Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

Creating a better society

Part 5:

11 July 2012
New videos starting from here, the latest on December 2019 here.


Businesses benefit from copyrights, not society
Society should control the Internet
Society should provide Internet services
Educational materials should evolve through time
Videos of small objects around us

Businesses benefit from copyrights, not society
Copyrights suppress progress
Most people consider copyrights to be beneficial because they protect a person's work, but just because something is beneficial to an individual doesn't mean that it is beneficial to society. From the point of view of society, copyrights inhibit the development, or the evolution, of whatever it is that they are protecting.

For example, when a person creates a song, he is allowed to copyright it, and nobody can make variations of it. Furthermore, radio stations, television networks, and organizations have to pay a fee every time they play his song. The musician is the only person who benefits from this copyright policy. Society does not benefit. It would be better from the point of view of society if people were allowed to make variations of his music, or combine bits and pieces of his music with other music. Music should evolve through time.

Our ancestors didn't have copyrights, and this is why a lot of the music that they created is so popular. For example, Greensleeves was not created by one musician. It developed through centuries of modifications of other people's music. That particular song, and many of the other old, very popular songs, evolved through time.

Imagine if we were to allow mathematicians to copyright math formulas. Imagine if you had to pay a royalty fee to a mathematician every time you calculated the square root of a number. Only the mathematician would benefit from such a policy. Furthermore, the copyright would prevent people from making variations of his square root formula, thereby inhibiting progress in mathematics.

We allow photographers to copyright photos; artists to copyright their art work; musicians to copyright their songs; and television companies to copyright their documentaries. We are forced to use their creations as they created them, and not make any changes to them. The people who copyright these creative works benefit financially, but even they would be happier overall if they lived in a society in which all these items could evolve through time.

Music, photos, documents, and other items should be regarded as social technology, and nobody should be able to own any of it or prohibit somebody from making variations of it. Musicians should create music for society, not for profit, and everybody should be able to make modifications of it, including other musicians. Everybody would also be allowed to combine bits and pieces of other people's music into new music. Nobody should have to ask anybody for permission to do this, either. This would result in music slowly improving through time, and new variations would continuously be created.

We need to alter our economic system so that a person can make a living without copyrighting their work. This would allow music, songs, sculptures, furniture, clothing styles, documentaries, photos, and other items to slowly evolve into better versions, and into more variations.

We can already see this evolutionary process happening to a certain extent on the Internet. However, people are doing it for entertainment rather than to be serious. For example, there are dozens of variations of van Gogh's Starry Night painting on the Internet. At the moment people do this for amusement, but there are two good reasons why we should be allowed - actually encouraged! - to both make modifications of paintings, documentaries, music, and all other types of artistic creations:

1) To create variations of art
When an artist creates something that people enjoy, such as a painting, sculpture, clothing, or furniture, other people should be free to make variations of it. For example, below are six of possibly hundreds of variations of van Gogh's Starry Night that I noticed on the Internet. These variations were created quickly for amusement, but in a society without copyrights, the artists would be free to put a lot of effort into making variations that could be used for decorating homes and buildings.

2) To improve art
I would describe a lot of the songs, sculptures, and other artwork, especially "modern art", as depressing, or as toilet humor, or as psychotic. When artists are encouraged to improve existing songs, sculptures, documentaries, and paintings, then people with more pleasant personalities will be free to modify the art to make it more desirable.

I think this policy would be especially noticeable for music and songs. For example, a lot of country-western songs have nice music, but a lot of the lyrics are angry and hateful. Without copyrights, we could modify their lyrics into pleasant or amusing songs. For another example, when musical robots become available, variations of songs will develop to take into account the special musical abilities of robots.

If you wonder how it is possible for songs to improve through time, the process is the same as with automobiles or cell phones. Once people are allowed to make variations of songs, we will start noticing that we like some variations better than others. Through the years the more desirable variations will become more popular. The less desirable variations will slowly be forgotten. This causes the songs to evolve into more desirable variations. The same concept applies to paintings, sculptures, clothing styles, movies, decorations on buildings, television documentaries, flowerpots at a city park, and even rowboats. Most rowboats today are somewhat ugly, but once we begin encouraging artists to contribute to society and make their city beautiful, over time this will result in rowboats that become increasingly attractive. The cities with canals and lakes will become much more visually artistic with those type of rowboats.

Am I encouraging plagiarism?

What is the difference between plagiarizing somebody's music, painting, or video documentary, and making a variation to it? The difference is that a plagiarist is a thief; a liar; a con artist. He is taking the credit for somebody else's work. He is trying to deceive us about who he is and what he has accomplished.

