves and hide
their history, then the courtship procedure is a battle between who is
the most deceptive. If an honest person were to participate in a courtship
activity with dishonest people, that honest person would allow people to
see his imperfections, and that would make him appear to be inferior to
the people who are creating phony images of themselves. However, if everybody
is forced to be honest, then everybody will be seen as an imperfect human.
This will make it easier for people to give up on the fantasy of finding
a perfect spouse and instead look through the imperfect humans to find
one who has compatible characteristics and imperfections. Since everybody
will be seen as imperfect, nobody will be frightened that his imperfections
will ruin his chances of finding a spouse.
Because of our natural craving to deceive one another, we cannot create
a better courtship activity simply by putting single men and women together
and allowing them to behave in whatever manner they please. We must have
one or more supervisors to put pressure on the men and women to
be more honest.
The supervisors also must put pressure on the people to expose the qualities
about themselves that allow other people to determine whether they are
such as how they spend their leisure time, and how they like to have dinner.
Since many people, especially young people, have not tried very many different
leisure activities, the supervisor should arrange for the people to experiment
with a variety of activities so that everybody can discover what they enjoy,
what other people enjoy, and who they feel comfortable with.
The participants of the singles pageants would be in a role similar
to that of students in the classroom, or recruits in an Army
boot camp. They would not behave in whatever manner they pleased. They
would not be able to lie about their height, age, job history, marital
history, medical records, or anything else. The supervisor would gather
information about them and put pressure on them to be honest about themselves.
The first time you try to give a lecture to an audience, you will be
nervous, and likewise, you will feel awkward and nervous the first time
you participate in an advanced courtship procedure. However, if you push
yourself into learning how to deal with the emotional pain, then you
will have an easier time with the high level of honesty in the next courtship
activity. And during the third activity, you will be even more comfortable.
Eventually you will be able to relax enough to truly get to know other
people, and allow them to get to know you. That will allow all of the participants
to rapidly get to know dozens or hundreds of other people, and that will
greatly increase the chances that people find a spouse that they are truly
compatible with. For those people, the gain will be worth the pain.
How often do you have the
I may seem to be putting too much emphasis on forcing people
to be honest, or on exerting some effort to control your emotions, but
it is because of decades of observations of how people cannot be honest
with either themselves or other people, even in situations where there
is no benefit to lying. For example,
if you were to ask a group of young women who are wandering around a shopping
mall, or along a public street that attracts a lot of single people, if
they are putting themselves on display in the hope of finding a husband,
they will almost certainly insist that they are out in public only because
they want to have fun with their friends.
Some women are too stupid or ignorant to understand their emotions,
but of the women who are capable of sensing that they are trying to find
a husband, most of them cannot admit it to themselves or other people.
They pretend that they are simply trying to "have fun". Some of the women
will lie even further by insisting that they don't want a husband
Women were not designed to be honest about looking for husbands. They
were designed to be passive creatures who wait for men to pursue and titillate
them. Women have to exert control over themselves simply to admit that
they are looking for a husband.
Our natural method of finding a spouse is so idiotic for this modern
world that it causes a lot of frustration, and most people react to the
frustration in an inappropriate manner, such as anger, sarcasm, or pouting.
For example, I have encountered single men and women who make insulting
remarks about marriage and the opposite sex. They are frustrated that they
haven't found a spouse, but rather than admit that they are lonely and
frustrated, they try to convince themselves and other people that they
are single because the opposite sex is an unpleasant creature, or because
marriage is undesirable.
One of Aesop's Fables, The
Fox and the Grapes, describes this particular and undesirable attitude.
The people who behave like this are lying to themselves and other people,
but there is no benefit to their lies. Their lies do not
help them find a spouse. So why would a person choose to lie when there
is no benefit? Why would a single person pretend that he doesn't want a
spouse? Why do people develop the sour grapes attitude? I suspect that
there are two main reasons as to why humans frequently develop the sour
1) We are extremely arrogant, and we have no desire
to look critically ourselves. We want to imagine ourselves as being better
than other people. We develop the sour grapes attitude when we are in situations
that cause us to become frustrated, confused, or frightened. Rather than
admit that we cannot deal with the situation, or that we are failing, which
is an admission that we are imperfect, we pretend that we are actually
in complete control and achieving exactly what we want. Rather than admit
that we are lonely and frustrated, we pretend that we don't want to be
If any person truly had good control over his emotions, then he wouldn't
need the sour grapes attitude. He would be able to honestly admit that
he has failed to achieve his goal, and he has no idea how to achieve it.
He would be able to talk about the issue calmly.
2) To stop ourselves from crying. Most people don't have much
control over their emotional cravings, so when they cannot have something
they want, they have a tendency to have a tantrum, pout, cry, or become
angry. For those particular people, they can reduce or eliminate their
pouting by convincing themselves that they don't want the item.
Not many people have that much control over their emotions, and as a
result, they frequently have temper tantrums, pout, or use techniques,
such as the sour grapes attitude, to prevent themselves from crying and
Occasionally we admit that we cannot deal with a particular situation,
especially when it is obvious, such as when we lose our temper or become
violent, but when we make such admissions, we often follow it with a remark
about how everybody would have problems in the same situation. Our
arrogance makes it difficult for us to face the possibility that we are
ordinary, or below average. We have an intense craving to be better than
Sometimes people will admit that they are ordinary, or even below average,
or that they have failed at something, but usually when people do this
they do so in a sarcastic tone of voice, or while pouting, or in a joking
manner. It is emotionally traumatic for us to admit that we are imperfect.
It requires a lot of self-control to calmly admit that we are ordinary,
or that we have failed at something.
If a person had good control of his emotions, then he would be able
to calmly admit to himself and others, "Yes, I am
single, and I would like to get married, but I haven't found a compatible
spouse, and I don't know how to fix this problem. I am quite frustrated."
Unfortunately, most people cannot control their emotions that well. When
most people cannot get something they want, they react by pouting, hating,
or becoming envious of whoever has the item. They cannot remain calm and
How can men and women form stable relationships when neither of them
can be honest with themselves or their potential spouses? How can we create
a society in which people are treated equally when everybody is struggling
to be the dominant monkey of the hierarchy? How can we create a society
in which material items are free of charge when people have such trouble
controlling their craving for items that they stockpile enormous amounts
of items and fight one another for even more? How can we reduce crime when
so many people are unable to control their cravings to steal, rape, grope,
cheat, bribe, blackmail, sabotage, and murder?
The answer to these questions is that we are not
going to improve our society if we continue behaving like animals.
We must exert control over our emotions and think more often.
Animals don't form "relationships". They simply use one another for
their own selfish benefits. The reason it appears as if animals have relationships
is because they have evolved compatible emotional cravings. As each animal
selfishly tries to satisfy its emotional cravings, they form what appears
to be a relationship. However, neither of them is capable of, or interested
in, thinking about the relationship, contributing to the relationship,
or considering what their partner wants or needs. When male animals have
sex, for example, they are doing so for themselves, and they have no concern
for what the female is feeling. Male and female animals don't have a "relationship";
rather, they have the type of bond that we find between sodium and chlorine.
Animals don't have relationships with their children, either. It appears
as if animals have a relationship with their children because they feed
and protect their children, and they play with their children, but they
are merely trying to satisfy their emotional cravings.
Occasionally an animal will be born with emotional cravings that cause
it to be slightly less effective as a parent. Those particular animals
will be less successful at raising children, thereby removing those particular
genes from their gene pool. The animals that survive the competitive battle
for life are those who inadvertently take care of their children as they
try to satisfy themselves. This creates the illusion that animals care
about their children.
To be better than a monkey,
In order for humans to form relationships that are more sensible
than those of the monkeys, we must exert some control over our crude emotional
cravings. When a man and woman form a marriage, neither of them should
expect to satisfy their every desire. Each spouse must consider giving
something to the other in return for getting something.
A lot of people describe marriage as a "partnership", but my impression
of most people is that they are actually entering into marriages with the
expectation of satisfying their particular emotional cravings. They assume
that their partner has compatible emotional cravings. They are not
wondering what the other person wants or needs; they are focusing on their
own personal emotional cravings and assuming their partner will be satisfied
in the process.
If a man and woman were truly interested in forming a partnership, then
one of the issues both of them would wonder about is: what is different
between men and women? How can a man form a high-quality relationship
with a woman unless he has some idea of what a woman wants and needs? Do
women have the same dietary needs as men? What is the difference sexually
between men and women? Do we sleep the same? Do men enjoy forests and parks
more than women? Or do both of us enjoy nature to the same extent and in
the same manner?
How many married couples can even discuss sexual issues seriously? Unless
they can discuss the issue, they are likely to behave like monkeys who
merely have sex to titillate themselves with no regards to their partner.
My impression is that the majority of humans do not have the self-control
necessary to discuss sexual issues. Men have a tendency to make jokes about
sexual issues, and women have a tendency to remain silent. This is not
advanced human behavior. This is monkey behavior. Some of those people
may be able to get better control of themselves if they practice, but how
many are willing to practice?
Many people refuse to exert themselves in physical exercise, and since
we are more resistant to mental exercises, we can be certain that even
people will refuse to exert themselves in emotional exercises. Therefore,
a lot of people are not going to improve their ability to control
It is wonderful that men can push themselves into performing athletic
stunts, but this modern world is in need of men who can push themselves
into forming stable marriages and friendships, and having serious discussions
about sex with their partner.
How many married people feel comfortable talking to their spouse about
sex? Most people seem to get married without bothering to determine whether
they can discuss sexual issues with their partner, or issues about money,
children, food, leisure activities, or holiday celebrations. Ideally, single
people would discuss such issues before they got married in order
to determine if they feel comfortable with one another when discussing
these issues, and to determine whether they are compatible in regards to
I don't see very many people looking for a compatible spouse in a sensible
manner. I see people behaving like monkeys. They are getting married to
titillate themselves, and they don't have much concern about their partner,
or their compatibility with their partner. Some extreme examples are the
women who secretly get pregnant in order to force a marriage. Those women
are behaving as selfishly as a monkey. Actually, we could describe such
women as "child abusers" because they are giving birth to a child simply
to entertain themselves, and they have no regard to whether they can provide
that child with a proper family environment. Those women could also be
described as "abusing men".
No society makes any attempt to educate young people about marriage.
Schools will not teach children about marriage, their body, sex, or childbirth.
Children are expected to find a spouse in complete ignorance, as if we
are still a tribe of monkeys.
Animals and prehistoric humans don't have to worry about compatibility
with their partner, but in this modern world, especially if we create new
cities with lots of activities, we need to find a spouse that we have some
compatibility with. This is going to require exerting control over
our emotions. We must force ourselves to seriously analyze potential spouses
Since it is unnatural for humans to analyze a potential spouse for compatibility,
we need to design courtship activities that will force us to do
this unnatural act. We must figure out how to put people under pressure
to force them to show a potential spouse what they would be like to live
with, how they like to spend their leisure time, how they like to have
dinner, and what they would be like to spend the night and morning with.
The courtship activities must force people to focus on compatibility
rather than on impressing or entertaining one another. Also, the women
must be pressured to take an active role in looking for a compatible
spouse rather than passively wait for a man to pursue them.
If we create some advanced courtship activities, but the single men
and women who participate do not have much control over their emotions,
then they will behave like a bunch of monkeys. The women will waste their
time looking pretty and waiting for a man to titillate them, and the men
will waste their time trying to impress the women. They will not learn
anything about their compatibility.
The same concept applies to the relationship that parents have with
their children. In this modern world, parents must exert control over their
emotional cravings and think about what would be best for the children.
If parents don't have enough self-control, then they will treat their children
in whatever manner they find titillating, such as playing with them as
if they were toys; encouraging the children to behave and speak in silly
manners in order to amuse the adults; or forcing the children to learn
a particular musical instrument or sport in order to please the parents.
