C O N T E N T S

How much of our behavior is genetic? Design a city like we design zoo exhibits Our cities should be emotionally pleasing Will you participate in your city?

In July 2014, a psychologist announced that his study of identical twins shows that our ability to learn information is about 50% genetic and 50% environmental. While we can certainly define the words "genetic" and "environmental" in such a manner that the statement becomes true, I think the most sensible way to describe human behavior is that it is 100% genetic.

Imagine doing a study of the hair color of identical twins. Your goal is to determine whether hair color is determined by genetics or the environment, or some combination of the two. Imagine that one twin spends more time swimming in chlorinated pools, or that his job causes him to be exposed to more sunlight. In such a case, his hair will become a slightly different color than his twin. Would you come to the conclusion that hair color is partly genetic and partly environmental?

I would say that the most sensible way to define these words is to say that our hair color is 100% determined by our genetics, and that the environment has no effect on our hair color. The environment can only modify our hair color after it has been created according to what our DNA specifies it to be.

For example, chlorine, sunlight, and artificial hair coloring dyes can change the color of our hair after it has been created, but as soon as new hair starts to grow, that new hair will show the true color that our hair was genetically designed with. Our DNA gives our hair a particular color, and the environment cannot change that color.

A more interesting example are animals whose hair changes color according to the temperature, such as Siamese cats and horses. The hair follicles on the tip of their ears are colder than the follicles on their body, and as a result, the hair on their ears are a different color than the hair on the body. Is the hair color of those animals determined by genetics, the environment, or both?

If an animal's hair changes color according to the temperature, it is because that animal inherited DNA that gave them hair follicles that have the ability to change color according to the temperature. It does not matter whether you want to describe that genetic trait as a "defect" or a "feature". It is a genetic trait either way.

If an animal does not have that particular genetic information, its hair will never change color no matter how the environment changes. Therefore, if an animal's hair changes color according to the temperature, it is because its DNA created hair that can change its color. If we could transfer those genes into a baby human, then the human would have hair that changes its color. The only sensible way to describe this is that our DNA is in complete control of our hair color.

The same concept applies to the height of humans. Our DNA designed us to become a particular height. Malnourishment can cause a person to become shorter than he was designed for, but no environment can make a human grow as tall as a giraffe, or be as small as a mouse.

Our weight is determined by genetics, not the environment

The brains of humans and most animals are designed with a craving for food that is so strong that we have a tendency to eat more than we need. Our extreme craving for food is not a "genetic mistake"; rather, it was a vital feature that was necessary for survival. We are designed to eat excessive amounts of food, and our body was designed with the ability to convert the excess food into fat, and we also were designed with the ability to convert fat back into energy when we don't have much food. These genetic characteristics allow animals to survive shortages of food.

Our prehistoric ancestors were regularly going through a cycle of gaining and losing body fat. However, when people settled down into cities and began farming, they began providing themselves with large amounts of food all throughout the year. The end result was that people began adding more fat to their body than they converted back into energy.

When people notice that they are becoming fat, some people react by reducing their consumption of food, and/or by increasing their physical exercise, but other people have trouble doing this. Why do they have trouble? We don't know enough about the human mind to answer that question, but it must be due to some genetic differences with their brain and/or body. It cannot be environmental. We are all living in virtually the same environment.

The manner in which our body stores fat is also genetic, not environmental. Some people's bodies put more fat around their stomach, for example, and others put more fat around their butt. The location for where our fat is deposited is genetic, not environmental.

A person becomes overweight only when he regularly eats excessive amounts of food. There would not have been many overweight people 50,000 years ago simply because not many people in that era were capable of regularly eating excessive amounts of food. This is now possible, and during the past few centuries, the number of overweight people has been increasing.

Since our distant ancestors did not have any problems with weight, we are tempted to blame the environment for this problem. However, the only sensible way to explain why some people are overweight is to say that there is something genetically different about them that is making it difficult for them to control their weight when placed in an environment that provides them with large amounts of food.

There are a lot of genetic characteristics that influence our weight, such as our emotions, our ability to control our emotions, our ability to think, our body's ability to convert excess food into fat, our body's ability to convert fat back into energy, and our body's ability to digest food. If we could read everybody's DNA, we would find that there are some genetic differences in the body and/or mind of the people who are overweight or anorexic.

If we eliminated secrecy and kept track of everybody's life, we would notice that certain behavioral tendencies are hereditary. For example, if a person is overweight because he has trouble controlling his emotional cravings, then he may produce a child who also has trouble controlling his emotional cravings. However, his child may have trouble with some other emotion, not hunger. Therefore, instead of becoming overweight, his child may have trouble controlling his craving for material items, sex, babies, gambling, alcohol, or fame.

For another example, if a person is overweight because he is suffering from some type of physical or mental pain due to a defective brain, liver, or nervous system, and if he is using food as a way to bring some pleasure into his miserable life, then he may produce a child who is also in pain, but his child may turn to some other method of pain relief, such as drugs, material wealth, extremely dangerous sports, or sex.

Your life is determined by your genetics, not your environment

Genetics is the only way to explain why there are differences between us, such as why some people spend their lives trying to become billionaires whereas others are satisfied to make an ordinary living; why some people struggle to become famous celebrities while others are happy being an ordinary person; and why some people choose to get involved with criminal activities while others choose to obey the laws.

There was no alcoholism or drug abuse during prehistoric times simply because the people did not have access to much alcohol or drugs. Today we have access to a tremendous amount of alcohol and drugs, and different people are reacting to that supply in different ways. At one extreme are the people who have no interest in alcohol or drugs, and at the other extreme are the people who consume such large quantities of alcohol or drugs that they ruin their lives. In between the extremes are the people who consume moderate levels of alcohol or drugs. Why do we react differently to alcohol and drugs?

Each of us lives in the virtually same environment as other people so we cannot say that our different reactions to alcohol and drugs is due to differences in our environment. The only sensible explanation for why people react differently to alcohol and drugs is because each of us has a unique set of genetic characteristics, and this is resulting in unique reactions to the environment. The environment does not make us behave in any particular manner. Rather, we react to the environment according to our genetic characteristics.

Each of us is a unique jumble of genetic traits

Every human is designed according to the same blueprint, but there are subtle differences between our bodies and brains. Perhaps it will help you to think of the differences in these four categories:

1) Each of us inherited a unique jumble of emotional traits, and this gives each of us a slightly different blend of emotional cravings. We have genetically different cravings for status, material wealth, sex, food, and babies, and we have genetically different tendencies to pout, hate, and have tantrums.

2) Each of us inherited a different jumble of intellectual qualities, and this gives us different abilities in math, music, art, language, engineering, and science. 

3) Our brains were designed with different learning abilities, and this gives each of us a different ability to learn names, math, images, music, language, engineering, and tables of data.

4) Each of us inherited a different ability and desire to control our emotions. Or we could describe this as inheriting a different desire and ability for self control.

As a result of the different genetic characteristics of our brain, each of us has a slightly different personality, and we have slightly different desires, abilities, and limitations. Each of us is attracted to slightly different philosophies, goals, and lifestyles. We have different cravings for independence, a different ability to explore the unknown, and a different interest in society. We also have different abilities to work in teams, and different abilities to be a supervisor.

Because our mental characteristics are genetic, each of us behaves differently even when all of us are in the same environment. The opposite is also true. Specifically, you will show the same emotional traits, personality, and sense of responsibility even if the environment changes.

The human mind and body is 100% controlled by our DNA. The environment does not make us what we are. Our DNA designed us with certain mental and physical characteristics. The environment can damage us, such as by causing brain damage, but it cannot change any of the mental or physical characteristics that our DNA designed us with.

A Mars colony depends upon the genetics of the people

The people who are fantasizing about creating a colony on Mars show no interest in analyzing a person's genetic characteristics, but the colony depends entirely upon the genetics of the people who are chosen for the colony.

A Mars colony would have a considerably different environment compared to the Earth because the Mars colony would be dependent upon advanced technology. The people in that colony cannot drink water from a nearby river, or plant a field of potatoes. They have to use advanced technology to provide themselves with water, air, food, and protection from radiation and meteors. They must also frequently monitor the colony for cracks in the walls and other potential problems, and they must do a lot of maintenance on the technology to keep it in good working condition.

If humans adapted to their environment, then we could send a group of random people to Mars, and they would develop an interest in technology, and they would become involved with helping to maintain the colony. They would become machinists, welders, mechanics, technicians, and engineers. They would become a technically advanced team.

However, human behavior does not change according to the environment. The people who live on Mars will behave exactly the same on Mars as they do here on the Earth. The people will not adapt to the Mars environment.

The people who do not have the desire or ability to be technicians or engineers here on the Earth will not have the desire or ability on Mars. If a person is involved with crime networks here on the Earth, he will likely get involved with crime networks on Mars. If a person on the Earth is having trouble controlling his craving for food, alcohol, or fame, he will have the same problems on Mars. If a person has no interest in society here on the Earth, he will have no interest in the Mars society. If a person on the Earth wants to be a billionaire who is pampered by peasants, he will want to be a pampered billionaire on Mars.

The same concept applies to organizations here on the Earth. A business, charity, government agency, orchestra, and city depend entirely upon the genetic characteristics of the people in the organization. Those genetic characteristics determine whether the people can work together as a team, or whether they abuse one another; whether they are willing to learn skills or whether they look for opportunities to avoid work; and whether they can provide themselves with respectable leadership, or whether they allow their organization to become dominated by crime networks.

A zoo exhibit must be designed to fit the animal's genetic characteristics

The DNA of each animal designs it for a particular temperature, humidity, air pressure, food supply, and land area. I will describe this as the "physical environment" that an animal was designed for. When we create a zoo exhibit, we must design that exhibit to provide the physical environment that the animal requires. To rephrase that, we must design a zoo exhibit according to the genetic characteristics of the animal.

For example, penguins need cold temperatures; gophers and moles want to live underground; and most birds want to live above the ground. Fish were designed to live in water, and each species of fish requires water of a certain temperature and salinity.

Each animal has an "ideal physical environment", but every animal has the ability to cope with environments that are different from what it was designed for. However, there is a limit on how different the environment can be before the animal suffers or dies. For example, there is an ideal temperature for a particular species of penguin. If the temperature in a zoo exhibit is only slightly above or below that ideal temperature, the penguins will be able to cope with it, but there is a point at which the temperature is so high or so low that they begin to suffer, and if the temperature goes beyond that, they will die.

It is obvious that animals cannot adapt to the environment. If we put a penguin into a desert, for example, it will die. It will not adapt to the dry conditions or the heat, and it will not adapt to eating insects, lizards, or cactus. Furthermore, we cannot make a penguin adapt to a desert by beating it with a wet bamboo pole, putting it in jail, or offering it a reward for adapting.

If animals could adapt to their environment, then it would not make any difference how we designed the zoo exhibits. However, animals do not adapt to their environment. Rather, each species of animals has been designed for a particular physical environment.