I am advocating that people be free to make variations of other people's work, and to try improving other people's work, but I require that everybody be honest and admit about what they are taking from other people. If you are honest, then you are not plagiarizing or deceiving us. Instead, you are behaving like a scientist who gives credit to people who have done work before him. For example, a musician who modifies a song would admit that it was a modification of somebody else's song.

Without copyrights, art can be judged by its artistic value

In the world today, the self-appointed "art authorities" determine which paintings are valuable, and they have selected the art from van Gogh, Monet, and certain other artists as the best. I think that this is creating an artificially large interest in the art from those particular artists, and it causes their art to be very expensive. I think most people are attracted to those paintings because of their monetary and status value, not because of their artistic value.

I don't think anybody is spending an enormous amount of money on a van Gogh painting because they truly like the painting. Rather, they are buying it because it was created by van Gogh. This same problem is occurring with diamonds. Nobody is purchasing diamond jewelry because they like the visual image of the diamonds. Humans do not have the ability to distinguish between a diamond and an imitation diamond. When people select diamond jewelry, they are not looking at the jewelry and selecting the items that are the most visually attractive to them. Rather, they ask such questions as, "Is this a real diamond?" They are concerned with the status and financial value of the jewelry, not its artistic value.

If people were to select jewelry by its visual image, I think that most people would end up selecting jewelry with plastic, copper enamel, opals, agates, wood, porcelain, and glass. Diamonds are dull compared to the items with colors and patterns.

When some people purchase a painting, they don't simply look at the painting and judge it by its artistic value. Rather, they ask such questions as, "Is this an original van Gogh?" If people were purchasing art purely for its artistic appeal, then they would not care who the artist was, or whether it was a real van Gogh painting, an imitation, or a variation.

Once we remove copyrights and allow people to make variations of art, then we will have lots of variations of popular art, and the originals will not necessarily stand out as being the best. I think this will help dampen the idiotic attraction to paintings from particular artists.

There are already some variations of Botticelli's Birth of Venus, although they are not meant to be serious.
Furthermore, without copyrights, we can let CNC machines create oil paintings, and we can program the machines to do paintings that would be difficult for humans. A CNC painting machine doesn't complain about adding lots of details, for example, and it can use very tiny brushes. A machine can make artwork the size of an entire wall. It can also easily decorate paintings with sparkles, iridescent glitter, and other materials that human artists would complain are ridiculously difficult to work with. Machines can also apply paints, dies, and protective coatings that humans would not want to deal with, such as those that need a controlled atmosphere, or which must be applied while hot, or in a sealed environment.
Do you really want the same paintings on your wall forever?
Imagine living in a City of Castles in which your home and furnishings are provided to you for free. You can select any paintings that you want for your walls, and when you're tired of them, you give them back to society and pick up some other paintings. None of the paintings have a monetary value. They are provided for free.

Imagine that you like van Gogh's Starry Night. Imagine walking into a room that is full of paintings for you to select from, and there are hundreds of variations of van Gogh's Starry Night, and mixed among them is the original from van Gogh. Would you select the original? It would have no monetary value, so you would have no financial incentive to select the original. When none of the paintings have a monetary value, and when nobody will consider you to be "special" for having the original, you will not care who the artist is, and you will not care if you have the original of the painting, or a variation, or an imitation. Instead, you would look at the paintings and select them according to how they attract your attention.

Furthermore, when artwork is free for us to borrow, and when we have thousands of paintings to select from, all of which are free, I think that most people would occasionally swap out their paintings rather than hold onto a few paintings for their entire lives. I think most people would prefer the variety.

I think this also applies to furniture and other decorations in our home. When you have free access to home furnishings, I think that you will occasionally want to switch them out and try something different. By comparison, when the furniture, paintings, and other items must be purchased, we have a tendency to keep them longer than we want them. Overall, I think our lives will be more pleasant when we share these items rather than purchase them.

Society should control the Internet
Businesses should not control Internet services
The free enterprise system allows businesses to have control of search engines, video sites, Internet encyclopedias, and all sorts of messaging and social networking sites. Since these are private businesses, their primary goal is money, not providing a nice life for any of us.

Furthermore, I suspect that the criminal Jews are getting control of search engines, video sites, and social networking sites so that they can manipulate us in various ways, and observe us. For example, the Jews at YouTube are promoting certain videos and suppressing others, and the Jews that control Wikipedia are promoting Jewish propaganda about historical events, suppressing whatever truth that they don't want us to know about, and suppressing the people they don't like or cannot compete with.

If we had a sensible legal system with honest judges and lawyers, they would be justified in arresting the people that control Wikipedia for such crimes as covering up the 9/11 attack and promoting propaganda about the Holocaust. If we were to investigate the Jews at YouTube and Google, I bet that we would find reasons to justify arresting them, also.