Monkeys cannot form advanced relationships because they don't have enough
of an ability to think or control their emotional cravings. A zoo could
build a wonderful exhibit for monkeys, complete with a school system, transportation
system, and greenhouses, but the monkeys would not be able to use any of
it. Although monkeys have the physical ability to use a transportation
system, and although they are capable of sitting in school chairs and government
offices, they do not have the intellectual or emotional abilities to use
What percentage of the human population would be able to handle a city
in which food and material items are free? A significant percentage of
the population has trouble controlling their consumption of food when they
have to purchase it. What would happen when people have access to
An even larger percentage of the population has trouble controlling
their craving for material items. What will happen when they are in a city
in which they have access to free material items?
The world has a lot of social problems, but they are not due to the
devil, poverty, stupidity, or even ignorance. It is true that education
can help people to behave in a more advanced manner, but only if the person
has the mental ability to use that knowledge. No amount of education will
allow a monkey to behave in a more advanced manner.
The people who are instigating wars, covering up the Jewish involvement
in 9/11, operating pedophile networks, and causing other troubles, are
not stupid, uneducated, or suffering from poverty. Many of them are above
average in intelligence, education, and income.
Don't make excuses for people who are troublesome. Don't assume that
you can fix their problems with education, punishments, or money. They
are behaving in a destructive manner because of their mental and physical
characteristics, and we don't know enough about the human mind and body
to understand why they choose to behave in a destructive manner, or how
to fix them.
If we create a new city, life in that new city will be exactly the same
as it is in Chicago, Paris, and Moscow unless we restrict immigration to
the people who are better behaved than the ordinary person. It is important
to note that "better behavior" is not the same as "more intelligent". Although
intelligence can give a person an advantage in controlling his emotions
and allowing him to behave in a more sensible manner, a person needs more
than intelligence to behave like a human. Increasing the intelligence of
a monkey will not create a human. It will create an intelligent monkey.
Conversely, decreasing the intelligence of a human will not create a monkey;
it will create a stupid human.
The men who have trouble treating women as "humans" rather than as sex
toys are not necessarily stupid, and the women who treat men as sources
of money and sperm are not necessarily stupid, either. Virtually everybody
who is involved with cheating us in the banking, credit card, and financial
markets are above average intelligence. The people in the media who are
lying to us about the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack are above average
intelligence. The scientists who are trying to deceive us into believing
that our government can control global warming with carbon taxes are also
We cannot judge a person by his intelligence, whether he has a college
diploma, how much money he earns, or his job title. We must look at how
a person behaves, and how he affects society. We have to
look at their emotional qualities, and their ability to control themselves.
All of us have crude emotional cravings, but we differ in our ability to
control ourselves and behave in a sensible manner. We also differ in our
ability to tolerate the emotional pain of dealing with the unknown, tolerating
criticism, and accepting the fact that we can't always get what we want.
In order to create a better society, we need to restrict immigration to
the people who are less like an animal and who show the more advanced,
Some people are not
capable of advanced relationships
A male monkey sees a female monkey as nothing more than an
object to have sex with, and he wants sex with every female he is attracted
to. A male monkey has no concern for what the female experiences during
sex acts. The more similar to a monkey that a man is, in regards to his
attitudes towards sex and women, the more likely he will be to treat the
women as sex toys, and the stronger his craving will be to have sex with
every female he is attracted to, and the less concern he will have about
whether the women are enjoying the sex act.
A female animal considers a male animal to be nothing more than a supply
of sperm and a provider of food. The more similar a woman is to an animal,
in regards to her attitudes towards men, the stronger her craving will
be to treat men in the same crude manner.
If we could measure a person's similarity to monkeys in regards to their
attitudes towards the opposite sex, we would find that half the population
is "average" in regards to their similarity to monkeys. The people who
are below average will have a greater resemblance to animals, and they
will form a more crude relationship compared to the people who are above-average.
It doesn't do us any good to develop a better school system, government
system, social affairs, holiday celebrations, city festivals, or economic
system unless the city consists of people who have the ability to properly
use those systems. A truly impressive train system will not be of much
value if all of the men are regularly groping women and children, or if
the people regularly vandalize the trains.
All around the world are people who are stealing items, forcing children
to have sex with them, forming crime networks, lying in their news reports,
trying to instigate racial fights and wars, and cheating us in businesses.
Those people are behaving in a destructive manner because of their crude
mental qualities, not because of ignorance, poverty, stupidity, or the
devil. Furthermore, we cannot transform them into respectable people simply
by creating more laws, or putting more of them into jail. We must face
the unpleasant fact that some of our fellow humans simply do not have the
mental qualities necessary to deal with this modern world.
We must exert some control over our emotions and accept the fact that
half the human population is below average, and the people who are average
are not very impressive, either. A lot of people are incapable of forming
stable friendships and marriages, and a lot of people are unable to cope
with food, alcohol, gambling, and material wealth. We have to stop feeling
sorry for the people who can't deal with life, and we must stop them from
ruining other people's lives.
A new environment will disrupt
If we were to create a City of Castles, as I've described in
other files, the residents would experience a dramatically different life.
Their job environment would be noticeably different, and there would be
even more dramatic changes to their leisure time because of the free food
and material items, and all of the free social and recreational activities.
I suspect that everybody will start experimenting with social and leisure
activities, and many people will also want to spend some of their leisure
time getting involved with society in some manner, including taking a part-time
job in the government so that they can participate in the management of
society. Through the years I think that a lot of people will make new friends,
and many of the married couples, possibly most of them, will notice that
they prefer to spend their leisure time with somebody else.
It is easy for us to make new friends, but we have a strong resistance
to divorce. In a City of Castles, however, divorce is very easy because
nobody owns any of the material items or homes, so married couples don't
have to divide up material items or pay alimony. Children are also supported
by society, so nobody has to pay child support. The only issue that makes
divorce complicated is if the couple has young children, in which case
they have to decide which of them is going to take care of the children.
When we make a dramatic change to our social environment, many
people will want to change their leisure activities, hobbies, friends,
spouse, or jobs. Therefore, the people who move to a City of Castles will
need the attitude of an explorer who is traveling to another planet to
start a new life for himself. These people need the ability to walk away
from what they are familiar with, turn their back on their friends and
relatives, and be prepared to experiment with a new life.
I think that many of the married couples who move into a City of Castles
will eventually start to drift apart from one another. If both of them
want a divorce, then there will be no problem, but if only one of them
does, then we have the potential of fighting, crying, or worse.
The married couples who choose to move to a dramatically different social
environment should be prepared to deal with the possibility that one or
both of them will eventually want a divorce. If they cannot face that issue
calmly and rationally, they will be a disruption to other people.
Some people react to divorces with temper tantrums, violence, pouting,
and attempts to get revenge on their spouse or their spouse's new partner.
Their friends and relatives tend to react by feeling sorry for them, and
lawyers exploit the situation by charging high fees to help them get divorced,
and many lawyers seem to encourage the fight to continue as long as possible.
We also allow people to file restraining orders on one another.
A more appropriate reaction to people who cannot get divorced in a sensible
manner is to regard them as savages who don't have the emotional or intellectual
ability necessary to deal with the complexities of modern life. If a person
needs a restraining order, he should be regarded as unfit for society.
A restraining order is an intangible "leash". A human who needs
to be kept on a leash should be regarded as a savage, not a human. We should
not let angry or violent savages degrade the morale of the city, and we
should not allow lawyers, businesses, government officials, or anybody
else to profit from divorce, crime, or natural disasters.
would a singles pageant be?
Exactly how should the singles pageants be designed? Should
the groups be small, such as 6 to 12 people? Or should they be even smaller,
such as just one man and one woman? What type of questions should the supervisor
force the people to answer? What type of activities would be most useful
in helping the people get to know one another and determine their compatibility?
It is important to understand that neither I, nor anybody else, can
figure out how to create a singles pageant that helps us find a spouse
better than what we are doing right now. All we can do is devise a variety
of different pageants to start the process. The first pageants would be
"experiments", not "solutions". I would expect them to be somewhat of a
failure, and possibly quite awkward and uncomfortable, but if we analyze
the results, we will figure out how to improve them.
Through the years, we would start noticing which activities and questions
are most useful for helping people to get to know one another, and what
type of environment is best for these pageants.
You might wonder, why would anybody want to go to the very first pageants
when I have so little confidence in their success? Wouldn't it be better
to wait until the pageants improve? The same concept applies to material
items and computer software. The first people to use a new product are
most likely to discover that the product needs improvement. By comparison,
the people who wait a few years are likely to get an improved product.
If everybody waits for somebody else to be the first to use new
products, software, or courtship procedures, then society will be stagnant.
Obviously, a certain number of people must be willing to be the first to
use something new. Those people need the attitude of an explorer. They
must be able to deal with emotional discomfort and unexpected problems.
Animals and humans have a strong emotional craving to remain with the
crowd and avoid anything unusual, unpleasant, or dangerous. Most people
are so afraid of wandering away from the crowd and so afraid of failure,
embarrassment, and awkwardness that they will not participate in experiments.
Most people prefer to wait for other people to take the risks.
If everybody in a society is so frightened of the unknown and so afraid
of failures that they wait for somebody else to do the risky activities,
then nothing will ever be accomplished. Progress depends upon having a
certain number of people who are willing to wander away from the crowd,
explore the unknown, and deal with the unexpected problems.
Loneliness is becoming an increasingly serious problem in this modern
world, and not only for the single people. From my own personal observations,
many married couples are not very happy with their spouse. Many
people get married because they are afraid of remaining single, not because
they found somebody they are truly compatible with.
Relationships between men and women are terrible, but we are
not going to improve the situation when everybody is afraid to experiment
with new techniques for men and women to meet one another. We need to find
a certain number of men and women who have enough control over their emotions
to be willing to experiment with different courtship methods. This requires
finding men and women who are willing to force themselves into situations
that are emotional uncomfortable. Do you have that ability?
Men who can do physical work can inspire other men to do physical work,
which is wonderful, but this modern world needs men who can inspire other
men to control their emotions and think more often. We need men who can
form marriages that inspire us to get married rather than make us glad
that we are single. We also need men who can inspire us to remain calm
and participate in experiments to improve our economic system and school
Many of the men who join gyms will tell one another, "No pain, no gain",
but how many will respond with that expression in regards to developing
better courtship activities, or developing a better economic system?
Before I continue, let me point out that it is possible to get people
to participate in experimental singles pageants or a new economic system
if we offer them some reward, such as money, fame, sex, or whatever else
they want. The greater the reward we offer, the more people we will attract.
Unfortunately, when people join an activity simply for the reward, they
are not going to become true "participants". They will be analogous to
dogs on a race track that are chasing a plastic rabbit. Instead of becoming
"team members", they will merely do what is necessary to get their reward.
As I pointed out in many other documents, we cannot make a person become
something he is not. We cannot transform a monkey into a human simply by
offering him a reward or threatening him with punishments. If a person
is behaving like an animal because he is ignorant or has picked up bad
attitudes, then we can help him by providing him with an education. However,
if a person is behaving like an animal because he doesn't have the mental
circuitry necessary to behave like a human, there is nothing we can do
to help him.
A business, military, police department, and sports organization can
attract more people by offering more money or more retirement benefits,
but when a person is doing a job simply for the money, he is just a circus
animal who is performing a trick. In order to improve society, we need
people who will do their jobs and participate in experiments because they
are truly interested in helping to improve society.
Monkeys, seals, and other animals do not care how they acquire food,
sex, water, or territory. This allows us to train an animal to do anything,
even if it is idiotic, destructive, or dangerous to the animal. If animals
were a bit more intelligent, we would be able to train them to become assassins,
create deceptive advertisements, sell defective products, and become dishonest
A human who will do a job simply for money is no more advanced than
a monkey who can do a trick for a banana. We cannot create a more advanced
society with people who don't care what they are doing with their lives,
or who don't care about the quality of the lives of other people. We need
people who have a true desire to contribute to society, not people who
only want the benefits of society. We need people who want to form teams,
not people who are envious of talented people and who try to eliminate
competitors and dominate us. We need people who truly want to improve life
for their teammates, not people who are concerned only with their particular
There are some businesses that are offering to help single men and women
find a spouse, but if their primary goal is profit, then they are
simply treating the single men and women as business opportunities.
