A society has two primary paths to choose from in regards to
material wealth. Specifically, we can put our emphasis on private
property or on public property.
I think we will create a much more pleasant social environment when
we eliminate the wealthy class and the peasant class, and when we design
a city for the community rather than for individuals. For
example, instead of building private swimming pools, we build only community
Many cities today have public swimming pools, but they are ugly and
unpleasant. They are usually rectangular pits that are lined with ugly,
gray concrete, and there is usually so much chlorine in the water that
the pool could be described as a "bleaching pit".
Every society today is putting the emphasis on private property.
This requires everybody to purchase their own bicycles, swimming pools,
children's toys, cameras, and kitchen equipment. If we switch philosophies,
then the city would produce much higher quality bicycles, toys, cameras,
and other items, and the people would share those items.
Consider how this would apply to the issue of swimming pools. In our
cities today, thousands of people have built a small, ugly pool for their
personal use, and some wealthy people have built a spectacular pool for
their personal use. A lot of labor and resources are consumed in the construction
and maintenance of these pools, but the pools are idle most of the time,
and most people don't have a swimming pool.
There are several advantages to eliminating private pools and building
only public pools. One is that the community pools can be much more attractive
than private pools. A city would put fewer resources into building and
maintaining a small number of beautiful community pools compared to a large
number of private pools. The community pools could be so beautiful that
they would classify as public artwork.
Another advantage is that the community pools can use equipment and
techniques that would be impractical for private pools. For example, they
can use higher quality, more efficient pumps that require less maintenance
and produce less noise. It is also easier to design a large community pool
to use waste heat from the nearby buildings.
It is also more practical to design a community pool without chlorine,
such as by using ozone, or by using better filters, or by using ultraviolet
light. Eventually biologists will have enough knowledge to design a pool
in which the water slowly flows from the pool into a pond where plants
and other creatures break down any harmful materials, and then the water
is recycled back into the pool.
If I am correct that community pools can be much more attractive than
private pools, then why are community pools so ugly? It is because most
of the human population doesn't care about society. Most government
officials, business leaders, and citizens are focused on their own private
collection of land and items, not on helping the community. The community
pools are designed primarily for poor people.
Our mind determines whether
we benefit from community property
We do not need to develop new technology in order to share
community property. Rather, we only need to find the people who have the
genetic characteristics necessary to be responsible enough to share
If the people in a city are capable of sharing a community pool, then
the city can have beautiful community pools. However, if the people are
too selfish or independent, then they will demand their own private pools.
It is the genetic characteristics of the people that determine whether
they have community property or private property.
If the people in a city are capable of sharing community property, then
they could share much more than swimming pools. They would be able to share
hobby equipment, such as CNC machines, video cameras, telescopes, drones,
3-D printers, robots, microscopes, scuba equipment, electronic devices,
chemical equipment, and ceramic equipment.
In our world today, everybody who wants to get involved with a hobby
has to purchase his own equipment, and he needs to find space in his home
or garage for his equipment. It is a large investment, and if he decides
he doesn't like the hobby, it can be difficult for him to find a buyer
for his equipment.
Furthermore, some hobbies produce pollutants, but not many people can
afford the appropriate air cleaners or waste treatment facilities. The
end result is that some of their chemical fumes and paint droplets drift
into their neighbor's home, or get into the water table.
By comparison, when the city owns all of the land and buildings, and
the city officials are actively involved in encouraging activities, the
city government would support a variety of social clubs and hobbies. The
government would provide these groups with higher-quality equipment and
supplies than individuals would be able to purchase for their own use.
The government would also provide appropriate filters to keep the environment
clean and safe.
The people living in this type of city would be able to experiment with
hobbies without making any commitments. They could try woodworking or ceramics,
and if they decided that they don't care for those hobbies, they don't
lose anything. Rather, they just try some other hobby.
However, people who are extremely independent and selfish will not want
to join a club or share items with other people. They will want to
work on their own and have possession of whatever equipment they need.
If we restrict the city to people who are more sociable and better able
to share items, then in addition to sharing community pools and hobby equipment,
they would be able to coordinate their hobbies so that their hobbies become
useful. For example, the people who enjoy growing bonsai trees could grow
and maintain them for the restaurants and gardens. The people who enjoy
ceramics could create tiles for the swimming pools and foot paths. The
people who enjoy microscopes or chemistry could produce videos to help
school children learn those particular fields. The more cooperative the
people are, the more they benefit. By comparison, the more selfish and
anti-social the people are, the more their society will resemble a pack
Animals put their home wherever
Every animal has the attitude that the world belongs to him.
Every animal wants to control all of the land and resources that he sees.
When one animal finds food, the others try to grab it from him. Each animal
considers the food as his own personal possession, and so they fight over
it. Animals take whatever they want. Animals don't share food, land, nesting
materials, or water.
When a group of animals drink water from the same pond, or when they
eat different parts of the dead antelope, we often misinterpret the situation
into assuming that the animals are peacefully sharing their resources.
However, they are not sharing the resources. Each of them is selfishly
When a group of animals drinks water from a pond, each of them is thinking
only of himself. They are not working as a team and sharing the water.
If the pond was small, they would fight over it.
These same concepts apply to humans. Specifically, our emotions give
us the attitude that the world belongs to us, and we want total control
of the land and resources. This selfish, arrogant attitude is one of the
reasons that every society is having trouble restricting immigration. Everybody
has the attitude that they should be free to move to wherever they please.