We have to take a more active role in life. We are like passive sheep who are allowing Jewish and corporate wolves to manipulate us. We should consider the Internet to be similar to the water supply or the transportation network. These services should belong to society, not businesses or crime networks.

We don't need secrecy on the Internet

Allowing people to post information on the Internet either anonymously or with a phony name is equivalent to allowing people to come into your house while wearing masks and lying about who they are. Only criminals benefit from this secrecy.

It doesn't matter if a person comes into your life through your computer's Internet connection, or whether they are walking through the front door. You have a right to know who is trying to influence you. Don't be intimidated into thinking that we need secrecy on the Internet. Instead, demand evidence that you and other honest people are going to benefit from such secrecy.

Internet videos should play like DVD players

The companies that allow us to post videos, such as YouTube and Vimeo, were never interested in providing a useful service for society. Instead, their goal was profit, manipulation of the public, promotion of Jewish propaganda, and entertainment. As a result, they do not provide us with useful playback controls over the videos, and they don't want us to download them.

In order for Internet videos to be useful for educational purposes, we need to have the same control that a DVD player provides. We should be able to easily control the playback speed, go forwards and backwards, and pause to freeze a frame. We should also be able to easily download videos so that we can edit them.

The businesses and the criminal Jews want us to watch the videos, not control the videos or edit the videos. They want us to be passive sheep who sit in front of the computer and mindlessly accept the information that they provide us. When you consider that the YouTube Jews are promoting certain videos and suppressing others, then the situation becomes even more ridiculous. Not only are we supposed to be passive sheep, we have to passively watch the videos that those criminal Jews want us to see. We are truly suckers for putting up with this abuse.

In order for the videos on the Internet to become more useful, no business or crime network should be allowed to promote or suppress any of them. Only society should be able to pass judgment on whether a video should be promoted or suppressed.


Which videos should be restricted for adults?

There are certain videos that YouTube has restricted for "mature" audiences. We are supposed to sign in before we watch them, but how does signing in do any good? Children can sign in, and with phony names, so what purpose does it serve? There is no verification on the Internet of who anybody is, so who are these restrictions helping?

I suppose that these restrictions are partly to appease parents who worry that their children will watch sex or violence, but I also suspect that these restrictions are partly because the Jews want to figure out who among us is watching those restricted videos. By asking us to sign in, the Jews can determine who is watching those restricted videos, and although they may not know our real names or addresses, it will give them the name and e-mail address that we were using when we signed up for YouTube, and they might be able to identify some of us from our e-mail address since so many people in law enforcement and Internet service providers are working with these criminals.

The information about who among us is looking at certain videos, especially child pornography videos, is valuable to a crime network. It would allow the Jews to identify people that they can blackmail and offer jobs to in Hollywood, police departments, and government. It would also allow the Jews to find people who are so mentally unstable that they would be valuable as a patsy in a false flag operation.

Should any videos be restricted to adults only? If so, how do we determine which ones should be restricted? At the moment, we are foolishly allowing businesses to determine which videos will be restricted, and I would describe their decisions as abusive and irrational. For example, the Jews at YouTube are providing us with unlimited access to videos that promote lies about the Holocaust, lies about 9/11, and lies about Arab terrorists. They also provide us with unrestricted access to "toilet humor". Children are also allowed to watch videos from teenagers who show them techniques to hide septum piercings from parents and school teachers. Have you seen any of these videos yet? How about this video on how to apply lipstick with seven piercings in your lip? Here's a young girl talking about her 46 piercings. YouTube prohibits videos that provide serious information about childbirth, sex, war, and human waste products, but they allow videos to encourage children to get piercings and deceive their parents and school teachers! Do you approve of the policies that YouTube is imposing on us?

Society, not businesses or crime gangs, should be determining which videos and other information should be restricted to adults only.

Should violence be restricted?

Most people want the Internet, television, and other media to censor violence. However, I don't think our censorship policies regarding violence make any sense. For example, we have free access to incredible amounts of violence from Hollywood and television. Slapstick comedy is full of violence, but we laugh at it rather than complain about it. Cartoons for children are also full of violence. The people who want to censor violence do not want to censor the phony violence that actors provide for us. Rather, they want to censor the actual violence that is occurring all around us on a daily basis. 

The news reporters are prohibited from showing us videos of people being killed or mutilated in wars, and of people being killed, raped, or beaten by criminals. There are only some types of actual violence that we are allowed to see. For example, we are allowed to watch policemen kick and hit Rodney King. Actually, we don't merely have the freedom to watch that. Rather, we are forced to watch it over and over.

