As I described in the previous file of this series, I suggest that our cities be designed for people rather than for businesses. We should design our city to be so pleasant, and so full of social, recreational, and leisure activities, that we prefer to spend our leisure time in the city and doing things rather than sitting at home.

I think the only way that we can entice people to leave their homes and get together with other people is to change our attitudes towards life and consider food and social activities to be a necessary expense for society. We should consider a city to be a very large family. With this philosophy, the buildings and parks of a city are analogous to the rooms and yards of our homes. Parents provide their children with sports equipment, meals, birthday parties, computers, clothing, musical instruments, and other supplies and activities, and for free. They don't charge their children for birthday parties or dinner. The children don't have to pay a fee and pass through a turnstile in order to get into their backyard. Why should we have to pay to use our city or engage in social activities?

If we apply this philosophy to a city, then the city would be free to us to use, just as if it were our home. The government would be like parents who provide us with a wide variety of activities for courtship, exercise, recreation, socializing, and entertainment. There would also be a wide variety of restaurants, all of which provide free food. In that type of city, people would be much more likely to leave their home and go out into the city to be with other people.

In America today, so many parents spend virtually all of their leisure time at home with their children that it is considered normal for parents to spend their leisure time with children. However, I don't think this is normal or healthy for either the adults or the children. I think that if we were to design a city that was beautiful, free of crime and pedophilia, and full of activities and restaurants, then the adult men would discover that they prefer to spend most of their leisure time with other adult men; adult women would prefer to spend their time with other adult women; the teenagers would prefer to spend most of their time with other teenagers; and the mothers with young children would prefer to get together with other women and children.

Let your imagination run loose on potential social activities

We need to design a city that is so desirable, and has such a wide variety of social activities, that we prefer to get out of our home and get together with other people. I think that the only way to accomplish this is to eliminate the free enterprise system and think of society as a family, and the government as parents. Society needs to support activities, and we have to design our city for us to live in rather than for businesses to sell products.

In previous files I've discussed some of the changes that I would like to see with sports, hobbies, and restaurants, so in this article I'm going to try to stimulate your thoughts on the social activities that we refer to as tourism, adventure tours, and exploration. I especially want you to consider the possibility that we could be tourists in our own city; that we could be providing ourselves with a wide variety of adventure and exploration trips in our local area.
 

The Explorers Club has its own building.

There are a lot of organizations offering a variety of adventure and exploration activities for children, such as the Boy Scouts, and there are organizations for adults, such as The Explorers Club. However, private organizations cannot do a good job of providing us with any type of social activities. One problem is that they must cover all of their expenses by themselves, and this causes them to impose membership fees, beg for donations, and sell products. They are primarily businesses, not social activities.

This concept might be more obvious when you consider the effect that businesses have on weddings. As I pointed out in the previous file of this series, businesses are causing young girls to develop unrealistic expectations of a wedding, and they are distorting weddings from a casual social affair into an expensive and stressful financial transaction. The businesses are not trying to help the bride or the groom. Rather, they are trying to make money from all of the participants of the wedding. The businesses are analogous to fleas that are sucking blood from all of us. 

We are fools to expect businesses to provide us with "social" activities. Businesses are profit-making ventures, so the only way we are going to provide ourselves with social activities is if we let the government provide them, and with no concern for profit.

America has thousands of businesses providing recreational facilities, dating services, travel tours, weddings, and other types of activities, but most Americans prefer to spend most of their leisure time inside their house with their dogs, children, video games, and television. You might respond that a significant percentage of Americans are paying for exercise facilities, but a lot of those people are doing so out of loneliness and boredom, not because the businesses are offering a truly desirable service.

There are two main reasons as to why most people in the world are spending most of their leisure time in their homes. One is that societies everywhere, especially America, are no longer homogenous. Americans do not like or trust one another very much. Many American parents are afraid to let their children wander around, especially at night.

The other problem is that free enterprise cannot create cities or social activities that are truly desirable. Our cities are haphazard jumbles of roads, buildings, and telephone wires, and the social activities are primarily profit-making ventures.

No society yet has created a city or social activities that are so desirable that people prefer to spend their leisure time in the city with other people. There are some very crowded areas of the world where people spend a lot of their time outside of their home, but that is not because their city and social activities are desirable. Rather, it is because their homes are so miserable.

We have to design cities specifically from the point of view of human life. We must also make the city and the social activities free for all of us to use. We must create a wide variety of social activities, and none of us should have to make commitments to them or purchase memberships.

When we design a city with this philosophy, then the city becomes an extension of our own home. We would be able to go into the social centers, museums, and theaters without paying fees or passing through turnstiles, and we would have access to water and food for free. The parks would be free, and so would the lakes. None of us would be irritated by telemarketing calls, salesmen that wander through our neighborhoods, or organizations that beg us for money or pressure us into purchasing products.

I find it especially irritating when organizations use children to beg for money, such as when the Girl Scouts pressure us into buying cookies. The cost of providing young girls with activities is trivial; why can't society cover those insignificant expenses? Why should young girls be sent through the neighborhoods to beg for money? Who benefits from this? How does this teach the girls something of value? The girls are wasting their time, and they are irritating the rest of us. Furthermore, most Americans are fat, so they should not be eating more cookies.

It would be much more pleasant for all of us if society covered the cost of social activities. We should consider our city to be a very large family, and our government as parents. Parents provide their children with activities, and the parents do not expect the children to pay membership fees or agree to long-term commitments. Furthermore, parents don't pressure their children to purchase cookies or donate money.

Will we treat everybody fairly when we provide free activities?

People often argue about "fairness". For example, who among us should pay the cost of building and maintaining the public roads, subways, and trains? Should only the people with automobiles have to pay for the public roads, such as with tolls or fees on gasoline? Should only the people who use subways or trains pay for those transportation systems, such as by purchasing tickets? Or should all transportation systems be free for everybody and paid for by tax money?

If we make our transportation systems free, then nobody has to purchase tickets to use trains or subways, and nobody has to pay tolls to use bridges or roads. Some people will argue that it is not fair to make all transportation systems free because some people are using more of these resources than others. However, what difference does it make if somebody is getting more use from the transportation system?

A better way to look at these type of issues is from the point of view of society, not the individual citizen. If we look at life from the point of view of an individual citizen, we will waste our lives trying to figure out how to make life fair for each person. It is more sensible to look at life from the point of view of society. People should be treated as a group; as a big family; as a team; not as individuals. We should ask ourselves, "What is best for society?"

One particular person will use automobiles more than average, and another person will use trains more than average, and another person will use batteries more than average, and another person will eat more food than average, and another person will use more electricity than average. Each of us will consume different amounts of resources, but is the difference between us worth worrying about?

When we monitor everybody's use of resources and charge them for what they use, we impose a significant burden on society. The process of monitoring and billing requires a lot of labor and resources. We also have to design, build, and maintain lots of equipment, such as turnstiles. By comparison, when we provide the basic necessities for free, we eliminate that burden, and we simplify our lives.

Each human lives a very similar life. Each of us needs a similar amount of food each day, and we sleep a similar amount of time each night, and we use the transportation system directly and indirectly for a very similar amount. From the point of view of society, it is better to provide all of the basic necessities for free. 

Some people will respond that irresponsible and stupid people will waste resources, and that the unemployed misfits will waste society's resources since they don't work. However, the solution to that problem is to stop feeling sorry for misfits who cannot function properly in modern society. The solution to irresponsible, destructive, and stupid people is to remove them from society. We are fools to let the misfits ruin our lives.

If society provides free social activities for all of us, some people will go to more activities than others, and they could be described as using more resources, but what difference does that make? One person may use more of one resource, and another person uses more of another resource. We need to be concerned about people who waste or destroy resources, but in a homogenous society of responsible people, everybody will live a very similar life, and so the differences between us will not be significant enough to justify the burden of trying to charge everybody for their use of resources.

Imagine virtually everything for free

You might find it interesting to consider what life would be like in a city in which all of the transportation devices and almost every other material item is available free of charge to all adults. The only restricted items would be those that are in short supply, such as abalone, gold, and helium. If you wanted to use an automobile, truck, or snowmobile, you would simply borrow the transportation device. If you wanted to travel to another city, you would simply make arrangements on an airline or train, or you would borrow an automobile and drive. If you wanted to try playing a violin, you would borrow one. If you want to go scuba diving, just borrow the equipment.

This type of city might seem unrealistic, but this philosophy is already being applied in many families. Some parents provide their children with transportation devices for free, and when the family decides to go on a vacation, they provide their children with airline tickets. The children don't have to pay for any of the transportation. Some parents also provide their children with musical instruments, computers, clothing, or cell phones.

This concept can be applied to an entire city, but it requires adults who are much more responsible than what we see in the world today. As I have pointed out many times, the higher the quality of the people in an organization, the more options they have available to them. In a city in which all of the adults are responsible and honest, all of the adults will spend most of their time contributing something of value to society. Each person would spend his leisure time in a slightly different manner, and some would use more resources than others, but the differences between responsible people are insignificant.

It would be safe to let responsible people have free access to musical equipment, trains, telescopes, binoculars, scuba equipment, bicycles, snowmobiles, and rowboats. Some children in a family use more resources than other children, but the parents don't worry about it, and neither do the children. Likewise, society doesn't have to be concerned, either. We only have to be concerned about waste, vandalism, and other destructive behavior.

Social activities require buildings and supplies

Our cities should be designed with lots of buildings that are specifically designed for social activities. Cities are currently designed mainly for shopping, and there are also lots of churches, but we don't need shopping malls or churches. We need buildings for recreation, socializing, hobbies, and courtship. Some of the buildings could have multiple uses, such as schools during the daytime, and social centers during the evenings and weekends. Other buildings could be for social activities on a full-time basis.

In the world today, some organizations have so little money that they meet at people's homes or at churches, but in the city that I propose, the homes would be small, and there wouldn't be any churches. Therefore, society would have to provide special buildings for social activities.

We also need lots of recreational and exercise activities, so we need lots of parks, bicycle paths, swimming areas, and playgrounds for children. In some climates, it would be best to enclose some of the parks so that we have year-round access to the facilities, similar to that in the drawing. These enclosures could be so large that we can enclose bicycle paths, lakes, and gardens.

Just as parents have to pass judgment on which activities are practical for their family, the city officials would have to pass judgment on which social activities are acceptable. For an extreme example, if a group of people asked for a social club to build rockets that took people into orbit, the city would tell them that the cost of the equipment and supplies is too much.

Of course, the government could not judge an activity simply according to its use of resources. We also have to look at the overall effect an activity has on society. When society supports an activity, it encourages more of it. Some activities are inexpensive, and they may be tolerable on a small scale, but society would not want to encourage them. For example, imagine a city providing support to the "Burnout Parties". Imagine the air pollution and noise if people around the city were doing that on a regular basis.

Can we afford to provide ourselves with free activities?

Is it practical for a city to provide itself with lots of social activities and all of the buildings, equipment, and supplies that they need? Do we really have the resources to enclose a large park to provide ourselves with year-round recreation?

Yes! It is very easy for us to produce material items and buildings. Virtually every city in the world has already provided itself with lots of churches, but no city has considered themselves to be making a sacrifice to build all of those churches. We also put a lot of resources into Hollywood movies, gambling casinos, mansions for billionaires, theme parks, and cosmetics. If we can provide Bill Gates with a home that looks like a small village, and fill it furniture and expensive electronic equipment, then we can build ourselves some nice recreational centers, and we can fill them with advanced equipment.

All we have to do is change our attitudes towards life so that we can reduce the resources that we waste on pampering billionaires, titillating lunatics, and entertaining sheeple, and increase the resources that we put into providing social activities for the more advanced humans.

Activities should be free of commitments

There are only a few activities that each of us wants to do on a regular basis as a "hobby", but there are thousands of activities that we enjoy once or twice. For example, you might enjoy spending one afternoon visiting a factory to see how cotton is transformed into thread. However, that one afternoon may satisfy your curiosity. The next weekend you may want to spend on some other activity.

In the world today, there are a lot of people putting a significant amount of their leisure time into one or two hobbies, but I suspect that some of these people are becoming excessively involved with their hobbies because of the lack of alternatives. I suspect that if we lived in a city that offered us a wide variety of activities, many people would discover that they would like to reduce the time they spend on their current hobbies, and occasionally try some of the other activities.

We need to provide ourselves with a wide variety of activities, and we should be able to engage in any of the activities without any commitments. The leaders of the activities should not expect any of us to come back a second time. Rather, everybody involved with the activities should have the attitude that only a small number of people are going to be interested in doing it on a regular basis. Most of us are only going to want to experience it once or twice.

In a free enterprise system, the businesses that offer activities want to attract a steady flow of money, and they prefer having members who make commitments, but when society creates the activities, the only concern is that people are enjoying their lives.