Each of us believes that we own this planet, and if we want to move to
Chicago, London, Tokyo, or Berlin, then we have the right to do so.
An animal's natural attitude is that all of the land belongs to him,
and so he will walk into any land area that he is attracted to. His "home"
is wherever he wants it to be. If he encounters another animal, he will
fight that animal for the territory. Humans are exactly the same. Our natural
attitude is to move to whatever nation, city, or neighborhood that appeals
to us, and we will fight with anybody who gets in our way.
In September 2014, a lot of people who drive trucks from France to England
through the tunnel under the English Channel were planning to block
the port of Dover in order to bring attention to the problem of people
who illegally hide on their trucks in order to get into England. Those
illegal immigrants are a good example of how humans and animals will move
to wherever they please, and fight with whoever tries to stop them. The
immigrants will not necessarily adapt to the nation that they moved to.
They may instead treat that nation as if it were their own.
There are now some people who are fantasizing about moving to Mars.
If there was a Mars colony right now, and if we did not restrict immigration
to it, it would eventually resemble a large American city, which is also
a gathering of immigrants. The Mars colony would become an incompatible
mixture of people who would fight over which language to speak, which religion
to practice, which clothing styles are acceptable, and which foods are
acceptable, and whether they should use the metric system or the Imperial
system. If the Mars colony allowed God's Chosen People, well, you can imagine
what a disaster that would be.
And imagine if the Mars colony accepted refugees, such as those who
were fleeing Syria or the Ukraine during 2014. Would those refugees blend
in with the other people on Mars? Of course not. The refugees on Mars would
behave just like refugees here on the Earth. Specifically, only a few of
them would be thankful that another nation was willing to accept them.
Most of them would selfishly isolate themselves from the rest of the people.
They would try to live in a cultural bubble, as if they were in their home
An organization must restrict
How could a Mars colony become successful? The only way is
to first define the culture of the colony, and then restrict immigration
to people who are willing to abandon their current culture and accept
the Mars colony culture.
However, it's not enough to simply restrict immigration to people who
approve of the culture of the Mars colony. In order for the Mars colony
to be successful, the people must be capable of working together as a team.
Unfortunately, there is no way yet to determine who will be a productive
team member. We have to let people move to the Mars colony, and then observe
them. The people who turn out to be misfits, such as those who commit crimes,
who cannot hold a job, or who ruin morale with their bad attitude, need
to be sent back to the Earth.
It would be foolish for the Mars colony to allow misfits to remain with
them because those misfits would become a burden on the other people, and,
worst of all, they might become angry, violent, envious, or suicidal. If
they reproduce, they are likely to create more misfits.
A Mars colony is just an organization of people, so the concepts
that apply to the Mars colony apply to every other organization. Specifically,
if we want a city, business, social club, or other organization to be peaceful,
cooperative, and pleasant, the organization has to decide what its culture
will be, and they have to restrict their membership to the people
who are willing to accept that culture. They then have to watch the members
and evict those who cause trouble. It is foolish to ignore the misfits.
Our emotions want to be able to put our home wherever we please. Our
emotions are attracted to the philosophy that people are free to move to
any neighborhood we please, even on Mars. Our emotions oppose restrictions
on immigration, and we also find it emotionally upsetting to deal with
and evict the misfits. In order for us to restrict immigration and evict
misfits, we must be able to push ourselves into controlling our emotions.
Once we impose restrictions on immigration, we no longer become free
to move to wherever we please. If we want to move to another city, we would
have to ask that city for permission, and after we were accepted, we would
face the possibility that they decide that we don't fit in, and they would
evict us. Are you willing to live in
that type of world?
Although I might seem to be advocating something radically different
from what we are accustomed to, it is very similar to what businesses and
other organizations are doing right now. If you want a job at General
Motors, or if you want to become a member of the U.S. Marines, you cannot
force yourself on them. You must ask them for permission. They must
accept you. Once you have been accepted, they may evict you if they
decide that you are not fitting in properly.
We also follow this philosophy in regards to our friends and spouse.
You cannot force anybody to become your friend or your spouse. You have
to let them choose you. After somebody has chosen you to be a friend,
if they decide that you are not truly fitting in with them, they can terminate
the friendship at any time.
Animals cannot share resources
or chores; can you?
Animals have the attitude that they own the world, and they
try to control all of the land and resources that they see. Just like the
animals, humans have cravings to control territory and resources. We receive
emotional titillation when we control a plot of land, and when we acquire
material items. This can result in a person coming to the conclusion that
he will experience even more pleasure by acquiring more land
and more items.
While it is indeed true that every time we acquire more land and material
items, we will titillate ourselves, we will not have a better life
as a result of that titillation. If titillating our emotions truly resulted
in a better life, then we could all enjoy life much more simply by titillating
ourselves with sugar, pornography, sex, food, awards, material items, and
The Hollywood celebrities own a tremendous amount of material items
and land, and they have more fame than any of us, and some of them get
lots of sex, but are they happier than you or I?
The attitude that we must own a lot of land and material items in order
to enjoy life is the result of misinterpreting our emotional feelings.
It is true that we experience emotional titillation when we acquire land
or material items, but that titillation is momentary. As soon as it fades
away, we become the same person that we were before we acquired those items.