For example, if we put a tropical fish into water that is only slightly cooler than what it was designed for, it will survive, but it will not adapt to that cooler temperature. Instead, it will suffer slightly. If it could truly adapt to the cooler temperature then, after it had adapted, we could put it into water that is even colder, and then it would adapt to that cooler temperature. We could continue this process until it was living in ice water.

It is possible for a tropical fish to evolve into a species that can tolerate colder temperatures, but breeding animals or plants is a very slow process that requires thousands of generations.

Animals need a particular social environment

Many centuries ago people noticed that it was very easy to keep stupid animals, such as mice and ants, alive in a small cage, but the more intelligent animals would sometimes exhibit bizarre behavior when kept in captivity, and some of them never reproduced, or their reproduction rate was very low. Through trial and error, people realized that every animal was designed for a particular "social environment" in addition to a particular "physical environment". We could restate this concept by saying that every animal's body was designed for a particular physical environment, and every animal's mind was designed for a particular social environment.

It is fairly easy for us to figure out what type of physical environment an animal needs, but it is not easy to figure out what type of social environment they need. We have to use trial and error. We have to experiment with the animals, and watch the results.

How can we determine if we have created an appropriate environment for a particular species of animals? The only way to determine this is to observe the animals. If their bodies appear to be as healthy as those of wild animals, then we can assume that we are providing them with an appropriate physical environment. If their behavior also appears to be "normal" for their species, then we can assume that we have provided them with an appropriate social environment.

However, if we notice that the animals are fighting more often than they should, or if they are not socializing as they should, or if they are not reproducing very often, or if they are not taking care of their babies, then we should assume that we have made a mistake in the design of their social environment.

If we put animals into an improper social environment, they will suffer from stress, frustration, loneliness, fear, paranoia, boredom, or some other mental problem. The animals will not adapt to the improper environment. They will suffer, and the result will be odd behavior.

The mental and physical qualities of animals are genetic

Every animal was designed with certain mental and physical qualities that require a certain environment. There is an ideal environment for every animal. If we put an animal into an environment that is radically different from what it was designed for, it will suffer physical pain and/or emotional turmoil. 

The same concept applies to plants. Every species of plant was designed for a specific environment. When we grow plants on farms or gardens, we must give the plants the environment that they were designed for, or else they will suffer or die. They will not adapt to the environment. There is no way to make an orchid adapt to the snow, or make a waterlily adapt to a desert.

How much of an animal's behavior is genetic? The most sensible way to define our words is to say that an animal's behavior is 100% genetic. The environment does not determine what an animal is. Therefore, when designing zoo exhibits for animals, and when designing farms, we must provide an environment that the animal was designed for. We can determine if we have created an appropriate environment by observing its behavior and physical health.

This concept also applies to plants. The characteristics of a plant are 100% genetic. Every plant is designed for a particular environment, but they have the ability to tolerate slight changes from their ideal environment. If the environment is radically different from what they were designed for, they will suffer or die. For two examples:

1) The reason we have trouble growing orchids inside our homes is because the environment that humans want in their homes is radically different from the environment that orchids want.

2) Biologists have figured out what type of environment many mushrooms need, and this has allowed us to grow mushrooms on farms, but we cannot grow truffles because we still don't have a good understanding of the environment that truffles were designed for.

We cannot make orchids, truffles, or other plants adapt to our home or farm by beating them with a wet bamboo pole, or putting them in jail. Likewise, when farm or zoo animals behave in bizarre manners, we cannot fix the problem with rewards or punishments. We must experiment with the social environment in an attempt to reduce the odd behavior.

Most people have the intelligence to understand how this concept applies to animals and plants, but they do not have the emotional ability to apply this concept to humans. Due to our craving to feel important and special, we don't want to think of ourselves as animals. We prefer to climb onto a pedestal and imagine that we are special creatures. We prefer to disregard reality and convince ourselves that humans are completely different from the animals.

However, humans are just a species of monkey, and the concepts that apply to monkeys in a zoo apply to humans in the city. A city is just a zoo exhibit for humans. We should design our cities in the same manner that we design zoo exhibits.

Humans were designed for a particular environment

Our DNA gave us certain mental and physical qualities, and those qualities require a particular physical and social environment. If our cities do not provide us with an environment that is similar to our ideal environment, we are going to suffer physically and/or emotionally.

In regards to our physical environment, Caucasians were designed for northern climates. Therefore, when we migrate to the warmer areas of the planet, we whine about the heat, complain that the sunlight is too bright, and suffer from sunburn and skin cancer. We now have the technology to provide ourselves with air-conditioners, sunglasses, and protection from the sun, but the point I want to bring to your attention is that Caucasians were designed for cool, northern climates, not hot, sunny climates. When we live in sunny climates, we suffer. We do not adapt to the hot, sunny climate.

By comparison, the Africans who evolved for the Sahara desert can tolerate direct sunlight all day without sunglasses, without whining about the heat or low humidity, and without suffering from sunburn or skin cancer. However, if those Africans were put into Norway or Alaska, they are likely to complain about the cold temperatures and the lack of sunshine.

If it were true that humans could adapt to the environment, then putting a Caucasian into the Sahara desert would cause him to adapt to it. Likewise, we could move to the top of the Himalayan Mountains, and we would adapt to the low oxygen levels. Or, we could move into the ocean, and we would adapt to the water, just like dolphins and frogs.

Many people are capable of accepting the fact that Africans are genetically designed to handle high levels of heat and sunshine; that Eskimos are designed to deal with cold temperatures; and that certain races are better able to tolerate high elevations; but many people resist the possibility that every race was designed for a particular social environment, and that we suffer if we are in a social environment that is not well suited to us.

If the physical environment is close to what is ideal for us, we will feel physically comfortable. As the physical environment becomes increasingly different from what is ideal for us, we become increasingly uncomfortable.

The same concept applies to our social environment. If we provide ourselves with a social environment that is close to what is ideal for us, we will feel comfortable and relaxed with it. As the social environment becomes increasingly different from what we were designed for, we experience stress, fear, loneliness, paranoia, frustration, confusion, envy, or misery. That unnatural environment can interfere with our behavior and relationships, including our ability to reproduce.

Many parents teach their children to be afraid of strangers. As I mentioned in a previous document, the reason we must teach children to be afraid of strangers is because we were designed to live in a small, homogenous group of people that we can trust. Children never evolved the genetic characteristic of fearing the people they live with. 

Humans were designed for a friendly social environment. We were designed to live among people that we trust, enjoy, and respect, not people that we fear, hate, despise, or cannot communicate with because they speak a different language. We were not designed to spend every evening hiding in our house, afraid of being attacked by criminals. We were not designed to form close relationships with dogs, either. We are social creatures, and we were designed to be among people.

One aspect of our social environment that is causing trouble for us is one that I've mentioned many times; namely, we are not controlling immigration. This is resulting in cities, businesses, and neighborhoods that are a mixture of people who hate, despise, and fear one another. No social animal was designed to live in such an unfriendly social environment. Every social animal was designed to live among animals that it trusts and respects. No farmer or zoo manager would put a group of animals together that dislike or hate one another. However, we do this for humans.

Bizarre behavior is an indication of a bad social environment

There is a lot of undesirable and bizarre behavior in the world today, and although some of it can be attributed to mental defects, some of it is due to the abnormal environment that we have created for ourselves. I mentioned an example in the previous document in which I pointed out that modern society is creating people who are sexually ignorant and dysfunctional. For example, there is an incredible fascination in America for women's breasts. I don't think this behavior can be described as "normal" or "healthy". The fascination with breasts is due to raising boys in an improper social environment.

Humans were designed for a social environment in which nudity and breast-feeding were normal aspects of life, and pornography was nonexistent. Our modern societies have reversed that situation, especially the sexually inhibited nations, such as America, Japan, and Britain. In our modern world, nudity and breast-feeding are considered to be evil and dangerous, and businesses are allowed to use sexual titillation to sell their products, and businesses are also allowed to produce a wide variety of pornography.

When animals in a zoo do not reproduce, we recognize it as a sign that we have done something wrong with their social environment. We should apply the same concept to human societies. Men and women seem to be fighting with each other more today than they were centuries ago, and there seems to be more loneliness, frustration, pouting, anger, and envy over relationships. There are so many lonely people that lots of businesses have been created to offer various types of dating services, and other businesses profit from the couples that fight with one another.

Our technology is improving every year, but if we were improving our social lives, then I would expect our relationships to improve through time, or stay the same, not deteriorate. We should consider the problems between men and women as a sign that we are ruining our social environment. 

If the relationships between male and female animals in a zoo exhibit were deteriorating each year, the zoo management would recognize it as a sign that something was wrong, and they would try to fix the problem. We ought to consider the possibility that the miserable relationships between men and women are a sign that we have inadvertently created an unpleasant social environment, and we should start experimenting with methods to improve our life.

For example, I think feminism is one of the reasons that relationships are deteriorating. If feminism was beneficial, then we would notice that as it spreads through the population, relationships improve. Instead, feminism encourages women to imagine that they are victims of men, and that encourages women to pout and hate. It also encourages the men to pander to the women rather than help them or provide them with guidance. I think that our social environment will improve significantly if we suppress feminism.

Some people might respond that we should have the "freedom of speech" to promote whatever philosophy we please, including feminism. This is a complicated issue that I will discuss in a future document. For now, consider that feminism has been around for decades, and millions of women have followed its suggestions, so we have a lot of data to look through to determine how it is affecting human life. However, there is no evidence that relationships between men and women improve as the women get involved with feminism. There is more evidence that as feminism spreads throughout the population, relationships deteriorate.

Therefore, we should consider feminism as a failure. Instead of allowing people to continue pushing it, we should tell them to look critically at that philosophy and either improve it, or abandon it. We are not giving somebody "freedom of speech" when we allow them to push a failed policy year after year. We are instead giving them the right to abuse us year after year.

Some women may actually prefer feminism

To complicate the issue of which social environment is the best for us, each of us is genetically unique, so the ideal environment for you is not the ideal environment for me. This is also true with plants and animals. If we put 100 orchids into a home, we will find that some of them are better able to deal with the low humidity. The significance of this is that some women may actually be more comfortable in a feminist environment. 

The women who become celebrities, wealthy business executives, or government officials, for example, are not "typical" women. There is something different about them, which is why they chose their particular life. However, we should consider the possibility that some of those women are different from other women because they have undesirable qualities, not because they are "better" women.

For example, some of the women may have become wealthy or famous because they are involved with crime, or because they are abnormally selfish, independent, or masculine. Those particular women may prefer a feminist environment, but that doesn't justify forcing it on everybody. If we design society according to the people who currently dominate the world, we may be designing society to appease a group of criminals, crude Neanderthals, and psychotic freaks.

We cannot appease everybody. No matter what our policies are, there will always be a percentage of the population that complains about them. However, it is foolish to appease a small minority simply because they are extremely demanding. It is also foolish to appease the majority of people simply because they are the majority. We must make decisions on what would be best for the human race, and how we will affect the future generations.

Don't overestimate famous people!