For a personal example with me, as I wrote here about a year ago, I was inspired by Katy Perry's California Gurls and decided to try singing, and it turned out to be much more difficult than I had imagined. In that document I wrote that I would try singing again, but I still haven't been able to do it. It's not because I'm embarrassed. Rather, I simply have so little interest in singing that virtually every other activity, including cleaning my bathroom, is more appealing to me. I need some type of inspiration, such as an activity in which other people are encouraging me. However, I would never want to do it if I had to make a commitment or pay membership fees. Likewise, there are certainly a lot of activities you would enjoy experiencing once or twice, but not if you had to pay a fee or make a commitment.

The leaders of social activities need a different attitude than the businessmen of a free enterprise system. They need to be like parents who are helping their children experience life.

For another personal example, I have no memory of playing a string instrument, such as a violin, but I've always wondered what it is like to do so. I can pay for violin lessons, and I can buy a violin, but I have no desire to do that. All I want to do is experiment, and possibly only for an hour. The only way I will try a violin is if I have free access to one. It would also be nice if somebody were to show me how to play, but I'm not going to pay for a tutor.

In a free enterprise system, no business can make a profit from people like me who simply want to experiment with violins. And no music teacher can make a living with people like me who are only curious and have no desire to make a commitment. However, in the society I'm proposing, somebody with some musical ability might enjoy spending an afternoon once in a while helping people like me discover what a musical instrument is.

This concept applies to everybody, not just me. There are lots of activities that you would be willing to try, but you would never make any commitment to the activity, or want to pay for it. Why not design a society that allows us to experience life? We live only once, and for only a few decades. Why should we live for money?

We should design a wide variety of activities, and we should not try to make profit from them. We should help people to discover their talents, abilities, and desires. Let people try kayaking, scuba diving, hiking, and singing. Let them experiment with cooking, telescopes, microscopes, and CNC lasers. Let them experiment with plasma torches, high-speed photography, and hydroponic farming.

It is very easy for us to create activities for one another. All we have to do is change our attitudes. For example, if you have some particular knowledge of a particular subject, such as scuba diving, snakes, or pottery, you could offer to be the leader of an activity one afternoon every so often to show people that particular subject. However, you would have to do so from the point of view that it is primarily to satisfy our curiosity rather than to make money or to train people in that field.

I have never had an interest in playing music or singing. I want to try singing again to see if I can do a better job, but I need something to put me in the mood. I have a difficult time finding the motivation to sing. Likewise, you might like to try a kayak or a plasma torch, but you may not want to do so on your own, and you may not want to pay a business to help you experience it. You may be willing to do so only if you can join an afternoon or evening activity where somebody with knowledge of the issue can help you experience it.

When I was in second or third grade, I can't remember exactly, the teacher encouraged all of us to try a musical instrument. The school provided the instruments for us, although some of us had to provide our own supplies. I chose the drums because the school had drums for us, and all my mother needed to purchase were two drumsticks. However, I have absolutely no memory of playing the drums. I can only remember looking at the drumsticks and being fascinated by the curvature at the tip. I wondered how the factories carved pieces of wood into such beautiful and smooth curves. I can remember carrying the drumsticks around and admiring them, but I don't have any memory of playing the drums.

A broken "string" from a musical instrument?

I must have played the drums at least once, but the act of playing the drums apparently had so little significance to me that my mind never bother to remember those events. I was much more fascinated by the manufacturing of the drumsticks. 

Likewise, when I look at a violin, I am more fascinated by how they cut, glue, and stain the pieces of wood, and when I look at the strings on violins or guitars, I am more fascinated that some of them are pieces of metal wire that are tightly coiled around a core. The photo to the right shows what I assume is a broken string from a musical instrument. I found it a few years ago. It's only a few inches long. The core is steel, and it is wrapped with two copper wires that have a coating of something such as chrome. I suppose the two copper wires became wider and flatter as a result of it stretching prior to breaking. (In case you haven't guessed, I have saved hundreds of little objects during my life that attracted my attention, such as tungsten filaments from lightbulbs and a dead bumblebee. Fortunately, I save only tiny things, so they don't take up much space, and occasionally I discard a few of them.)

I would prefer to build a musical instrument rather than play the instrument. I would rather analyze the strings on a guitar with a magnifying glass than to play the guitar. And after trying to sing, I would never want to be a singer. I would rather clean public bathrooms for a living than sing.

The best way to design a society is to provide a lot of activities so that we can try lots of them. We can't be expected to sign membership fees or agree to long-term commitments. We need to design cities from the point of view of human life, not business activity. A lot of us have knowledge on a particular issue that somebody else is curious about and would like to experience, so if all of us would be willing to contribute what we know, we could help one another enjoy life.

Enjoy the diversity of people

The Christian view of humans is that we are all virtually the same, including the criminals, and that all of us should follow the same religion, go to church every Sunday, listen to the same sermons, and live the exact same life at home. The Christian view is that the people who deviate from the accepted behavior are evil or misguided, and they should be corrected through Bible lessons or punishments. Some Christians believe they can convert homosexuals.

A more realistic view of humans is that each of us is a chaotic jumble of genetic traits, and each of us is unique. The humans that survived the competitive struggle for life were those that produced genetic variety in their children. Some of the children were stronger than others, and some were more aggressive, and some were more artistic, and some were better able to concentrate on monotonous tasks. By producing variety, different people ended up in different roles. We should learn to enjoy the differences among us, and we should be grateful that there are people who can do things that we cannot.

People who are very unusual should learn to accept this rather than complain that society ignores them. The feminine men and the masculine women, for example, should face the fact that society is not designed for them. Instead of complaining, they should find a way to use their unusual qualities. For example, some masculine women might be better than "normal" women in leadership positions, or they may be able to work in jobs that are dominated by men. Everybody should analyze themselves to find their strengths and weaknesses, and look for a way to contribute to society.

We have to design society for the fact that people are similar but slightly different. Schools should help children to understand their qualities, and we need to allow people to find jobs and social activities that they enjoy. We also need to make it easy for us to meet lots of people so that we can find compatible friends and a spouse. And we have to face the fact that people who cannot fit into society need to be removed. We cannot fix them.

Most people associate tourism, adventure trips, exploration, holidays, and vacations with traveling long distances and spending lots of money. We assume that in order to enjoy a vacation, we have to travel outside of our city, and we assume that the farther we travel, the more fun the vacation will be. 

Humans have a particular quality that we could refer to as "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence". Humans are never satisfied with what we have. We want more. Our emotions fool us into believing that we cannot have a vacation within our own city. Our emotions cause us to believe that we will find more excitement if we travel farther distances to where the grass is much greener.

If you are not in good control of your emotions, you could easily be fooled into thinking that if you could travel to the moon, Mars, or another galaxy, you will find even more happiness than any location here on the Earth. Have you noticed how many people fantasize about traveling to outer space? I did when I was younger. How will traveling to the moon be more exciting than traveling to an "ordinary" creek or park in your own city? Traveling to the moon or Mars would be physically brutal, and there is not much to see or do at either of those locations. Outer space is for scientific exploration, not recreation.

Traveling to the moon would be exciting to us only because it would allow us to imagine that we are special. However, it would be much more dangerous and miserable than a trip to the Antarctica during the winter, and there would be much less to see and do.

I doubt that a person who is horrified at the thought of an adventure trip in Antarctica would enjoy a trip to Mars or the moon. Actually, it's possible that an extended camping trip in Antarctica during the winter would be good practice for people who want to go to the moon because it might help them determine if they can deal with bulky spacesuits and extremely dangerous conditions.

It might also be helpful for people who want to be astronauts to put on a protective suit and go to a damaged nuclear reactor to help clean up the mess. What is the difference between being bombarded by radiation from the Fukushima or Chernobyl reactor, and being bombarded by radiation on the moon? The difference is that people on the Moon are also bombarded by meteorites, and they are exposed to extreme heat and cold, thereby making the Moon much more dangerous. Therefore, if you are frightened at the thought of cleaning up the Fukushima reactor, you should not consider going to outer space.

Our crude emotions are fooling people into believing that a trip to the Moon or Mars would be fun. Of course, NASA encourages this foolish fantasy by promoting the Apollo Moon landing scam and hiding the unpleasant details of life in the space station.

Our emotions developed to help us survive the competitive battle for life that existed thousands of years ago. Our emotions did not develop for our benefit, or for this modern world. For example, our tendency to be unsatisfied with what we have encouraged our primitive ancestors to travel to new lands, meet new people, develop new tools, and try new methods of making clothing. This was valuable to them, but when modern humans follow our emotions rather than think about the issues, we will never be satisfied with what we have, and we will waste our lives seeking more money, jewelry, sex, children, fame, or whatever.

Another reason that humans developed this emotion of never being satisfied with what we have is to push our primitive ancestors into looking beyond their immediate family for a spouse. There is nothing "wrong" with siblings reproducing with each other. Most people consider the concept to be "disgusting", and there is a widespread belief that siblings will produce genetically defective children, but animals and plants often reproduce with their siblings, and some creatures are capable of reproducing with themselves.

Brothers and sisters are not necessarily going to create genetically defective children. If we could go back in time and observe our primitive ancestors, I would bet that we would find that many of the tribes were small, especially during times of trouble, and that siblings occasionally reproduced with each other. I also bet that we would discover that parents and their own children were sometimes reproducing with each other.

If we were to study the children of incestuous relationships in America during the past few centuries, we might find that most of them are severely defective, but that doesn't prove that incest is producing defective children. We have to look at the parents to see if the children are simply inheriting the qualities of their parents. Most of the Americans who have engaged in incestuous relationships have been the stupid or mentally ill, so we should not be surprised that their children are defective.

It is our emotions that cause us to be disgusted with the thought of reproducing with our siblings. There is nothing "wrong" with it; rather, we simply do not want to do it. The humans that survived the competitive battle for life were those that looked elsewhere for a spouse, thereby creating a greater variety of children with more genetic diversity, which in turn allowed them to evolve at a faster pace. The greater diversity also caused the people to have different skills and talents.

It might help you to understand this concept if you consider how it applies to other customs, such as chewing food with your mouth closed. There's nothing "wrong" with chewing with your mouth open. Animals do it all the time without suffering. However, humans do not want to watch other people do it. We have to understand our emotions so that we realize why we do what we do. There is nothing wrong with nudity, incest, or picking your nose in front of other people, but we have certain emotions that cause us to want to do - or not do - certain things.

Should we try to define and prohibit incest?

If a brother and sister were adopted by different families, and each of them grew up without knowing of the other, they could theoretically encounter each other as adults, not realize that they were siblings, and decide to get married. In our society today, they would be prohibited from getting married, but why should any of us care if a brother and sister, or if two cousins, decide to get married and have children?

Where should we draw the line on what is or is not "incest"? Is incest only with brothers and sisters, or does it include cousins? All of us are related to one another, so preventing incest requires that we come to some agreement on what exactly incest is. However, unless somebody can come up with some scientific justification to prohibit incestuous relationships, we are fools to waste our time worrying about this.

Siblings will not necessarily produce defective children. Rather, their children will be a random mixture of their parent's chromosomes. There is nothing wrong or disgusting with this. The only way we could claim that this behavior is unacceptable is if a particular family were to reproduce with themselves continuously forever. In such a case, they would evolve at a slower pace and eventually become genetically different from the rest of society. However, since incestuous relationships would be extremely rare, why should society worry about it?

We have to differentiate between desirable relationships and abuse. For example, adults who have sex with children are taking advantage of the children. The children are too young to understand what is going on, and they are too submissive to resist adults. Likewise, it would be foolish for us to let children get married and reproduce because they are too young to make wise decisions about such issues. However, when two adult siblings meet lots of people and choose to get married to one another, then why should we stop them?

Our disgust of incest is coming from our emotions, not our intellect, and our emotions are doing this simply to push us into creating genetic diversity. There is nothing "wrong" with siblings reproducing with each other. We need to stop abusive relationships, but we don't need to stop the rare situation of siblings or cousins falling in love with each other.

This particular issue will become more of a concern in the future when society start to restrict reproduction, and when the people who are allowed to have babies are giving some up for adoption. Brothers, sisters, and cousins will be raised by different people around the city, and this prevents the siblings from developing inhibitions to form romantic relationships with one another. In order to prevent incest in those future societies, everybody would have to be aware of who they are closely related to, and they would have to try avoiding relationships with them. However, unless there is a biological reason to prevent such relationships, life would be simpler and more pleasant if we didn't have such restrictions.

Our emotions can lead us to idiotic conclusions

We need to understand and control our emotions, not follow them like a stupid animal. Incest seems disgusting to us only because our emotions do not want us do it. When we follow our emotions rather than our intellect, we come to the irrational conclusion that such relationships are "disgusting". It might help you to understand this concept if you consider food. Americans consider it disgusting to eat horses, dogs, and certain other animals, but what is wrong with eating those animals?

When Americans follow their crude emotions rather than their intellect, they become emotionally enraged at people who eat dog or cat meat, and they want to make it illegal for people to do so. Who in America benefits by prohibiting it?

When we follow our emotions, we create idiotic laws that serve no useful purpose; we hate people for no reason; and we waste our time and resources arresting people for activities that should not even be considered crimes.