In order to develop better courtship activities, we need to find supervisors
who are truly interested in helping men and women find a compatible spouse.
They cannot be doing the job merely for money, trophies, or threats of
jail. We need to find people who are truly interested in improving life
Furthermore, the people developing these courtship activities must also
be capable of critically analyzing their previous experiments and looking
for improvements. If they are unable to look critically at their previous
work, or if they are too frightened to experiment with possible improvements,
then they are not going to be able to improve the procedures. They will
merely repeat the same procedures over and over.
To put these concepts in different words, the businesses that are currently
offering to help single men and women are focusing on profit, not helping
single men and women. They want the fun of helping single people (namely,
the money), but not the responsibility (namely, studying the issue, conducting
experiments, doing critical analyses, and then conducting more experiments).
These concepts apply to other social issues, also. For example, many
or most government employees want the fun of being in the government (namely,
money and status), but they don't want the responsibility (namely, studying
society, conducting social experiments, doing critical analyses, and then
conducting more experiments).
The government officials who create laws enjoy the fun of creating laws,
but they don't want the responsibility of analyzing the effect of their
laws and trying to figure out how to improve them. They are like children
who want to play while somebody else handles the responsibilities. They
don't want to push themselves into performing critical analyses of themselves
and their policies. They want to avoid emotional discomfort and awkwardness.
Our leaders should be among the best
in regards to dealing with emotional pain, and they should be among the
best in pushing themselves into doing research and analyses. They should
be able to inspire us to become better.
Imagine living in a society in which the government officials truly
had an interest in improving society, and could push themselves like athletes
into doing research, analyses, and experiments. Those type of leaders would
not follow the same policies decade after decade. They would look for improvements,
even if the policies appeared to be working fine.
How are we going to reduce crime when we continue to follow the same
useless policies year after year? Many people can sense that our current
crime policies are doing nothing to stop crime or corruption, but not many
government officials have the desire or intellectual ability to analyze
any of these laws or policies, and they don't have the desire or intellectual
ability to experiment with new policies.
The only way we can reduce crime is to start experimenting with policies.
There is no "solution" to crime. All we can hope for is to reduce crime.
Furthermore, it is very important for everybody to understand that no matter
which policy we experiment with, there are going to be a lot of people
who suffer a lot of emotional discomfort as a result. The only way we will
reduce crime is to insist that everybody stop whining, stop looking for
excuses to do nothing, and deal with the pain.
The only way we are going to improve our economic system is to start
experimenting with changes to the economic system. This requires that we
tell everybody to stop their whining, deal with the emotional pain, and
look for ways to improve the experiments.
Likewise, the only way we are going to improve schools, social affairs,
holiday celebrations, museums, and sports is to tell people to stop their
whining and start experimenting and analyzing.
How many Orientals can look
critically at chopsticks?
A lot of Orientals consider themselves to be tough because
they can do martial arts or eat sea urchin sushi, but how many of those
physically tough Orientals have the emotional strength to look critically
at their culture? How many are capable of experimenting with different
economic systems, school systems, or holiday celebrations?
For a simple example, consider the issue of chopsticks. If we could
travel thousands of years back in time, and observe all of the people on
the planet, we might come to the conclusion that the Orientals were the
most advanced of all people because they were using chopsticks while other
people were using their fingers.
Although the Chinese began the development of eating utensils sooner
than other people, progress soon ceased and they began mindlessly following
their ancestors. Meanwhile, other societies began to advance, and eventually
developed forks, spoons, and knives.
Are the Orientals going to use chopsticks for the next 10,000 years?
Or will they consider the possibility that forks, spoons, and knives are
superior alternatives? Or will they try to develop some eating utensils
that are even better than chopsticks, forks, and spoons?
I have used chopsticks many times throughout my life, and my analysis
of chopsticks is that they are awkward and inferior to forks, spoons,
and knives. The primary problem with chopsticks is that they can grasp
only a small percentage of the foods we eat. They are awkward for most
everything we eat, especially soups, pies, cranberry relish, casseroles,
quiches, peas, and 90% of the other modern foods.
I would describe chopsticks as a crude, prehistoric eating
utensil. I don't think any of the Orientals have conducted serious analyses
of eating utensils and have come to the conclusion that chopsticks are
superior to forks, spoons, and knives.
I think they are continuing to use
chopsticks for the same reason that Americans are continuing to use the
Imperial system of measurements, and the same reason that so many nations
are continuing to support the concept of Kings and Queens. Specifically,
the majority of people don't want to think, make changes in their life,
look critically at themselves, exert themselves physically or mentally,
or explore the unfamiliar.
||This man is recovering from a CrossFit athletic event.
How many Orientals can put this level of effort into analyzing their
eating utensils, language, or other aspects of their culture?
How many Orientals can tolerate the emotional discomfort of a critical
review as well as this man is tolerating physical discomfort?
How many Orientals will react to my critical analysis of chopsticks
by thinking about the issue, and how many will whine
that I am racist or insulting?
Many Orientals boast about their ability to do martial arts,
climb mountains, or practice some ancient tradition, but in this modern
world, nobody benefits from Orientals who engage in such activities. By
comparison, the entire world would benefit if more Orientals could get
better control of their emotions and put some serious effort into analyzing
their culture, looking critically at their governments, discussing where
they want to go in their future, and experimenting with improvements to
Human societies are no longer small, isolated tribes of primitive savages.
Human societies are now interacting with one another. As a result,
everybody in every nation would benefit tremendously if the Chinese and
North Koreans would develop a better government for themselves. We should
not encourage the Chinese to climb mountains or practice ancient traditions.
We should encourage them to improve their nation and impress us with their
cities, economic system, schools, eating utensils, artwork, furniture,
and social affairs.
In a previous document, I mentioned that the Chinese have built
entire cities that are virtually empty,
but I did not speculate on the purpose of those cities. One possibility
is that the Jews had tricked the Chinese into building those cities because
the Jews were planning to get control of the Chinese government. The Jews
would become the Kings and Queens of China, and the Chinese people would
be their slaves. This would also explain why the Chinese built empty cities
in Africa, also; specifically, the Jews were hoping to get control of Africa,
and they wanted some new cities for their African headquarters.
The Chinese impressed the world with their cargo port in the ocean near
Shanghai, and if they were to put the same level of effort into controlling
their emotions, looking critically at their society, and improving their
government, schools, social affairs, and economic system, they would impress
us with their culture. However, they are not impressing the world when
they build empty cities, or when they steal technology from other nations,
or when they build gigantic gambling cities, or when their citizens sell
their kidneys or their children in order to afford food.
Every nation is responsible for its image, and its internal problems.
We should not encourage nations to blame their troubles on other nations,
or on mysterious concepts, such as poverty. We should not even respond
to North Korea's whining because that encourages them to whine, and it
wastes our time. Everybody should be encouraged to look critically
at their society and try to find ways to improve life for the entire human
race. Instead of behaving like monkeys that fight over land and resources,
we should compete with one another to create the most impressive cities,
the most effective school system, and the best eating utensils.
Is this healthy for human legs?
The practice of sitting on the floor while eating, which is
common in Japan, made sense in primitive times because it was difficult
for primitive people to make chairs and tables, but is sitting on the floor
really the most comfortable and healthy position for humans? I don't think
Are the Japanese going to continue living in overcrowded conditions
for the next million years? Are they going to continue sitting on the floor
as they eat? Will they continue to use the same primitive language for
the next million years? If they were to start a colony on another planet,
would they design the cities on that planet so that everybody lives in
tiny, cramped homes, eats rice on the floor with chopsticks, and uses a
crude, prehistoric language?
Instead of praising a man for climbing a mountain or having big muscles,
praise the men who have the ability to look critically at themselves and
their culture, and who have so much control over their fear of the unknown
that they can participate in experiments to improve society.
||This woman is recovering from a CrossFit athletic event. She pushed
herself to the point at which she is exhausted, and is probably suffering
from a level of pain that most people would whine about.
A lot of people can tolerate physical discomfort as well as this woman,
but how many can tolerate the emotional discomfort that results
from a critical analysis of their culture?
Imagine living with a group of people who can push themselves to such
high levels of emotional pain that they can discuss social issues and experiment
with improvements to society, and without tantrums, clenching their teeth,
Your life will not improve if more people decide
to push themselves into climbing mountains, but all of us will benefit
when more people push themselves into controlling their fear of the unknown,
their arrogance, their temper, their hunger, their sexual cravings, and
their cravings for status. We also benefit from people who can push themselves
into giving and receiving constructive criticism and serious analyses.
We benefit when people push themselves into controlling their selfishness
to such an extent that they can make decisions that are best for society.
Tolerating emotional pain is more important than tolerating physical pain.
Why did Japan change dramatically
after World War II?
After World War II was over, Japan became a much more significant
political and economic influence over the world. Their nation began modernizing
at an incredibly rapid pace. Why did they modernize so quickly after World
There are different ways of interpreting Japanese history, but I suspect
the primary reason for Japan's transformation was because America helped
many of the Japanese people get over their attitude of mindlessly following
Prior to World War II, Japan had the type of stagnant society
that was common in all other nations. Human societies have a tendency to
become stagnant for two primary reasons:
1) Humans are selfish. When people get into leadership positions,
their primary concern is maintaining their position and satisfying
themselves, not providing leadership.
They encourage the majority of people to be submissive and passive rather
than encourage them to think new thoughts, explore the unknown, and look
critically at society. They promote obedience to authority. They
encourage people to believe that criticizing society or the government
In Japan, prior to World War II, the attitude of giving obedience to leaders
was so strong that employees were expected to keep one job throughout their
life, as if they were a slave of the business owner.
They tend to regard talented people as potential threats rather than
as valuable members of society. They want to suppress, blackmail, and murder
their competitors rather than encourage them to become leaders. They want
to pass on their wealth, land, businesses, and positions of authority to
their children and spouses. By suppressing talented people, and by promoting
their own family members, society becomes dominated by incompetent leadership.
2) The majority of people are naturally submissive to their leaders.
Our tendency is to pamper our leaders rather than give them performance
reviews and replace those that are not providing proper leadership. As
a result of this crude behavior, once a society develops incompetent leadership,
the majority of people mindlessly obey their incompetent leadership rather
than throw them out of office.
American culture is more tolerant of exploration, independence, and
the concept of giving everybody a chance to become educated and test their
abilities in jobs and businesses, regardless of the family they were born
into. Americans also have a slightly greater resentment of people who inherited
their position, and a greater respect for people who earned their position.
I think that the main reason Japan began modernizing so quickly after
World War II was because the Americans had, perhaps inadvertently, encouraged
many of the Japanese to become somewhat more independent, look more critically
at their leaders, and stop thinking of themselves as slaves of a business
Our natural tendency is to
create a medieval monarchy
It is important to note that during the two centuries that
America has existed, people in leadership positions have been struggling
to eliminate their competition, and make it easier for them to pass their
material items, businesses, and land to their children. Many business owners
have also been bringing in people from other nations to use as cheap labor.
If our business and government leaders could have their way, America would
eventually degrade into a medieval kingdom in which our government and
business leaders are wealthy and pampered, and the rest of us are their
Human emotions were designed to create the simplistic type of society
that we see with monkeys. In order to provide ourselves with better leadership,
we must exert control over our crude emotions and force ourselves to restrict
leadership to the people who truly have leadership abilities. Furthermore,
we must regularly give performance reviews to our leaders to ensure that
they are keeping their emotions under control and providing us with proper
We have expressions, such as "power corrupts", to describe the abusive
and selfish behavior of people in leadership positions. Those expressions
imply that wonderful humans become corrupt when given positions of leadership.
These concepts are false, however. The human brain doesn't change its internal
structure when a person acquires a leadership position.