My remark about how we should not design society to appease the people who currently dominate the world might seem a bit harsh, so I will give an example of why I say this.

In August 2014, a large pedophile network in the city of Rotherham, England was finally exposed. It had been operating for decades. The police and government agencies admit that they knew about this pedophile network, but they claim that they did not do anything to stop it because many of the pedophiles were Asians rather than Caucasians. They claimed that they were worried that if they arrested the pedophiles, they would be accused of "racism". So they allowed the pedophiles to rape children, and they ignored the babies that resulted from the rapes.

After this particular pedophile network had been exposed, the rest of the population should have wondered if there were other networks operating in other cities. It would be idiotic to assume that the people in Rotherham are such a different species of human that their city is the only city that has this problem.

Actually, all we have to do is spend a few minutes searching news reports for "pedophilia" to realize that Rotherham is only one of many cities with this problem. For example, a few years earlier, a pedophile network was exposed on the island of Jersey, but in that case the pedophiles were Caucasian government officials, policemen, doctors, and businessmen, so the police could not use the excuse that they were worried about being called "racist". In that case they faked stupidity and ignorance.

Years before the pedophilia network at Jersey was exposed, there were accusations of pedophilia at the Boystown orphanage in Nebraska. Top American government officials, such as Congressman Barney Frank, were accused of participating in the pedophilia, but neither the American voters nor the American police did anything about it.

In the 1980s, Leon Brittan, a British government official, was supposedly given a dossier about pedophilia in Westminster, but he did nothing about it. Some British government officials recently asked him to explain what happened to the dossier, but he doesn't want to explain anything, and none of the British government officials want to force him to do something he doesn't want to do. The British government officials could authorize a new investigation, but they don't want to be bothered with that, either.

We can also find thousands of accusations of pedophilia at churches, daycare centers, Boy Scout troops, schools, Hollywood, and orphanages, but the majority of people are ignoring the complaints, and many of the government officials and policemen are protecting the pedophiles.

Pedophilia is more common among people in leadership positions than any of us want to believe. The majority of people are allowing their governments, police departments, schools, television companies, and other organizations to become dominated by crime networks and psychotic freaks.

How can pedophiles be so common in influential positions? The reason is because they are easily controlled through blackmail.  A blackmailed pedophile is essentially a slave. As soon as a blackmailed pedophile gets into an organization, he can be told to help another pedophile get hired, and then there are two of them. Those two can help a third get hired, and then there are three. They may eventually dominate the government agency, television studio, or police department.

As the majority of people titillate themselves with food, drugs, pornography, pet dogs, material items, and babies, the crime networks are getting their members and their blackmailed puppets into positions of importance.

The men and women who are given favorable publicity by the media are not "normal" people. Many of them are criminals or blackmailed puppets. We should not listen to their advice, and we should not design the world according to what they want. Lady Gaga is pushing the military into accepting homosexuals, for example, and many other female celebrities are pushing feminism. Many famous people are pushing carbon taxes, or the bombing of Iran. Some of our leaders just awarded "Sweden's alternative Nobel Prize" to Edward Snowden.

The people who dominate the world are disgusting, and the voters should be ashamed of themselves. We should raise standards for both voters and leaders.

People who ignore pedophilia are as dangerous as pedophiles

Perhaps the primary reason that pedophiles get away with their crimes is because they tend to abuse the unwanted children, such as the orphans, runaway children, and retarded children. Since we don't care about those children, we tend to ignore them when they complain about being raped. The conservatives, who oppose abortion, are inadvertently making the situation worse by encouraging parents to give birth to more unwanted and retarded children.

A zoo would never tolerate unwanted animals in the exhibits, but no human society has been able to deal with the issue of unwanted human children. By ignoring them, they live in our streets like rats; steal from us; and vandalize our property. This is allowing pedophiles to use them for sex, and crime networks can then blackmail the pedophiles and get control of our government, media, and police departments.

Many of the unwanted children were thrown out of their house by their parents (such as these in England). We don't allow parents to kill their children, and we have no facilities for unwanted children, so what are parents supposed to do when they can no longer tolerate their defective child?

This problem did not exist 50,000 years ago because the unwanted children died quickly, but in this modern world, nature is no longer taking care of the problem for us. We must do something to deal with this problem. The people who ignore this problem are making our situation worse by allowing the crime networks to thrive and dominate us.

We could describe the people who do nothing as inadvertent accessories to crime. They are not admirable people. They are primitive savages who cannot cope with the modern world. They should not be allowed to vote or influence society. Ideally, they would not be allowed to reproduce, either, or they would be limited to just one child apiece. That would eventually result in the human race developing the ability to deal with its problems.

When we design a zoo exhibit or a farm, we put a lot of effort into figuring out how to provide the animals with a physical and social environment that will keep them in good physical and mental health. However, we are not doing this for ourselves. There are never any discussions on how to design cities, social affairs, economic systems, and recreational activities that provide humans with the most pleasant life. We allow our cities to be created haphazardly, and we allow our culture to be manipulated by churches, crime networks, and government officials.

Imagine if we created zoo exhibits in the same chaotic manner that we create cities for ourselves. The two photos below are from India, but other nations are not much better. Imagine a zoo that ran wires through the cages, or that allowed the dead bodies of animals to rot in the cage. Or imagine a zoo that did not control the population of the animals. Imagine that there are so many animals that many of them are malnourished, and some are doing the equivalent of sleeping in the streets, and eating out of trash cans.

We provide zoo and farm animals with a more attractive environment than we provide ourselves, and we clean their cages better than we clean our cities.

If a zoo or farm were to treat animals in the same manner that we treat ourselves, the managers would be arrested for animal abuse. We treat animals with more kindness and decency than we treat ourselves.

Why are we having so much trouble designing pleasant cities for ourselves? The reason is because we don't know what to do for humans and, more importantly, most people don't want to figure it out. The majority of people are not interested in the issues of city design, economic systems, government systems, city festivals, school systems, or social activities. They don't want to study these complex issues, discuss these issues, or experiment with changes. 

Most people want to put all of their time and effort into titillating themselves with food, babies, awards, alcohol, pornography, and material items. Furthermore, most people are afraid to experiment with society. They would rather keep everything as it is and make excuses for why we should not make changes.

Should we give animals what they need, or what they want?

Some people complain that farmers are abusing their animals by keeping them in barns and cages. They advocate keeping the animals outdoors so that they can be in a more natural environment. This brings up a very interesting issue that affects both farm animals and humans. Specifically, should we give animals or humans what they want? Or what they need?

Animals are similar to humans. When it rains, or when it is windy, or when it is cold or hot, the animal wants to get away from the natural environment. If given the opportunity to go into a barn, they will go into the barn voluntarily. Should we force them to go outside and suffer?

Furthermore, if provided with food, they will not have any interest in looking for their own food. Therefore, they will not get much exercise. Should we force them to get exercise?

It might help you to understand this issue if you imagine some aliens taking some humans back to their planet and putting them into a zoo exhibit. The typical American would be very happy if his zoo exhibit consisted of a house with a large supply of ice cream, potato chips, television shows, video games, and pornography. He would not get much exercise, and he would quickly become overweight.

If the aliens became concerned that the humans are not getting exercise, and if they forced them out of the house every morning and locked the doors, the typical American would just sit outside and wait for the doors to open in the evening.

If the aliens provided the humans with access to their extremely advanced school books and videos, most of the people would ignore them and play video games instead.

If the aliens provided the people with bicycles, most American adults would ignore the bicycles and sit on a couch while eating potato chips.

The point I want to make is that if aliens were to design a zoo exhibit according to what the typical human wants, the exhibit would resemble our homes here on the Earth. Most people are trying to live the life that they want; not the life that they need. As a result, most people are trying to avoid work and responsibility, avoid learning and thinking, and avoid critical analyses of themselves. They want to be the center of attention, they want to show off, they want to eat excessively, and they want servants to pamper them.

Animals are similar to humans. When we put animals on a farm and provide them with food, they have no desire to do much of anything. When it is raining or hot, they prefer to lounge around in a barn. They are not interested in getting exercise, either. They would rather eat excessively. They are happy to spend hours a day taking naps and laying on the ground, just as humans will spend hours a day in front of a television or playing a videogame.

What is the difference between a fat pig laying on the floor of a cage for hours a day, and a fat human lounging in front of a television for hours a day?

The animals behave just like us. The reason is simply because humans are advanced animals, and animals are primitive humans.

When a human is given enormous amounts of money, he behaves like a King or Queen. He does only what he wants to do, which is to be the center of attention, feel important, and be pampered. Likewise, when a pet dog or farm animal is given plenty of food and protection, that animal will do only what it wants to do, which, for most animals, is to eat and snooze.

Is there any benefit to forcing animals to get exercise? Will exercise make them taste better? Will exercise give them better resistance to disease? Or would we be wasting our time and annoying the animals? Is it better to let the animals do what they want, which is to become fat and lazy? Some animals, such as pigs, are frequently put into separate cages because they tend to fight with each other. Would it be better to let them socialize and fight?

What about humans? Should we put pressure on humans to get some exercise? Or is it better to let the humans become fat and lazy? Should we put pressure on humans to socialize with other humans? Or should we let them spend their time with television, video games, and pet dogs?

I don't think we should try to force humans to do something that they don't want to do, but I think it would be best to design a city that encourages people to get out of their house, get together with other people, and get some exercise. The people who are not interested in leaving their house can stay home, but we should design the city for people who are interested in doing something.

Cities should encourage exercise and socializing

We want our pets to get exercise, so why not design our cities to provide humans with exercise?

When we design zoo exhibits, we take into account the fact that animals need a certain amount of exercise. We design their cage so that they can get the exercise they need, and when the cage is too small, as is often the case with mice and hamsters, we include an exercise machine, such as a spinning wheel. We also provide the animals with adequate supplies of food, and if the animal has trouble controlling its appetite, we limit their food so that they cannot overeat.

Both humans and animals were designed for an environment in which food is scarce, and in which we must do some physical work every day in order to acquire food. Our prehistoric ancestors rarely had food waiting for them when they woke up in the morning. Instead, they usually had to exert some physical effort in order to find food. Today, however, we use our technology to provide everybody's home with enormous amounts of food. We can now eat food even when we wake up in the middle of the night.

Our emotions want us to live in a home that has lots of food, and we want machines to do all of the physical work for us, but is this really the best environment for us? I don't think so.

Having large amounts of food in our home causes virtually everybody to occasionally struggle to resist the temptation to eat some of that food, and when machines are doing all of the physical work for us, those of us with sedentary jobs have to occasionally push ourselves into getting some exercise. Although some people are doing a good job of controlling their emotions and maintaining a healthy diet and an adequate level of exercise, I think we would have more pleasant lives if we could figure out how to reduce the temptation to eat, and reduce the need to push ourselves into getting exercise.

How can we reduce the emotional temptation of food and make it easier for people to get exercise? Some government officials have imposed a soda tax to discourage the consumption of sodas, but I don't think taxing a food item is an effective solution. Furthermore, if we switch to an economic system in which food and other items are free, then there won't be any taxes, so this method becomes useless.