If we were lonely, frustrated, or angry before we acquired the items, we
will be lonely, frustrated, or angry as soon as the titillation fades away.
Owning land, houses, and material items is actually a burden
on us because we become responsible for maintaining the items. When a person
wants to move to a different home, for example, he has to deal with the
buying and selling of land and houses. He also has to deal with the maintenance
of his land, and the larger his plot of land, the more maintenance it requires.
Larger houses also require more maintenance.
Some people deal with the maintenance problems by hiring servants to
take care of their land, house, and possessions, but that has the disadvantage
that they must spend some of their time hiring and supervising servants,
and they have servants coming in and out of their house on a regular basis.
When a house is extremely large, some people provide homes on their
property for the servants. However, the servants are not members of the
family, and they are not likely to be friends of the family, either. They
are employees, and that gives the home a less pleasant environment.
The servants make the home less friendly and more like a business.
I think it would be more sensible to stop promoting the attitude that
we need lots of land or material items. If we allow the city to own all
of the land and material items, we become free of the burden.
The city would be responsible for maintaining all of the houses, material
items, and land. Although a lot of work would be required to take care
of that wealth and land, the burden can be shared among everybody
in a more efficient manner compared to when each person is trying to maintain
his own land and items. People will do less work overall when they are
working together as a community compared to when they are working only
In the city of castles that I advocate, there would not be any peasants,
so who would do the maintenance of the gardens, swimming pools, and parks
that surround the castles and businesses? The answer is that the people
would be expected to contribute something to the city, such as the mowing
of the grass, the maintenance of the gardens, the maintenance of the museums,
or the maintenance of the social clubs.
If you were living in the city of castles, instead of maintaining your
own private plot of land, your own bicycle, your own swimming pool, and
other items, you would share in the maintenance of the city's property.
The idea of sharing in that maintenance might be frightening, and it might
seem to defeat the purpose of not owning any land or items. However, it
is significantly more efficient for people to contribute to the maintenance
of community property than it is for each person to maintain their own
We can see proof of this concept every time American farmers have to
harvest wheat, corn, and certain other crops. Many farmers do not have
their own harvesting equipment. Instead, a small group of people with very
advanced and expensive harvesting equipment travel around America to harvest
the grain for the farmers.
It is much more efficient for a society to create a small number of
high-quality harvesting machines that harvest the food from many farms,
than it is to force every farmer to purchase and maintain his own harvesting
We can apply the same concept to a city. For example, consider the issue
of mowing lawns. Let's assume that Chicago has 100,000 families that have
a plot of land that needs mowing. That means that Chicago needs 100,000
private lawnmowers. If each family spends one hour a month mowing the lawn,
that is 100,000 hours of labor every month.
If those same people were living in a City of Castles, there might be
100 castles, each with 1000 families each, or perhaps there would be 200
castles with 500 families each. Regardless of how many people are in each
castle, there would be a lot of land surrounding each castle that needs
to be mowed. However, there would be no fences dividing up that land into
||Instead of each person pushing a tiny lawnmower around his private
yard, the city would have a smaller number of higher-quality lawn mowing
machines of different sizes.
There would be very large mowers to deal with the large grass
fields, and smaller mowers to deal with the smaller sections of grass.
Instead of 100,000 people spending an hour a month on mowing lawns, they
might need only a few thousand people to spend an hour a month.
Furthermore, the city would be able to afford higher quality
lawnmowers that would require less maintenance compared to the tiny, private
lawnmowers. Therefore, the people would spend less time and resources on
maintenance of the lawnmowers. The city would also need less storage area
for gardening equipment because there would be less equipment.
With computers becoming more advanced every year, there will soon be
a point at which it will be practical for the city to have computer controlled
lawnmowers, and then even fewer people would be needed to mow the lawns.
In a City of Castles, the train system would be underground, so there
would be a lot of grass in the city
that needs to be mowed. However, the city owns all of the land, so the
people who are mowing the grass don't have to be concerned about property
lines. The grass that surrounds every school belongs to the city, and the
city also owns all of the grass around every factory, museum, plaza, and
The people mowing the grass would not have to be concerned about fences
that identify patches of private property, and they would not be bothered
by highways or parking lots. The people mowing the grass would travel from
one patch of grass to the next with no regard to whether it was grass at
a community park or around an office building.
If you are having trouble understanding the significance of this concept,
consider the photo below of Duke University. All of the buildings and land
belongs to the university, so there are no fences dividing the land up
into separate pieces of property. There are not many roads or parking lots,
either. The people mowing the grass do not have to be concerned with whether
the grass is around a student dormitory, a school classroom, or an administration
building. They simply mow one patch of grass, and then move to the next
patch, and so on.
||A City of Castles would resemble a gigantic version of Duke University.
The buildings would be taller, and there would be hundreds of them,
and each of them would be surrounded by grass, swimming pools, trees, and bicycle
If each building in Duke University owned the plot of grass
that surrounds it, then each building would have to mow their section of
the grass independently of the others. It would be very inefficient.
Apply that same concept to an entire city. Imagine a giant version of
Duke University. The city owns all of the land between the buildings. The
city officials would start the process of mowing the grass by having a
group of people mow a certain section of the grass for an hour or so, and
then they would stop. Some other people would take over and mow for another
hour or so. Through the days the lawn mowers would slowly move through
the city, eventually getting back to where they started.