The reason people have a tendency to become more selfish and arrogant
when they are wealthy or acquire a leadership position is because they
become more free to do as they please. When a person has a job that
is low on the social hierarchy, such as a waitress, plumber, or gardener,
he will be under close scrutiny by his boss, and other people will also
reprimand him if he becomes unusually abusive or selfish. The people who
are low on the hierarchy are kept under control by other people.
When a person is promoted to a leadership position, everybody will instantly
become submissive to him. He will not
be under close scrutiny by anybody. He will have much more freedom than
other people to do as he pleases. As the days pass, he will slowly adapt
to his freedom by becoming more relaxed and doing as he pleases. Since
humans are naturally selfish and arrogant, this is going to result in his
behavior becoming increasingly abusive. This creates the illusion that
a wonderful human, who had good control of himself, became selfish, abusive,
and corrupt as a result of the mysterious substance we refer to as "power".
Our crude emotional characteristics did not cause trouble for our prehistoric
ancestors because they lived such a simple life that it made no difference
if their leader was letting his arrogance and selfishness get out of control.
The leader of a primitive tribe didn't have much of an effect on the members
of the tribe, and he had no effect
on people in other areas of the world.
In a modern society, however, one person in a position of importance
can significantly affect the lives of millions of people, and the future
generations, and so we must be concerned about what our leaders are doing.
If we behave like stupid monkeys who give blind obedience to our leaders,
then we allow our leaders to do whatever they please, and that is likely
to result in our leaders slowly growing accustomed to becoming as selfish
and arrogant as they desire, which in turn is likely to result in significant
problems for the entire world.
If we follow our emotions like a stupid monkey, we will create the type
of stagnant, abusive monarchies that we saw during the Middle Ages. It
is imperative that people today be able to exert some control over their
emotions and do what makes sense rather than what we want to do.
We currently admire people who can push themselves into doing physical
activities, but we need to admire the people who can push themselves into
controlling their emotions, making intelligent decisions, and behaving
more like a human than a monkey.
Leaders should be explorers
In every nation, the majority of people prefer to follow their
ancestors. When these people are allowed to vote, they tend to select candidates
who advocate following traditions. Most voters would be terrified of a
candidate who proposed conducting experiments with society.
Our primitive ancestors didn't need to conduct experiments with society
because they didn't do much, but modern societies are very complex, and
suffering from a lot of problems. We should not follow traditions. We need
to analyze our problems and start experimenting with possible improvements.
Voters should not look for candidates who have similar opinions, or
who praise voters, or who kiss the babies of voters. A political candidate
who agrees with us and makes us feel good is a "salesman", not a "leader".
Voters should look for candidates that we can learn from and be inspired
by. Voters should look for candidates who have a history of finding improvements
to society, and who have demonstrated the ability to push themselves into
doing research and analysis. Voters should look for candidates who have
better control of their emotions than the ordinary people.
An organization cannot improve itself when its leaders and members are
struggling to maintain everything exactly as it is. Improvements require
This requires that the leaders be able to disregard
tradition, control their fear of the unknown, and push themselves
into conducting experiments and analyzing the results.
Most people are “ordinary”, and half the population is below average.
We are not going to get good leadership when we allow people with average
abilities to select our leaders. Voting should be restricted to the people
who are above-average in analyzing the leadership ability of political
Candidates who promise to follow traditions and keep everything as it
is are not "leaders". Those type of people should be described as "maintenance
men". To understand this concept, consider the difference between a bicycle
and a bicycle engineer. The mechanic fixes problems with the bicycle
and keeps the bicycle in good working condition, whereas the engineer
experiments with new designs, materials, and bearings in an attempt to
A person who can fix problems with
society is a valuable person, but he should be described as a "social mechanic"
or a "social maintenance man", not as a "leader". For example, if a school
system, farm, factory, or social club is experiencing chaos as a result
of people retiring from their job, or as a result of changes with technology,
or because of a hurricane, then we could ask a social maintenance man to
get the organization functioning again.
However, if we are looking for a person to improve
the school curriculum, or figure out how a factory can reduce its output
of toxic chemicals, or make a decision about whether we should move certain
crops from outdoor fields into hydroponic farms, then we don't want a social
mechanic. We need a leader for those tasks. A leader will be capable
of researching the issue, conducting experiments, and analyzing those experiments.
Leaders will explore methods to improve society rather than maintaining
society as it is. Leaders could be described as “social explorers” or as
If we continue to allow the ordinary people to dominate our economic
system, government system, social affairs, and other culture, then our
future will be a continuation of the present. By comparison, if we put
talented leaders in control of society, then our future becomes an exploration
into the unknown. Although this will cause some emotional trauma, we will
benefit tremendously. We will slowly find ways to improve society. Although
the exploration will create emotional pain, once you experience the improved
society, you would not want to go back in time to a more primitive era.
||When restricted to chopsticks (the white objects on the table), we
must eat soup by putting the bowl in front of our face. This is messy with
thick soups and large pieces of vegetables or meat.
The Japanese are not eating soup
like this because they have experimented with different utensils and have
determined that this is truly the most desirable method. Rather, they are
simply too frightened of wandering
away from the crowd to experiment with other utensils.
If the Japanese would put cultural explorers in control of their
society, then the Japanese people would be encouraged to explore life
and experiment with possible improvements.
Humans and animals do the bare minimum necessary. When a person's
life is comfortable, he will resist even small changes. In order for a
person to be willing to change his life, he needs some type of incentive,
or pressure. The bigger the change, the more significant the pressure
must be. For example, changing a language is a tremendous change, so no
nation would change their language unless they were put under extreme
I think Japan would benefit significantly if they replace their primitive
language with something more modern, such as English. Even though English
is imperfect, it would significantly reduce the educational burden on their
children, and it would allow us to freely communicate with them. However,
no nation is going to change their language unless put under an incredible
amount of pressure.
A nation will be even more resistant to making a change if nobody else
has ever made it before because that will trigger their fear of the unknown.
For example, many nations have switched to the metric system, so Americans
aren't afraid that they will suffer as a result of the switch. Rather,
they resist switching simply because they don't want to make the effort.
For America to switch to the metric system, all we have to do is make an
effort to learn something new. We will not be exploring the unknown
or facing potential failure.
By comparison, no society has switched to the type of economic system
in which food, housing, transportation, and other basic necessities are
free, so a proposal to make such a change will cause people to be frightened
of the unknown. Switching to a new economic system is not simply learning
how to do what other people have already done. It is exploring the unknown
and facing potential failures. Only people with tremendous self-control
will be able to make a dramatic change that nobody has made before. Our
fear of the unknown is so strong that we would rather remain on a path
that is miserable than wander into uncharted territory.
How will any nation make any significant change to its economic system,
government system, language, social activities, or holiday celebrations?
No society has made changes like that before, so the first nation to do
so will be exploring the unknown, and this is going to cause tremendous
Men are willing to push themselves to extreme physical limits in gyms,
when climbing mountains, and other physical activities, but very few of
them show any ability or desire to tolerate the emotional discomfort that
results from experimenting with a new government system, or from a critical
analysis of their culture.
If you have tried to explain to people that Israel was responsible for
the 9/11 attack, and that the Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers
and Building 7 with explosives, you must have noticed that the majority
of people react to the information with silence or fear. They behave like
a rabbit that just noticed that a wolf is staring at it.
If a person cannot handle the emotional discomfort of discussing the
Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attack, how could he possibly handle the
discomfort of experimenting with a new government system or a new economic
We want the pleasure
of voting, not the responsibility
The issue of voting is another example of why we must control
our emotions and learn to confront people who are interfering with social
progress. Most people want to vote because they enjoy the titillation
of voting; namely, the feeling that they are important people who are in
control of their government. However, most voters refuse to accept the
of voting. They don't want to do any serious research or analysis of the
candidates, and they especially don't want to take the blame for their
corrupt and incompetent government. Almost every voter makes excuses as
to how their disgusting government is the fault of somebody else, such
as the other voters, the mysterious and elusive "special-interests",
or the people who do not vote.
||I am a super voter who
makes brilliant decisions. The government
is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent because of the other
voters and the Special Interests, not because of me!
Businesses expect each employee in the Personnel Department
to be responsible for his actions. If a Personnel Department was routinely
hiring people who turned out to be incompetent or dishonest, some or all
of the employees would be fired or given some other position. The Personnel
Department would not be allowed to blame other people for their mistakes.
Compare the difference in attitude we have towards athletes and voters.
Athletes are expected to put so much effort into training and performing
that they suffer physical exhaustion, and sometimes physical pain. By comparison,
voters are not expected to put any effort into analyzing the candidates
or the government officials. We want voters to enjoy themselves,
not suffer the discomfort of research and analysis.
Imagine living in a society in which the voters are required
to exert a lot of mental effort. Imagine that the only people who are allowed
to vote are those who can push themselves as hard as athletes. For example,
imagine voters spending at least one evening each month at meetings where
they participate in the research and analysis of government officials,
and they discuss which official should be replaced, and who would be a
likely replacement. Imagine that every voter is required to participate
in the research, the analyses, and the discussions. No voter is permitted
to sit quietly in the back of the room and listen to other people.
Imagine a group of voters who are capable of dealing with emotional
discomfort so well that they can do the analyses without whining, and that
they can control their cravings for praise so well that they don't have
to waste any time giving one another compliments. In such a case, their
meetings would never have worthless remarks such as, "We
thank you for your opinion..." or "I defend
your right to state your opinions, but I must politely disagree..."
Imagine a group of voters who can ignore their emotional cravings for
praise and status; tolerate the discomfort of research and analysis; and
push themselves into concentrating on their task; namely, providing themselves
with proper leadership. Imagine all of the voters putting pressure on themselves
and one another to find intelligent reasons for their opinions. Imagine
that they don't whine about pushing themselves, and they don't make grunting
noises. They just deal with it quietly.
Finally, imagine that voters are held accountable for their performance,
just like athletes. We do not allow athletes to compete in secrecy, inherit
their position, or have the equivalent of "tenure". Athletes must perform
in front of other people, and in order to join future events, they must
perform at a high level. The athletes who do not perform at a high level
Imagine a society in which voters are not allowed any secrecy, either,
and each of them is held accountable for what he does. Imagine every voter
being required to post their analyses of government officials and candidates.
This will allow us to determine which of the voters is doing a better job
of selecting candidates and identifying incompetent leaders, and the worst
performing voters would be replaced so that somebody else can have a chance
to test his skills.
It is foolish to consider voting as a form of entertainment. It is even
more idiotic to practice the policy of "compulsory
voting", which is in effect in 22 countries as of August 2013. We must
restrict voting to people who are going to take the job seriously, and
who have the emotional ability to force themselves to participate in research,
analyses, and discussions even when they don't want to, and even when they
find the analysis to be emotionally uncomfortable.
Almost everybody can accept the fact that we differ in athletic abilities,
and that most people have "ordinary" athletic abilities. However, it is
difficult for us to accept the fact that we differ in our ability to vote,
and that most people have "ordinary" voting abilities, and that half the
population has below-average voting abilities. We prefer to believe that
we are super geniuses who deserve to influence the future of the world.
Our arrogance and our cravings for dominance causes us to put pressure
on society to allow everybody to vote. However, since most people
don't want to put any effort into voting, they don't want voters to have
any requirements to study or analyze anything, or participate in meetings,
or be held accountable for their voting.
During the past few thousand years, a lot of people have pointed out
that the majority of people are incompetent at selecting leaders, but rather
than raise standards for voters, every nation has continuously
their standards and allowed more people to vote. During the 20th
century, for example, nations began allowing women to vote, and lowering
the voting age to 18.
There is nothing wrong with experimenting with raising and lowering
the voting age, or allowing women to vote, but after running an experiment
for a certain number of decades, we should analyze the results and
try to learn from the experiment. We now have a lot of data to look
through because women and people under the age of 21 have been voting for
Unfortunately, nobody is bothering to analyze the data and pass judgment
on whether society benefits by letting women and/or younger people vote.