We have an incredible number of options for dealing with food and exercise. For example, we could restrict a person's food consumption once he becomes overweight, or we could restrict the types of food that the overweight people can eat, or we could produce candy only for certain events, such as certain holiday celebrations.

Incidentally, if children could get donuts, candy, and other sweet items only during certain holidays, then, in addition to improving their health, it would make those holidays and the sweets more exciting to them. As I pointed out in other files, most people believe that they will experience more happiness by doing something more often, but that is not true. Candy will mean more to a child when it becomes a special treat rather than a daily part of life.

Rather than discuss some of the thousands of possible options we have for dealing with the issues of food and exercise, I will instead go into more details for why I advocate a city in which the homes are virtually identical to one another, and none of them have kitchens.

I think the City of Castles will encourage people to get out of their house, get together with other people, and do something with their leisure time. To understand how this city will improve the situation with food and exercise, imagine that you are living in the castle that is behind the trees in the photo below. Imagine the city has dozens or hundreds of those castles, each of which is surrounded by trees, grass, swimming areas, bicycle paths, gardens, and recreational areas. There would be 500 to 4000 homes in each of the castles. 

None of the homes have kitchens, so when you want breakfast in the morning, you must get dressed, leave your home, and go to a restaurant. The food is free, but the restaurants are not open 24 hours a day. They are available only for a few hours for breakfast, a few hours for lunch, and a few hours during the evening.

The reason that I suggest these limited hours is because nobody needs access to food 24 hours a day, and by restricting food to only certain times, we make the jobs of the restaurant employees much more pleasant. The employees who make breakfast can start work at a more reasonable time in the morning, and the employees who make dinner don't have to work late at night. Also, by closing the restaurant between meals, it is easier for the employees to clean up the mess and prepare for the next meal. The limited hours also make it easier for both the management and the employees to deal with part-time employees who work for only one meal.

There would be restaurants within every castle, and there would be restaurants scattered around the city, so everybody could easily get meals at their castle, or near their job. During the weekdays, most people would probably be in a rush to get to their job, so most would probably eat a small breakfast. In a city without money, nobody has to pay for food, so all we do is walk into a restaurant, ask for some food, eat the food, and leave. Most people would then go to the basement to ride a train to their job. 

As computer systems become more advanced, it will eventually become practical for you to use your cell phone to arrange for your meal to be ready for you. Since the city would be in control of every restaurant, there would be only one reservation system. Before you leave your home, you would send a message to the city's computer to have a particular meal ready for you at a particular restaurant. 

The people who have to get to work before the restaurants are open for breakfast would not be able to eat breakfast before they start their job. Many people promote the theory that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but where is the supporting evidence for that theory? I would say the evidence shows that all animals are designed to do some work in the morning before they eat.

Neither animals nor humans need to eat food within a few minutes of waking up. We are not torturing ourselves by working for a few hours, and then eating.

Some of the people who promote the theory that breakfast is the most important meal seem to be basing it on the fact that children who are hungry will do better in school when the school provides them with a breakfast. However, that is not because breakfast is necessary. Rather, it is because those children are perpetually hungry.

If different cities would conduct experiments with breakfast, we might discover that people are healthier if they work a few hours before eating food. The reason I think this is possible is because animals and humans were designed to store energy after a meal. The people who eat immediately upon waking up may never use any of the energy that their liver and other organs stored from previous meals.

Some of the people who live on farms will regularly do physical work for a couple hours in the morning before they have breakfast. Since they can do physical work without any breakfast, then a sedentary office worker should be able to work for a couple hours, also.

Boredom leads to strange behavior

The people who whine about needing breakfast bring up an interesting issue. I think that one of the reasons that farmers can work without breakfast is because their work keeps their mind occupied. When a person is busy, he will focus on what he is doing, but when he is bored, or if he does not like his job or life, his mind is likely to start wandering, or "daydreaming", and that can cause him to think about sex, food, material items, awards, or babies.

If a bored office worker starts thinking about food, then he may stimulate his hunger emotions. If he starts fantasizing about Hillary Clinton, then he may become sexually aroused.

The significance of this is that when we discover that a person is having trouble concentrating on his job and is spending an abnormal amount of time fantasizing about food, sex, babies, or material wealth, we should consider it a sign that there is something wrong. Perhaps his job is not keeping him busy enough, or perhaps he does not like his job, or perhaps there is something wrong with his mind. Giving him the food, or whatever he fantasizes about, is not going to improve his situation.

If we replace that employee with someone else, and that new employee is soon showing the same symptoms of fantasizing about food or material items, then we should consider the possibility that there is something about that job that is irritating to humans. A good example of this problem are the people who have to watch radar screens. They frequently fall asleep or daydream, and the reason is simply because that particular job is unnatural for the human mind.

In a free enterprise system, profit is given first priority, so employees are forced to deal with jobs that they don't like, but when the government is in control of the economy, human life gets first priority, so the government will design jobs so that everybody can enjoy going to work.

With the government in control of the economy, we have a lot of options available to us in regards to the boring jobs. For example, we can make the boring jobs available on a part-time basis so that a lot of people can share the monotony. The government can also divert some of the technical talent from making toys and cosmetics to making more advanced computers and robots to do more of the boring tasks for us.

A City of Castles encourages exercise

Since nobody owns their home or other material items, the people can freely move around the city, and that will cause many people to choose a castle that is close to where they work. This would allow them to walk or ride a bicycle to their job.

It is unpleasant to ride bicycles to work in our modern cities because the automobile and bus traffic is irritating and dangerous, but in a city in which the trains are underground, and the surface is full of parks, gardens, canals, ponds, foot paths, and bicycle paths, a lot of people would be inspired to walk or ride a bicycle to work when the weather was nice.

Another reason it is unpleasant to ride bicycles to work in our modern cities is because most businesses don't have facilities for storing bicycles, and most don't provide showers. However, when the government is in control of the economy, the businesses could be designed for bicycles, such as by providing underground storage systems.

If the people in the city could control their paranoia of nudity, we could certainly figure out how to provide ourselves with a faster and more convenient method of showering, such as the "rinsing tunnel" that I suggested in a previous file. With that type of showering system, a person would spend only a few minutes taking off his bicycle clothing, walking through the shower and the dryer, and then putting on his work clothing.

In a city in which material items are free, nobody owns a bicycle. Instead, the city would produce and maintain a variety of different types and sizes of bicycles. Each of the castles would have an assortment of bicycles in an underground storage area, and we would not have to return a bicycle to the location that we picked it up from. The train system would be used to distribute bicycles to wherever they were needed. This provides people with the option of riding a bicycle to work, and then riding a train home.

The opposite would also be possible; specifically, you might ride a train to work on a morning that is experiencing a rainstorm, but the weather at the end of the day might be so beautiful that you decide to ride a bicycle home, or ride a bicycle into the city, have dinner in the city, and then ride home on a train.

This type of city would make it especially easy for children to get exercise because parents would not have to drive their children anywhere. Assuming the people in the city are intolerant of crime, parents would be able to tell their children to go outside and play.

In our cities today, many of the people with sedentary jobs are traveling by automobile to a business that offers exercise equipment and swimming pools, but in a City of Castles, nobody would have to travel to get exercise. Every castle would be surrounded by swimming areas, bicycle paths, and recreational areas. Each castle could have additional exercise equipment indoors, if desired.

Community property or private property?

Our societies today put emphasis on private collections of material items, trophies, and land. I don't think this is natural or healthy for us. I think we would create a more appropriate environment if we shifted the emphasis from personal property to community property and community activities.

For example, the photo below shows just one of the spectacular swimming pools that wealthy people have created for themselves. There may be thousands of these pools scattered around America, but most people never notice them because they are on private plots of land. They require a lot of labor and resources to build and maintain, but most of the time they are idle.

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 pools.

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 community property.

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 of monkeys.

Animals put their home wherever they please

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 pleasing himself.

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 nation.

An organization must restrict its membership

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 trophies.

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 for themselves.

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 personal property.

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 equipment.

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 private plots.

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 office building.

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 paths.

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.

We want private land, but do we benefit from it?

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 more items.

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 more 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 too far. 

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 people.

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 to be.

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 totally braless".

In these 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 as "news"?

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 like them.

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?

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 language.

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 new.

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 competition.

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 potential.

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 differently

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 different?

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.

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 sports.

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.

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 better fighters.

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 emotions.

We should also take into account how the environment will affect us physically. 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?

In this previous file, I suggested designing robots, prosthetic limbs, and material items to be emotionally pleasant. We should apply that same concept to our cities. The office buildings, homes, parks, bicycle paths, canals, transportation devices, restaurants, and factories should be designed so that they evoke pleasant emotional feelings.

All of the artwork should also be analyzed according to how it's going to affect our emotions. I think it is detrimental to create public artwork that stimulates sexual feelings, or which depicts scenes that encourage pouting or anger over wars or disasters, or which create optical illusions that annoy our eyes. The statues that communist nations create of soldiers fighting "imperialists", for example, stimulate arrogance and anger. Our artwork should put us into a pleasant mood, or help us to relax, or encourage productive attitudes. Artwork should not stimulate hatred, pouting, envy, or arrogance.

Humans love to pout and hate, and so we have a tendency to create statues and memorials of disasters and wars to stimulate pouting and hating. We should not encourage that type of artwork. If we want to create something for a previous war or disaster, it should be like a museum display that is serious and informative.

Of course, I should remind you that a museum display is only as good as the people in society. In America and Europe, for example, there are Holocaust museums that show how the Nazis put 6 million Jews into gas chambers and incinerators, and there are memorials that show how Muslims attacked America on 9/11. A group of apathetic, selfish, dishonest monkeys will not provide themselves with sensible museums.

I also suggest that we control our craving for shiny objects because chrome-plated and shiny objects cause light to reflect into our eyes, and reflected images can make it difficult to figure out what we are looking at. A hall of mirrors might be amusing to walk through once or twice during your life, but a highly reflective city would become irritating very quickly.

Imagine if a city gave a chrome plating to every sidewalk, railing, building, train, bicycle, and statue. During the daytime there would be several chrome-plated items reflecting sunlight in your eyes no matter where you stood in the city, and no matter which window you looked out of. There would be other chrome-plated items reflecting images, making it difficult for you to figure out what you are looking at. At night, the chrome-plated items would reflect artificial lights.

Humans seem to have a natural fascination for shiny objects, but when we design cities and products, we must stop trying to titillate our emotional cravings and put some effort into thinking about what would be best for us.

Design cities for human life, not status or profit

No society yet is involved with city planning to any significant extent. Every city is a chaotic jumble of homes, telephone wires, factories, and roads because almost everybody is following their particular emotional cravings rather than working together to create a city that would be best for us. For example:

 • Homes: We have a craving for status and territory, and this causes us to prefer large houses on private plots of land. This results in cities that are spread out over an enormous area, and in which there is no organization to the arrangement of the homes. This in turn results in people wasting a lot of time and resources on transportation.