We have to realize that our emotions were designed for a vital purpose in prehistoric times, but many of these emotions are inappropriate for this modern world. We have to learn to control our emotions and think more often.

Only a few people are truly adventurous

Americans consider it "disgusting" to eat dogs and horses only because we were not raised on that type of food. This characteristic of animals to mindlessly follow the path that they picked up during their childhood developed for a very sensible and important reason. For example, some foods are poisonous. The groups of humans that survived the battle for life were those in which the majority of people were afraid to try new things. They ate the foods that their parents ate, and they lived the same type of life. Only a small minority of the population is truly adventurous.

This type of human society - ie, in which only a small percentage is adventurous - is the best from the point of view of evolution because that small group of adventurous people will take the risks, while the majority will remain where it is safe. If one of the adventurous people fails, then only he suffers, but if he succeeds, the entire group benefits. As a result, every human society has this particular characteristic in which the majority of people are like sheep that follow one another mindlessly, and only a small percentage of the population is willing to wander off the path and face the unknown. Most people are afraid of risks.

The USA has lots of people who can face the unknown.

Since America was created by people who had to leave their home and face the unknown, America seems to have a larger percentage of people who are willing to wander off the path and take enormous risks with their life.

Do you really want to travel to other areas?

One reason that I wanted to emphasize this concept of adventure trips in your own city is because most people are not adventurous, and they do not really want to travel to unusual areas. They want to remain where it is familiar and comfortable. For example, a lot of people want to go to the moon, but they don't want to suffer in the process. They want the benefits of the moon, but not that disadvantages. They want the fun, not the problems. They would go to the moon only if there was a luxury hotel waiting for them, and if they could spend most of the time sitting at the swimming pool.

We can see this same situation when people travel to destinations here on the Earth. Some people, for example, want to visit India, but they are horrified by the filth, strange foods, overcrowded conditions, high temperatures, and insects, so they prefer to stay in climate-controlled luxury hotels; eat only the foods that they are familiar with; and visit only a few areas of the nation. They are not really "visiting" India. They are more like visitors to a zoo who are observing the animals.

Society is wasting its resources on people who visit foreign nations like pampered Kings and Queens. Every nation encourages this idiotic type of traveling because every city government and lots of businesses want money from tourists. The businesses and the government officials don't care whether the tourists "visit" the nation, or whether they just lounge around the swimming pool or gambling casino. They are not concerned with whether anybody benefits from this activity. They are only looking for money.

This can create some incredible contrasts, such as cities that build luxury hotels for pampered tourists next to a filthy, disgusting slum. For example, the photo shows a view from a luxury hotel in Mumbai, India, which overlooks some miserable slums, and behind them, a distribution center for  airline meals for wealthy people.

India should stop promoting tourism and start improving their nation. From the point of view of society, it is idiotic and wasteful to encourage this type of tourism. The Indian cities have to provide the pampered tourists with special hotels, food, and other conditions that resemble what they have back home, but the residents of the city do not gain anything by pampering these type of tourists, and the tourists don't gain anything, either.

We can also see this problem when some people visit the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Greenland, or the Galapagos Islands. Some people want to visit these areas, but they don't want to walk very far, deal with heat, cold, or wind, or be uncomfortable in any manner. Some of the most extreme cases are tourists who get bored quickly and want to do something to titillate themselves, such as putting soap in the geysers, or giving bubble gum to a wild animal. A lot of people travel to see Stonehenge, but when they get there, all they do is look for a few seconds, and then they get bored. Then they run off to the restaurants, bars, casinos, or whatever tourist attractions the area offers them. Why did they bother going? They could have looked at photographs.

We are wasting our time and resources when we support tourism for people who want to be pampered Kings and Queens, or who are simply bored. Tourism should be only for people who truly want to visit the foreign areas. Some of those people could do us all a favor and produce documentaries of the area they visit. We could then watch those videos in the comfort of our home, or at a social center with our friends. This would give us a much better understanding of what is over there, and without any discomfort.

Businesses and governments are exploiting our emotions by encouraging tourism, but we should change society to stop this abuse. We should focus on our own city and the people we live with. We should learn to enjoy adventure trips in our local area. We should learn to enjoy what we have, and not be fooled into thinking that some other city has a better life. Traveling should be for the small minority of people who are truly adventurous, not for majority of people who are bored or who want to feel special.

Who benefits from tourism?

City governments everywhere, and thousands of businesses, are promoting tourism, but who benefits from tourism? Tourism supposedly creates jobs, but they are not jobs that any of us want. Do you want to spend your life cleaning hotel rooms for tourists, or manufacturing silly gifts for them?

Businesses profit from tourism, but society doesn't benefit from it. The reason that tourism seems beneficial in the world today is that a large percentage of the population is incapable of doing the type of jobs that need to be done, and one of the few jobs that they are capable of doing is cleaning hotel rooms, selling gifts, and entertaining tourists. However, if we were to create a city that consisted of people who have useful skills, that city would waste its labor and resources if it were to force some of those skilled people to spend their time pampering and entertaining tourists.

The same concept applies to businesses that produce technically advanced products for primitive nations. Germany, for example, is producing submarines for Israel. Some German companies benefit financially from this, but how does Germany - or the world! - benefit by giving military weapons to that nation of violent, dishonest freaks? Even if Israel was a nation of respectable people, Germany wouldn't benefit by providing them with submarines. Germany should be working on projects for their own nation.

It makes sense to conduct trade with societies that we are equal to and which we benefit from, but it doesn't make sense to help parasitic, violent, or dishonest nations. Likewise, it doesn't help the world to provide primitive nations with modern technology. Those primitive nations need to become more advanced and more equal to the rest of us. Otherwise we create a situation of dependency in which they are analogous to animals in a zoo, and we have to continually feel sorry for them and provide them with technology. Every nation has to take care of itself. Trading should be beneficial, not parasitic or abusive.

We can already see that our policy of helping primitive nations is causing trouble. For example, every time they have financial troubles, they whine that the wealthy nations should help for the poor nations. We are supposed to help them when they have financial troubles, earthquakes, and starvation. However, they have no interest in helping us. Why should we help them? It's not our fault that we are wealthy and they are poor. It is their fault. Their governments are incompetent, dishonest, and selfish, and many of their citizens are ignorant, retarded, dishonest, and stupid. They have to learn to take care of themselves. If they cannot advance like the rest of us, that is their problem. Feeling sorry for them will not help them, or us. We have been helping them for decades, but they are still just as helpless.

Some people justify business activity with primitive nations on the grounds that we need their raw materials, but it would make more sense to find ways to reduce our need for their raw materials. We should make sacrifices to reduce our dependency on the primitive, violent, and undesirable nations.

The free enterprise system benefits from sales, but there is no regard for what effect those sales have on society or the world. We need to advance beyond the free enterprise system so that we can take control of our economy and make decisions that are more sensible. 

Tourists should be responsible visitors, not pampered royalty

We should think of a city as a very large family. Tourists should be analogous to visitors to our home. Tourists should be responsible people that we enjoy being with. You would not want a visitor to your home to be sloppy, destructive, irresponsible, or dishonest, and you would not want visitors who behave like Kings and Queens and who expect you to pamper and entertain them. No city should have to tolerate those type of visitors, either.

Tourism should be restricted to the responsible people who take care of themselves. Imagine every city setting aside some hotel rooms for tourists, but the only people permitted to be tourists are those who clean their rooms and take care of themselves in every other respect. These type of tourists would not be a burden on society. They would be "visitors" who blend in with the rest of us. Furthermore, imagine that the tourists are so responsible that prior to traveling, they learn a bit about the culture of the city that they are traveling to so that they would know how to fit in.

If a tourist turns out to be irresponsible, or undesirable in some other manner, then a city should have the option to prohibit him from being a tourist to their city. Every city should be allowed to prohibit people they don't like. Furthermore, a city should not have to give reasons as to why they do not want a tourist, and we should not allow tourists to try to intimidate us by demanding a trial in which we prove that they are undesirable. Those type of court cases are a waste of time. Cities should be able to prohibit a tourist simply because they don't like his personality.

The people in poor nations are so desperate for money that they allow tourists to get away with a lot of abusive behavior, but tourism should be beneficial to both the city and the tourists. It should not be a one-sided affair in which the tourists are pampered royalty or spoiled brats, and who behave in any abusive manner they please.

Our cities provide endless exploration opportunities

In this article I want to point out that every city, no matter where it is, can provide a lot of excursions within their own city. Most people are already aware of this concept to a certain extent. For example, parents are regularly taking their children on afternoon trips to parks or lakes within their city. However, I want to point out to you that by changing society so that our government is supporting social activities, we can provide ourselves with a much greater variety of adventure trips within our own city. Since these trips are within our own city, they are very easy for us to participate in for an afternoon or evening, and they are affordable to society.

For example, imagine living in a city in which a biologist offered to lead an afternoon adventure trip to a city park to observe a lavender plant, and a person with scuba diving experience offered to lead an afternoon adventure trip to a nearby lake to show a particular type of fish that is living in it. These type of adventure trips might seem ridiculous or boring, but hopefully the photos in this article will show you that by altering society, we can provide ourselves with thousands of enjoyable adventure trips within our own city.

There are already many businesses offering various trips for vacations, adventure, or exercise, but the type and variety of these trips is very limited because businesses can offer only the trips that are profitable. By changing society so that the government supports the activities, we can provide ourselves with a much greater variety of activities, and for a greater variety of purposes. Every city could be offering lots of activities every weekend and evening for education, adventure, entertainment, socializing, and exercise.

In a free enterprise system, we depend upon businesses to provide us with adventure trips. We are passive consumers who submissively wait for the businesses to offer us something that attracts our attention. If the businesses never provide us with anything that we are interested in, then we never take any of their trips.

By comparison, when society provides social activities, the citizens would be encouraged to become active participants in the creation and evolution of these activities. We could suggest activities, and we could offer to help in the design, management, and leadership of the activities.

If you don't like something, try to improve it

With the proper tour guide, and the proper equipment, an adventure trip in our own city can be educational, help us meet people, teach us about the world we live in, and in some cases, provide us with exercise. For example, as I mentioned earlier, a biologist might offer to lead an afternoon adventure trip to a local park to observe a lavender plant. Your first reaction might be that such a trip would be interesting for only a few minutes, and then you would become bored. However, one of the concepts that I repeatedly emphasize in my files is that when you encounter a problem, look for a solution. Don't run away from it like a frightened animal.

If a particular adventure trip is boring, it's not because that adventure is inherently boring. It is up to us to make our life pleasant. Religion encourages us to believe that we are helpless sheep, and that we should pray to Jesus or God whenever we have a problem, but we are on our own to take care of ourselves. We have to be active, not passive. We have to look for solutions, not whine about problems. If we encounter something we don't like, we should try to make it better rather than ignore or complain about it.

If you dislike a particular activity that society is providing, don't immediately dismiss it as an idiotic activity. Instead, first put some time into considering the possibility that the activity could be altered to make it more enjoyable. Get into the habit of considering social activities, birthday parties, monetary systems, weddings, and holidays as "social technology". Just as with computers, airplanes, and cell phones and other physical technology, social technology can be improved.

Millions of people are routinely making a serious effort to improve our computers and airplanes, but so far there is no attempt to improve our holiday celebrations, birthday parties, city fairs, language, monetary system, election system, weddings, or adventure trips. Once we change this attitude, all of our social activities will begin to evolve and become increasingly more desirable and useful. Furthermore, we will create new variations of activities, thereby providing ourselves with more variety to choose from.

We must like one another

It is also important to keep in mind that whether you enjoy an activity depends on the people that you are with, and especially the leader of the group. A trip to a lavender plant will be boring if all you do is walk over to the plant and look at it. That type of trip would take only a few minutes. The trip would also be horrible if the person leading the tour didn't know much about what he was doing, or if he was obnoxious, lewd, dishonest, or psychotic.

Another type of person that will make these type of activities unpleasant are the people who are suffering from low self-esteem and want to be the center of attention. If they are in a leadership position, they will not provide leadership. Rather, they will spend their time struggling to be the center of attention, and they will likely try to remove or suppress competitors. If they are one of the participants rather than one of the leaders, their attempt to be the center of attention will irritate everybody.

Society cannot be a mixture of criminals, trolls, pedophiles, lunatics, and retards who fear and despise one another. We need to create homogenous societies in which people enjoy one another.

Society needs to provide us with "adventure equipment"

As bizarre as it may seem, an afternoon adventure trip to visit a lavender plant could be fascinating. The reason I say this is because I have been fascinated by the lavender plant in my yard, and I have a few photos in this article to show you. However, many of the items within our city that we could be taking adventure trips to are very small, and they are difficult for us to see with our eyes. Some of them are underwater, or high up in trees. In order to make these trips truly practical, society should provide us with access to high-quality optical equipment, including waterproof equipment. It would also be useful to have robotic video cameras that we can send up into trees, into a termite mound, or down into holes or caves.