The news reporters hide almost all of the violence that is occurring in the world, except for a few selected acts. The particular acts of violence that they put on television are not intended to inform us of world events. Rather, they are selecting the violent acts that they hope will instigate fights between nations, races, or sexes. They also show us violence when they think it will encourage hatred of Arabs or pity for Jews. The news journalists are trying to manipulate us, not educate us about news events.

We need to create more sensible policies for censorship. Should the violence that occurs in war be completely prohibited from history books, news reports, or the Internet? Should violence be restricted to people of a certain age? What about simulated violence by actors? Should that be regarded as family entertainment? Or should it be restricted? Is real violence more dangerous to us than simulated violence? What is the difference to a child between watching a Hollywood simulation of a murder, and watching a real murder? What is the difference between watching an actor get killed in a Hollywood war movie, and watching a real soldier get killed in Iraq? Do children or adults suffer by watching the real violence? Do we benefit by watching imitation violence?

Why do we consider fantasy violence to be entertainment?

Television, children's books, children's cartoons, and movies are full of images and descriptions of "fantasy" murders, tortures, rapes, beatings, and stabbings. This type of fantasy violence is treated as harmless entertainment for the entire family.

Why do we consider fantasy violence to be entertainment, but real violence to be disgusting? I think it is the result of our emotions. When our eyes see a scene that shows real violence, such as a dead body, the visual signals are sent to our brain, and our brain decodes the signals and figures out that we are looking at a dead body. The information then triggers a certain portion of our brain that reacts by creating fear.

This emotion was designed for our protection. In prehistoric times, when our ancestors encountered a dead human, or a human who is seriously bleeding, or a child who was screaming, they would become emotionally stimulated because death, blood, and screaming was a sign of danger. For example, there may be a wolf in the area, or a violent tribe, or sharp rocks.

Furthermore, since the primary purpose of all living creatures is reproduction, this emotion causes us to be most concerned about children. In other words, when we see dead bodies or people bleeding, we are most concerned that the children are in danger, and we want to protect the children.

By comparison, when we watch slapstick comedians on television, the violent images are decoded in our mind in the exact same manner as images of real death, but our mind realizes that we are watching actors on television, and so the portion of our brain that responds to death is not triggered. As a result, we do not experience fear when we watch phony violence. Those emotions are triggered by actual death and suffering, not by imaginary acts. That emotion is triggered by real blood, not by tomato ketchup, red paint, or red roses. It is triggered by real screams, not screams by actors.

Most people follow their emotions like a dumb animal. When they see real violence, their emotions trigger a high level of fear, and they react by trying to run away and protect their children. By comparison, when those people watch phony violence on television, their emotions are not triggered, and so they do not feel like running away from it, and they do not consider their children to be in danger from it. Rather, they consider the phony violence to be harmless entertainment for all ages.

Most people judge something according to its emotional effect. If something upsets them, then they assume it is bad. This behavior was vital for animals and primitive humans, but it doesn't make sense in this modern world. Our emotions are causing us to "protect" our children from reality, and entertain them with fantasy violence. We need to think more often. What evidence is there that fantasy violence is beneficial? Where is the evidence that reality is harmful?

As I pointed out here, humans and animals are not violent. We abhor violence. We become emotionally upset at the site of death, suffering, and even blood. We don't even enjoy looking at a placenta, which represents life, not death. We don't like looking at blood or body parts. However, simulated violence does not trigger the emotion that is activated by real violence.

We have to control our emotions. If we mindlessly follow our emotional feelings, then we will be horrified by real violence, and even by childbirth, and we will want to hide from it and protect the children from it, but we will giggle at phony violence. We will mistakenly assume that the real events are harmful, and the simulated violence is family entertainment.

I think that we are creating problems for us by following this emotion because it is creating the impression that war is fun. When the 1991 Desert Storm war was being promoted, for example, tens of millions of Americans were promoting that war, but most of them had never seen a real war, or even a dead body. I don't think many of the men who were promoting that war had even seen a placenta, or a woman giving birth to a baby. The only blood most American men have ever seen is from minor injuries. Many American men have never seen menstrual blood, either. Most Americans learned about war and death from Hollywood movies. As a result, most Americans had the idiotic belief that the Iraqi war would consist of dropping some bombs for a few months to kill a few evil people, and then everybody would live happily ever after.