 • Factories: In a free enterprise system, factories are designed to maximize profit, and so they tend to be noisy, filthy, ugly, and uncomfortable.

 • Office buildings: Office buildings are usually placed in the center of a city, which makes them easily visible. This causes businesses to design the outer facade to impress potential customers and intimidate competitors. If the office building has a reception area for the public, that section will also be designed to be visually impressive. However, the inside of the office where the employees work may be just as ugly, noisy, and uncomfortable as a factory.

Our buildings should have decorations, not advertisements or logos

By eliminating the free enterprise system, we can design cities for human life. One visible difference would be that the office buildings and factories would not have company names, logos, or advertisements. In a free enterprise system, businesses must advertise themselves, and they want to impress customers and intimidate competitors, but in a City of Castles, the businesses strive to impress the government with products and services that benefit society. The businesses don't care what the public wants. Businesses would not need or have logos, and they would not advertise to the public.

Furthermore, businesses in this type of economic system are smaller, and they are easier to form, dissolve, and change, which in turn makes it more wasteful to allow businesses to put their company name on buildings.

Allowing businesses to put their company names and logos on public buildings is equivalent to allowing teenage gangs to spray their gang logo on public buildings. Instead of buildings displaying corporate logos and advertisements for beer, there should be only artistic decorations.

Factories would also change dramatically in this type of an environment. In a free enterprise system, factories are usually the ugliest buildings in the city. A factory is designed to be attractive only when the executives believe it will increase profit. For example, Volkswagen designed an attractive factory in Dresden, but I don't think it was designed to improve life for the people in the city, or for their employees. Rather, it seems to have been designed to emotionally titillate a small number of wealthy people and encourage them to purchase one of the automobiles.

The Volkswagen factory in Dresden

When we design factories, office buildings, apartment buildings, trains, bicycle paths, plazas, hospitals, and other items for our city, we should consider what is best for society. We should not be concerned about titillating customers, or trying to increase profit.

In regards to the Volkswagen factory, it has an enormous number of glass walls. That creates an interesting visual appearance, and it allows them to advertise their factory as a "transparent factory", but this is just a marketing gimmick to attract and titillate potential customers. This factory does not appear to be the result of people who were seriously interested in developing a factory that would make life better for the employees or the city residents.

One of the problems with making a factory with glass walls is that glass is inferior to most materials in regards to controlling the flow of heat and sound. If two cities are identical in all respects, except that one of them built its factories, warehouses, and other structures with glass walls, that city would have a noticeably higher energy consumption, and the noise level would be higher. The glass walls would also need a lot more cleaning.

In other documents I suggested factories could be decorated with stained-glass windows, and there are two reasons why I think that is more practical than making walls from clear glass. One reason is that a stained glass window is attractive even if one side is blocked by another wall or by insulation material. This allows us to put stained-glass windows anywhere, even deep inside basements. We can also make sandwiches in which one side is a strong, translucent material that faces the outdoors, and the other side is a stained glass window, and in between is a translucent insulation. The insulation would block most of the sunlight, but some of it would pass through and illuminate the colored glass, which would be more decorative than a solid wall.

Another attractive aspect of the Volkswagen factory is that all of the floors are covered with wood. We enjoy the appearance of wooden floors, but they are not practical for areas that have to deal with water, chemicals, heat, heavy vehicles, animals, or people who have dirt clinging to the bottom of their shoes.

I think the attraction to wood flooring is similar to our attraction to campfires and fireplaces. Specifically, it is an emotional attraction, not an intellectual attraction. We have a natural preference to wood because wood is a natural part of our environment.

Every animal develops an attraction to the environment that they evolved in. Animals that evolved in snowy areas develop an attraction to snow, and animals that evolved in the desert have an attraction to the desert. Humans evolved around trees, creeks, and bushes, and therefore, we are attracted to wood, flowing water, plants, flowers, and trees. Humans have also been living with campfires for enough time to become genetically attracted to fires. 

Animals and humans do not adapt to their environment, but they evolve to fit their environment. The reason is because the animals and people who are less suited to their environment are less happy and end up as misfits, and that can cause them to have a lower success rate in reproduction. That lower rate might be minuscule, but through thousands of generations, it results in animals and people evolving to enjoy the environment they live in. Reindeer love the snow, and fish love the water. Lizards love deserts, and cows love grassy fields.

However, no animal or human developed an attraction to flat sheets of concrete or asphalt, or geometric shapes of concrete, such as cylinders or cubes. Therefore, when we build cities with concrete and asphalt, we are designing a city that is emotionally unappealing to us. We can improve the situation by texturing and coloring the concrete so that it has more of a resemblance to rock or gravel. We can also make concrete more attractive by embedding rocks, bits of glass, or iridescent objects in it.

When we design a city, we must keep in mind that we have a natural attraction to certain materials, colors, and patterns. We want the city to be emotionally pleasing, but we have to consider that some materials are more practical than others. Wood may appeal to us more than any other construction material, but wood is extremely flammable, and it is unable to resist water, chemicals, and termites. With modern technology, we can provide ourselves with flooring materials and construction materials that are much less flammable and much more durable than wood, and just as attractive. The less wood that a city uses in its buildings, the less of a problem it will have with fire, termites, and silverfish.

If we could figure out how to make buildings that cannot burn, then we would never have to bother with sprinkler systems or fire escapes. We are already making buildings with steel frames and concrete floors, which cannot burn, but we use flammable materials for finishing the interior of the buildings.

Imagine if we created a city in which all of the walls and ceilings were inflammable. For example, imagine if we could melt silica under pressure with water, and then let it expand into a foam. It would be similar to the pumice that volcanoes create, except the bubbles would be smaller. Foamed silica would not only resist fire, but it would also resist termites, chemicals, and water. It is so heat resistant that pieces of it could be welded together without cracking. By using it for walls and ceilings, buildings would dramatically reduce their maintenance, and it would eliminate the problem of fires.

The Volkswagen factory has wooden floors everywhere, but I don't think they decided on wood because they seriously analyzed their flooring options and came to the conclusion that wood was their best option for all areas of the factory. Rather, I suspect this is just another marketing gimmick.

It would be better to eliminate the free enterprise system and design factories according to what is best for human life. For example, in areas where people have to stand a lot, or carry heavy items, a rubber flooring might be the most practical. However, the flooring doesn't have to be a bland sheet of ugly rubber. We can give it colors and patterns, and we can decorate it with strips of carpeting.

Factories should be designed according to what will make life better for the employees, and for the people who live around the factory. People should enjoy going to their job at the factory, and the people who live near the factory should enjoy looking at the factory. The building should be attractive inside and outside, including the roof of the building. The city should be a piece of art.

However, when we decorate a city with art, we should put more thought into where the art is being placed. I think it is ridiculous to put paintings on the ceiling, for example. I can understand why a halibut would want art on the ceiling of its home, but it is unpleasant for humans to turn our heads to the ceiling. It would be more comfortable for us to put the artwork on the walls.

The point of this section is that we should design our city so that we enjoy living in it, traveling around in it, and going to work. We should enjoy our trains, bicycle paths, plazas, museums, homes, factories, recreational areas, social clubs, and office buildings. The city should be designed for us, not for business executives to become billionaires.

Why do we want rooms with "views"?

An interesting characteristic of humans is that we have a fascination for homes and offices that are high above the ground, or on hilltops, and which provide us with views of a very large area of the planet. I suppose the reason is because animals are in a perpetual state of paranoia of being attacked by predators, and so they either want to be hidden, such as hiding in a hole in the ground, or hiding in the bushes, or they want to be in an area where they can see all around themselves.

If gophers were to build cities for themselves, I don't think they would want tall buildings that provided them with a view. I think they would prefer dark basements and tunnels.

During prehistoric times, it was possible for everybody in a small tribe to have a view because they could all easily fit on a hilltop, but in the world today, the dense population requires that many of our homes and office buildings do not provide a view. Since virtually everybody wants a view, but only a small percentage of the population can have one, the end result is that we inadvertently treat homes and offices with views as status symbols. This further increases the craving for homes and offices with views.

The craving for homes with views has resulted in the concept of a "penthouse". A penthouse is an apartment at the top of a tall building. There is nothing special about a penthouse. The people who live in a penthouse are not going to enjoy life any more than the people who live farther down, but many people have been convinced that the people who live in penthouses will experience greater happiness simply because they can see farther into the distance.

In a City of Castles, all of the buildings are separated from one another, which makes it easy for us to avoid the unpleasant situation of a window that faces a wall, or a window that opens into a narrow air shaft, but it is impractical to provide everybody with a penthouse, or a home or office that is high above the ground. A lot of people must live and work closer to the ground. The most appropriate reaction to this problem is to control our idiotic emotions and change our philosophy towards life.

It is important to remind yourself that there is no source of happiness. Everything in life has both advantages and disadvantages. The people who live at the top of tall buildings or on hilltops have the advantage of being able look far out into the distance, but they have the disadvantage of spending more time traveling to their home, and they are exposed to significantly more wind.

Furthermore, and even more important, if you can understand that there is no source of happiness, then you should be able to realize that the view from the top of a tall building is "different" from the view near the bottom of the building, but it is not "better".

For example, the people near the ground floor of a building will be able to clearly see leaves, flowers, and hummingbirds. By comparison, the people at the top floor of a building will look down on everything from such a distance that they cannot clearly see the birds or flowers. Therefore, we could say that the people at the top of tall buildings are suffering from an inferior view compared to the people near the ground.

We could also say that people at the top of the building are suffering because they spend more time riding in elevators, and we could say that the people who live on hills suffer more than the people who live in the flat areas because they must waste time traveling on winding mountain roads, and bicycling is difficult for them.

In this modern world, people need to understand human emotions, and learn to control themselves. Everybody needs to be aware of our tendency to compete with other people; to compare what we have to what other people have; and to convince ourselves that we are miserable because somebody else has something different. We are torturing ourselves when we compare our view to somebody else's view, or when we compete to have the most expensive house.

Since we enjoy competing with one another, we must occasionally push ourselves into analyzing what we are competing over in order to ensure that we are competing for something that is beneficial to us. It is idiotic for us to compete for a bigger diamond ring.

If a person doesn't have a good understanding or control of his emotions, he is likely to get involved with competitions that are senseless, wasteful, or destructive. He is likely to convince himself that he is miserable because somebody else has something he does not have. Instead of enjoying what he has, he may become sad, angry, envious, depressed, or violent. He might decide to steal what other people have, or get revenge on the people who have what he wants. The Dr. Seuss story of The Sneetches is an example of this behavior. 

When I was a  child, the Jews were frequently boasting about their superiority, and some people wanted to become Jews, such as Sammy Davis, but the Jews would not accept him as a Jew. I assumed that the stars on the Sneetches represented Jewish stars, and the story was about how Jews would not accept anybody else as a Jew.