This equipment would be an expense to society. It is equivalent to parents who provide their children with bicycles, binoculars, camping equipment, and sports supplies. Society cannot expect to make a profit from these social activities. We must consider it acceptable for society to put some of its resources into supporting our social activities.

Another point I want to emphasize is that these activities would not be practical if each person is expected to purchase his own equipment. In the world today, businesses are manufacturing a wide variety of binoculars, scuba equipment, magnifying glasses, telescopes, kayaks, microscopes, and video cameras, and everybody is expected to purchase or rent whatever items they want. Most of the time most of these items are sitting idle in storage. It would be more efficient if society produced a smaller number of higher quality items that we share. How often do you need to use binoculars or scuba equipment, for example? If you decide to participate in an activity that requires some equipment, it should be provided to you, and when you are finished, you give it back.

The camera lens in the photo to the right is about $25,000. Not even the professional photographers are using those lenses every day. An enormous number of material items that we have produced are sitting idle most of the time. We should produce fewer items and share them.

Many public schools in America already follow this philosophy. For example, when I was in elementary school, my parents did not have to purchase a school desk for me, or even a textbook. Everything was provided to the students. When I was finished with the items, the school gave them to another child. Furthermore, the school provided us with buildings, playgrounds, and some sports equipment.

If a society consists of responsible adults, then this concept could be applied to the equipment, buildings, and "playgrounds" that we want to use during adventure trips, recreational activities, holiday celebrations, weddings, and even birthday parties.

Some adventure trips could be to creeks and lakes in our city. In addition to observing the fish, plants, and other creatures in the typical manner, such as swimming in the water with masks or scuba equipment, if society provided us with access to robotic video cameras, similar to the camera in the photo, then we could send the cameras into the lakes or creeks to observe creatures that are very small or that hide from us. The cameras could also travel into crevices and caves that we would never fit into, or which would be to muddy or dangerous for us to go into.

Robotic cameras would also be useful for an adventure trip to the forest around your city. You could send the cameras up into trees to observe birds or insects. Small robotic cameras could travel down into holes to observe gophers, snakes, or rabbits. This would allow us to explore our own city in a manner that we would otherwise never be able to afford, and businesses would never be able to make a profit from.

The photos in this document are a sample of the items close to my home. Unfortunately, I don't have the incredible lenses or photography experience that the professional photographers have. I don't even know how they produce their incredibly detailed photos. Ants, for example, move so quickly that the only way I can get a photo of a live ant is to record it with a video camera, and then extract one of the frames.

This is the most detailed photo of an ant that I can make. It comes from a video of an ant that I put into a plastic container, and it stopped momentarily to clean its antenna. Incidentally, have you noticed how narrow the "waist" of an ant is?		The photo below is just a portion of one of many amazing photos offered as "wallpaper". The people who are creating these photographs are providing so much detail that we can see individual hairs.
Below: Ondrej Pakan The detail in his photos is incredible.		Below: Nicolas R.B. This photo has the detail of an electron microscope. How did he do this?

This article will try to show you that there is an incredible world around you, but you don't normally notice it with your eyes. You only notice it when you have magnifying glasses, and in some cases, the magnifying lenses that surgeons wear, or microscopes, or video cameras with macro lenses. There are also a lot of things we don't notice because they happen too quickly or to slowly for our eyes, and so the only way we can see them is by recording them with special video cameras. 

Our emotions tend to ignore small items

Another reason we don't normally notice the small items around us is because animals evolved with an extreme sensitivity to large and noisy items, not small or quiet items. Most of the threats that an animal faces are from animals and objects that are larger than itself, and so animals are very sensitive to large things. They are not much concerned about things that are smaller than themselves. Not surprisingly, humans are also stimulated by large items. However, our crude emotions were not intended for modern material items. The end result is that we are also stimulated by large material items, such as large cars and large trophies. 

If we don't use our intelligence to guide our decisions, we will likely mistake the emotional stimulation of large items to be a sign that those items are "better" than the small items. We assume that the larger trophies are better than the smaller trophies, and we assume that the larger apples are better than the smaller apples. The emotional stimulation that we receive from large items causes people around the world to compete with another in growing the largest pumpkins, building the largest pile of pennies, making the largest pizza, and, as in the photo, creating the world's largest pair of jeans. By producing these large items, they can stimulate themselves. We could describe this as "mental masturbation" because they are creating these items simply for the emotional stimulation rather than for an intellectual reason.

We are much more likely to notice a large, noisy car rather than a small, quiet car. The same is true of flowers. The large flowers stimulate us more than the small flowers. Every day we pass by flowers, trees, bushes, insects, and animals, but we rarely notice the small flowers, the small insects, the small pinecones, and all of the other small items. We don't pay much attention to items that are small.

Our crude emotions are trying to protect us from danger by making us aware of large, noisy, and potentially dangerous items, but this emotion has the disadvantage of causing us to be nearly oblivious to the small, quiet, and harmless items. The effect of this emotion can also be seen with optical devices. Specifically, there seems to be much more of an interest in telescopes, binoculars, and zoom lenses rather than microscopes, magnifying glasses, and macro lenses.

This emotion is also causing us to have an abnormal fascination with outer space. A lot of people fantasize about traveling to other planets and observing new plants, animals, and land formations. Most people are oblivious to the fact that there are an incredible amount of diversity in the small items around them. With a magnifying glass, you can see something that is like another planet. Some of the small items are so different from the large items that if you did not know what you are looking at, you would think you are observing another planet.

A lot of people like to fantasize about taking a trip to other planets, or traveling to the Galapagos Islands or Yellowstone Park, but it is possible to take excursions in your own city to visit the small items around you. The problem is that to truly see these items, we need expensive optics, and we also need an excursion leader who can explain to us explain what we are looking at. If you go out in your yard with a magnifying glass and start looking at items, you are likely to get bored. What are you looking at? When you don't know what you are looking at, it gets boring quickly. By comparison, if we were to go on an excursion within our own city with a tour guide who knew what he was doing, he could explain to us some of the tiny objects around us.

Some of these adventure trips could happen at night so that people can see the creatures that glow-in-the-dark, or that come out only at night. About 20 years ago I was digging a hole in my yard in the evening to plant something, and as it became dark, I noticed tiny little worms in the dirt that were glowing. They were thin worms about 1 or 2 cm long. What were they? I knew that fireflies could produce light, but I didn't realize that there were worms in our city that were capable of producing light. How many other creatures on this planet can produce light? In the garden of the courthouse in my city is a tropical plant that produces heat in order to keep it seed pod warm. How many other plants can produce heat?

There is an incredible number of amazing creatures on our own planet. We don't have to travel to other planets in order to observe strange landforms, plants, or animals. All we have to do is open our eyes and look around.

Before I continue with this concept, take a look at some of the photos below. This is just a small sample of the items that are in my local area. 

These four photos are close-ups of the "hairs" on a sand dollar. I found this on the beach perhaps 15 years ago. Usually the sand dollars that we find on the beach have been abraded with sand, and all that remains are plain, white shells, but this sand dollar was fresh, so it was covered by what appeared to be a grayish hair with a purplish tint. Through the years the hairs became almost completely white, and everything organic has decomposed.

The two photos below show the top side of the sand dollar. I accidentally washed off some of the hairs when I rinsed it in water to remove some of the dust. The circular depressions in the shell show the locations of those hairs. Notice that there are two types of hairs on the sand dollar. One type is very long and slender, and the other is much thicker and has a bulbous tip. Both types look as if they are translucent crystals.

The bottom of the sand dollar is covered with a different type of hair. As with the top of the sand dollar, there are two sizes, a thin, slender hair, and a much thicker hair, but the hairs on the bottom do not have bulbous tips. I don't know if those slender hairs are simply "babies" that have not fully grown, or if they are actually two different sizes of hairs.

This photo shows a California poppy that is growing in my yard. As with most drought resistant plants, it has small leaves. My finger gives an indication of their size. They appear grayish, but with a magnifying glass, you can see that the leaves are actually green, and are covered with some type of white fuzz or hairs (photo below).  The tips of the leaves, at least some of them, have large cells that are red and purple (below, right).

The photo below shows a plant that is growing in a pot on my patio. It is drought resistant, and it has a strong smell that reminds me of the sage plants that grow in Southern California. The leaves appear grayish but, as with the California poppy, they are actually green and covered with white hairs.		The photo below shows the tip of one of these leaves. Unlike the California poppy, they do not have colored tips. Their hairs are also a different style. The hairs on the poppy leaves remind me of a fungus, whereas these look more like animal hairs.

This photo shows one of the leaves of this plant. My fingerprints give an indication of the small size of the leaves.		This is one of the tiny flowers of this plant. The flower doesn't open much more than this. How does it get pollinated? This is a strange flower!

The sticker plant
 

I don't know the name of the plant to the right, but we called them "sticker plants" when we were children. I consider them to be annoying. Once they get established, they can grow in what appears to be completely dry dirt. They have a thick root that holds a lot of nutrients, so cutting off the leaves doesn't kill them. The leaves are covered with spines that irritate your skin, and they behave like Velcro. The leaves lie flat against the ground, and they stick to socks and cats. When the leaves are green and alive, they are strong and flexible, so they are easy to peel off your socks, but when the plant dies, the leaves turn brown, and they crumble easily into pieces, which makes them annoying to remove from your socks. The thorns are also irritating to your skin.

This is the tip of a leaf on my finger, and my fingerprints give an indication of how small the thorns are. The leaf is covered on both top and bottom by small, clear thorns. The upper surface of the leaf also has some large thorns with purple tips.		This is one of those purple tipped thorns. It looks as if it has a base that is capable of holding a liquid. I don't know if they only look frightening, or if they are actually capable of poking through our skin and injecting us with some irritating liquid.

The photo to the right shows the edge of a leaf. Most of the leaf is green along the edge, but some areas have are reddish or purplish, as in this case. In this photo, the leaf is upside down, so the large thorns with the purple tips are facing downward, and the thorns that are facing upward are those on the bottom of the leaf. One of the issues I have found amazing is how much color there is in plants when you look closely at them. Furthermore, purple seems to be very common. Is there a reason for that? Does it have to do with the type of chemicals in plants, or is it because insects are better at seeing purple or ultraviolet light?

The photo below shows a close-up of the thorns. Unfortunately, I don't have whatever lens is necessary to clearly show how every tip has three or four hooks, which makes them behave like Velcro.

The photos below shows another common and irritating weed that grows around here, also without needing much water. The flowers, below, look as if they are buds about to open, but this is about as open as I have ever seen them. What can possibly pollinate a flower that is so tiny and tightly closed?

A lot of the weeds around here have beautiful flowers, but many of them are so tiny that we don't normally notice them. Do the weeds in the areas of the world that have more water also have tiny flowers? Or is this a characteristic of the drought resistant areas? I haven't visited enough areas to know.

The leaves of this plant are not irritating - they are like the leaves of a clover plant - but the seeds are irritating. The seeds are packed into a spiral-shaped structure that is covered with hooks. 

This is a cluster of two flowers.		This cluster of seeds is fully grown.

I stretched open this spiral seed packet to make it easier to see how it is in the form of a spiral. It has hooks everywhere along the outer edge. The hooks are soft while they are growing, but after the plant dies, the seed packets turn brown, and the hooks become hard and stiff. These seed packets get tangled in socks and cats to a much greater extent than the leaves of the sticker plant above. The hooks are not for protection. Rather, they are intended to get tangled in the fur of animals, which then carry the seeds around.

Another tiny yellow flower

This photo shows another type of weed that is growing in my yard. It produces clusters of very tiny, bright, attractive yellow flowers. In the background is one of those tiny orange flowers that I have photos of in the previous article of this series here. The photo below, left, shows the cluster of flowers as they normally look, and to the right is a flower that I pulled apart so that you can see what is inside of it. As with the yellow flowers in the photo above of the spiral sticker, these flowers do not completely open. In order to see the stamen and pistils, you have to pull apart the petals. The size of my fingerprints gives an indication of how tiny these flowers are.

These photos show some type of succulent that I have growing in a pot on my patio. (Drought resistant plants are the only ones I can grow successfully in pots!) This plant produces clusters of flowers that have almost no resemblance to flowers. This is a good example of a plant that looks like it came from another planet.

As with lots of succulents, both the flowers and the leaves are thick and juicy. These flower clusters may appear to be a cluster of tiny buds, but the flower with the bulbous tips is fully developed. What type of insect pollinates this flower?

The two photos below show a piece of lichen that was growing in my yard. My fingerprints show how small its features are. It reminds me of some of the bizarre plants in a Dr. Seuss book. You don't need to travel to another planet to see strange plants. Just look in your own yard! 

Not all of the tiny flowers are pretty. A weed that grows in my yard produces flowers that I consider to be rather ugly. It is another drought resistant flower that doesn't open up very much.

This is a cluster of flowers on my finger. Note that some type of bug (at the top of the photo) is crawling towards the flowers.		This is a close-up of one of these flowers. It doesn't have any petals. It just has some type of curly hairs coming out of the tip.