After 9/11, many of those same people who had no idea what a real war is, supported a war in Afghanistan. That war continued year after year, and then it expanded to Iraq, but the news reporters hid most of the images of violence. The war is still going on today, as of July 2012. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have provided Americans with phenomenal opportunities to get video of real deaths, real mutilations, real brain damage, and all sorts of real suffering in hospitals, but instead of watching the real violence for free, the Americans have been spending phenomenal amounts of money to create hundreds of television shows and movies with phony violence and phony suffering. Does this behavior make sense to you? This is the behavior we would expect from a talking monkey, not a human. This is an animal that is following its emotions without thinking about what it is doing.

We are encouraging violent accidents

In America, violence is more than entertainment. We have television shows, such as America's Funniest Home Videos, that encourage violent and destructive acts. That particular television show gives prizes, as much as $100,000, to people who have the funniest video, but most of what that show considers to be funny are potentially dangerous accidents, such as falling off of a ladder. This type of television show encourages people to do something risky or idiotic while somebody else is filming them.

YouTube allows these types of videos without restriction, and if the video becomes popular, the person can make a substantial amount of money because YouTube will pay them advertising fees. This is encouraging people to behave in reckless manners in an attempt to create a popular YouTube video.

Our society encourages us to behave in dangerous and reckless manners. We consider reckless accidents and stupid behavior to be funny. We also spend a lot of money to simulate violence, suffering, rape, and misery. Who benefits from these type of policies? I think that we would create a more pleasant society if children were encouraged to face reality and behave in a responsible manner.

We should not encourage them to consider idiotic or reckless behavior to be funny, and we should not encourage them to perform idiotic stunts. I think we are foolish to offer financial rewards, special treatment, or publicity to children and adults who do stupid stunts. People who do stupid things should be regarded as idiots. When they destroy material items they should be regarded as destructive, and when they injure themselves and expect medical treatment, they should be described as a burden on society.

Are children harmed by real violence?

If our history documents had photos and videos of actual scenes from wars and crimes, the children would be initially upset to see them, but they would not be damaged. Those photos will trigger this protective emotion and cause the children to become upset and a bit frightened, but they will not be harmed from it. All they have to do is understand the emotion, and then they can continue with their history lessons.

We are not harmed when our emotions are triggered. Our emotions create sensations, and we have the option to override them with our intellect. If a person chooses to panic or become hysterical, then he is behaving like a stupid animal rather than a modern human. Don't make excuses for these people. This modern world needs humans who think more often. None of us benefit by having these talking monkeys living among us.

If you have trouble understanding this concept, consider the issue of pee and poop. When somebody talks about those issues, your emotions will be triggered and you will experience what we refer to as "disgust", and you will want to turn away and hide from it. However, this emotion is simply a protective mechanism. Our ancestors evolved a strong disgust of waste products in order to prevent them from touching it, playing with it, and especially from eating it. There is nothing disgusting about our waste products. It is our stupid emotions that causes us to believe that there is something disgusting about it. If we could control our emotions, we would be able to study our waste products.

Do you think your kidneys are 100% perfect? There are very few people, if any, whose kidneys are "perfect". If everybody could control their emotions towards waste products, and if we had more medical knowledge, then each of us would be able to analyze our pee and discover what is wrong with our particular kidneys. For example, you might discover that you need to eat more salt, or more of a certain vitamin, because your kidneys are accidentally releasing some of those chemicals. Or maybe your kidneys are not releasing enough of a chemical, so you need to compensate for that. Some people might discover that caffeine is detrimental to them, and others might benefit from it by forcing their kidneys to release more waste products.

The people who complain that their waste products are "disgusting" are following their emotions, not their intellect. All of us experience those feelings of disgust, but we need to control our emotions so that we can learn about human health.

Likewise, we have to control our emotions in regards to death, blood, and crying. I suspect that we would create a better society if we stopped treating phony violence as entertainment. I think this is giving people the wrong impression of violence. There's nothing amusing or entertaining about violence. I also think it would be better if history books and other documents were allowed to use photos and video of actual violence when it helped to explain the material. I would not include violent images simply for the titillation. Rather, I would include them when they helped to explain the event.

Children in prehistoric times occasionally saw real violence, and they survived. Children are not damaged by images of real violence. Rather, their emotions are titillated, and they will become very alert and want to turn away from the violence. They are not harmed, however. They merely experience an emotional reaction. All we need to do is understand our emotions and think more often. We have to stop letting our emotional feelings dominate our behavior.

A lot of people like to blame their terrible behavior, or the terrible behavior of their children, on experiencing strong emotions of fear or anger during their youth, but emotions do not alter our brain circuitry. Emotions simply give us feelings. We can deal with those feelings. Encouraging people to believe that emotional feelings during childhood can ruin our entire lives is encouraging people to feel sorry for themselves. It would make more sense to encourage people to believe that emotional stimulation is beneficial by helping us to learn about our mind.