The mowing schedule would be designed so that when they get back to
the starting point, the grass is ready to be mowed once again, and so the
cycle repeats itself. In this way, the lawnmowers are constantly in use,
rather than sitting idle most of the time, as with private lawnmowers.
The people who are involved with the mowing would contribute only an hour
or so of their time, so it would not be a burden on them.
So, although the people in a City of Castles would have to contribute
to the city's maintenance, they would contribute less work overall compared
to what they are doing right now to maintain their own private plot of
land and private home. Only a small percentage of the population would
need to contribute to the mowing of lawns, and only a small percentage
would be needed to help with the trimming of trees and other vegetation.
There would not be enough gardening chores for everybody to participate
in gardening. Most people would have to find something else to do, such
as helping to maintain the museums, swimming pools, botanical gardens,
hobbyist equipment, social clubs, schools, or city plazas.
Although everybody would be expected to contribute something to the
city, it would not be a big burden on anybody. Furthermore, some of us
would get more satisfaction by working with other people for our community
rather than working alone in our private yard.
private land, but do we benefit
Our primitive ancestors did not own any land or have much material
wealth. Did they suffer as a result? I don't think so. A lot of wealthy
people today have giant houses, large plots of land, and huge collections
of material wealth. Does their land or material wealth provide them with
a better life than what you or I have? I don't think so.
Most people have misinterpreted their craving for land or material items
into believing that they will become happier as they own more land and
Furthermore, because people are competitive, we compare what we own
to what other people own, and we foolishly convince ourselves that other
people are happier than we are because they have more items and land. This
idiotic attitude causes us to believe that no matter how much we have,
it's not enough because there is somebody else who has more.
Business executives who make enormous amounts of money are convincing
themselves that they are miserable because some other executive is making
money. These people are fools, not leaders who can provide
us with guidance.
We are causing ourselves unnecessary grief with the philosophy that
land and material items will provide us with happiness. We are not going
to improve our lives simply by titillating our emotions. Instead of admiring
the people who have big piles of material items, and instead of convincing
ourselves that they are happier than we are, we should instead regard them
as crude, animal-like creatures who have no understanding or control over
their emotional cravings. They are like an obese person who cannot stop
putting food into his mouth.
Our prehistoric ancestors did not have much of a difference between
them in regards to their material wealth, and none of them owned any land.
I think that environment would be most appropriate for humans today. I
think that is the environment that humans were
designed for. Specifically, a city in which everybody is equal
to everybody else. A city in which there are no peasants, kings, or celebrities.
There would be no private land, either.
Every animal and human has an emotional craving to be at the top of
the hierarchy, be in control of everything, and be admired, but many people
are getting carried away with these emotional cravings. They are putting
excessive effort into becoming extremely wealthy and famous. They are going
We should design a city for ourselves in the same manner that we design
a terrarium for lizards. Biologists first learn about lizards before they
design a terrarium for them. They design the terrarium to give the lizards
the type of environment that will keep them in good physical and mental
health. If the biologists discover that the lizards are suffering physically
or emotionally, then they experiment with changes to the terrarium.
We must do the same with our cities. We should not let cities develop
haphazardly, and we should not design a city according to what we "like",
or what we "want". We should observe the physical
and mental health of the people, and when the people exhibit
abnormal levels of violence, envy, loneliness, pouting, arrogance, or fights,
then we must conclude that something is wrong with the social environment.
We must then experiment with changes to our economic system, social
affairs, holiday celebrations, courtship activities, marriages, and government
in order to find a way to improve the mental and physical health of the
By letting each city be culturally independent, we will be able to watch
one another and learn from one another.
Which behavior is "normal"?
This brings up another interesting and important issue. Specifically,
how do we determine which behavior is "normal" and which is "abnormal"?
For example, if we observe a particular city and notice that the people
are watching television for an average of seven hours a day, or if most
of them have a very close relationship with a pet dog, or if most of them
are spending five hours a week with pornography, would we describe those
people as having "normal" behavior or "abnormal" behavior? Would we say
that their social environment is healthy or unhealthy?
In this video,
the top of a woman's swimming suit falls off as she slides down a water
slide. Instead of standing up and dealing with the issue in a calm manner,
she crouches and hides her breasts until somebody brings a towel over for
her. This may be typical behavior for
a woman, but should we consider this behavior to be "normal" or "abnormal"?
Should we consider this to be a sign that we have a healthy social environment,
or an unhealthy environment?
Unfortunately, normal and abnormal are whatever we want them to be.
We simply have to make decisions on what we want the human race to become.
We can then define normal and abnormal. For example, do we want men giggling
or becoming hysterical when women breast-feed their babies? I don't think
so. I think we should describe that behavior as abnormal and unhealthy.
However, some people consider that to be normal and healthy. There
is no right or wrong to this issue. Nobody can prove that their opinion
is better. We simply have to decide what type of world we want the future
Take a look at what you get when you search for "wardrobe
malfunction". There are thousands of news articles, websites,
and videos of celebrities, mostly women, who inadvertently expose one of
their "private parts". For example, there is the 50
Classic Female Athlete Wardrobe Malfunctions, and in this
article we find, "Jennifer Aniston made everyone’s jaws drop when she went
60 news photos, the first photo shows a view underneath a woman's shorts,
although her vagina is blocked out. If somebody had taken those photos
with his cell phone, he would be insulted for being a pervert, but journalists
make money from these photos and publish them as "news".