The photo below shows a bug on the flower that is drinking nectar with a long, tubular mouth.		The photo below shows a flower that the bug is standing on. It is purplish, perhaps because it is younger... or older.

Chickpeas; a plant with purple flowers
 

The photo below shows a plant that I found growing in my yard. It has tiny purple flowers that, like many other tiny flowers, don't fully open. When you peel open the petals, some of them are whitish with purplish tips. The flower is attached to a stem that looks brown in the photo, but at this stage of the plant's life, portions of the stem are actually dark red, as you can see in the close-up (farther below) that shows an insect next to a pencil lead.

You cannot see the pistils or stamen until you pull back the petals. This photo is looking down on top of the pistil. It reminds me of a fractal image. I suppose the little white balls are pollen.		This is the base of the flower. The purplish flower petal is partly protected by a yellowish green leaf, and this leaf is covered with hairs, some of which have purplish tips, and many of which have a small drop of a sticky liquid.

The photos below show close-ups of those hairs. Most of them have a purplish tip, and most also have a droplet of liquid at the tip. I suppose that all of the hairs produce a liquid, but some of the droplets have been wiped off.

Below is a seed pod of this plant. The seed pod is covered with hairs. This photo was taken many days after the photo (above) of the flower. The flowers are now producing seeds, and the leaves are turning darker in color.		Below is a close-up of the hairs on the seed pod. Each hair has a droplet of some liquid at the tip. Most of the tips are purplish, as they are on the rest of the plant, but their purple color is not easily visible until the droplet is wiped off. My photo doesn't have the detail necessary to make this obvious, but there is a dead insect clinging to one of the hairs. There were several other dead insects on this particular seed pod. Perhaps the liquid is sticky, and they get trapped, or perhaps it is poisonous.

The photo to the right shows a different angle of that dead insect. To its right is a hair with a droplet of liquid. Incidentally, this brings me to another important point. Specifically, I have been amazed that virtually every time I look closely at a leaf, flower, or seed, there are insects on it, some alive, and some dead. Sometimes I find tiny insect eggs. Some of the insects are so tiny that we don't notice them until they start moving. When they are motionless, they are easily mistaken for blemishes or pieces of dust. When I looked at another seed pod a few days later, there were even more dead bugs stuck to the hairs. The seed pods were accumulating insects!

The photo to the right shows a 0.5 mm diameter mechanical pencil lead next to a tiny insect. I assume it is the same type of insect as in the photo above because it was crawling around on the stem of the flower, which is the red object. The faint yellowish balls along the back of the insect is pollen from the flower. The wings don't appear as if they are capable of flight. Perhaps they haven't finished developing.

The lavender plant

The photos below show a lavender plant in my yard. I assume this is "English lavender", but the flowers seem smaller than the photos that I find on the Internet for English lavender. Maybe it is because of the soil or weather conditions in my yard. Or, maybe it's because I almost never give it any water. It's very drought resistant.

The flower stalk that I'm holding in my fingers in the photo below is actually a cluster of flowers. The flowers bloom one at a time, starting from the bottom. The flower cluster appears purplish, but the flower petals are blue and white. The purple color comes from the protective covering.

I am holding a flower cluster that has several blooms on it.		This flower cluster is younger and smaller. It has only one bloom.

This photo shows an older flower that is producing pollen. The insect is so large, perhaps 2 mm long, that you can easily see it with your eyes. It was crawling both inside and outside the flower cluster. It seems to get inside the flower clusters once they start opening. I saw two of these insects crawling around on the same flower cluster. In addition, there were some other, tinier insects that were also crawling around. If the flower cluster of a lavender was about 10 times larger, it would be considered incredibly beautiful, but it's features are so small that you don't notice how pretty it is. You need a magnifying glass, microscope, or a camera with a macro lens to truly appreciate this flower.

This is the tip of the flower cluster on my finger so that you can get an indication of the dimensions. My camera doesn't have the necessary depth of focus to show it clearly, but the yellow-orange object in the lower left corner of the photo is a  tiny insect.		This is a close-up of the tip in the photo to the left.

As with other plants that have a grayish appearance, the leaves are actually dark green but covered with white hairs. The photo to the right is looking at the middle section of a leaf, slightly to the side, and the photo below shows the top of the leaf, near its tip. The photo below and to the right is the very tip of the leaf. Notice that there is an orange colored insect on the leaf below.

Below is the bottom of that same leaf above, and you can see two insects clinging to it.		Below is a close-up of the purplish area of the flower cluster. If you did not know that this is a lavender flower cluster, you would think you were looking at something from another planet.

Incidentally, in the hairs of the photo to the right are a couple of tiny droplets of some liquid, one of which is almost black, and the other is a reddish-brown. I assume they are waste products from the insects. In addition to finding live and dead insects everywhere, I also find their waste products are everywhere.

The "Christmas lights" weed
 

There is a weed in my yard that has flowers that are so small that I only recently took a close look at them. This weed grows along the ground, so when we look at this weed while we are standing up, the flowers are so tiny that they look like blemishes along the stem rather than flowers. The plant produces long green stems, and there is one tiny green leaf every centimeter or two along the stem, and at almost every leaf are two or three tiny flowers. It is not easy to see in this photo, but there is a fully open flower with five white panels near my index finger. This weed reminds me of a string of Christmas lights. The flowers are like the colored bulbs that are attached to a green electrical wire.

The photo below shows a stem that is developing a new branch along the left. At the top of the left branch is what looks like translucent paper. This translucent material covers the new flowers.		The photo below shows a mature stem. At every junction is one leaf with a couple of tiny flowers. Each flower is about 1 mm wide.

These flowers are so difficult to get a photo of that it's easier to let them dry and shrivel a bit first. The four photos below are of the flower 12 hours after I picked it, and it is starting to shrivel, which makes it easier to see the petals of the flower.

Below are the young flowers at the tip of a new, young stem. Above the two flowers is a bud that is covered by translucent material.		I tore away the translucent material to show the tiny flower bud.
Below are two of the young flowers after they have dried about 12 hours and are starting to shrivel.		Below is the backside of the flower bud from the photo above, after it knocked it off and put it on my fingernail.
Below are two flowers that are older and more mature. Notice that there is a brown shaped object protruding from the center of each flower.		Below is a mature flower that I pulled apart slightly so that you can see the brown object, apparently a seed pod. I suppose the top of the seed pod has stamens covered with pollen.
The two photos below show two views of a flower that is fully open. They don't remain open very long, so most of the flowers are tightly closed. I don't know how long they remain open.		The flower buds are pink and purple, but when the flowers are open, the pedals are white and green. After the flower has been fertilized, they close up and become increasing dark red and purple, as you can see by the mature flower in the background.
The photo to the right shows me holding a young stem with my finger and thumb. The view is looking down, on top of a flower that is getting ready to open. The yellow area in the flower is the stamen and pistils covered with yellow pollen. My thumb is at the bottom. The reason I included this photo is to encourage you to consider what would happen if a man were to offer a woman such a tiny flower bud for her birthday or wedding. She would have to use a magnifying glass to see what he is holding between his fingers. Most women would probably consider such a gift to an insult, and this brings up an issue to contemplate. Specifically, what difference does it make how large a flower is? Our crude emotions cause us to focus on things that are large. We assume that a large flower is better than a small flower, and that a large house is better than a small house. Our emotions are causing us to be oblivious to the equally fascinating small aspects of our universe.

Below are the flower clusters of some variety of mint that is growing in my yard. The flowers are so tiny that they look like tiny, light purple balls.		Below is one of the flower clusters attached to its leaf, and at the upper right is the flower bud from the "Christmas lights" weed above. The flowers on this mint plant are about the size of the bud of that other plant!
Below is a close-up of one of the flowers. There are little droplets all around it, presumably the liquid that has the mint scent.		Below is a flower that I pulled most of the petals off of, except the pedal in the rear, to expose the large purple pads on the pistils, and the long, wavy stamen in the center.
The photo to the right is focused on the purple pistil that is behind the stamen in the photo above so that you can see it's interesting design. The flower of the mint plant is so small and tightly closed that I wonder how an insect can pollinate it. I have only had this mint plant for a few months, and so far I have never seen the flowers open. However, as I was opening one of the mint flowers to look inside of it, I noticed a tiny bug crawling around inside, so perhaps these flowers are pollinated by crawling insects rather than flying insects.

This photo shows a strange creature that remains motionless on the bottom of leaves. This leaf also had a smaller version of this creature, which I assume was a younger version. It was initially motionless, but began to crawl around, presumably because I was handling the leaf. Since the smaller version could crawl, I assume that these creatures can crawl when they are first born, and eventually they settle down and attach themselves to a leaf where they remain until death. The two black dots seem to be some type of eyes. Its legs are underneath it.

 
Our ancestors must have regularly eaten insects without realizing it. Since the paranoia of germs didn't occur until very recently in human history, our ancestors would have eaten fruit and vegetables without bothering to wash them. Virtually every leaf seems to have at least a few insects living on it, so if a person thousands of years ago were to eat the equivalent of a salad, he would have eaten dozens or hundreds of insects. Perhaps this was adding proteins and other nutrients!

Our primitive ancestors would also have eaten whatever waste products were clinging to the fruits and vegetables. In the photos of the flower cluster of the mint plant, you might notice some dark specks. They are the waste products of some insect that was eating the plant. People today have a paranoia of germs, but bacteria, viruses, and fungus are everywhere. You don't realize how many there are until you take a magnifying glass and look around your yard. There is no way to prevent ourselves from having contact with insects, bacteria, or viruses.

Most people believe that the solution to disease and indigestion is to sanitize kitchens and thoroughly clean all food products, but the best solution is to control reproduction so that humans have a properly functioning immune system that can handle all of the potentially dangerous creatures. We also need a digestive system that can destroy and digest potentially dangerous creatures.

If the human digestive and immune system was as good as it is with wild animals, then we wouldn't have to worry about salmonella, and when we are thirsty, we could drink water directly from the creeks or lakes. We also wouldn't worry about eating the tiny insects that cling to fruits and vegetables, such as the one in the photo to the right, which seems to be common in my yard.

Which world would you rather be born into: a) a world in which people are so sickly that food and water has to be sanitized, or b) a world in which people are so healthy that they don't have to worry about sanitizing their food products?

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to travel back in time and live with our primitive ancestors? They didn't wash their hands before they made meals. A mother who was taking care of her babies and making a meal at the same time would have contaminated the food with a lot of dangerous bacteria. However, the people did not get sick. Or, to be more precise, some of them did get sick, and some of them died. The people who survived those primitive meals were those with the best immune systems and digestive systems. Today the people with defective bodies are kept alive with medical technology, which is acceptable, but they are also allowed to reproduce, which is degrading the human gene pool.

If we continue on this path, eventually all humans will be so sickly that they will not be able to go outside of a hospital room without being sealed in airtight bubbles. To go horseback riding, they would have to sanitize the horse, also. Is that what you want for the future of the human race?

This photo is an example of how you have to see something with your eyes in order to truly appreciate it. This fly died years ago in my house, and it still has a beautiful iridescent blue color, but for some reason a photograph makes it appear as if it's primarily black with some blue coloring. There are some things in this universe that are more practical for us to watch on a video monitor, such as volcanoes, but there are some objects that we don't fully appreciate unless we can see them with our eyes. Our eyes have better depth of focus, and better color vision, and a three-dimensional image is better than a two-dimensional image.

Butterflies

Butterflies are another creature that are better to see with your eyes because they also have a lot of colors that don't show well in photos. The photo below shows one of the colored spots on a butterfly that I found in my yard many years ago. Most of the scales are still clinging to its wings. With your eye, the scales look like some type of colored dust that rubs off very easily, but with a magnifying glass, you can see that they are like shingles on a roof, or like scales on a fish, that overlap one another.

About 15 years ago I was trimming my rose bushes and I noticed a bright white object on a branch. It was the size of a large fly, and it was in the shape of a fly, but it was made out of some type of thin, white silk. It had beautiful pleated wings, and it was so perfectly made and geometrical that it looked man-made. My first thought was that it was some type of man-made object that had blown onto the rose bush and was stuck to a thorn. However, when I looked closely at it, I could see that it was attached to the branch. So I cut off that section of the branch, put it into a plastic container, and waited to see what would happen to it. I assumed that it must be a cocoon, and that something would hatch from it.

The photo to the right shows this cocoon, although it has since been degraded by insects. The grayish area at the top is where the head of the fly was, and below that are two sections that used to cover the wings. The wing along the left side of the photo has been almost completely destroyed, but the other wing still shows the pleats. Originally, those pleats were running vertical, and the head portion was solid white, and the head had a somewhat rectangular shape.

It turned out to be the most bizarre insect I have ever seen. After a few days the pleated wings started to separate where they were connected in the middle, and lots of little creatures started to crawl out. If I remember correctly, they had bright orange bodies with black legs. I assumed that this was some type of cocoon with eggs, but as the days passed and the cocoon opened wider, I could see that inside was some type of fly. It has been so many years since I observed this creature that I can't remember the details, but I was under the impression that the fly was alive!