Likewise, a woman experiences strong emotional feelings when her child dies, but encouraging her to feel sorry for herself is making the problem worse. Tell her to deal with it, and if she cannot deal with it, then consider her to be a talking monkey rather than a modern human.

Society needs to be completely open and honest
Each person needs only one ID number
Imagine living in a society in which every person is given a unique ID number when they are born, and that number is all they ever need for identification. It is their phone number, their Internet address, their e-mail address, and their entry into the gigantic database that holds data on every person in the world. If you know a person's ID number, you can call them on the telephone simply by dialing that number, and the telephone network will find them no matter where they are in the world.

If a technician has to travel around the city, or to different cities, he could put his schedule into his entry in the database, and anybody who needs to send him supplies would be able to do so without knowing where he is or where he will be. To send him a package, you would put his ID number on the package. You would not need any address, city, or zip code. The mail delivery system would look in the database to see where he will be when the package will arrive, and the computer would ship the package to that destination. You never need to know addresses or zip codes. 

As children go through school, all of their school information would go into the database under their ID number. Whenever a person goes a doctor or dentist, their medical information would go into the database under that ID number. Everybody's job performance data would also go into the database under their unique ID number. Since the information in this database is accessible to the public, if you knew a person's ID number, then you could access all of the information about them. That database would have photographs of them at various ages, DNA samples, medical records, school records, marital records, iris scans, fingerprints, and whatever else that society considers potentially useful.

You would not need a drivers license, credit card, or any other type of identification or permit. Everything about you would go into the database under your ID number. That database would have information about your authorization to drive cars, fly airplanes, or perform dentistry. That database would also have information about your authorization to restricted areas, such as whether you are allowed into the electric power generators for the city, or if you are allowed into a computer room. You wouldn't need any security badges of any type.

If you get a job at a different business, they don't have to ask you fill out any forms. All they do is ask for your ID number and that would provide them with all of the information about you. They would not have to give you any security badges, either. Instead, they would let the database know which areas you are permitted into. By placing fingerprint scanners or iris scanners at restricted areas, the computer would identify you and determine whether you are authorized into the area. You would never have to worry about keys or badges.

If you met somebody you are interested in as a friend, coworker, or spouse, all you have to do is enter their ID number in the database and you have access to all of their school records, medical information, marital history, and job history.

Who benefits from secrecy?

Nobody would be able to keep secrets in this type of society. This lack of privacy would frighten the people who are trying to hide unpleasant aspects of themselves, but the honest people should stop allowing themselves to be intimidated into tolerating secrecy and deception. This type of society would make life much simpler for all of us honest people. It would allow us to learn about we are living with, and who wants to visit our city as a tourist.

The lack of secrecy would also provide phenomenal research opportunities for honest government officials and scientists who want to study human life. By keeping details of everybody's life, scientists would be able to get a much better understanding of medical problems, allergies, cancer, and who knows what else. This database would help government officials to follow the flow of people during their leisure time, and while working, which would be useful in designing transportation systems, parks, and recreational activities.

We could go even further and provide cell phones with a feature to occasionally send data to the database on our location. This would allow us to track where we have been throughout the day, which could be useful for people who are trying to figure out what they are allergic to, or why certain medical conditions occur at certain times or certain months.

If the cell phones could also connect to small to medical monitoring devices, then they could also occasionally send out data on our health, such as heartbeat, temperature, and in the future, blood chemistry or brain activity. This type of medical data would be incredibly useful for diagnosing health problems.

We can't understand the human body by looking at just one person. We have to look at an enormous number of people. When people keep their medical information a secret, they are foolishly inhibiting progress on both human health and human behavior.

Some types of medical and psychological experiments cannot be conducted on volunteers because volunteers are not necessarily "typical" people. Perhaps the best example are the people who donate blood. Many of them are drug addicts or homeless people who are desperate for money. I doubt if the people donating blood are a random sample of the population.

Don't be intimidated by people who demand secrecy. Instead, stand up to them and tell them to justify secrecy. Demand that they explain how you would benefit from secrecy. Point out to them that there was no secrecy thousands of years ago, but the human race survived.

Each person needs only one Internet site

In that imaginary society I just described, everybody's identification number would also be their Internet address. Some people might never use their Internet address, but everybody would have one. They would be able to use their Internet site just like people do today, such as to post photos, documents, or videos.

Nobody would be allowed to have multiple sites for themselves under different addresses. Can you think of a valid reason for a person to have more than one website? Most of the people today who are creating multiple websites are doing so for propaganda purposes or for sales. That is useful for crime networks and businesses, but not for society.