Do you think wardrobe malfunctions should be classified as "news"?
Do you think it is a good sign when "everyone's jaws drop" when a woman
does not wear a bra? Do you think photographers should stand below staircases
and take photos while looking up women's skirts, and then publish the photos
Until recently, no woman wore a bra, or underwear. I think our
social environment is unnatural and unhealthy, and that it is creating
sexually dysfunctional people. Of course, part of the reason wardrobe malfunctions
are considered as "news" is because The Chosen People are dominating the
news agencies. They seem to have a greater preference for "toilet humor",
and they may also promote it in order to encourage the rest of us to behave
Our emotions may be titillated by wardrobe malfunctions, but we need
to control our emotions and seriously consider whether we want adults giggling
over wardrobe malfunctions. We need to define normal and abnormal behavior
according to how it's going to affect society. Whatever we define to be
normal will affect the future generations because once we define what normal
behavior is, the people who behave otherwise will be the "misfits".
This brings up another very important issue; namely, what do we do with
The misfits suffer,
they do not adapt
If humans truly adapted to their environment, then every child
would adapt to the customs and laws of his society. Every immigrant into
a new nation would pick up the language and customs of their new environment.
There would be no such thing as a misfit or a criminal. However, this has
never been true at any point in human history. We do not
adapt to our environment. An immigrant will learn the language of his host
country only if he wants to. A person will follow the laws only if he chooses
to do so.
We are whatever our DNA makes us. Every human brain is designed with
certain emotional and intellectual qualities. The environment does not
have any effect on those qualities. Our genetic qualities give us a "personality".
Because each of us has a different collection of genetic traits, we
each have a slightly different ideal social environment. For example, the
people who are more independent will prefer an environment in which they
have more freedom to do as they please. The people who are more frightened
of change will prefer an environment in which they can follow traditions,
whereas people who are more interested in exploring will prefer an environment
in which life is more of an adventure.
Not many people will be completely satisfied with the social environment
of their society. Most people are going to find that they must occasionally
tolerate some aspect of society that they don't care for. If a person can
tolerate those aspects in a pleasant, peaceful manner, then he is acceptable
as a member of society. However, if the person becomes angry, envious,
bitter, depressed, or violent, he can ruin morale or cause trouble, in
which case he needs to be evicted or put under restrictions.
No matter how many different cities we create, there will always be
people who don't like any of them. There will always be misfits simply
due to the fact that each of us is a random collection of genetic traits,
and there will always be more varieties of human personalities than there
are varieties of cities. We cannot create a city for each person. Therefore,
there will always be a certain percentage of the population that does not
fit into any city. This in turn requires that every society be capable
of dealing with those misfits.
Ignoring this issue will not make
it go away. Rather, it allows the misfits to form gangs, commit crimes,
and ruin morale. Ignoring them also allows them to reproduce, creating
even more misfits.
The misfits will never adapt to an environment that they do not like,
even if we beat them with a wet bamboo pole, put them in jail, and make
them pay a fine. They are misfits because of a genetically different
brain, not because they need a beating. No matter how much we hurt or torture
them, they will continue to be misfits, and they will suffer from some
type of emotional pain. They will have trouble finding jobs, friends, and
a spouse. They are likely to develop bad attitudes. Allowing them to live
among us and ruin our society is as idiotic as allowing dirt in a transmission.
If the environment does not
affect us, how do we learn culture?
If our mental qualities are completely determined by genetics,
then how do we learn a language, clothing style, holiday celebration, and
other culture? How can children rapidly and effortlessly pick up a language
and other customs from their environment?
The manner in which children pick up culture can fool us into thinking
that humans are like pieces of clay that mold themselves to their environment.
However, a child picks up a language because the human brain was designed
with that feature. It is our DNA that gives us the ability to learn a language
as a child. If we could identify the sections of DNA that give a child
this feature, and if we removed those sections of DNA, then his brain would
not have this feature, and he would never learn a human language. Animals
cannot pick up a human language because they don't have that genetic feature.
It is important to note that children effortlessly pick up language
and pronunciation, whereas adults have to struggle to learn a new language,
and they never completely learn the pronunciation of another language.
The reason that adults and children have these differences is because our
prehistoric ancestors only had to learn a language during their childhood.
There was evolutionary pressure on the children to learn a language, but
there was no pressure on the adults to learn a second or third language.
As a result, the human race evolved the genetic ability to rapidly pick
up language and pronunciation during our childhood, but as a child's brain
matures, he loses that ability. Adults must struggle to learn a second
Another reason adults have trouble learning a language or new culture
is because animals are designed to resist changes once they have
matured. Animals live in a very dangerous world, and it is much safer for
adults to follow established procedures rather than continue to have the
flexibility of a child.
The prehistoric human children would learn which foods are safe to eat
and which were dangerous; which animals were harmless and which were dangerous;
how to find rocks that could be used for knives, and how to cut those rocks
into sharp blades. After a child learned that type of information, he would
follow it forever, and he would resist changes to it.
Adults are resistant to change simply because their culture was the
result of millions of years of trial and error, and it was dangerous for
a person to disregard that valuable information and experiment with something
We pick up language,
but not a personality
The human brain was designed with the ability to pick up a
language during childhood, but we were not designed to pick up personality
traits. Each of us has a certain blend of emotions and intellectual abilities.
That blend is genetic, and it gives us a personality.