Our government officials are allowed to create a law without having to
analyze the effect of the law and determine whether it is beneficial or
detrimental, or whether it can be improved upon. We are treating our government
officials as if they are children who are playing with toys, and who don't
have to be responsible for cleaning up their mess or fixing the broken
A better government system would require the government officials to
be responsible for their actions. The officials who create or approve of
a law should be held accountable for that law, and they and other government
officials should be required to routinely analyze the effect the law is
having on society and pass judgment on whether the law should be deleted
From my own casual observations of people, I would say that we are hurting
society by allowing women and younger people to vote. Both groups of people
are significantly more submissive than older men, and the young adults
are significantly more ignorant about life. This causes both groups to
be more easily influenced by advertisements, their emotional cravings,
and other people, which in turn means they are less influenced by their
own intelligent analyses of the candidates.
To make the situation worse, women, as a group, are not as intelligent
as men, so they don't do as good of a job of analyzing government officials.
Their emotions exert a greater influence over their opinions.
There are some people who believe that the world would become more peaceful
if women dominated society. They base this theory on the fact that men
are more physically violent. However, history doesn't provide any evidence
that women make better leaders. Thousands of women have been in leadership
positions in business, government agencies, charities, and other organizations.
Every mother could be described as a leader for her children. There are
lots of women for us to observe, and although it is obvious that women
are less physically violent, there is no evidence that women make better
leaders. Men and women are simply
For example, men want to feel important, whereas women prefer to be
the center of attention. Men are likely to build statues of themselves
and force people to engage in displays of submission, whereas women are
more likely to arrange for events in which they can become the center of
attention. Men are more likely to gather large amounts of vehicles, furniture,
and land, and women are more likely to collect large amounts of shoes,
clothing, and jewelry.
We are not going to provide ourselves with better leadership simply
by putting women in top positions. Providing ourselves with better leadership
is going to require some voters who are capable of putting some serious
effort into analyzing the leadership abilities of other people.
They are going to have to force themselves to do a lot of intellectual
I think the reason governments around the world are giving more people
the right to vote is to appease the citizens, not because they have
intelligent reasons to believe that this policy will improve government.
Allowing a government to do something simply to appease the citizens is
as idiotic as allowing a Hollywood movie director to give an acting role
to a young girl that he raped in order to bribe her into dropping her accusation
We should not allow government officials to do something simply to appease
us. Instead, they should be required to provide intelligent reasons for
their policies, and they should be required to occasionally review their
policies to determine whether they are truly beneficial to us.
The government should also continuously experiment with improvements
to their policies, even policies that are beneficial. An engineer doesn't
quit the development of refrigerators after he gets one to work properly.
Instead, he continuously looks for ways to make it better. We should have
the same attitude towards social technology. We should always be looking
for ways to improve our voting system, school system, social affairs, and
transportation system, even if it is working.
An engineer cannot create the "perfect" refrigerator, but he can continuously
make improvements to the existing refrigerators. Likewise, we cannot create
the "perfect" voting system, but we can continuously improve upon the system.
Disgusting governments cannot
set high standards
We must restrict voting to the people who are capable of handling
the emotional discomfort of research and analysis, and the emotional trauma
of analyzing their leaders. However, no nation can impose high standards
on the voters until they first impose high standards on people in leadership
positions. If any of the world's current governments were to raise standards
for voters, many of the voters would complain about the hypocrisy of the
high standards. The people would make such remarks as,
"Why do we have to meet high standards when our
courts are corrupt; government officials are incompetent, alcoholic, and
dishonest; and scientists are lying about carbon taxes and the Apollo moon
Is this your
idea of an American police chief?
For example, I don't think that ex-police chief, Mark Kessler
of Pennsylvania, would be able to demand that the people in his area meet
high standards. In addition to displaying
behavior that most people would describe as childish, obnoxious, or embarrassing,
his website promoted people who deceive us about 9/11 and other Jewish
crimes. Some of his recommended links are:
Kessler is currently revising his website and many pages
are almost blank, but the Internet archive has his original links here.
When a police chief is behaving in a manner that most of us consider
to be obnoxious or dishonest, the citizens will be angry if he demands
that the citizens meet high standards. Unless a nation can provide itself
with respectable leadership, there is no way those leaders are going to
be successful at raising standards for the citizens.
In order to raise standards for voters, we must first find enough people
who can exert the self-control necessary to force the people in leadership
positions to meet high standards. Only after we demonstrate the ability
to put together a respectable government can we tell the citizens that
most of them are too intellectually lazy and/or incompetent to vote.
We need to review scientists,
A modern society needs some members who are willing and able
to review the performance of scientists and pass judgment on which of them
are truly contributing to society and fulfilling their duties of a scientist,
and which of them are incompetent or dishonest.
We should not be submissive towards our scientists. Scientists must
earn our trust, and continuously. A scientist is just a person who
went to school for a certain amount of time. Scientists must be treated
just like other employees; specifically, we must occasionally give each
of them a job performance review. Don't be impressed by somebody's intelligence
or memory. It is entirely possible for a person to have above average intelligence
while having the emotional qualities of a child, a criminal, or a monkey.
An intelligent person can also suffer from various forms of mental illness.
Unfortunately, it's not easy for us to review scientists because the
work they do is too complex for most of us to understand. Furthermore,
scientists specialize in narrow areas, and so only the scientists who work
in that area will be able to review their work.
In order to properly review scientists, we need a government agency
in which the officials are equal in intelligence and scientific knowledge
to the scientists. That requires that the government officials be scientists
who are involved in the research.
My solution to this dilemma, as I pointed out in a previous document,
is to change our attitudes towards jobs in order to allow more people to
work on a part-time and temporary basis. This allows scientists, engineers,
carpenters, mechanics, and other people to get involved in the government
on a part-time and temporary basis. This will allow scientists to get involved
with the government and review one another.
Although this policy might seem to be allowing the scientists to review
themselves, if a large percentage of the scientists can force themselves
to stop acting like apathetic sheep and participate in the process, there
will be so many participants that it will be difficult for a group of selfish
or dishonest scientists to give themselves special treatment.
Furthermore, we can reduce the problems with corruption and incompetence
if we don't allow people to abuse us more than once. When we determine
that a person is abusing us, he should be banned forever from a leadership
position, or evicted from society. When we feel sorry for abusive people,
we end up with the situation we have today in which some of them repeatedly
How do we pass judgment on
It is difficult to pass judgment on people who do intellectual
work, but we can and must force ourselves to do it. Businesses are doing
it with their own scientists, and society can do it also. We must remind
ourselves, "No pain, no gain. Don't whine about the
difficulty. Push through it!"
In regards to the issue of global warming, there is nothing wrong with
a scientist wondering what effect humans are having on the weather, the
fish, the birds, and other aspects of the planet. Actually, anybody with
mediocre intelligence ought to wonder what effect humans are having on
the world. How does our destruction of forests affect the climate? How
does our production of dust affect our health and the climate? What effect
do humans have on the population of rats, fleas, and pigeons? Are we altering
the weather by replacing grass and forests with asphalt and concrete?
There is nothing wrong with a scientist speculating that our production
of carbon dioxide is affecting the weather, but some of them are not
speculating. They are treating this speculation as a proven fact.
This requires that they provide a lot of supporting evidence.
We benefit from people who ask questions and speculate, but some scientists
are claiming that our production of carbon dioxide is definitely
causing global warming, and that global warming is definitely going
to be horrible, and that we can definitely solve the problem through
carbon taxes. These claims require the scientists to provide a lot of supporting
evidence, but although they have evidence that higher levels of carbon
dioxide will increase the temperature of the planet, they don't have any
evidence that carbon taxes will reverse the situation, and they have no
evidence that global warming is going to be horrible. For all we know,
most of us would prefer a warmer planet.
Let's assume that some scientists come up with conclusive proof that
humans are causing global warming through carbon dioxide production, and
that carbon taxes can indeed reverse the situation. That proof by itself
does not justify imposing carbon taxes. Before we implement a solution
to a problem, we should look at the alternative
solutions. The scientists who are promoting global warming should show
us that their solution, namely, carbon taxes, is better than the alternative
solutions. So, what are the alternative solutions? The scientists are not
Scientists should provide us with a more intelligent analysis
of our problems that an ordinary person could provide, and they should
be able to devise
more possible alternative solutions, and they
should be able to see more advantages and disadvantages to each
of the alternative solutions. However, the opposite is happening
with carbon taxes. The scientists are not providing any alternative
to carbon taxes. They could not possibly be as stupid as they appear. The
only sensible conclusion is that they are trying to manipulate us,
perhaps because they hope to profit from the carbon taxes, and/or hope
to manipulate nations and businesses with the taxes.
If our production of carbon dioxide truly needs to be reduced, then
we have a lot of alternative solutions besides carbon taxes. For example,
we could design cities so that we don't need automobiles, as I described
in my City of Castles. The transportation system would be electric, and
even if we use fossil fuels for the production of electricity, we would
produce less carbon dioxide because that type of transportation system
is much more efficient than private automobiles. Furthermore, electric
power plants don't need highly refined gasoline, and that allows us to
eliminate a lot of our refineries, which waste energy and resources.
Furthermore, that type of city allows the surface of the city to be
full of grass, plants, and trees rather than concrete and asphalt. Those
plants will use the sun's energy to break down carbon dioxide, whereas
concrete and asphalt convert the sun's energy into heat. That style of
city would also make it more practical and more pleasurable
for people to use bicycles as a transportation device.
Incidentally, increasing the vegetation and reducing the concrete and
asphalt could also help reduce the problem of flooding during heavy rains.
No society yet is regulating the scientists, and this is allowing them
to lie about the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, carbon
taxes, and who knows how many other issues.
Would allowing scientists to get part-time jobs in the government solve
this problem by giving scientists the authority to regulate one another?
No, it would not "solve" the problem, but remember that we cannot
achieve perfection. All we can hope for is an improvement over what
we have now, and we can certainly improve upon our current chaotic, miserable
If we created a government that had a Quality Control Department that
consisted of part-time and temporary scientists, and if a lot of scientists
were willing to participate in the process, they would certainly do a better
job of regulating scientists than what we have today, which is no
regulation. Furthermore, through the years they would learn
how to do an increasingly better job of judging scientists. They might
even notice patterns in the scientists that they have to fire.
Which scientists are lying to us about global warming? Which scientists
are lying to us about the Holocaust? Which scientists are incompetent and
should be classified as technicians or engineers? If we were to study all
of the scientists, we might find patterns. The scientists who lie to us
are not likely to be a random sample of the human population. There is
likely to be something different about them compared to the more honest
scientists. We might also notice patterns in the government officials and
businessmen that we have to fire for incompetence or dishonesty.
In 2007, the global warming fanatics were frightening us with predictions
that there would be no ice in the Arctic by 2013, but in September 2013,
were saying there was actually more ice in 2013 than in previous
years. The government officials, scientists, news reporters, and other
people who promote global warming and carbon taxes show no shame or embarrassment
for what they are doing. They explain the additional ice as simply a characteristic
of global warming. No matter what happens to the weather, they use it as
proof that their theory is correct. They are behaving like dogs who repeatedly
grab meat from our dinner table, and don't care how many times we tell
them to stop it. Why are some people behaving this way but not others?
What is different about those dishonest people?
Should we impose nitrogen
Most of the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere is supposedly
the result of the decay of radioactive carbon. If that theory is true,
then the further back in time we look, the less nitrogen we will find in
the atmosphere. The production of nitrogen would also rise and fall as
levels of carbon dioxide rose and fell, and nitrogen production would also
change if the amounts of particles that hit the Earth's atmosphere were
How do we know if the level of particles that hit the atmosphere today
are at the exact same level as they were millions of years ago? We do not
even know if the levels of dust and rocks in space are uniform. For all
we know, our solar system sometimes encounters areas of space that have
higher levels of dust, rocks, and gases.
Incidentally, when plants first began to evolve, the nitrogen in the
atmosphere would have been very low, and that could explain why plants
never developed the ability to take nitrogen from the atmosphere.
The level of nitrogen in the atmosphere is slowly increasing. Should
we worry that this change will ruin life for us? Should we take action
now even though we don't have a good understanding of what is going on?