I have two websites, and, but I created the HugeQuestions site partly because it was easier to tell people to look at HugeQuestions, and partly because I sometimes had trouble accessing, and I wasn't sure if it was due to "ordinary" Internet problems, or if the Jews were trying to shut my site down, so I wanted a backup site just in case the Jews caused trouble for my site. However, if we lived in a society that didn't give pity to Jewish criminals, then we wouldn't need backup sites.

People, businesses, cities, social clubs, and other organizations need only one Internet address. A website provides unlimited amounts of pages, videos, and audios, so each person and organization would have unlimited amounts of Internet space with one Internet address. No person or organization needs more than one website. In a free enterprise system, some businesses can benefit by having multiple websites with different names to create the impression that they are separate companies, or divisions of a large company, but if we take control of our economic system and change it so that the emphasis is on society rather than profit, then we would not tolerate businesses that try to deceive us.

In the society I am proposing, we don't have to ask other people for their website address. If you know a person's ID number, then type it into the Internet browser. If they never bothered to use their website, then it will be empty, but the point I want to make is that this system simplifies life by removing the need to ask for website addresses.

This type of society requires we keep only one list. Specifically, a list of ID numbers. We don't have to keep lists of people's addresses, phone numbers, websites, or even their age or birthdays. Everything about them would be either in the database or at their website, so all we need is to keep is their ID number.

The social networking sites, if desired, would be operated by the government officials that are providing social activities. They would not be under the control of private organizations that operate secretly. The social sites should be designed for people, not businesses. Every city could provide its residents with a social networking site to provide the people with information about events, holiday celebrations, and activities. The people could use the site to get information about events, or reserve space at one of the activities, or arrange for a birthday party, or whatever people wanted to do.

How many passwords do we really need?

Those of us that use the Internet have to keep lots of passwords. Some people also have to use passwords to log onto their computer, or to access areas of their computer network. Some people have passwords on their telephone or their wireless router. Ideally, every password would be a nearly random collection of characters and symbols, but who could possibly remember 10 or 20 such passwords? Some people solve this problem by using the same password for all applications, and they create a password that is easy for them to remember, such as the name of their pet dog. I have seen some people write their password on a yellow sticky note and attach it to the border of their computer monitor. These people are defeating the purpose of a password.

The reason so many people do not take this password issue seriously is because most of the passwords are not truly necessary, and they are a nuisance to honest people. It would be better for us to design a society in which we don't need so many passwords, if any at all. One method is to raise standards for government officials and citizens in order to reduce crime, thereby reducing the need for security. Another method is to let the computer handle a lot of the security, such as by identifying us by voice, fingerprint scans, or iris scans.

Furthermore, we don't really need passwords for certain operations, such as e-mail. The fear that somebody is going to read your e-mail is ridiculous. And, if somebody does read your e-mail messages, how is it going to harm you? Most people's e-mail messages are so boring that somebody would have to be paid a high fee in order to read through them. Nobody would want to do it for free.

If we lived in a better society in which crime was low, and in which people enjoyed one another and had friends and activities, most people would want to spend their leisure time doing something with their friends, or relaxing at a park, or taking a bicycle ride. They are not going to want to waste their life reading your e-mail messages.

We already do the equivalent of reading people's e-mail messages when we are sitting close to people in trains, airplanes, restaurants, or shopping centers, and we are forced to listen to their conversations. Do you enjoy listening to other people's conversations when you are in public areas? Most of us want other people to speak quietly so that we don't have to listen to their conversations. Sometimes people have interesting conversations, but most of the time they are meaningless to us, and we don't want to waste our time listening to them. Likewise, some people occasionally have interesting e-mail messages, but most of them have no meaning to us, and we would not want to waste our lives looking at them. How many of us even enjoy looking through our own e-mail?

If we were living in a more pleasant society and had friends and lots of activities, we would have even less of a desire to sit in front of a computer and look at our own e-mail messages, and we would especially not want to waste our time looking at other people's messages. I think we are more likely to listen to other people's conversations and read their e-mail messages when we are lonely and bored. Therefore, instead of reacting with fear to the possibility that people might read your e-mail messages, we should try to provide ourselves with a society in which everybody has friends and activities, and everybody has better things to do in their life than read your e-mail messages. When you encounter a problem, react by looking for a solution.

Most people are paranoid that somebody will read their e-mail messages, and they assume that their lives will be ruined if we see their messages, but who among us is writing messages that will ruin our life if they are made public? Only the people who are cheating, lying, and abusing us have to be protective of their e-mail messages, but those people should be exposed! We should not protect people who are abusive.