The environment has no effect on our personality. However, if
a person is raised in an environment that is significantly different from
what his personality was designed for, he may react by becoming bitter,
angry, depressed, miserable, or violent. Some people will interpret his
unpleasant behavior as evidence that his personality changes according
to the environment, but he is merely reacting to the environment.
The environment is
not changing what he is. A person who is more
arrogant than normal will be remain excessively arrogant regardless of
how the environment changes, and a person who is more selfish will remain
selfish regardless of the environment.
Our mind and body adapt to
how we use it
I think another reason that people are confused into believing
that the environment affects us is because our mind and our body adapt
to a certain extent to what we use it for. The most obvious example are
the athletes. When we exercise, our muscles and bones react by growing
stronger and larger. Other organs in our body, such as our liver, lungs,
and heart, also adapt to the exercise.
A person's body becomes visibly different as a result of exercising.
His muscles grow larger, and he loses some of his fat. This can create
the impression that our body can adapt to the environment. However, that
is not an accurate way to describe what is happening. The environment is
not changing any of the qualities that a person was designed with. Rather,
when we exercise, our body adapts to what we are using it for. If we use
a muscle, our body reacts by making it grow stronger. If we do not
use a muscle, our body reacts by letting it wither away.
Our body's ability to adapt to how we use it is a genetic feature.
This feature is not controlled or affected by the environment. As a result,
two people who put themselves through the exact same exercise routine will
have slightly different reactions to it. One person's muscles may grow
stronger and larger than the other person's, even though they are exercising
in the identical manner.
A man and a woman who go through the same exercise routines will also
end up with slightly different reactions. The man will develop larger muscles,
for example. This is because a man has different genetic characteristics
than a woman. It is not because the woman did not exercise as much
as the man.
Since our body's ability to react is a genetic characteristic, it has
limitations. For example, as an athlete practices running, he will become
faster, but there is a point at which he has reached his maximum genetic
potential, and he will not get any faster no matter how much more he practices.
If 100 people start practicing running, all of them will improve their
running speed as the months go by, but each of them will end up at a different
final speed. The reason is because each of them has different genetic characteristics.
They each have a different maximum potential.
A person's running ability is 100% determined by his genetics. The environment
does not control how fast you can run. Exercise can only help you to reach
your full genetic potential. The environment cannot give you a physical
quality that you were not born with.
These concepts apply to our brain, also. Our brain has some ability
to adapt to how we use it. For example, if a person practices math operations,
he will become better at doing math. If a person spends time playing a
musical instrument, he will become better at playing that instrument. If
a person spends a lot of time chipping flint rocks into arrowheads and
knives, he will become better at that activity.
It may appear as if our mind is adapting to the environment, but our
mind is simply adapting to how we are using it. Our mind is not
affected by the environment. We were born with certain mental qualities,
and practicing a particular mental activity will simply make us better
at it. However, each of us has a different genetic limitation on how good
we become at math, music, memorizing visual images, learning languages,
noticing patterns, and memorizing people's names.
If 100 people start practicing a musical instrument, all of them will
become better as the months go by, but each of them will stop improving
when they reach their genetic limit. That genetic limit will be different
for different people. Some people will become phenomenal musicians, whereas
others will always be below-average no matter how much they practice.
Likewise, if 100 people start practicing math, all of them will become
better at math as the months go by, but each of them will stop improving
when they reach their genetic limit.
If the human mind was truly molding itself to the environment, then
there would be no limit to our improvements. The more we practiced a musical
instrument, the better we would become. The more we practiced math, the
better we would become at math.
The reason we have limits is because the ability to perform music and
math is a genetic quality that is built into our brain. We cannot
change that limit. That limit is in our DNA.
Why do athletes need steroids?
If the human body truly adapted to the environment, then athletes
would become increasingly better the more they exercised. They would not
need steroids or other drugs. Whenever they wanted to improve their performance,
they would simply practice some more.
Every athlete eventually reaches his genetic limit, and his performance
stops improving. The only way he can go beyond his natural limit is to
alter the physical structure of his body, and certain drugs are capable
of doing that to a certain extent. Certain drugs can force our muscles
to grow larger than they were designed to grow, for example. Some athletes
inject red blood cells into their bloodstream in order to allow their blood
to carry more oxygen.
However, it is important to note that these artificial techniques have
a limited effect. They cannot transform an ordinary person into an Olympic
athlete. These techniques are useful for athletes because the athletes
are very similar to one another in abilities and, therefore, an athlete
needs only a slight advantage over the other athletes in order to win a
Neither exercise programs nor drugs can transform an ordinary person
into an athlete; schools cannot transform a stupid person into a genius;
and jails cannot fix a person's personality. Exercise programs can only
help a person reach the potential that his particular body was designed
with; schools can only help us achieve the full potential that our brain
was designed with; and jails can only inspire a person to exert control
over his terrible personality.
Your mental and physical abilities are determined by your DNA, not by
your environment. However, if you never bother to do any physical exercise,
your body will become weak and sickly, and you will never reach the full
potential that your body is capable of. Likewise, if you never bother to
use your brain, you are not likely to discover the full potential that
your brain was designed with.