Interestingly, Dr. Seuss said the book was inspired by his opposition to anti-Semitism. Although his book might have been intended to ridicule the anti-Semites, I wonder if his attitude that Jews are superior inadvertently influenced the story; specifically, he may have designed the star-bellied Sneetches after himself and his attitude of superiority.

The same situation seems to have happened when he wrote The Grinch who stole Christmas. I assumed that story was about Jews who, instead of joining other societies in their culture, remain as an outsider, and they become bitter and envious when the Goyim enjoy Christmas. However, a few years after the book was published, Dr. Suess said it occurred to him that he was the Grinch.

Incidentally, the issue of how people inadvertently write about themselves or their friends in fiction or songs is not merely interesting. It is actually important to understand this concept. I wrote a bit about this issue years ago here when I pointed out that a scientist and engineer builds upon the work of previous people. Nobody has the ability to develop technology that people will have 50,000 years in the future.

We are not nearly as creative or intelligent as we like to believe. When we write stories or songs, or paint pictures, we process the information in our memory and modify it. However, our mind is full of information about our own lives. We also have a lot of information about our friends, relatives, and other people. The end result is that our lives and our friends can influence our stories, songs, and art. The reverse is also true; namely, a person's fictional stories, songs, and art is likely to have clues as to what his life was like, or the lives of his friends.

Anyway, regardless of why Dr. Seuss wrote that book about the Sneetches, it is an example of how people struggle to get something that makes them feel special, and how the other people react by convincing themselves that they are miserable because they don't have it, and so they struggle to get it, and if they do get it, then the other people struggle to get something else.

Humans and animals have a very strong craving to feel special, and so we look for opportunities to boast about ourselves. The people who boast about their yachts, homes, or private tennis courts are behaving like Sneetches with stars. They cause some of the Sneetches without stars to become convinced that they are suffering from poverty, and that can cause those dumb Sneetches to become envious, angry, depressed, or vengeful. That in turn can lead to crime and vandalism.

People who behave like Sneetches are destructive to society because they encourage bad attitudes and undesirable competitions. Ideally, a society would have people who are better behaved than Sneetches.

We can reduce the problem of Sneetches by making all of the homes equal to one another in quality, and by providing everybody with virtually the same level of material wealth. This will make it impossible for people to boast about their wealth, or to feel sorry for themselves for their poverty.

In that type of society, the only way people could boast about themselves is by doing something beneficial for society. For example, a technician could boast that he is doing an excellent job of repairing bicycles; a government official might boast that he has developed some recreational activities that are providing people with better exercise; and another person could boast that during his leisure time he helps to build and maintain some decorative bicycle paths. In those cases, the person is boasting about his contributions to society, and because of our competitive nature, it will encourage other people to contribute. That would be much better than encouraging people to compete for the largest collection of material items.

The best resources should be for the community

In my previous article, I pointed out that by denying children the opportunity to regularly see naked bodies, we create a fascination for naked bodies. A similar situation is happening with the views from tall buildings. The tops of most tall buildings are off-limits to the public, or they have expensive restaurants that few people can afford. This makes the top of buildings seem "special".

Therefore, to dampen the idiotic craving for penthouses and "views", we should design a city so that the tops of the buildings are set aside for public areas, such as restaurants, social clubs, recreational areas, medical facilities, birthing centers, and dental offices. This would give everybody the chance to frequently be at the tops of buildings. It would satisfy their curiosity, and it would help them to realize that they are not suffering by living farther down in the building. Whenever they are in the mood to look a long distance, they can go to the top of a building. With this philosophy towards views, the views are considered as "community property" for everybody to enjoy rather than treating them as status symbols for "celebrities" or wealthy people.

The same concept applies to homes along beautiful creeks, land formations, or coastlines. For example, in Carmel, California, thousands of houses have been built along a beautiful coastline, and there is an asphalt road running in front of the houses. 

The situation is even worse at some of the beaches in the Los Angeles area because that city allows wealthy people to put houses directly on the beach, thereby making it difficult for people to access the beach. Their houses are so close to the water that they are sometimes destroyed in storms, which is wasting society's resources.

Take a look at the photos of the houses along the Malibu coast. They have destroyed the beach. What might have been a beautiful beach is now just a bunch of ugly houses that are crammed so close together that there is no place to walk or for children to play. Why is it admirable for wealthy people to destroy a beautiful area, but disgusting when poor people do it?

The Malibu beach is just an expensive version of an overcrowded slum.

The wealthy people who own houses along a beach believe that they are enjoying life more than the rest of us, but human life does not improve simply by living closer to the ocean. There are advantages and disadvantages to living near the ocean. To me, the main disadvantage is the continuous noise of waves, seagulls, and barking sea lions. A minor disadvantage is the continuous spray of salt, which corrodes most metal parts.

The Sneetches boast that the noise of the ocean is soothing and the salt spray is healthy, but if the noise was really soothing, then people around the world would be using their audio players to play crashing waves 24 hours a day... while they sleep, read, work, eat, watch television, and listen to music.

And if a salt spray was so wonderful, then businesses would be selling salt spray devices for us to put into our homes.

In reality, we prefer quiet homes, and clean air. The only noise that we are truly soothed by are human voices, especially children's voices - if the children are well behaved.

The people who boast about living on the beach are wealthy Sneetches who are fooling themselves into thinking that they are special. Some of the poor Sneetches react by pouting or hating because they don't have a house along the beach.

Instead of allowing a small number of people to ruin the beautiful areas of the world, a more sensible philosophy would be to set aside the beautiful areas as community property. Instead of private homes and ugly roads, the coastline should have bicycle and foot paths, plazas, restaurants, social clubs, and recreational areas. The beaches, rivers, and beautiful forests should be for everybody to enjoy, not for rich people to take possession of and use as status objects.

Of course, if we are going to stop the wealthy people from destroying the beach, we should stop the poor people from doing it, also. Unfortunately, no society yet has shown the emotional ability to stand up to anybody, not the rich people, not the poor people, and not even the criminals or teenage gangs. A lot of parents and schools cannot even stand up to bratty children.

How do we design a better city?

The human race has the intelligence necessary to design beautiful cities in which all of the factories, office buildings, train stations, schools, and homes are beautiful and well-built. We also have the intelligence and creativity to design beautiful swimming pools, plazas, walkways, gardens, parks, and recreational areas. We also have the creativity to decorate the city with artwork.

So why don't we have beautiful cities? It is not because of a lack of intelligence or creativity. It is because everybody is focused on pleasing themselves rather than doing something for society.

Creating a better city requires more than intelligence and creativity. It requires a lot of people who can control their arrogance and selfishness so well that they can put aside their own particular desires and consider what would be best for society as a group.

There are lots of people who will help design a better city if we offer them money, but those people are just circus seals. Those type of people can be useful to do simple tasks, such as planting grass or installing doorknobs, but those type of people are of no use for the jobs that require creativity or leadership.

The circus seals do only what they are told to do. If we hired a circus seal to design a community pool for us, he would give us a rectangular pit that is lined with gray concrete. If we tell him we want decorations, he will ask, "What kind?" He will not think for himself. He will do only what is necessary to get his reward.

At the other extreme are the psychotic artists who can put a lot of effort and creativity into designing a community pool, office building, or park, but they are not willing to consider what other people want. They insist that they be given the "artistic freedom" to do as they please. They consider themselves to be "slaves" if they have to revise their artwork according to what we want. Many of them would rather be unemployed than a slave.

If we want community pools to be beautiful, we need to find people who actually have an interest in designing nice pools for the community. We need to find people who have the initiative to research the issue of pools, discuss their ideas with other people, and be capable of compromising.

A lot of people can put a lot of effort into designing a pool for their own use, but how many people can work with other people and put a lot of effort into designing a community pool?

A lot of people can put a lot of time and effort into making their private yard attractive, but how many people will work in a team and put as much effort into designing community parks or gardens?

Designing a better city requires finding people who actually want to participate in such an activity. I think only a minority of the population has the necessary emotional and intellectual qualities. Most of the population is trying to avoid society and focus on titillating themselves.

Therefore, the only way we are going to be able to create better cities is to be very selective about who designs the cities. We cannot simply pay a business to design a city. We need to find people who truly have an interest in this issue.

A city could be a beautiful piece of art

If you were to design a home for yourself, you would want all parts of the home to be attractive, safe, and well-built. You would also want all parts of your yard to be attractive and safe. 

If we restrict a city to people who can consider the city to be their home, and who can consider the other people in the city to be their friends, then we could design a city as if it were a giant home for ourselves. The emphasis would be on community property rather than private property. The city would be designed for people to enjoy, not businesses to profit from.

The factories, office buildings, warehouses, and train stations would be designed to make life pleasant for everybody. All of the land, canals, ponds, foot paths, and swimming pools would be beautiful. Even the rooftops would be decorative. Instead of gray concrete, the city would be colorful, and some of the buildings and foot paths would have iridescent colors, as with the museum in Kansas, below.

 
A lot of people might respond that we cannot afford to build such a decorative city, but we are putting an enormous amount of resources into supporting Israel, inspecting people at airports, and keeping millions of people in jail. We also support millions of worthless government workers, advertising employees, think tank employees, and charities. We have plenty of labor and resources to make a beautiful city. We simply have to change our attitudes towards life and stop being tolerant of crime, corruption, and incompetence.

An additional advantage to becoming intolerant of crime is that a city without crime becomes even more beautiful and more desirable because we don't need bright security lights at night, and nobody would be afraid to wander around at night, or let their children play outside at night. The foot paths, ponds, canals, swimming pools, and bicycle paths could be illuminated by low-powered lights, creating a beautiful effect at night from both the ground level and from the tall buildings.

How tall should our buildings be?

In other documents I pointed out that a man's craving to compete with other men can result in us getting involved in senseless or dangerous competitions. This is currently happening in regards to the design of buildings. Specifically, many men have gotten involved with a senseless competitive battle to create "The World's Tallest Building". In this article, the BBC discusses some of the fantasies for buildings that are several thousand meters tall.

I would describe this as a "senseless" competition because the winner gains nothing. Ideally, we would have leaders who can control their emotional cravings well enough to design cities from the point of view of what would be most pleasant and efficient for the people who have to live, work, and travel in the city.

If we had leaders who were truly concerned about improving life for us, they would analyze issues that nobody yet shows any concern about, such as how tall our apartments and office buildings should be. There is an advantage to designing cities in which the buildings have more than one floor, but there is a point at which a building has become so tall that its disadvantages begin to outweigh its advantages.

It might help you to understand this concept if you imagine two extreme type of cities. In one city, all of the buildings are only one floor, and in the other city, there is only one building that is so tall that everybody lives and works in it. Assume that both cities have exactly the same land area and population.

In the city in which all of the buildings are only one floor, the city has the advantage that the buildings are very simple to design and build, and they don't need much of a foundation. The buildings could be constructed from wood. The disadvantage with this type of city is that the homes, schools, and businesses would be spread out over an enormous amount of land, thereby requiring the people to put a significant amount of time and resources into transportation and shipping. The city would have to build roads to connect every building and home. There would be so many roads that it would be impractical to put them underground. This would result in a significant portion of the land being wasted on roads.