Should we allow the government to impose nitrogen taxes?
Are the Big Bang scientists
worth the burden they impose?
There is nothing wrong with speculating on how the universe
became established, but the "Big Bang" physicists are not speculating.
They are telling us the answer. They are as arrogant as animals and religious
fanatics. They are not proposing a "Big Bang tax" so they may seem to be
harmless, but they are consuming a lot of resources. Ideally, we would
have a government agency that had the technical talent to pass judgment
on whether these physicists are doing something useful for the resources
they consume, or whether they should be told to find something else to
do with their time. I suspect that a lot of physicists are just wasting
their time and our resources, and they should be forced to use their math
abilities for more useful projects.
If these people were to promote these theories in their leisure time,
then it would be acceptable, but they want enormous amounts of money for
full-time research, particle accelerators, and other devices. A society
should pass judgment on whether the burden that these people impose on
society is worth the benefit they provide us. The burden is phenomenal,
but what is the benefit? Are they really helping us to understand the universe?
If so, then why does nothing of value come from their research?
When scientists increase our understanding of rocks, we can do a better
job of manipulating rocks into more useful products. As they learn more
about plants, they allow us to do a better job with breeding, farming,
gardening, and forestry. If physicists were providing us with a better
understanding of the universe, then something of value should come from
their knowledge, but how many physicists are providing us with something
of value? We ought to consider the possibility that many physicists are
wasting their time and our resources on their particle accelerators, their
string theories, and their search for quarks.
If the universe truly started as an explosion from a single location
in space, and if that explosion followed the same pattern as a chemical
or nuclear explosion, then the universe would be an ever-expanding sphere.
As the outer shell expands, it should leave particles in the center that
are virtually stationary. Where is the center of that explosion? Whatever
is at the center should be stationary. If the Earth is at the center of
that explosion, then the earth is at the center of the universe.
In 1823, Heinrich Olbers presented evidence
that the sky ought to be about as bright at night as it is during the day.
He pointed out that even though the stars are far away, there are so many
of them, and they are putting out so much energy, that the earth should
be flooded with their heat and light. Since the night is dark and cold,
where is all of that energy going? Some of the energy is absorbed by the
bits of matter between the stars, but that would cause those bits of matter
to warm up, and they should emit infrared radiation. That is not happening,
Are some physicists simply too arrogant to face the fact that they have
no idea what is going on? Or, do some physicists realize that they have
no idea what they are talking about, but they don't care? At the
beginning of the 20th century, many businessmen were deliberately selling
worthless and addictive pharmaceutical products simply because they wanted
money, and we ought to consider the possibility that some physicists are
also deliberately lying to us just to justify their high salaries and avoid
a real job. Is there a difference between a physicist who is searching
for a God particle and a pharmaceutical company offering to cure cancer
with a morphine tonic?
Modern societies must pass judgment on who deserves the title of "scientist",
and which of them deserves funding. We currently allow anybody who graduates
from certain school courses to refer to himself as a scientist, but we
need to restrict that title to the people who have demonstrated that they
have leadership abilities. Scientists are in an
and they expect funding for work that almost nobody can understand.
Therefore, they should meet high standards just like everybody else in
a leadership position. We should be able to trust scientists and
look to them for guidance.
It is easy for us to criticize or fire a waitress or a gardener for
doing a substandard job because those people are low on the social hierarchy.
Animals do not have any problem attacking, abusing, stealing from, or raping
an animal that is below them in the social hierarchy. Actually, a person
can titillate his emotional cravings for status by criticizing a waitress
or denying her a tip. When we criticize a waitress, we can imagine ourselves
the dominant animal who is reprimanding a lower-level animal. However,
waitresses do not have a significant influence over the world, so
we don't need to spend much time reviewing their job performance.
By comparison, it is extremely important for modern societies to regularly
review the performances of people in leadership positions, and we must
insist that they meet high standards. Unfortunately, it is emotionally
difficult for us to force our leaders to meet high standards because we
have an emotional craving to behave submissively towards our leaders. Therefore,
improving our leadership is going to require finding people who can exert
enough self-control to participate in such tasks.
Do you think you have the
self-control necessary to tell Dr. Jim Hansen,
PhD, a former NASA scientist, that we are no longer allowing him to refer
to himself as a "scientist" as a result of his deception regarding global
warming? Would you be able to tell a physicist that we are tired
of funding his research of multidimensional quarks, and that he must start
doing something more productive if he wants to remain in our society?
It will not be easy for us to stand up to those people, but think
of yourself as an athlete, and remind yourself, "No
pain, no gain."
look critically at your cuisine?
The Japanese have developed some visually attractive foods,
and some amusing bento
lunches. However, I do not want to eat much of their food because most
of it is dominated by rice, tofu, and seafood.
Every living creature is "food" to some other creature. However, no
creature eats everything. Every creature has evolved an attraction to the
visual image and taste of only a small percentage of the creatures. Furthermore,
every creature has evolved the ability to consume only a small percentage
of those creatures.
Some birds enjoy eating live spiders, some vultures eat bones, and flamingos
enjoy eating algae. Alligators evolved a stomach that is capable of digesting
entire animals, including bones, hooves, and the partly digested food inside
stomachs and intestines.
Humans evolved to enjoy the appearance and flavor of only certain foods,
and our mouth evolved the ability to chew only certain foods, and our digestive
system evolved the ability to digest only certain foods.
Which foods are natural to human diets? If we could go back in time
20,000 years, what would we find our prehistoric ancestors eating?
I think the way to determine which foods are natural for humans is to
consider which foods we have the ability to chew and digest, and which
we are naturally attracted to in regards to flavor and visual appearance.
We can chew and possibly digest spiders, but we consider them to be visually
unappealing, and we don't like the way they feel in our mouth, so we can
assume that spiders are an unnatural food for humans.
Although we would not want to put a pig into our mouth, virtually every
human loves the flavor of pig meat, and we can chew and digest pig meat
without any problem. We don't have to tenderize the meat from pigs, lamb,
or birds. We also enjoy the flavor and consistency of apples, apricots,
and peaches. We don't have to cover fruit with sauces or spices.
Sauces and spices should be an option,
not a necessity to mask the flavor of the food. If a food is so unpleasant
that we must use spices and sauces in order to eat it, then it should
be considered as unnatural for humans. This does not mean
the food is unhealthy, however. Rather, it means that we do not have a
natural attraction to it, and therefore, we ought to wonder why we bother
producing and eating it.
Much of what the Japanese eat is unnatural for humans. That unnatural
food might be healthy, but we do not have an attraction to it. For example,
rice, especially the processed white rice, doesn't have an appealing flavor,
and we don't enjoy the way it feels in our mouth. We have an attraction
to foods that we can chew, such as apples and meat, or foods that are soft,
such as bananas. We never evolved an attraction to food that is in the
form of small pellets, such as boiled grains, or foods that are sticky,
such as peanut butter, or foods that are slimy, such as okra.
The Japanese also eat a lot of seafood. Although some races of humans
may have depended upon seafood for so many thousands of years that they
are beginning to evolve a true attraction to seafood, most humans do not
have much of interest in seafood. We consider most seafood to have a stinky
aroma, and most of it has such an unpleasant flavor that we cannot enjoy
it unless we mask the flavor with sauces or spices.
Seafood, peanut butter, okra, and rice may be healthy for us, but it
is not natural for us. If the only way you can eat sea urchins is to put
wasabi on it, then you don't really like the flavor of sea urchins. If
you have to cover your rice with salty soy sauce or some other flavoring
agent, then you don't enjoy the flavor of the rice. You may enjoy the taste
and aroma of peanut butter, but if you must reduce the stickiness with
bread, chocolate, or celery, then you don't enjoy the consistency of peanut
If humans enjoyed the flavor of oysters, then we would chew them, and
we would enjoy the flavor that oozes out. However, most people either swallow
them without chewing, or they bite into the oyster once or twice and then
quickly swallow it. This should be considered a sign that we don't like
oysters. This should make us wonder, "Why are we
wasting labor and resources on a food product that we don't enjoy? And
why do we make ourselves eat it?"
If you were starving, and your only food was spiders, cockroaches, and
caterpillars, you would eat them in the same manner that people eat oysters
and other seafood. You would want to cover the bugs in sauces, wasabi,
horseradish, pepper, lemon juice, or other spices, and then swallow them
with as little chewing as possible. Or you might eat the bugs as you eat
peanut butter, such as put the bugs between slices of bread and cover them
with jelly or honey.
Our meals should be a source of pleasure for us. Meals give us an opportunity
to enjoy life, and to socialize. We should not force ourselves to eat food
that we dislike simply to refuel our bodies. A society should analyze its
eating utensils, cooking procedures, foods, and the manner in which people
are getting together for meals. We should design society so that we enjoy
our meals and one another, and we should ensure that our meals are healthy.
We should analyze the advantages and disadvantages to everything we
do. Everything has a burden and a benefit. We must put labor and resources
into producing oysters, but what is the benefit? Is the burden of producing
oysters worth the benefit? I don't think so. I think that those resources
should be put into a food item that we have a greater attraction to. There
are certain types of seafood that people actually enjoy without sauces
and spices, such as scallops and salmon, so why not produce them instead?
Or why not put more resources into greenhouses so that we can produce the
foods without pesticides and insects?
How many of the Orientals can deal with the emotional discomfort of
critically analyzing their cusine? How many Orientals can face the possibility
that they have foolishly allowed their population to grow to such an extreme
level that they depleted their supply of human food many centuries ago,
and have since then been subsisting on bird food and shark food?
Rice, tofu, and seafood should be a small part of our diet. Those
type of items should be eaten for variety, not as primary component
of our diet. I think that our lives will become more pleasant when we eat
food that we truly enjoy. We should enjoy the aroma, flavor, and texture
of the food. We don't have to live like primitive savages who must eat
whatever we can find. With our technology, we can provide ourselves with
foods that we enjoy, and which are healthy.
Imagine if the Japanese cuisine was redesigned for pork, chicken, lamb,
apples, peaches, and other human foods. In that case, their food
would not only be visually attractive, but it would have an attractive
aroma, a pleasant texture, and a desirable flavor. Imagine their bento
lunches with that type of food.
Most people eat the foods that their parents fed to them as children,
but rather than follow traditions, everybody should push themselves into
critically reviewing their cuisine and asking themselves seriously, "Are
we eating this particular food because we truly enjoy it? Or are we eating
it because our ancestors were very hungry and couldn't find anything else?"
Wheat is an example of a food that was not intended for humans. We do
not enjoy eating raw wheat kernels, or even a bowl of boiled wheat kernels.
However, when we grind wheat into flour, we can make many desirable food
products, such as breads and coatings for fried chicken.
Incidentally, one of the reasons we prefer white flour over whole-wheat
flour is because we don't enjoy the taste of wheat. However, recently a
variety of wheat has been developed that has a milder flavor compared to
the hard red winter wheat. It is referred to as hard white winter wheat.
I switched to that variety perhaps in 2012.
Do humans truly enjoy eating boiled rice? I don't think so. I don't
think we enjoy the texture or the flavor. I think virtually everybody would
prefer rice that has been processed, such as grinding it into a flour and
using it to wrap eggrolls, or grinding it into a substitute for milk and
Incidentally, chemists and biologists thousands of years from now might
have so much knowledge that they will be able to create artificial foods,
either with chemical factories, or by breeding bacteria to produce the
artificial foods. This will allow people in the future to create a wide
variety of artificial foods that are better tasting, more nutritious, and
digest easily into neat, odorless pellets. It is possible that farming
and ranching will eventually be replaced by the production of artificial
foods. The people may not even bother to grow fruit trees because their
artificial apricots and artificial apples may be much better tasting and
easier to digest.
Consider a person's motives,
not just his actions
Sometimes business executives do something that seems to show
a concern for the quality of life of their employees, such as when a businessman
provides health insurance, but we must look at the reason
that they are doing this. In some cases, it is to dampen a potential rebellion,
or prevent their employees from going to a competitor, not because they
actually have a concern about the quality of other people's lives.