Many psychologists are interpreting the world incorrectly. They notice
that athletes are developing strength and coordination through their exercise
programs, and they assume that the athletes were ordinary people who developed
these talents through exercise. In reality, all of the people who are excellent
athletes were born with bodies that are genetically superior to the rest
of us. Their exercise programs merely allowed them to reach their full
Likewise, when people come out of school with knowledge or skills, psychologists
misinterpret the situation by assuming that a school can transform ordinary
people into educated, intelligent, skilled people. In reality, all a school
can do is allow a person to develop his particular talents. A school will
have no effect on a creature that has no ability to learn, such as an amoeba.
Schools will not have much of an effect on people who have no desire
to learn, either. A person has to want to learn in order for a school
to be useful.
Likewise, occasionally a person comes out of jail with better behavior,
and the psychologists misinterpret that by assuming that the jail can cure
us of bad behavior. In reality, the most a jail can do is to help us choose
to exert more self control over ourselves.
Identical robots can behave
As of 2014, robots are very crude and simplistic. Most robots
are useful only to industries where they can be dedicated to simple, repetitive
tasks. However, robots will eventually become so versatile that they will
be used in schools, restaurants, and homes. Once that point is reached,
computer programmers will design the robots to observe the world and behave
differently according to the situation.
The robots will have an ability to learn certain information, such as
each person's speaking habits and desires. This will allow robots to more
accurately understand each person. If a robot is frequently in contact
with you, it will build up a lot of
information on how you speak, and the type of commands that you
give it. That knowledge will help the robot more accurately understand
your words and commands. When you encounter a robot that doesn't have much
information about you, it will more frequently misunderstand your words
and commands. That robot will appear to be stupid, but it may be identical
to the other robot.
Robots are identical to one another when they come off of the assembly line,
but once they go out into the city and start interacting with people, they
will start behaving differently. A person who doesn't know anything about
robots may come to the conclusion that a robot's behavior is partly due
to its hardware, and partly due to the environment.
The reason identical robots can end up behaving differently is because
they learn different information. The environment does not change a robot.
A robot is "born" with certain physical and intellectual qualities, and
the environment has absolutely no effect on those qualities. However,
if every robot is learning information, each of them will learn slightly
different information, and that will result in them behaving slightly differently
over time - unless, of course, they share the information they learn.
It doesn't make sense to describe robot behavior as being partly environmental.
The only sensible explanation of a robot is that it is 100% due to its
hardware and software. If a robot learns something, it is because it was
designed with the ability to learn that particular type of information.
If a robot reacts to a particular environmental event, it does so because it
was designed with the ability to recognize the event and to react to it.
If a robot can notice patterns, it is because it was designed with the
ability to analyze information and look for certain types of patterns.
A robot can do only what it was designed to do.
The environment cannot change a robot. A robot that misbehaves
will not be fixed by putting in into jail or beating it with a wet bamboo
pole. A robot that has no ability to learn will not benefit from school.
A robot will not benefit from exercise programs, either, and the reason
is because they have not been designed to react to exercise.
The same concept applies to humans. Human behavior is 100% genetic.
The environment does not have any effect over our mental or physical
qualities. We react to the environment but the environment cannot
change us. Different people react differently to the same environment because
we have different genetic qualities, and because we learn different information
during our lives.
Nobody is stupid enough to believe that they can fix a broken refrigerator
or a misbehaving robot by beating it with a wet bamboo pole, but people
believe that this technique will work with humans. The only way we are
going to reduce crime is to force ourselves to face the fact that humans
are animals, and that our DNA determines what each of us is.
Why are identical twins slightly
If human behavior is 100% genetic, then why don't identical
twins behave exactly the same? The obvious reason that they behave differently
is because they learn different information about the world, and the not
so obvious reason is that they are not truly identical, and their
differences increase through time. First, consider how this concept applies
to robots, automobiles, bicycles, or other manufactured products.
Every item that comes off of an assembly line appears to be identical
to the others, but if we were to analyze them at the level of molecules,
we would discover that they are not
identical because there is no way for our assembly lines to achieve perfection.
Even though every product on an assembly line is produced in the same manner
and according to the same blueprints, there will always be slight variations
in the components and how the components are put together. This will result
in subtle differences between the final products.
When the products first come off of the assembly line, they will all
seem to be exactly the same, but as time passes, we will find some of them
wearing out faster than others. The items do not become more similar to
each other through time; rather, they become more different.
This same concept applies to humans. When a fertilized egg splits into
two fetuses, the two halves are not likely to be exactly identical at the
molecular level. Furthermore, as the two fetuses develop, the differences
increase, not decrease. If we were to analyze the two twins after birth,
molecule by molecule, we would find that they are not
exactly the same. We would also find that some identical twins are more
identical to each other than others.
After the twins have been born, they begin to react to the environment,
and this can cause more changes to develop between them. First consider
how they change physically.
Our bones, muscles, skin, hearts, and other physical structures change
according to how we use our body. For example, if the twins are sleeping
in bunk beds, the twin who has to climb up to the upper bed will use certain
muscles more than the other twin, and as a result, those particular muscles
will grow stronger or larger. His hands may also develop calluses from
grabbing the bedpost and pulling himself up. After several years, he might
be noticeably stronger than the other twin, and have noticeably thicker
calluses on his hands.
To complicate the issue, a person's behavior is affected by his body.
We think of our brain and body as being separate items, but they are interrelated.
Your body affects your mind in two primary ways:
1) It provides your brain with nutrients. Your brain is a biological
computer, so if your body cannot control its blood chemistry properly,
it can affect your thoughts and emotions.