By comparison, in the city in which there is only one gigantic building, the people have the advantage that they don't need any transportation system on the ground. The city would have an enormous amount of land to use as parks, gardens, canals, and recreational areas. However, one disadvantage with the city is that the building is much more difficult to design, construct, and maintain. The building also requires an incredibly deep and strong foundation.

Furthermore, even though the people don't need transportation at the ground level, they would need transportation to go vertically up and down the building. When a person woke up in the morning, he would not be able to walk or ride a bicycle to get to his job. He would have to ride an elevator.

Transportation is a problem in all cities, but it is significantly easier to travel horizontally than vertically. The equipment that we need for vertical travel is more complex, and it requires more energy.

When all of the buildings are only one floor, the people only have to travel horizontally, and this makes it possible to provide everybody with their own personal transportation vehicles, such as automobiles, bicycles, or scooters. To do the equivalent for the people living in a tall building would require providing everybody with their own personal elevator. Since that is impractical, the people would have to share elevators, which means that even if the elevators can travel quickly, there will be frequent delays as they stop to load and unload passengers.

There would also be a noticeable difference between the two cities in regards to utilities, such as water and sewage. In a city where all of the buildings are only one floor, not much effort is needed to pump water to the homes or drain sewage away. If one of the water or sewer lines were to break, it would make a mess in the dirt, but it would not cause a significant problem to the city, and it would be easy for the people to fix it.

By comparison, providing water to the tops of tall buildings requires additional pumps, and if one of the water or sewer lines were to break, it could create a significant mess in the building. Therefore, the people in the tall building would have to put more effort into creating stronger, more reliable pipes.

To summarize the point of this imaginary experiment, as we increase the number of floors in the buildings of a city, we increase the amount of land available for recreation, and we reduce the time and resources that we spend on horizontal travel. However, the taller the buildings become, the more difficult they are to build, maintain, and replace, and the more time and energy we spend on vertical travel.

There is a height for the buildings that is optimum for our level of technology, but what is that height? I don't know, and nobody seems to be interested in analyzing this issue, but I suspect that it is between 20 and 40 floors. Before we design a new city for ourselves, we should put some effort into controlling our craving to compete for "The World's Tallest Building", and seriously analyze this issue.

In other documents, I pointed out that if we eliminate the free enterprise system, people are not "owned" by a business. The people are working for society, and that allows them to work for more than one business, and they can get part-time and temporary jobs with the government.

As I mentioned in other documents, a society should encourage people to get involved with the government so that they can participate in some aspect of society, such as creating or assisting with city festivals, recreational events, music concerts, or children's events. People with technical talent should be encouraged to get involved with the government so that they can participate in the technical issues, such as setting standards for USB ports; helping determine our policies for pesticides and antibiotics at farms; and participating in experiments to improve our school system. In this section, I want to point out that people should be encouraged to get involved with the government to help design the city. 

When a lot of people get involved in the design of the city, we end up with a lot more variety in the gardens, walkways, artwork, parks, bicycle paths, recreational areas, canals, swimming areas, and plazas. By comparison, when a few city officials design everything by themselves, there will not be much variety.

If you have trouble understanding this concept, take a look at neighborhoods in which each person is responsible for maintaining his own plot of land, and compare that to a condominium complex in which a few people make the decisions for the entire group. At the condominium, all of the gardening and artwork is identical throughout the condominium, but in a neighborhood in which people do their own gardening, each home ends up with its own unique style.

If a certain percentage of the population is willing to participate in the design and maintenance of the land around their particular castle, then each castle will end up with slightly different types of vegetation, walkways, pools, and artwork. As you travel around the city, you will encounter different styles. The variety will make the city more interesting, and the people will get ideas from one another and inspire one another.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in other documents, the people who participate in society in some manner will enjoy their city more than the people who do nothing. If you help with the museums, the museums will mean more to you; if you help with the city festivals, the festivals will mean more to you; and if you help with the gardens, the gardens will mean more to you.

Don't be afraid of "peasant work"

In a city in which people are equal and there are no peasants, we need to make sacrifices to eliminate as much unskilled labor as possible, and we must share the unskilled labor that we cannot eliminate. Without peasants, it is up to each of us to contribute to the gardening, cleaning of office windows, cleaning of public bathrooms, and trash removal. If we let people choose the work that they want to do, there will be some chores that have too many volunteers, and other chores that have too few. How do we divide up these chores?

In a city in which the people are equal to one another, one solution to this problem is to reward the more productive members by giving them first priority in selecting chores. Certain jobs, instead of paying more money, would give the person a higher priority in selecting chores. Also, somebody who contributed something impressive to society, such as an improvement to the school system or a holiday celebration, would be rewarded with a higher priority level for a certain amount of time, such as a year.

The idea of living in a city in which everybody has to contribute some unskilled labor may frighten you, but it's not as bad as it appears. Earlier I pointed out that we would spend less time mowing grass in this type of city than we spend right now mowing our own individual plots of land. In case it did not occur to you, we will save more than just the time spent mowing the lawn; we will save all of the time involved with tasks that are related to mowing.

For example, the people who own their own plots of land have to spend time making decisions about which gardening equipment and supplies to purchase, and they have to spend time maintaining and replacing equipment and supplies. They also spend time traveling back and forth from their home to the stores, and some people spend time ordering items online.

Some people do not mow their own lawn. Rather, they pay somebody to mow their lawn. Those people have to spend time doing management tasks, such as finding somebody to mow the lawn, supervising them, and paying them. They also have to do some work in order to have enough money to pay somebody to mow their lawn.

So, whether a person mows his lawn, or whether he pay somebody to mow his lawn, he must put some time and effort into the task. Each person puts only a small amount of time into the activities involved with mowing lawns, but there are thousands of people with lawns in a typical city. Altogether, the people in a city are putting a lot of time and effort into the tasks related to mowing lawns.

If we were living in a City of Castles, a few government officials would make the decisions for us regarding equipment and supplies. None of us would have to be bothered analyzing products or traveling to retail stores. Of course, if a person had a lot of knowledge about certain equipment, such as the engineers who designed it, they would be encouraged to get involved with the government when they needed to make decisions about products, but most of the population would never be bothered.

So, imagine that you have just been assigned to help with a particular gardening chore. Your role would be similar to that of a child who is helping his father. Specifically, you would not have to make any decisions about equipment or supplies. Instead, you would get together with the other people who are working on that same chore, and all of you would be given access to all of the high-quality equipment that the government had chosen for gardening.

That equipment would be higher quality than any of you would purchase for your own private yard, so it would make the job easier and faster. You would be sharing high-quality equipment, not purchasing your own, low-quality equipment. When you are finished with your chore, you give the equipment back, and that is the end of your involvement. You don't have to worry about maintenance or repairs.

Both business leaders and products will improve

Since this type of city does not use free enterprise, the businesses would produce only "commercial products", not "consumer products". This will provide us with higher quality, more efficient, and safer products. It will also provide us with better quality business leaders.

In a free enterprise system, businesses have two primary markets: 1) the commercial market and 2) the consumer market. The businesses that produce consumer products are selling products to "talking monkeys". Those businesses can get away with selling worthless and low-quality products, and they can sell products simply by packaging them in attractive cardboard boxes and advertising them with Hollywood celebrities. The businesses that produce products for children, such as toys, candy, and Dr. Seuss books, have an even less demanding group of consumers, which allows even more abuse and exploitation.

In the City of Castles, there is no consumer market. The government officials decide which products will be put into production. Assuming that we can provide ourselves with competent and responsible government officials, this will make businesses compete to develop products that are truly useful for society. This will result in us getting better products. Also, none of the citizens will have to waste any of their time making purchasing decisions, dealing with deceptive advertisements, or dealing with salesmen.

Furthermore, this will provide us with better business leaders because the winners of the competition will be those who excel at improving society. By comparison, the free enterprise system gives us business leaders who excel at advertising campaigns, making the most profit from a product, manipulating government officials, and finding ways to abuse tax laws.

Look for ways to reduce peasant labor

The idea that you might have to share in the cleaning of public bathrooms might frighten you, but remember to control your emotions. Instead of running away from problems, look for solutions to them. We are not helpless sheep. We can take control of our lives. We can determine how easy, or how difficult, it will be to clean a public bathroom. Don't whine about peasant labor; rather, look for ways to make it easier, or to reduce it.

For example, if we design bathrooms that are completely waterproof, and with a drain at the lowest part of the floor, then we could clean them simply by turning on high-pressure water or steam, and blasting the filth down the drain. For another example, if we stop tolerating vandalism and sloppy people, then the bathrooms would become noticeably easier to clean.

Some parents expect their children to participate in the cleaning and maintenance of the house, but when children grow up, they don't want to participate in the cleaning and maintenance of their city. Instead of requiring people to participate in juries, and instead of encouraging them to vote, why not tell adults that it is their responsibility to help maintain their city? Children and teenagers could be told to participate in cleaning their school classrooms and recreational areas, and to help with some of the gardening.

I can understand why people do not want to contribute to the maintenance of the cities today. Our cities are an unpleasant collection of criminals, parasitic rich people, parasitic poor people, homeless people, unwanted children, retards, pedophiles, vandals, and irresponsible slobs. However, if we control immigration and evict misfits, the city becomes a big group of friends. Sharing in the maintenance would be considerably less irritating when you can do it with people you enjoy. Actually, you might find it more enjoyable to get together with other people and share in the maintenance of the city rather than maintain your yard and home all by yourself.

When most people are told to participate in some activity that they don't care for, such as cleaning up after themselves, they look for excuses to avoid the work, or they do it reluctantly with a bad attitude. A more appropriate reaction is to think about the issue and look for ways to make the job easier, faster, and more efficient.

When everybody in society is required to participate in the cleaning, maintenance, and recycling of products, then the business executives and engineers will have to participate also, and that will inspire them to design products that are easier to clean, maintain, and recycle.

The construction and maintenance of buildings requires a lot of labor, and when people are required to help with those tasks, a lot of people will suddenly develop an interest in looking for ways to improve our construction technology. For example, perhaps we could reduce labor by switching to buildings with a modular design in which sections of the building are built at a factory, and then lifted into position, as seen in the photo. This technique is already in use today, but usually only for low cost, bland buildings. Can we apply this technique to decorative buildings also?

Most people are oblivious to what the peasants are doing, and they have no desire to make a peasant's job easier. However, when everybody has to participate in chores, a lot of people will suddenly develop an interest in reducing unpleasant chores. The end result is that we all benefit.

For example, the business executives and engineers who are currently oblivious to what peasants are doing, will quickly develop an interest in discussing such issues as, How can we design factories, office buildings, and apartment buildings to reduce the cleaning and maintenance chores? Do we have the technology to develop a machine to clean windows for us? How can we design trains so that it is easier for us to clean the floors and windows? Do we really need a lot of windows in the trains that only run underground? How can we design our products to make it easier to repair and recycle them? How can we design a sewer system that requires less labor to maintain?