If Josef Fritzl's daughter began crying
as he started to rape her, and if he gave her a lollipop to calm her down
because he was annoyed by the noise, would he be showing a concern for
the quality of her life? Of course not. He would be giving her the lollipop
for his own selfish benefit.
We cannot admire a leader simply because he does something that pleases
us. We have to ask ourselves, "Is he really concerned
about society? Or is he merely manipulating us to satisfy his own selfish
Modern society is becoming increasingly complex, and that requires that
we do an increasingly better job of analyzing people. We must remove secrecy
so that we can see a person's complete life. This will allow us to analyze
everybody's effect on society. However, to do a proper job, we have to
go one step beyond that and pass judgment on why
a person is behaving in a certain manner. We have to pass judgment on whether
people are treating us nicely because they truly want to be team members,
or because they are trying to take advantage of us.
An example of this concept are the deceptive salesmen, Jews, and con
artists who give us gifts or compliments, or who do us favors. They appear
to be our friends, but in reality, they are trying to abuse us. I am frequently
contacted by Jews who pretend to like me, but they don't really like me.
Sometimes a man will appear to be in love with a woman when in reality
all he wants is sex. Sometimes a woman will pretend to be interested in
a man when all she really wants him for is entertainment and gifts while
she continues looking for a man she wants to marry. In this modern world,
we have to pass judgment on a person's true intentions.
This concept is especially important for people in leadership positions.
If a government official does something beneficial simply to prevent a
rebellion, he is not showing an interest in us or in society. Rather, he
is showing an interest in maintaining his position. Likewise, if a business
executive does something to improve the lives or safety of his employees
merely to prevent rebellion, then he is selfishly trying to maintain his
position rather than showing a concern for the lives of other people.
A more extreme example of this concept is a business executive who implements
a safety procedure simply because the government or police are threatening
him with arrest if he doesn't treat his employees better. People who behave
like that should not be considered worthy of leadership positions. We should
not have to tell our leaders to treat people with respect and decency,
and we should especially not have to threaten them with arrest. If a man
needs to be threatened to behave properly, he should not qualify for a
There are some businesses that encourage their employees to eat healthier
meals and get exercise, and that can create the impression that those executives
are concerned about the lives of their employees, but I suspect that most
of those executives are only concerned about increasing their profit by
reducing the number of sick employees, reducing insurance premiums, and
increasing the amount of work from each employee. They are treating their
employees as donkeys, not as friends or team members.
In the world today, especially America, we live and work among people
we fear, despise, and dislike, and so many business owners have no respect
for their employees or customers. However, if we were to create a new city
and control immigration to make the city more homogenous, then it becomes
important for us to be intolerant of selfish and abusive businessmen.
We must be able to make a distinction between people who are true participants
in society, and people who are selfish, arrogant animals who care only
about titillating their emotions.
If we are not careful about who we put into leadership positions, then
we can end up with leaders who consider us as potential threats, and who
do beneficial things for us only to prevent rebellions.
We also need to analyze the ordinary citizens and pass judgment
on their value. Some of the citizens who are dishonest, abusive, or parasitic
should have restrictions put on them, such as restricting them from certain
jobs or social activities, and the more destructive citizens should be
evicted from society.
Unfortunately, analyzing ordinary citizens and dealing with the troublesome
citizens is also going to be emotionally traumatic, especially if those
citizens are our friends or relatives. We need to push ourselves
into tolerating the emotional discomfort of maintaining the quality of
Ideally, we would prevent the crude people from reproducing so that
each generation of humans develops more advanced emotional and intellectual
qualities. If we allow the crude people to reproduce, we will allow the
human race to degrade into selfish, abusive freaks.
Lots of men have the ability to put certain restrictions on people,
such as preventing them from flying airplanes, but how many men can control
themselves well enough to allow society to prevent certain people from
How many men can control their emotions well enough to allow a person to
be evicted from society?
The problems of modern society are not due to poverty, a shortage of
energy, or ignorance. Our problems are due to the behavior of specific
people who steal from us, lie to us, instigate wars, and behave like
monkeys. In order to improve the world, we must push ourselves into dealing
with those particular people.
How many men can deal with the emotional discomfort that results from
confronting the destructive leaders of society? How many men could walk
up to Queen Elizabeth and tell her, "We don't want
you in a position of influence any longer. We are eliminating the monarchy,
and you will become an ordinary person who works for a living just like
When a person meets Queen Elizabeth, regardless of who that person is
and which nation he comes from, his emotions will be titillated. We cannot
prevent our emotions from being triggered. When you are hungry and smell
food, certain emotions will be triggered regardless of what you do about
it. When you are thirsty, you will experience certain emotions regardless
of what you do to stop it. Your sexual emotions will be triggered by certain
events regardless of what you do about it.
You can visualize your emotions as crude dinosaurs inside your
brain. You cannot prevent your emotions from struggling to control
your behavior, but you should have an ability to prevent your emotions
from influencing your decisions. For example, when you meet Queen Elizabeth,
certain emotions will be triggered that will give you a craving to behave
like a submissive child. You cannot prevent that emotional feeling,
but you may have the ability to resist that feeling and behave in
a more intellectually sensible manner.
support higher standards for people?
In December 2013, I went with my mother to Costco. One of the
items that she wanted was a large piece of sirloin meat for a Christmas
party. She didn't find any in the display case, so she told one of the
butchers that she bought one last year, and was wondering if they still
carry such meat.
The butcher responded that they still offer the meat, but they do not
put it in the meat counter because they don't want the customers to see
it. A customer must ask one of the butchers for that type of meat. The
butcher explained that the reason for their new policy is because many
people purchased the sirloin meat, cooked and/or cut it up inappropriately,
and then brought it back to the store to complain that they want their
money back. Apparently, the majority of Americans know how to prepare prime
rib, pork roast, and chicken, but they don't know how to prepare big pieces
of sirloin steak.
Since Costco will refund a customer's purchase even if the customer
damaged or ruined the product as a result of their own stupidity, ignorance,
carelessness, or drunkenness, the Costco management eventually decided
that they were refunding so many of these pieces of meat that it would
make more financial sense to keep this particular cut of meat hidden from
the ordinary people.
Costco's reasoning is that many of their customers are ignorant, selfish,
abusive, irresponsible jerks who cannot handle the freedom of having access
to large pieces of sirloin steak, and that by hiding the meat from the
public and requiring customers to specifically ask a butcher for the meat,
they increase the chances that the only customers who purchase that type
of meat will be those who know how to properly prepare it.
There is a Lassen's Natural Foods market in my city. They provide spices
and herbs in bulk, and years ago the customers could serve themselves.
A few years ago they stopped that option, and they told me it was because
people were frequently stealing the expensive items, such as saffron. In
response to the crime, the management decided to take away everybody's
access to all of the spices and herbs, even those that are inexpensive.
Every society is adjusting its rules to fit the worst behaved people.
The only way that we can make a more advanced society is to change this
attitude. We must raise standards for the members of society, and set the
rules according to the people who are considered "well behaved". The people
who are irresponsible, psychotic, stupid, abusive, or selfish need to be
restricted from certain activities and areas of the city, and in some cases,
they need to be evicted.
In the most extreme variation of the City of Castles, everybody has
free access to restaurants, museums, social affairs, homes, transportation,
recreational equipment, furniture, and clothing. The people who cannot
handle such an extreme level of freedom should be restricted to living
in certain neighborhoods and spending their leisure time in areas of the
city that have been set aside for them so that they don't bother the rest
of us. The people who are destructive, rather than merely irritating, should
Unfortunately, humans do not have any emotional desire to set or enforce
high standards of behavior. Humans are selfish, and we want special privileges
for ourselves, our children, and our friends. We do not want equality or
fairness. We want pampering, special treatment, praise, and admiration.
In order for a society to set high standards for its citizens, the people
must be able to suppress their arrogance and bias, and force themselves
to treat everybody more fairly. This is going to require the people to
exert a lot of self-control and deal with the emotional trauma of treating
other people as fairly as they treat themselves and their children.
If the majority of people cannot control their emotions, they will end
up behaving like selfish, arrogant monkeys who push for special privileges
for themselves and their family. The end result will be the type of society
we have right now. The only way to satisfy a group of selfish, arrogant
monkeys is to have low standards of behavior, and be very tolerant of crime
and irresponsible behavior.
How many people can control their emotions so well that they can allow
their children to be treated just like everybody else's children? How many
people can control their emotions so well that they will follow the same
rules that they impose on other people?
The only purpose of an animal is to reproduce. Animals evolved with
a tremendous bias in favor of themselves and their offspring, and they
have no concern about the quality of their offspring, or whether some other
animal has higher-quality offspring. They have no desire to look critically
at themselves, look favorably at other animals, or take responsibility
for their behavior.
In order for us to create a better society, we must control our crude
emotions so well that we can judge everybody according to their behavior,
not according to whom they are related to, or whom they are married to.
For example, Ethan Couch was driving while intoxicated and killed four
people. Most people would get into quite a bit of trouble for such irresponsible
behavior, but he was given special pampering because his family is wealthy.
They said that he was suffering from "Affluenza",
which was described as a condition in which "his
family felt that wealth bought privilege and there was no rational link
between behavior and consequences." Apparently, his parents also
suffer from Affluenza because his parents have displayed
undesirable behavior many times without getting into trouble.
Humans are so arrogant and selfish, and we have such an intense bias
for ourselves and our children, that it will be difficult for us to enforce
high standards. However, I think that if we had the opportunity to experience
life in a city with high standards, we would not want to return to the
low standards of today's cities.
Why are humans so hypocritical?
A lot of people boast about supporting "tough law enforcement",
but when they, their friends, or their relatives are caught misbehaving,
they are almost certain to demand special treatment and pity. Why are people
We can understand our hypocrisy by considering the attitude of an animal.
An animal considers the world to be his own personal property, and every
other animal is considered a potential rival or threat. When a wolf, dog,
or other predator captures some prey, other animals, even those of other
species, will fight over that prey. Each of them has the attitude that
the prey belongs to them. They do not understand or care about the concept
of theft, personal property, or earning what they want. They will grab
at whatever they are attracted to.
As monkeys developed into humans, we developed the concepts of personal
property and earning what you want. Unfortunately, we still have the same
crude emotions as the animals. For some examples, we have a craving to
grab at whatever attracts our attention rather than share the planet with
everybody; we are so arrogant that we resist looking critically at ourselves
and our family; and we regard other people as potential threats and rivals
so we have a difficult time treating other people in a fair manner.
Many people condemn welfare and boast that they believe in "working
hard" and earning whatever they want, but if a person truly followed such
a philosophy, he would be opposed to inheritances, tariffs, donations,
and other types of handouts. However, the people who complain the most
often about welfare and handouts are the people who refer to themselves
as "conservatives", and they are the most supportive of inheritances, investments,
tariffs, monarchies, donations, nepotism, royalties, and other techniques
that allow people to make money without earning it.
The people who start businesses often condemn welfare and boast about
their initiative to take care of themselves and earn what they want, but
many of them pressure the government into passing laws to restrict their
competitors, such as by requiring business to obtain licenses that are
expensive or time-consuming to acquire, or by setting up zoning regulations
that make it difficult for a competitor to become established in the same
area. Those business owners are hypocrites, but they don't see themselves
as being hypocritical. Why not?
Humans have a difficult time noticing our hypocrisy because animals
never evolved the ability or desire to look critically at themselves or
to look favorably at other animals. As monkeys evolved into humans, they
became more intelligent, but they remained the same arrogant animals who
had no desire or ability to look critically at themselves.
Humans today have the intellectual ability to give ourselves a critical
review, but we don't have the emotional desire to be critical of ourselves.
It should be noted that most people claim to be critical of themselves,
but we are not as critical of ourselves as we are of other people. Everybody
is biased and arrogant, and the end result is that we can give other people
a much more useful critical review than we can give to ourselves. As a
result, all of us benefit when other people give us critical reviews. Unfortunately,
we do not enjoy critical reviews, and so we do not encourage other people
to give them to us. Actually, we hope that we never get any critical reviews,
and some people react to critical reviews with anger or pouting.