Even if two identical twins have identical bodies, they can behave differently
simply because our brain adapts to what we use it for. Identical twins
will have very similar lives, desires, and thoughts, but even subtle differences
in their lives can cause them to become increasingly different over time.
For example, one twin may take a more dominant role, and that could cause
him to develop his leadership abilities more than his sibling.
2) It sends a continuous flow of information to your brain. If your
body is sending improper signals to your brain, it can result in irritation,
pain, and frustration, which in turn can influence your thoughts and behavior.
For example, the bodies of people who have internal pains or allergies
are sending a stream of unpleasant sensory information to their brain,
and that can result in the person becoming more irritable than he would
otherwise be. This in turn can cause him to spend more of his time looking
for relief or happiness, such as through food, drugs, money, sex, or dangerous
Another reason that twins can drift apart through time is because our
brains and bodies deteriorate as a result of aging, and because each of
us is exposed to slightly different levels of radiation and pollutants.
If we could analyze the bodies and brains of twins every year, we would
find that twins become increasingly different with every year.
The environment should stimulate
your good qualities
Our mental and physical abilities are determined by our DNA,
but exactly how we behave will depend upon the environment that we live
in. Our environment is very important to us. This may seem to contradict
what I said earlier in this document, so to understand this concept, first
consider how it applies to animals.
Imagine raising a large group of dogs in a cage, but we provide them
with only one bowl of food. How will
the dogs eat when there is only one bowl of food? One possibility is that
the dogs take turns eating from the bowl, but that is not likely to happen.
The most likely situation is that the dogs fight one another for
the food, and the best fighter will eat first, followed by the next best
fighter, and so on.
A psychologist would likely misinterpret the situation by claiming that
the environment has caused the dogs to become violent, but the environment
does not make dogs fight with each other. Dogs fight with each other because
they were designed to fight over food, territory, water, and reproduction.
Dogs were not designed to cooperate or share resources.
When we raise a group of dogs in an environment that encourages fighting,
then we stimulate their fighting emotions. This in turn will cause the
dogs to develop their fighting skills and their fighting muscles. It can
also cause some dogs to be killed, and some of the dogs that don't fight
very well, or who don't enjoy fighting, may become malnourished. This in
turn will affect the future generations; the dogs will evolve into increasingly
Now imagine that instead of providing the dogs with just one bowl of
food, we scatter food bowls all over the cage so that every dog has easy
access to food. In this particular environment, the dogs are not likely
to spend much of their time fighting over food. They will continue to fight
over territory, water, and reproduction, but there will be a noticeable
decrease in the total number of fights.
A psychologist would likely misinterpret the situation by claiming that
the environment has made the dogs more peaceful, but the dogs are just
as violent and selfish as they were in the previous experiment. However,
when food is easily available to all dogs, their fighting emotions will
not be stimulated so often, and that will result in fewer fights.
To summarize this concept, the environment does not make us do anything,
or give us qualities that we don't have. The environment cannot make a
peaceful dog become violent, and it cannot make a violent dog become peaceful.
Different environments merely stimulate different emotions, and to different
extents. Different environments can also create stress, pain, anxiety,
fear, or paranoia.
If we raise teenage boys in an environment that exposes them to sexual
titillation every day in television programs and advertisements, they are
likely to react by spending more of their time masturbating, struggling
to have sex, and possibly raping some of the girls. A psychologist would
likely misinterpret the situation by claiming that the environment has
transformed the boys into sex maniacs, but the environment is merely stimulating
an emotion that their DNA designed into their brain.
The environment does not make you what you are. You are whatever your
DNA designed you to be. Different environments merely stimulate different
emotions. For example, if you are in an environment in which everybody
is struggling to acquire material wealth, you are likely to find your competitive
emotions stimulated, and you may struggle to become wealthy, also, and
you may spend a lot of your time comparing what you have to what other
people have. The environment does not make you do anything. Rather, it
merely stimulates certain emotions. What you do depends upon your mind.
Our DNA gives us certain emotional cravings, intellectual characteristics,
and physical abilities. However, just as certain environments encourage
dogs to spend more time fighting with each other, certain social environments
will cause humans to spend more time fighting, and certain other environments
will encourage cooperation and friendliness.
When we design a society for ourselves, we need to take into account
how the environment will stimulate our emotions. We should design the buildings,
artwork, jobs, transportation system, parks, social affairs, and other
aspects of the city so that we stimulate productive emotions rather
than anger, disgust, envy, fear, paranoia, hatred, pity, and other destructive
We should also take into account how the environment will affect us
A lot of people like to fantasize about retiring and having servants pamper
them, but we need a certain amount of exercise. Therefore, we should design
a city so that we are encouraged to get exercise, and in which it
is easy to get exercise.
One of the reasons that I prefer the City of Castles design is because
it provides everybody with easy access to parks, recreational areas, and
bicycle paths. This design also allows more people to walk or ride a bicycle
to their job, social affairs, and restaurants.
All of the castles would be unique, and each of them would have slightly
different parks, swimming areas, ponds, gardens, and trees. The variety
will inspire people to walk or ride bicycles around the city simply to
enjoy the variety of buildings, canals, ponds, and gardens. Imagine living
in the castle below. Wouldn't you be tempted to occasionally take a walk
or bicycle ride through the city simply to enjoy its beauty? Wouldn't you
want to walk over to your neighboring castles to see what they have done
with their gardens and pools?