Furthermore, I think this philosophy of sharing in the chores will create a more natural environment for us because I don't think humans were designed to be pampered Kings or Queens; we were not designed to live among peasants or slaves.

An update on low temperature cooking

In a previous document I wrote about how robots can more easily participate in food production if we reduce the temperature at which we cook our meals, and I would like to update that information.

In 2013, I purchased the Dorkfood thermostat. This type of device makes it foolproof to cook meat at a low temperature. In fact, it has allowed me to reduce the temperature at which I cook. In my other file, I mentioned that I was cooking chicken at 160°F (71°C), and I was often letting pork reach that temperature, also.

The reason I was using such "high" temperatures was because my technique for cooking was to put a pot of water on the stove, and put the meat inside a glass container that sits in the water. I would heat the water up with a natural gas flame to about 160°F, and then turn off the flame. Whenever I would remember, I would go back into the kitchen to reheat that water. The end result was that the temperature of the water would rise and fall wildly and unpredictably. To ensure that the meat was not undercooked, I would let the temperature of the meat get up to about 160°F.

With the Dorkfood thermostat, I can set the temperature of the water to whatever I want, and then leave it alone for a couple of hours. I no longer have to worry about undercooking the meat. I use their recommended temperature of 142° (61°C) for pork, and 144°F (62°C) for chicken. The pork and chicken come out unbelievably juicy and delicious. I now cook pork at 57°C and chicken at 58°C.

Incidentally, in case you don't know much about the sterilization of food, the harmful bacteria can be killed at 140°F (60°C) if the temperature is held for a certain amount of time, such as an hour or two. The bacteria die within ten or so minutes if the temperature is 160°F (71°C), and they die even faster at higher temperatures. The higher the temperature, the faster the bacteria will die, but higher temperatures will ruin the taste of certain foods, such as fruits, dairy products, and meat. Businesses tend to use the highest temperature possible so that they can process the food as quickly as possible.

If we eliminate the free enterprise system and give human life first priority, then we can sterilize foods according to what gives us the best flavor and nutrition rather than what gives us the fastest processing speeds.

Getting back to the thermostat, this cooking method works for steaks, as well as ground meat. I used to prefer steaks, but ground meat cooked in this manner is just as delicious and juicy, and it doesn't have any bones, gristle, or chunks of fat. I now prefer the burgers over steaks.

However, I should point out that I do not buy ground meat. Rather, I buy pieces of meat that appear as fresh as possible, and then grind it myself, and then freeze the burgers. For reasons I don't understand, the ground meat that the supermarkets sell usually has a terrible flavor when cooked at a low temperature. Perhaps it is because they are made from the scraps of meat that have been exposed to the air for weeks.

I also recently bought a better grinder, the STX-3000, and this brings up another interesting issue. A lot of our food processing equipment has metal parts that rub or scrape against one another, and that causes tiny bits of iron, aluminum, zinc, stainless steel, and other metals to get into the food. What do those pieces of metal do to us? Has anybody studied this issue?

Up until a year or so ago, I was using a small coffee grinder to grind small amounts of soft grains and nuts, but one day I noticed a copper colored ring along the bottom of the bowl. Apparently, the bowl had a chrome plating. Or was it a nickel plating? Whatever it was, it was slowly getting into my food. Do coffee beans also have the ability to wear away a chrome coating? If so, then coffee drinkers may be consuming small amounts of chromium. Is that harmful? Or is it a beneficial mineral?

Getting back to the issue of my homemade burgers, even though they are probably contaminated with tiny bits of steel, they are delicious when eaten directly out of the bowl, but I prefer to pour the juice and burger onto a piece of freshly baked bread (the bread that I make by grinding wheat, kamut, and other grains, and which may be contaminated with tiny bits of aluminum). This makes an open-faced sandwich in which the bread soaks up the juice.

When making chicken burgers, I cut the large chunks of white meat into cubes and grind up the rest of the chicken, including the skin, heart, and liver. Then I combine the cubes with the ground meat and make burgers. If you don't include the skin in the ground chicken, you will lose a lot of the chicken flavor and juice. The skin seems to have most of the chicken flavor. The chicken burgers made in this manner are delicious, but cutting the meat off of a chicken is a nuisance.

The difficulty of getting meat off of the small chicken bones brings up another interesting issue. Specifically, would it be acceptable to put the small chicken bones, such as the ribs, into the meat grinder? Would eating tiny bits of bone hurt us? Would we get an overdose of calcium? Would we have a greater tendency to develop kidney stones? Would the bones cause trouble for our stomach or intestines?

Getting back to the issue of how we can reduce peasant labor by changing our cooking methods, the city is going to need a lot of people to kill and butcher animals. Not many people enjoy doing this. There are already some machines that can do some of the butchering of meat, such as this one, but humans must spend some time cutting up meat with a knife.

One of the reasons that butchers spend a lot of time cutting up meat is because they are trying to appease consumers who want a variety of different cuts of meat at different prices. Therefore, one way to reduce the labor involved with cutting up meat is to make a sacrifice in the number of cuts of meat available.

For example, there are some pieces of meat that are so awkward to deal with that the butchers tie them up with pieces of string, and sometimes the pieces of meat are put into tight nettings to hold them together. We don't need to waste our time on those pieces of meat.

It would be much more efficient for the butchers to create steaks and roasts out of the best portions of meat, and then toss all of the rest of the meat into a grinder to make sausages and burgers. The butchers would not waste their time trimming and cutting tri-tips, briskets, or flank steaks. They would not waste any time tying meat up with strings, either.

	What butchers do now				What they could do
			Most of the meat could be ground into burgers and sausages.

It's also important to note that when the butchers are putting most of the meat into a grinder, they don't need as much knowledge or experience as compared to conventional butchers. This makes the job of a butcher simple enough for "ordinary" people. This in turn means that more people can share the chore of butchering animals so that nobody has to spend much time at it.

This method of butchering animals would provide us with fewer steaks and roasts, and considerably more burgers and sausages. Some people might complain that they would rather have a steak than a burger, but when the burgers are made from freshly ground meat and cooked at a low temperature, they are delicious.

So, consider what it would be like to live in a city that is following this philosophy for meat. Since none of the homes have kitchens, the butchers would prepare and deliver meat only to restaurants. The butchers would remove only the best steaks from an animal, and then cut off all of the rest of the meat for burgers and sausages.

The butchers would make the sausages and burgers for the restaurants. They would make different sizes of burgers, and they would package each one in its own vacuum sealed bag or glass bowl. The meat that will be eaten that day could be delivered fresh, and the rest of it would be frozen rather than refrigerated.

The restaurants that use the low temperature cooking method would prepare a burger or steak by putting the appropriate-sized package into a water bath for an hour or two. The restaurants would not have to process the meat in any way. They would not have to defrost the meat, either. The excess fat would have been trimmed by the butcher, so the restaurants would not have to deal with the disposal of grease. The water bath would never get contaminated with food, so they would rarely have to replace the water.

Furthermore, this method of cooking meat does not generate fumes or smoke. The city could make thousands of meals without creating any air pollution, and the restaurants would be able to operate in areas where there is not much ventilation, or where the smoke would be irritating.

When the butchers prepare individual steaks and burgers for low temperature cooking, it becomes so easy to cook meat that everybody can participate in making meals. For example, mothers with children could easily share the work of providing meals for the children. The women would not have to cut up pieces of meat, make burgers, stand in front of hot griddles to cook the meat, or waste time scrubbing burnt oil off of a griddle.

To make a meal for the children, all they would do is put some packages of frozen meat into a water bath, and combine the cooked meat with other food items. Making meals in this manner is so simple that the women could do it on a temporary and part-time basis. They don't need to be highly skilled chefs.

The only disadvantage with the low temperature cooking method is that it requires more time to cook the meat. Therefore, a city that uses this technique requires the people be willing to make some type of sacrifice. For example, instead of merely making a reservation at a restaurant, a person would have to also select the meat that he wants to eat so that it can be put into the water bath an hour or two before he plans to arrive. Or, if the people are not finicky, they would have to be willing to accept whichever type of meat the restaurant decided to make for them on that particular day.

This method of cooking meat is so simple that robots could do it. The idea of a robot cooking packaged pieces of frozen meat in a water bath for a couple hours might seem unappealing, but don't let your fear of the unknown frighten you. This method of cooking provides meat that doesn't have any burned or undercooked areas, and you don't lose any of the juice. However, keep in mind that whenever you try something new, your mind will be in a somewhat frightened and cautious state, so you may have to try it many times over a period of weeks or months before your mind can relax enough to let you decide whether you truly enjoy it.

Don't be frightened of problems; look for solutions!

When an animal experiences a problem, it reacts by either running away, or by becoming angry. Control your emotions and react to problems by looking for ways to deal with them. Instead of being frightened at the thought of contributing to the maintenance of the city, look for methods of making the job easier and more pleasant.

A lot of the unskilled labor in today's cities is involved with the production, processing, delivery, sales, and cleanup of food. Instead of worrying about participating in that unskilled labor, look for ways to reduce it. For example, we waste a tremendous amount of food because a free enterprise system causes all of the food markets to stock excessive amounts of food so that consumers have lots to choose from. Schools waste food by giving meals to children who don't eat them. We can reduce the labor and resources involved with producing food if we can find the courage to experiment with our society.

We can also significantly reduce the need for unskilled labor involved with food if we can find the courage to experiment with providing ourselves with meals in a more efficient manner, such as by eliminating private kitchens and eating only at restaurants, and by making food and other items free so we don't have to deal with cashiers or money.

There are lots of ways for us to simplify the production of meals without causing any of us to suffer. I have been grinding meat into burgers and cooking them at a low temperature for many years, but I don't consider myself to be suffering. Actually, I consider myself to be eating higher-quality meals than most people. Also, I don't have to clean up burnt oil, or deal with the disposal of grease, and I never have smoke in my house. To further reduce the problem of cleaning up, before I put a frozen burger into a glass bowl, I give the bowl a light coating of oil. This makes cleaning the bowl even easier.

It is also important to note that if we experiment with the freezing of cooked foods, we might find a way to cook more foods at a factory, and then freeze that cooked food. There are some companies cooking sausages and chicken wings, and then freezing them, and they are delicious. If this technique can be perfected for other types of meals, then we can further reduce the time spent preparing meals.

You may not be attracted to the idea of a robot that warms up a precooked, individual serving of steak or lasagna for you, but as we learn more about food preparation and freezing techniques, there will certainly be a point in the future at which the frozen meals are indistinguishable from freshly prepared meals.

So, don't be afraid of doing peasant work. If you could experience life in a more homogenous city in which everybody is equal, there are no unwanted children or criminals, and in which everybody is contributing to making the city a wonderful place to live, I don't think you would want to go back to what you have right now.

And if you could experience life in a beautiful city, you might discover that you enjoy getting out of your house on a regular basis to walk around, swim in the beautiful pools, ride a bicycle, join some of the recreational activities, and participate in social affairs.