The little babies were trapped inside the plastic container, so they could not escape. In the following days they began to sprout white silk from their body. However, due to the lack of food they started dying. I assume that if they had more food available, they would have eventually been covered with white silk, and they would have been crawling around on the rose bush, and they would have looked like a white speck of dust. I have seen creatures like that on the bottom of some leaves. Maybe it was the same creature. Or are there other insects that cover themselves with white silk and crawl around on the bottom of leaves?

The photo below shows a close-up of those pleated wings, and to the right is a photo of one of the dead babies. It's bright orange color has since become a dark brown. You can easily see four, long strands of silk coming out of its back. I could not get a clear photo of the babies with more hair because they were so small and fuzzy that no matter what I did, they were blurry.

My initial assumption was that this fly had laid a bunch of eggs, and then spun a cocoon around itself and its eggs, and then it sat there in a semi-conscious state while the eggs developed, and then the babies ate its body. However, now that I am more aware of parasites, (probably as a result of the 9/11 attack!), I wonder if some type of insect had paralyzed this fly, laid eggs on it, and then spun a cocoon around it.

Regardless of what was happening, it was unpleasant to watch because I couldn't avoid imagining this happening to a human. Imagine if giant wasps were capturing humans, paralyzing us, and then laying eggs on us. Then we lay motionless while their eggs hatch, and the babies slowly eat our body. The things that are going on in this universe are incredible! They are beyond anything our imagination could have devised.

This is a close-up of the head of this fly. There are dead babies all around it. The head has since disintegrated, leaving behind the white silky cocoon contaminated with the dark material from the disintegrated head.		This is a side view of a dead baby. This baby died before sprouting any long, silky hairs.

Many days later (or weeks later, I cannot remember) I noticed a couple of dead flies inside the container. I don't know if any of those little babies matured into those flies, or if those flies were from something else. This photo shows two of the dead flies. In the lower left corner, near the head of one fly, is another dead baby. Incidentally, the reason I am not sure of the source of those flies is because I have since discovered that even in what appear to be tightly sealed containers, insects can get inside and lay eggs. There have been several times that I put dead insects or plant material into a container that I assumed was tightly sealed, and later I discovered that something had gotten inside of it and eaten it. Or, maybe there were eggs on the item when I put it into the glass container.

I can understand why people centuries ago believed in the concept of "spontaneous creation". It is very difficult to preserve animals or plants without modern technology, such as chemical preservatives or vacuum chambers.

Ticks

A cat that lived next door would occasionally pick up ticks, and one of them was very large. I pulled it off and put into a plastic container to see if it would lay eggs. Sure enough, it laid hundreds of eggs. After a few days, they all hatched into tiny little ticks. Below are photos of the egg cases and the dried, dead baby ticks.

You have certainly heard of people who keep a colony of ants alive between two glass plates in order to observe their behavior, but not many people have an interest in observing the lifecycle of ticks, fleas, cockroaches, or other annoying creatures. However, all creatures are equally fascinating. Baby cockroaches, for example, are so small, thin, and flexible that they can fit through cracks that you would never imagine possible. Cockroaches can also eat virtually anything. They will even eat their own babies. Their babies have to run and hide as soon as they pop out of their egg. Cockroaches are extremely easy to keep as "pets" because they require almost no care or food. When they are hungry, they will eat the dead cockroaches, their babies, and even their own waste products. Their digestive system can handle almost anything.

A lot of people are fascinated with the idea of traveling to other planets and discovering new types of plants and animals. However, there are thousands of plants and animals in your own city that you could be discovering. This is actually an important concept to understand. It might help if you imagine if NASA were to fake an expedition to Mars and allow the astronauts to "discover" cockroaches on Mars. Even though those cockroaches would look and behave exactly like the cockroaches here on the Earth, people would be fascinated with them, and they would want one as a pet. The people who were "special" enough to own one of those Mars cockroaches would boast about it, and they would invite people to their house to see it. They would also study its behavior and they would enjoy educating us about how they live and behave. There would be lots of television programs that show us this amazing creature from Mars.

Why is a cockroach from Mars more exciting than a cockroach from the Earth? The reason is that a cockroach from Mars is unusual, and therefore, everybody who has access to it will be treated as if they are special. Humans and animals, especially the males, have a very strong craving to be important and become the top of the social hierarchy. Therefore, if we can feel special for owning or having access to a cockroach, then we will want the cockroach.

This same problem occurs with diamonds, art, and gold. If you tell somebody a particular piece of art is "famous" and worth an enormous amount of money, then he will like the art and want to have it. The craving for diamonds is also craving to feel special, not a craving for the physical item.

Human emotions were not designed for this modern world. We have strong cravings to feel important, reproduce, eat, and fight with our neighbors, but we don't have much of an interest in learning about the world, and especially not about little things, such as little flowers and little bugs.

The world is full of fascinating things, but animals and humans are not designed to enjoy life. We were never even designed to enjoy sex. Sex is simply a method to reproduce. Nature does not care whether men or women enjoying sex or our relationships. All that nature cares about is that we produce babies. Likewise, nature doesn't care if we enjoy the plants or animals around us. The flowers are not pretty for us; rather, they evolved beautiful decorations as a result of the brutal struggle for survival that all living creatures must endure. Likewise, we don't enjoy food because nature wants us to enjoy food. Rather, we developed a sense of taste and smell so that we can differentiate between foods that are safe for us and foods that are dangerous.

To fully enjoy life, you have to change your attitude towards life and not let your crude emotions dominate you. This universe is full of incredible wonders, and life is an incredible opportunity, but whether you enjoy your time here on the Earth depends upon your mind. Happiness has nothing to do with money, fame, or the number of children you help produce. Whether you enjoy the people, plants, or animals, and whether you enjoy the clouds, mountains, and rivers, depends upon your mind. You can either enjoy these things, or you can spend your time crying, whining, hating, fighting, cheating, and lying. You cannot mindlessly follow your emotions and expect your friendships or marriages to be successful, either. Our emotions are out of place today, so we have to think more often and try to control our idiotic feelings.

It would be nice if we didn't have any parasites, such as fleas and ticks, but you should get into the habit of looking at all forms of life as spectacular works of evolution. Enjoy your brief moment of time here on the Earth. Don't let your crude emotions fool you into believing that certain plants and animals are unworthy of your attention. All plants and animals are fascinating works of nature. They all have incredible abilities, and all of them perform amazing feats. If you were to discover a tiny flower on Mars, you would be fascinated with it, but that flower should be just as fascinating if you discover it in your backyard.

Zoos could keep tiny creatures

Because of our fascination with large items, zoos have a tendency to keep only the larger animals, not the tiny creatures, such as ticks, fleas, cockroaches, tiny worms that glow-in-the-dark, or tiny insects. For the same reason, botanical gardens don't have much of an interest in providing displays of tiny plants or tiny flowers.

Most of the human population today may still be so much like a primitive savage that they don't want to explore their city, or learn anything about the universe, or even take a close look at a tiny flower. They may prefer to spend their time feeding, fighting, and reproducing. However, we should not design society for the majority of people. We have to think about what we want the future to be. The human race is not going to remain in this primitive state.

Rather than encourage people to keep pets in their home, I think it would be better for society to support activities in which people who are interested in plants and animals are provided with the buildings and resources necessary for them to create displays of these creatures, both alive and dead, and thereby provide society with the opportunity to learn about these creatures.

The tiny plants and animals are especially easy for society to support because they don't need much space or resources. By putting them in displays that are elevated to eye level, we can easily see them, and with magnifying glasses, video cameras, and microscopes, we could easily observe their details.

Furthermore, the tiny animals are not bothered by captivity. By comparison, keeping some animals in a zoo could be considered "cruel". For example, animals that will not reproduce in captivity are likely to be animals that are suffering. If you are a man, imagine how miserable your life would have to be in order for you to lose your interest in sex, and if you are a woman, imagine how miserable your life would have to be for you to lose your interest in babies. I think it would be more sensible for us to stop trying to keep those particular animals in zoos, and instead develop robotic cameras that can transmit high-quality video to us and be placed in the areas where the animals naturally live.

Robotic cameras can provide us with a much better view of the animals, especially when 3-D cameras and monitors become better. Robotic cameras would allow us to observe birds in their nest; foxes in their hole; and termites inside their mound. As drones become smaller and more advanced, they will eventually be able to follow butterflies, birds, and even mosquitoes. Robotic cameras can also go extremely close to volcanoes, or deep inside dangerous caves, or down to the bottom of the ocean.

Instead of going to a zoo and looking at miserable animals with your eyes, you would go to a building that had 3-D video monitors. You would watch recorded video, or the live video streams from the robotic cameras. By building thousands of robotic cameras, everybody would have the opportunity to control one of them and inspect whatever they found interesting.

A lot of fruits and vegetables have interesting patterns and decorations. Most people have noticed the patterns in cabbage, but I don't think many people have noticed that the Hachiya persimmons also have interesting patterns. These persimmons are extremely soft when fully ripe, but with a thin, sharp knife, you can slice them... unless they have become so ripe that they have become a liquid. I think they are more visually attractive when sliced, and they are also less messy to eat in this manner.

Crystals on wine corks

I think the bark of the Cork tree is a fascinating material. It has interesting properties, textures, and patterns. As a result, I often look at the corks that people pull out of wine bottles. One day I was surprised to find a cork from a bottle of red wine that had crystals on the bottom of it. The bottom of the cork was stained a dark red from the wine, and it had about 20 sparkling crystals. It was very attractive, although it has since become a bit dusty and its beautiful dark red color is now more a dark, dull brown. The photos below show two of those crystals. These photos are looking at the crystals almost from their side rather than from above. What are these crystals? What type of conditions are needed for crystals to form on the cork?

My mother likes to drink tea, and she purchased some cinnamon teabags. She eventually decided she didn't care for them, and so they sat in her house until she offered them to me. Each teabag was individually sealed in an airtight package. When I decided to try one, I noticed that the string and handle of the teabag was full of crystals. These crystals were long and cylindrical, possibly with a hexagon cross-section. The crystals on the wine cork were more like pyramids, cubes, and diamonds. This photo is showing the crystals from above rather than from their side. How do these form on a teabag that is enclosed in an airtight package? Or were they already on the teabag when it was put into the package?

I put olive oil into small glass jars and put them in the refrigerator so that they solidify. However, some brands of olive oil do not solidify, and others sometimes solidify with patterns, such as in the photo to the right. What causes those patterns? Walnut and grape oil do not solidify in my refrigerator; coconut oil solidifies at room temperature; and cocoa fat is hard even in warm temperatures. What are the differences between the oils and fats in regards to their structure, nutrition, stability, and heat resistance? Why not get together once in a while to investigate some of the foods we eat?

When I was a child, most of our mothers would occasionally use a needle and thread to repair clothing, and they would occasionally put patches onto our pants to repair tears. When I was a teenager, there were still a few girls who would make dresses for themselves. Today, only a few mothers repair clothing, and not many girls make their own clothing. My impression is that most people today don't have a very good understanding of clothing, or the history of clothing.

I consider clothing to be just as interesting as automobiles, computers, jewelry, refrigerators, and other material items. If we lived in a society that supported social activities, we could arrange for a variety of different "adventure tours" to show us how cotton and wool is harvested and processed into threads, and then into clothing, and how the artificial fabrics are created from oil, or whatever. There could also be "explorations" to the factories so that we can learn about the machines that create the threads and fabrics, and how they are cut into pieces and sewn or bonded together into complete articles of clothing. The six photos below are just six of the different types of fabrics in my house.

This is a Band-Aid made from a woven fabric, rather than a strip of plastic. Each thread in clothing is actually a group of fibers that are twisted around each other, but the threads in this bandaid, and in the label to the right, are not twisted, and the brown fibers are very loose so that it stretches easily in that direction.		This is a portion of the label on the inside of a shirt that the manufacturers use to display their logo and other information. Most labels are made in a different manner than the fabric that we use for clothing, and the difference is most noticeable by looking at the back side of the label.

This is a portion of a shirt in which the geometric pattern is the result of different colored threads. The pattern on this shirt is not "printed" on. Each of the threads in this shirt is a group of fibers that are twisted around each other.		This is a shirt made of white rayon. The colored pattern has been printed onto the white material. There are no colored threads in this shirt.

This is an ordinary white, cotton T-shirt. It has a type of weave that makes it very flexible. It has been through many washings, and is no longer bright white, and many of the threads are starting to fray.		This is from a shirt that has a three-dimensional appearance because of the way in which the threads have been woven. The colored pattern was printed onto it.

There are a variety of reasons why a free enterprise system is never going to provide us with useful social activities. One problem is that when businesses provide the activities, the activities will be designed by a small number of people. As a result, the activities can only be as good as those few people can make them. By comparison, when society provides activities, everybody in society is allowed to make suggestions on what type of activities they would like to try, and how to improve the existing activities. Also, everybody could offer to get involved in creating or leading some of the activities. Furthermore, since nobody would be able to copyright or "protect" any of the activities, everybody would be free to improve upon the existing activities, thereby allowing them to evolve through time.