Creating a better society requires people who can do a better job of
controlling their emotions. We do not need "perfect" control over ourselves.
Rather, all we have to do is exert enough control over our crude emotions
to allow society to improve. The better we can do at controlling our crude
emotions, the more options we have for our future. For example, with tremendous
self-control, we have the option of providing everybody with food, a home,
and basic material items for free.
support the concept of free food?
In a previous document I suggested that society provide food
to everybody for free. It might seem simple to create a completely new,
experimental city, and provide everybody in that city with free food, but
this policy requires the people compromise on a lot of different issues.
For example, which foods should we produce, and in what quantities? Should
we produce any types of candy, alcoholic beverages, sodas, teas, or donuts,
and if so, how should we distribute and regulate those items? How do we
distribute food that is seasonal, in short supply, or scarce? How do we
deal with people who suffer from food allergies? What should we do with
people who overeat, waste food, or cannot control their consumption of
certain foods or drinks?
Providing ourselves with free food requires discussing a lot of issues
and making a lot of decisions. This in turn requires the people to exert
enough control over their emotions that they can push themselves into doing
some research and analysis, and participating in discussions. It also requires
exerting enough control over our arrogance and our emotional cravings that
we can seriously consider what would be best for society rather than what
our particular emotional cravings prefer.
If we are capable of discussing food-related issues and compromising
on policies, we will have overcome only one hurdle in creating a
better society. The next hurdle is to understand that the decisions that
we compromised on are imperfect. Those decisions should be considered as
"experiments", not solutions. Therefore, we must observe and analyze the
results of our policies, and look for ways to improve the policies. We
will never find a solution to food-related issues, just as there is no
"solution" to computers, robots, or refrigerators. We should always be
looking for ways to improve our material items, and we must have the attitude
that we should always look for improvements to our food policies, economic
system, school system, and other social technology.
If you think it will be easy for a society to provide itself with free
food, consider how many families are having trouble providing free food
to their family. Some families have members that abuse the free food, such
as by overeating, wasting food, or fighting over the scarce items. In some
families the children will whine that they don't like the food that the
parents are offering, and some children refuse to eat the food, or have
violent tantrums. In some families, the father and/or mother waste a significant
amount of their food money on alcohol.
A society is just a big family. If we were to select thousands of families
at random throughout America, and put them into a completely new, empty
city, and tell them to provide themselves with free food, they would continue
to behave exactly as they are right now. There would be fights over the
scarce food items, tantrums over which food items are available, etc.
The reason it is so difficult for us to make intelligent decisions about
food issues is because food directly stimulates our emotions. If we cannot
suffer the emotional discomfort of ignoring our emotions, and if we cannot
tolerate the emotional discomfort of forcing ourselves to think about what
is best for society, and if we cannot tolerate the emotional discomfort
of seriously considering what somebody else is saying, then we will promote
the policies that please our particular emotional cravings. Since emotional
cravings cannot be supported with intelligent reasoning, we will not have
anything intelligent to say. Instead of having an intelligent debate, we
will instead behave like arrogant, selfish monkeys who are screaming and
fighting for a bunch of bananas. We will push our particular cravings without
any supporting evidence, and without listening to what other people have
The only way a group of people will be able to provide themselves with
free food is if they are capable of controlling their emotions better than
a group of monkeys, and better than the "ordinary" people are doing right
The issue of providing free food is complicated by the issue of food
allergies. When society provides free food, then society becomes responsible
for dealing with the issue of food allergies.
In America, some schools are training some employees on how to inject
a child with an antidote when he suffers from an allergic reaction to peanuts.
Should this policy be applied to all schools, social activities, and restaurants?
Should the employees of every restaurant and school be required to identify
food allergies, and know how to inject people with antidotes? Or should
that policy be applied only to the organizations that deal with children
who are too young to take care of themselves? Should the adults be told
to carry their own antidotes and be more careful about what they eat?
Or would it be better to separate the people with serious food allergies
from the rest of the population? Should we provide them with special neighborhoods,
schools, and restaurants so that they don't have to worry about the issue?
Or would it be better to give the people with food allergies the option
of living in their own neighborhood, and if they prefer to live among the
"normal" people, then they must take complete responsibility for their
food allergies? With that option, if a person with a peanut allergy chooses
to live among normal people, then it is his responsibility to carry his
own antidote, and it his responsibility to avoid peanuts. He would not
be able to whine that some restaurants are serving peanuts. It would be
his responsibility to avoid those restaurants.
The issue of food is further complicated by the possibility that children,
men, women, and different races have slightly different nutritional needs
or digestive abilities, and that we change as we grow older. It might be
best for us to have slightly different diets for babies, children, adults,
and elderly people, and slightly different diets for men and women, and
for different races.
We ought to investigate these issues, but that requires people be able
to control their emotions well enough to face the possibility that men
and women are different, that we deteriorate from age, and that there are
differences between the races. It also requires accepting the fact that
there are different races of Africans, Chinese, Caucasians, and Indians,
and that some people are such a mixture of races that they don't belong
to any particular race.
How many people in the world today can discuss these issues without
having temper tantrums, whining about racism or sexism, or pouting? If
a group of people cannot control their emotions, they will not be able
to develop intelligent opinions on food issues, or any other cultural issue,
and they will not be able to improve their culture.
Why are there so many "fearmongers"?
Thousands of people are regularly promoting frightening scenarios,
such as that Iran will soon have a nuclear bomb and attack America with
it; that President Obama is turning America into a police state; that some
virus will soon mutate and kill 90% of the population; that the economy
will soon collapse; and that global warming will melt the polar ice caps
and coastal cities will be flooded.
Prior to the year 2000, a lot of people were trying to frighten us with
the "Y2K" scenario, and prior to 21 December 2012, they were trying to
frighten us into believing that the Mayan calendar was predicting the end
of the world.
||Mutant viruses could kill all of us! The NSA is listening
to your phone calls! We will all die if a big asteroid hits the Earth!
Iran will soon have a nuclear bomb and attack us with it! You idiots, don't
relax! Be afraid. Be very afraid!
There seem to be more people trying to frighten us than
there are trying to inspire us. Most of the people who have an active
role in frightening us are also lying about the Israeli involvement in
9/11, and other Jewish crimes, so they are undoubtedly part of the same
network, but some people who are promoting this fear may be innocent people
who have been deceived by the propaganda.
|One of the "doomsday
preppers", Cloise Orand
was so certain that the world would end on 21 Dec 2012 that he built an
amazing bunker under his house. The photo shows two crossbows and two bunk
There are two main reasons why the Jews would promote these
frightening scenarios. One reason is to frighten us into doing something
that we normally would never do, such as become so afraid of Iran that
we are willing to attack them without any provocation.
The second reason is to prepare us for an event that they are trying
to instigate. By preparing us for the event, we will not wonder why the
event happened or investigate the event; we will simply accept it. For
example, I think they were planning to create chaos as the clocks turned
to January 1, 2000, such as sabotaging nuclear power plants, airplanes,
trains, and factories, but there were too many people preventing them from
Why do the Jews use frightening scenarios to manipulate us rather than
use pleasant scenarios? The reason is because humans and animals are much
more easily manipulated by fear. Animals react to stimuli, so when an animal
is having a pleasant life, it doesn't have any incentive to do anything.
When we make an animal comfortable, it is likely to relax. However, when
an animal is frightened, its body and mind becomes prepared to do a lot
of physical work, such as by running away or fighting.
Likewise, when a human is comfortable, he doesn't want to do much of
anything except relax and enjoy life. It would be difficult to convince
Americans to attack Iran by stimulating our pleasant emotions. However,
when people are frightened, they are willing to do something, and since
most people resist thinking, crime networks can manipulate the frightened
people by giving them suggestions on what to do.
In order to resist the fearmongers, you must be able to exert some control
over your emotions so that you don't become afraid so easily, and to push
yourself into making intelligent decisions about what to do when you are
It is wonderful if you can push yourself into climbing a mountain or
lifting a heavy weight, but it is more important that you are able to push
yourself into controlling your emotions and forcing yourself to think more
The theory that Iran would attack America without provocation is so
idiotic that nobody should believe it, and the Jews should have given up
on that scenario many years ago. However, the Jews are continuing to promote
it because there are still a lot of people who believe it.
Every once in a while a North Korean government official will make an
arrogant statement about how they will attack South Korea or America. Our
emotions react to angry statements with fear, but if you can control your
emotions and think about the issue, you will notice that animals and humans
go out of their way to avoid violence, as I described in this
Animals try to create the impression that they are larger, stronger,
and more courageous than they really are. Bluffing is a significant
part of every animal's life. This is especially true of humans who are
suffering from low self-esteem, or who are trying to feel important. It
is also a common tactic of government officials who are trying to distract
their citizens from their incompetence by directing anger towards another
If a dog or a wolf wants to attack you, it will not stand in front of
you, bark at you, and give you time to react. When an animal decides to
attack another animal, it does so as quickly and as secretly as possible.
Likewise, when humans want to attack, they do so quietly and secretly.
They don't hold a press conference and announce their intentions to the
It should be obvious that the North Korean government is bluffing. Instead
of being frightened by North Korea, we should ignore them. Reacting
to them is encouraging them to continue these obnoxious displays. Besides,
it is idiotic for a gigantic nation to be frightened of a small, primitive
nation that is having trouble feeding itself. Even if North Korea does
decide to attack us, they would cause less damage than a hurricane. America
has tornadoes that are more dangerous than North Korea.
Fear mongering is not
stopping drug use
The Jews are not the only people who use fear mongering. Many
or most societies use fear mongering to prevent children from abusing drugs,
alcohol, and cigarettes. Instead of providing children with intelligent
information about drugs, adults try to frighten children with deceptive
stories of how they will destroy their lives if they dare to experiment
This technique works to a certain extent, but there are two problems
with it. The most serious is that some children will eventually experiment
with drugs, and then they will discover that the adults were lying about
drugs, and that will cause those children to become less trusting of the
adults. This can reduce morale and their respect for authority.
The second problem with fear mongering is that it requires society to
maintain a level of fear. You can visualize fear mongering as a government
that inserts electrodes into everybody's brains, and constantly stimulates
their emotions of fear. I think we will create a more pleasant social environment
if society encourages people to become educated and make intelligent decisions.
Drug abuse is a problem everywhere in the world, despite the fact that
every nation is trying different styles of fear mongering to stop it. Fear
mongering is an ineffective and unpleasant way of dealing
with drug abuse, and so is punishing drug users and drug dealers.
Admitting that our drug policies are a failure is going to cause some
emotional discomfort, and we will create even more emotional discomfort
if we begin discussions about alternative policies to experiment with,
and there will be even more discomfort as soon as we choose one of the
policies to experiment with. If we can't find enough people to tolerate
the discomfort, then we are not going to be able to experiment with different
I think we should provide children with honest information about drugs.
This would require classifying every
recreational drug as a "drug", including alcohol and viagra. We should
also classify caffeine and nicotine as "drugs". I also suggest that we
change our attitude towards why people
use drugs. Instead of blaming the drug dealers, we should accept
the fact that some people have an attraction to certain drugs. Rather than
try to stop them from using drugs, we could experiment with regulating
their use of drugs.
There are already some cities that impose a few restrictions on when
and/or where alcohol and cigarettes can be sold. We could experiment with
a variety of restrictions to limit certain drugs to certain areas of the
city, or to certain times of the day or evening, or to certain days. We
could also allow each city to have different drug laws, and to evict the
people who don't want to follow their particular rules.
There is no "solution" to the drug issue. We are going to have to control
our emotions, discuss the issue, and start experimenting. No matter what
drug policies we decide to implement, a lot of people are going to occasionally
suffer some emotional discomfort. If the people don't have the ability
to deal with that discomfort, then we are not going to be able to experiment
with different drug policies.