Another problem with free enterprise is that businesses want employees who work full-time, not one day per year. Also, businesses do not want employees working with competing businesses. As a result, if a business were to offer adventure tours or recreational events, they would want their employees to do so on a full-time basis, and they would not want their employees working with competing businesses. Those employees would have to do the same jobs over and over, day after day, decade after decade. How many people want to do that? Furthermore, when a person must lead the same type of adventure tour over and over, they start becoming dull and monotonous, like a robot.

By comparison, when society provides the activities, the government officials don't care whether people are working full-time on the activity or only one day every year. Nobody has to make any commitments. For example, a biologist who studies ants might offer to lead an exploration trip to show people the ants in his city, but he might be willing to do this only one day each year. A farmer might be willing to spend an afternoon every year giving a tour of his farm to show how sheep are raised and sheared. A business would not want to deal with thousands of people working only one day per year, and they would not want any of those people working for their competitors, but society would encourage this part-time contribution because it encourages more people to get out of their house and contribute something to society. The more people who get involved in activities, the better for all of us because it provides us with more variety, and it also reduces the burden of providing social activities. The more people who contribute, the less work each person has to do.

When society provides activities for us, the government officials are in the role of parents who provide activities for their children. The government officials would have no concern for whether the people creating or leading these trips are working full-time, or whether they are working only one afternoon every ten years. The government officials would be concerned only with whether the activities were providing society with something of value. There would be competition to create activities that people enjoy and learn from, but the competition would not be over money, so if the particular trip was a failure, it would simply be discontinued or modified. There would be no bankruptcies or financial disasters. Any equipment that was used in the failed activity would still be available for other activities. Nothing would be lost. Nobody would suffer. It would be similar to parents to design activities for their children. If a particular activity was unpopular, or if the parents decided that it was inappropriate for the children, the parents would discontinue it and try something else.

Social activities must be "social", not "deceptive"

It should be noted that these activities would be very unpleasant in society today for a variety of reasons. For example, real estate agents would go to these activities simply as a way of meeting people; lonely people would go to the activities in order to look for a potential spouse or sex partner; pedophiles would go to some activities to look at children or find other pedophiles; and politicians would go to some activities to meet people and promote themselves.

In order to make our social activities more pleasant, we have to design a society that is homogenous, and we need to provide ourselves with special activities for courtship so that other activities are not contaminated by lonely people who are looking for a spouse. We also need to eliminate the need for profit so that real estate agents, salesmen, and other people are not going to activities simply as a way of promoting their services or products. We also need to find a better way of selecting leaders so that political candidates are not using social events as a way to promote themselves and manipulate us.

It's important to note that social activities will be fun only if people are "sociable". America is an example of a society that is not very sociable or homogenous. This nation has a lot of loneliness, crime, corruption, pouting, envy, fighting, yelling, jealousy, and sarcasm. There seem to be thousands of different religions in this country, and many of those people are intolerant of other religions. There are also millions of Americans with various drug and alcohol problems, and millions have violent tendencies, mental disorders, and sexual problems. There are lots of people who whine that they are discriminated against because of their particular race, and there are lots of women who whine that they are being abused by men. America is not a sociable society. It is a group of miserable people who are constantly fighting, hating, whining, and pouting. Social activities will not be pleasant unless a society consists of people who enjoy and respect one another.

Most people in America are under the impression that happiness comes from money and fame, but you will be most happy when you living with people you enjoy, and when you are doing things with those people. It doesn't matter what you do with them. It doesn't matter whether you are going on an afternoon adventure trip to your local park, or whether you're having a picnic with them, or whether you are going on a bicycle ride with them. What is important is that you enjoy and respect the people. The activity is not as important as the people. The material items are not important, either. It is the people, the activities, and the interactions that will bring you happiness.

In order to create a life that we are happy with, we need to design a city in which we are living with people we enjoy, trust, and respect. We need to design our cities for human life, not business transactions. We need to provide ourselves with lots of different activities to provide ourselves with exercise, learn about the world we live in, meet one another, and do something useful for society.

We should develop robotic cameras

It's extremely difficult to get video of certain events, such as fast-moving insects, flying birds, and tornadoes. It is also difficult to get recordings of events that occur very quickly, such as hummingbirds as they catch insects (yes, at least some varieties eat insects), and events that occur over a long period of time, such as the growth of plants. The current method of getting these videos is for people to spend hours, days, and sometimes months sitting and waiting for events to occur. People who try to record data about tornadoes, for example, drive around for hours a day looking for tornadoes. This is a waste of time.

It would be better to develop robotic cameras that we can place in various locations, and which watch for the events to occur. With motion detection software, or, in some cases, with radar, they could follow moving clouds, birds, or insects, and they could follow those objects with much greater precision than a human. This would make it easy to get video of insects that are crawling, flying, or moving at high speeds.

Video cameras that are controlled by computers to follow moving objects, or observe items on a particular schedule, or wait for certain events, would make it very easy for us to observe insects and other animals in their natural environment. The robotic cameras could spend months sitting in trees, crevices, creeks, or on rocks. Unlike human observers, the animals and insects would not be afraid of robotic cameras. This would provide us with incredible observations of animals.

Computer controlled cameras could be stationed in tornado areas in order for us to get better understanding of tornadoes, and to give us better warnings. We are wasting time and resources when we send people to drive around in cars to look for tornadoes. It would be better to let computers watch for tornadoes.

Once we develop cameras that are capable of locating and following mosquitoes, rats, and other pests, we could develop pest-control devices that locate, follow, and kill the pests with lasers or microwaves.

Adventure tours of your own body

When we are willing to share expensive material items, it becomes practical for us to do analyses of our own body. We could describe these as adventure tours of your own body. For example, we could provide activities in which people get together with somebody with medical experience, and they would do analyses of their blood, kidneys, or metabolism.

The free enterprise system is already providing pregnant women with classes that help them learn about pregnancy and childbirth, but society can offer a much greater variety of these type of medical-related activities. We could provide activities for people who are growing old to learn about the changes that people go through as they age, and to figure out whether they are experiencing any of those changes yet, and if so, how they can counteract some of those changes with diet, hormones, or exercise. We could also have activities in which people learn how to set up an infrared camera in their bedroom so that they can record themselves as they sleep. This would help people to figure out if they are grinding their teeth, tossing and turning, or talking in their sleep.

In a free enterprise system, we are not encouraged to do anything on our own. We are encouraged to pay other people to do everything for us. By comparison, in the society that I'm proposing, the government officials want people to get involved in activities rather than be passive, pampered, babies. Society would provide us with the buildings and medical equipment that we share, and all we have to do is learn how to use the equipment. Since I also recommend eliminating the restrictions on prescription drugs, this would allow us to do a lot of our own diagnoses and experimentation.

We already have small, easy to use, computer controlled devices that make it possible for us to check our blood pressure without a doctor, and as we develop other advanced medical devices, it will be possible for us to do even more of our own diagnoses.

Some of these medical devices are inexpensive, but it is wasteful to expect everybody to purchase whatever devices they need because most of the time the devices are sitting idle. It would be better for us to borrow the devices when we want them, or drop by one of the medical facilities and use them at the facility without taking them home. Furthermore, the truly advanced devices, such as those that analyze blood chemistry, digestion, hormones, and kidney functions, are going to be expensive. Also, there are some devices that you will only want to use once or twice, such as the infrared video recorders to observe how you sleep at night.

The "best" medical devices will be expensive, computer-controlled devices that are easy to operate. It would be better from the point of view of society to develop some very advanced medical equipment that is so simple to use that people can perform a lot of their own medical analyses. The city should set up medical facilities around the city, provide them with advanced equipment, and give us free access to the facilities. The equipment that we need to take home, such as equipment to record us as we sleep, would be borrowed and given back when we are done.

When you have free access to medical equipment, and when there are activities that you can go to to learn how to use the equipment, you are more likely to do analyses of yourself throughout the day and evening, which can give you a much better understanding of yourself. Your body does not remain exactly the same throughout the day and night. When you go to a doctor for a medical analysis, you will discover what you are like at that particular moment in time. If you do another analysis later in the evening, during the middle of the night, or early in the morning, you will find that your body has changed slightly.

The best way to understand yourself is to do periodic tests throughout the day and night for possibly a few days in a row. It would be impractical to expect doctors to be doing such extensive tests for us. We need to learn how to use the equipment and do some of the tests ourselves.

We could have activities to explore the aging of our bodies.

As I described here years ago, the human lifecycle is only about 45 years. Nature never intended for us to live beyond that. Modern technology allows us to live up to 110, but we should not consider this technology to be extending our lives. Rather, we should look at people who are passing through the 45 to 60 age range as doing the equivalent of an airplane passing through the sound barrier. As we go through that age range, our bodies go through some very significant changes. For example, our oil glands stop functioning, thereby causing dry skin and dry hair, and causing older people to develop a different odor. Also, our eyes lose the ability to focus on close objects, thereby requiring us to wear reading glasses. We also go through hormone changes.

Certainly you have heard the stories of mothers who were so sexually inhibited that they could not teach their daughters about menstruation, and their daughters were shocked and confused when they started seeing the changes. This same problem is occurring with aging. Most people seem to be going through the 45 to 60 age range with no idea that they are passing through a significant transition period in human life. They don't know what to expect, or what is going on with their bodies. Many of them become confused, frustrated, saddened, or shocked by the changes, and some people react in a manner that is described as a "mid-life crisis".

Human emotions developed in an era in which children picked up almost everything they needed to know simply by observing the adults around them. This modern world needs adults who can provide information to children about growth, sex, aging, childbirth, and raising children. As it is right now, most adults cannot overpower their crude emotions in regards to these subjects, and they either giggle as they try to discuss them, or they become hysterical, or they become angry or disgusted.

Human sexual behavior is almost as crude as that of the animals. For example, when a human man titillates a woman by giving her gifts and compliments, he is behaving in a similar manner as a male peacock that titillates a female by vibrating his feathers at her. Animals have sexual cravings only to reproduce, not to enjoy, think about, or discuss. Likewise, male and female humans have sexual cravings only to lure us into reproducing once in a while. We were never designed to enjoy sex, or our relationships, and we were never designed to study sexuality or discuss the issue. 

We have to control our emotions and force ourselves to deal with sexual issues. The same concept applies to aging. We have to force ourselves to face the fact that we age, and we need to be able to talk about it. We should not create a fantasy world in which we pretend that we start a second life at age 50.

Everybody who lives beyond the age of 45 will go through significant changes, but each of us will experience those changes at a different time, and to a different extent. All of us would benefit if society supported social activities in which adults could get together with somebody with medical knowledge and equipment so that we can study and analyze our bodies and determine how we are aging, and what we might be able to do to compensate for some of the changes. 

Some people, for example, might discover that their digestive system is deteriorating in a certain manner that they can compensate for to certain extent by altering their diet, or by taking digestive aids, such as papaya or betaine hydrochloride. Other people might benefit from certain types of hormone treatments, and others might benefit by changing some of their recreational activities and lifestyle.

As we grow older, our ability to hear deteriorates, but unless we check our hearing once in a while, how will any of us know what our level of deterioration is? We can pay doctors to do these tests, but why should doctors have to perform tests that are so simple that we could do them ourselves? It would be better if society provided activities for us to explore our own bodies in our leisure time. We can do a lot of medical tests ourselves. We don't need to pay other people. Actually, I think it would be better to encourage people to be more involved in their own health and not expect other people to take care of them. This requires that our society provide us all with access to information, equipment, and supplies, as well as with people who can provide us with advice and guidance. We can make these into social activities in which groups of people get together to explore their own body and learn about their health.

Humans must evolve into more sociable creatures

It is important to note that animals are not very "sociable". If animals had the same intelligence as humans, they would be capable of creating cities, but they would not be interested in social activities. They are much too selfish and competitive. Even the "social animals" have no significant interest in socializing. An animal exists only to reproduce. They are not interested in observing the flowers, clouds, or forests. They are not interested in getting together for dinner, a bicycle ride, or a conversation. They have no desire to organize a birthday party for their children, celebrate an anniversary, or play a game of volleyball.

Take a critical look at the humans around you. Not all humans are equally sociable. Some people, for example, are extremely quiet at dinner tables, and some have almost no interest in learning about the world or getting together with other people to do something as a group. The people who tend to become criminals and gang members are perhaps the best example of crude, anti-social people.  The members of a crime gang appear to be "members" of an organization, but the bonds between those members are not much more advanced than the bonds between a pack of hyenas. The behavior of the gang is also very crude; they don't actually do anything useful together. Rather, they behave like animals who mark their territory, fight over dominance, and reproduce.

All humans are similar to animals, but most of the people who become criminals seem to have a greater similarity to animals. Compared to you and me, they have less of an interest in society, and a much greater interest in sex, babies, money, food, status, and territory. We like to think of criminals as just ordinary people who ended up involved in crime for mysterious reasons, but we have to face the fact that people vary in their mental qualities, and some people are more like primitive savages. The human race has to evolve into an emotionally more advanced creature. Humans in the future have to be less selfish and more interested in living and working with other people.

Would you be happy in a future world of robots?

Have you ever wondered what life would be like for you if we had robots that were capable of doing all of the work that we needed to do? Imagine living in the distant future in which robots are doing virtually everything, and humans can spend all day, every day, doing whatever they please. What would you do each day if you didn't have to do anything in particular? This is the situation some rich children find themselves in. Prince Charles, for example, doesn't have to do anything in particular. So what does he do each day? What does Queen Elizabeth do?

When an animal is provided with whatever it needs, it spends a lot of its time sleeping. It doesn't want to socialize, learn about the world, or meet new animals. It has no desire to do anything with its life, other than to eat, reproduce, and fight over status and territory.

If we had robots doing all of the work for us, most people would waste their life trying to titillate their emotional cravings for babies, sex, food, and status. The reason I say this is because most people are spending their leisure time that way right now. Some people won't even glance at the evidence that Jews did the 9/11 attack. They want to entertain themselves, not think about society, or do some work for society. They want to do things for themselves, just like an animal. Humans must evolve more advanced emotions in order to truly enjoy this modern world.

Did we almost have a nuclear war in 1983?

Somebody told me about this documentary that shows that Russia and America almost started a nuclear war in 1983. I suspect this documentary was produced by Jews who are trying to do "damage control". As is typical of their propaganda, they try to blame all of the strange behavior on incompetent and paranoid government officials and crude Russian computers. However, it appears to me as if Jews within the Russian and American governments and militaries were struggling to trick the Americans and Russians into attacking one another with nuclear bombs. Ronald Reagan appears to have been just another mindless puppet who was secretly manipulated by Jews.

This documentary claims that a Russian man, Stanislav Petrov, is one of the people who could be credited with preventing the war because he disregarded three consecutive orders from their security system computer that America had launched nuclear missiles and that he must immediately retaliate by launching the Russian missiles.

It's interesting that Petrov was not normally responsible for monitoring American nuclear missiles or making decisions about whether Russia should retaliate. One of the characteristics of some false flag operations is that key personnel mysteriously change for no apparent reason. The Jews want to replace personnel prior to a false flag operation for several reasons, such as to remove members of their organization so that they can appear innocent; to replace people that they don't think are gullible enough to be fooled into following the plan; and to set up patsies to take the blame.

I suppose the Jews had removed the man who normally was in that position so that Petrov would be the sucker who would take the blame for accidentally starting a nuclear war. However, Petrov had the sense to look at the radar images, think about the issue, and come to the conclusion that the computer was making a mistake. When the Jews discovered that he had disregarded the order to launch an attack, they had the computer send out a second demand to attack, and when he disregarded that, they must have become very frustrated and sent out a third demand. However, by the time he disregarded the third order, other Russians were getting involved and wondering what was going on, and I suppose the Jews decided to not send out a fourth order because they were worried that somebody would discover that Jews were sending the orders, not the computer. However, my interpretation of this documentary is that the Jews continued trying to trick the Russians into launching an attack during the following days, but none of the other Russians were fooled, either.

This documentary claims that many Russian government officials had been fooled to such an extent that they had gotten their nuclear missiles ready to launch and were just waiting for confirmation that America was attacking them. It makes me wonder what would the world be like today if the Russians had been fooled into launching an attack on America. We would have brought incredible damage to both of our nations. Would Israel be in control of the world by now? I also wonder how many other times the Jews tried to instigate a nuclear war. As I mentioned at the beginning of my audio file for 2_July 2008, I wonder if the movie Doctor Strangelove was based on one of their failed attempts.

Men must become more cooperative

Take a look at the activities that men engage in. Notice how many men are engaged in intensely competitive struggles for plastic trophies, money, or status. How many men can play a sports game without worrying about winning a trophy or money? How many men can play sports without deliberately hurting one another? And notice the cheating, blackmail, sabotage, and treachery as these men struggle for their silly goals. How many men can compete with one another without resorting to cheating?

Somebody recently pointed out to me that some men in the British military created the Tough Mudder events for themselves. They refer to it as an "event" rather than a "contest" or a "competition" because there is no winner, no loser, no trophies, and no prize money. They created the contest for exercise, training, and fun. Because there are no winners or losers, the participants can help each other. Actually, they are expected to help each other.

The Tough Mudder event was based on the physically demanding training that the British military men go through, but the concept of the event appealed to some people outside of the military, and in other nations, and also to some women. The event is proof that some men and women are capable of getting together for activities without any reward, and without fighting or cheating. They get together simply for exercise, entertainment, socializing, and testing their physical and mental abilities. It also shows that they can compete in a fair manner, and help their competitors to get through the course and become better at it. Note that when they are helping one another, they are not feeling sorry for losers, or encouraging pouting or whining. Rather, they are helping people to get through the course.

Imagine if the people in leadership positions had that same type of personality. Imagine businesses developing products and services without fighting, cheating, abuse, lies, and manipulation. Imagine scientists, engineers, carpenters, business executives, farmers, technicians, and other people helping and encouraging their competitors to become better rather than sabotaging, blackmailing, and intimidating them.

Unfortunately, we do not find this type of personality in the type of men who dominate the world. Instead, we are dominated by men - and women! - who are abnormally aggressive, crude, selfish, and animal-like. The communist nations are an excellent example. China, for example, has more resources, land, and people than other nations, so they don't need to fight for more territory. Rather, they need to deal with their social and economic problems. China is an incredibly dysfunctional society, and there is extreme suffering. For example, have you seen the reports of Chinese people who are selling one of their kidneys in a desperate attempt to make some money?

A nation in which people are so desperate for money that they will sell their kidneys does not need to waste any of their time or resources on fights over worthless land. However, the Chinese government officials don't show much interest in analyzing China's problems or making China a better nation. Rather, they are like wild dogs that are more concerned about eliminating competitors, acquiring more territory, and proving to the world that they are the top dogs in the hierarchy. For a current example, as of June 2012, some Chinese government officials are wasting some of their time on fights with Japan over the nearly worthless Senkaku Islands. If you were given dictatorial control of China, would you suggest starting a war and killing your own people over those islands? What would your priorities be if you were the dictator of China?

As of July 2012, China is fighting with Vietnam over some islands and the oil that may be in the area. China already has more resources than almost every other nation, so they don't need to fight for Vietnamese oil. China is behaving like an extremely wealthy, bratty child that is grabbing everybody's toys.

As I will show in the next file of this series, China has recently built some impressive apartments, hotels, and other buildings in Macau, but they are only for gambling and prostitution. The Chinese could be inspiring the entire world by building beautiful cities for themselves, but their leaders have other priorities. Likewise, Argentina has a lot of problems, and their leaders should be focused on improving their nation, but some of their leaders want to waste resources on fights over the worthless Falkland Islands. 

Who is to blame for the incompetent leadership in China and Argentina? Now that I am aware of how the Jews are getting control of America's media, government, police departments, businesses, schools, charities, churches, and other organizations, I suspect that the Jews are also manipulating as many other countries as they can get away with. The disgusting political leaders in America are not entirely due to the American voters. The Jews are partly to blame because they secretly give financial and media support to the criminals and blackmailed puppets that they want in leadership positions. I suspect that the Jews are doing this in other nations, also.

I suspect that the Jews are secretly promoting current criminals and blackmailed puppets in China, Argentina, Venezuela, Germany, and other nations. This would explain why government officials everywhere are have dreary, bland personalities; never say anything intelligent; never seem to be happy; and refuse to expose or complain about crimes by Israel or Jews. The Jews are also secretly pushing all nations into fighting with their neighbors, and having a greater tolerance for gambling, prostitution, and crime.

Neither China nor Argentina needs more land or resources. All nations need better leadership. We also need citizens who are more honest, more responsible, more interested in thinking, and less interested in acting like an animal. If the Chinese people, for example, would spend just a few minutes thinking about the Senkaku islands, they would realize that nothing is going to improve in China if they get control of the Senkaku Islands. Regardless of who is in control of those islands, some Chinese people will continue to sell their kidneys, and some Chinese parents will continue to sell their children into sex and labor slavery, and some Chinese people will continue to suffer malnutrition and monotonous diets of rice, and some Chinese women will continue to travel to Macau to work as prostitutes.

Likewise, the people in Argentina need to spend only a few moments to figure out that their life will remain just as miserable even if their nation gets control of the Falkland Islands. The people in Argentina and China need to get rid of their criminals and corrupt government officials, not fight over worthless islands.

The majority of people behave like savages. They allow crime networks to manipulate and abuse them, and they continuously elect and support incompetent governments. The majority of people in Argentina and China have the intelligence necessary to realize that it is foolish to fight over a worthless island, but the majority of people have no desire to think about these issues. In order to improve the world, we have to suppress the horde of sheeple in addition to removing the incompetent governments and crime networks.

Why are some areas in dispute?

Why are nations still arguing over boundaries? Why didn't our ancestors settle these border issues long ago? The reason is because our ancestors didn't want or care about certain, nearly worthless islands, mountain tops, and strips of barren desert. Our ancestors didn't care who owned those pieces of land. For centuries people have avoided those areas. So, if these areas are so worthless, why are people fighting about them today?

The reason is that the nations today have the equivalent of intelligent dogs in leadership positions. Those government officials claim to be patriotic people who are defending their nation, but in reality they are crude savages who are starting senseless fights over worthless territory. The Chinese and Argentine governments believe that they can resolve the border disputes with military force, but the best way to resolve the border disputes is for each nation to replace its government with a better group of people.

Are Americans becoming more intelligent?
 

A recent study of 1500 American skulls came to the conclusion that the skulls of Americans today are significantly larger - by an average of 200 cm³ - than those of the Americans of the mid 1800s. Some people interpret this as a sign that Americans are becoming increasingly intelligent, but there are other ways of explaining this. For example, America was originally a dumping ground for criminals, and a refuge for misfits and religious fanatics. A large proportion of them may have had small brains. By 1900, however, Europeans with more intelligence may have begun emigrating to America.

Mugshot of John Smith. Many of the early American immigrants may have been crude creatures.

If we were to study the ears of early Americans, we might find that a greater percentage of those original Americans had ears that stuck out, as with John Smith in the photo. If we were to look at people's necks, we might find that more of the early Americans had short, Neanderthal-type necks. However, we would be foolish to conclude that our ears and necks are changing as a result of evolution or better diets.

We all love praise, but unfortunately, praise doesn't do us any good. We are not going to understand ourselves if all we do is look for ways to praise ourselves. The only way to improve something is to look critically at it and find flaws, mistakes, and problems. You cannot improve something by looking for admirable qualities. In order to improve America, we need to take a serious and critical look at ourselves. 

The Americans like to boast that they are the greatest people in the world, and there are indeed some impressive people in this nation, but I think that the majority of Americans are just like the Statue of Liberty describes them. This is why the nation is being destroyed by a small network of Jews. If the majority of Americans were truly as great as they boast, the Jews would not be able to get away with unbelievably obvious and incredibly destructive crimes, such as blowing up the World Trade Center buildings while broadcasting the demolition on television.

What is a "human"?

Animals do not care whether we treat them nicely, or whether we torture or rape them. Animals do not care whether they live in a beautiful city, or a toxic, radioactive waste dump. Animals also have no concern about the quality or nutritional value of their foods, or whether arsonists burn the forests that they live in. If a human also has no concern about the quality of his life, is he really a "human"? If you show somebody overwhelming evidence that the Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, and if he shows no concern, is he really a "human"?

Watch that documentary about the potential nuclear war in 1983. If evidence comes out that the Jews tried repeatedly to instigate nuclear wars between America, China, and Russia, and if some people do not care about this problem, how can we justify describing them as "human"? What kind of "human" doesn't care if people instigate a nuclear war? What kind of human doesn't care that Jews are lying about the Holocaust? This is the type of crude behavior that we expect from animals.

We have to set standards on human behavior, and we have to judge everybody by their effect on society. If a human behaves like an animal, then we should consider him to be like an animal, not a human.

How many people in China care that some of their citizens are selling their kidneys? How many people in Thailand care that some of their teenage boys are castrating themselves so that they can become better prostitutes? People who don't care about these issues are not really "human". They are more like animals. When we allow these crude people to dominate the world, then we end up with a world that is dominated by primitive creatures who don't care about crime networks, corruption, suffering, wars, or the quality of anybody's life. These crude people should not be allowed to vote, influence business activity, or have any effect on society. They should be regarded as "second-class citizens", or as "talking monkeys", or as "sheeple".

The world cannot improve when it is dominated by people whose only concern is feeding themselves, reproducing, and fighting over status and territory. The world will improve only when we suppress the criminals, sheeple, and parasites, and when we put people in control of the world who are truly interested in the quality of life for all of us, and who want to work together to improve society.