There are only some people who can justify secrecy, such as those in law enforcement, but that type of secrecy is for serious work, not for personal issues. The only people who need secrecy in their personal lives are those who are trying to deceive us. Honest people don't need secrecy. Actually, honest people are burdened by all of the passwords, locks and keys, and other security devices. Our lives would be much more pleasant and simpler if we could trust one another.


Why are people so paranoid and secretive?

The paranoia that people are watching us seems to be the result of an emotion that is vital for animals and primitive humans. Animals are constantly on the lookout for danger, and they do not want other animals seeing them, smelling them, touching them, or hearing them. Animals could be described as "paranoid" and "extremely secretive". Watch a bird, for example, as it eats. It will eat a tiny bit of food, and then look around, and then eat a tiny bit more food, and then look around again. It cannot relax. It is constantly looking around for potential danger.

Animals appear to be peaceful and loving, and they appear to play with one another, but their entire lives are spent in a vicious battle for life. They never relax. When baby wolves and baby dogs play with each other, they are preparing for that battle; they are not "playing".

A pet cat is so well protected that it has nothing to worry about, but not even a pet cat can relax, and not even when it is taking a brief nap. While napping, it's ears are constantly moving around to monitor sounds, and a portion of its brain is actively listening for danger.


Most people are behaving just like paranoid, frightened animals. Most people are afraid that somebody is watching them, or listening to them, or reading their e-mail messages.

They are afraid that somebody will discover their medical data, take their photo, see their school records, or learn about their job history. They spend their lives in paranoia and fear, just like a stupid animal.

We have to understand our emotions and stop letting them dominate our decisions. We have to think more often. No normal, healthy person wants to watch you, or read your e-mail messages. If we were living in a more pleasant society with higher standards for government officials and citizens, then we would have friends and activities, and nobody would want to waste their life reading your e-mail messages or watching you. We would prefer to have a life of our own. We would prefer to be with our friends, or do some activity, such as take a walk or a ride a bicycle.

There are some people who enjoy installing cameras in bathrooms so that they can watch us, but we need to remove those people from society, not be afraid of them.

Respectable people don't have to be concerned that other respectable people are looking at their e-mail messages. The only people who need to worry are those who are dishonest or psychotic, but why should we protect them? It would be better to expose and evict them.

Furthermore, if we were living in a more pleasant society, I think people would stop producing so many silly and embarrassing e-mail messages. Facebook, Twitter, and cell phones are currently being used by millions of people on a daily basis to send silly messages to one another, but I don't think those activities would be so popular in a city that is more homogenous and which provides lots of activities for us. I think that the millions of silly messages are a symptom of loneliness. The same is true of the people who spend hours a day on silly cell phone conversations. I don't think they are enjoying life. I think they are having trouble forming stable relationships.

I think the interest in e-mail, text messaging, cell phone conversations, and similar activities will decrease dramatically when we create a more pleasant society and help people to find friends and activities. In that type of society, I think e-mail messages would become more serious, such as people arranging to meet at a certain time and day, or somebody providing somebody else with technical information.

The men thousands of years ago would often leave their wife and children in order to hunt for animals. Did those men spend the entire day worrying that their children will be abused by other members of the tribe who remained at home? Did they worry that their wives will get involved with one of the other men? Some of the men probably did worry about that, but the others trusted the people that they lived with.

We have to create a society in which we can trust one another. Every society is currently on a destructive path. We are encouraging crime, deception, and secrecy. We have to raise our standards for people and create a society in which we can trust one another. We should be able to walk out of our homes with confidence that nobody is going to steal or vandalize our possessions, and that nobody will rape, kill, or kidnap our children or spouse. We are fools to tolerate crime and live in fear of our neighbors, policemen, doctors, and government officials.

Society should provide Internet services
E-mail should be functional, not attract advertisers
When businesses provide e-mail software and services, their primary goal is profit, so they want to attract customers and advertisers. They are not designing e-mail from the point of view of what is best for us or society. I suppose a lot of people will not know what I'm complaining about, so I'll give you two specific examples.

1) It should be easy to save messages
Most of our e-mail messages are not worth saving, but there are some messages we want to save, at least temporarily. It is very easy to save a single message, but it is not so easy to save groups of messages, or messages according to subject or sender. Furthermore, when we save messages we sometimes need to save them in some other format, such as plain text.

2) It should be easy to search old messages
Looking through old e-mail messages can be very time-consuming. Whether we save messages are not, it should be easy for us to search through old messages. All e-mail programs provide us with search functions, so you may be confused as to what I am complaining about, but if you have ever used database software, then you should realize that the e-mail search options are so horrible that it is debatable as to whether they qualify as "search functions". Google can search through 1 billion files faster than we can search through 1000 e-mail messages.

Of course, there are different e-mail programs out there, and it is possible that some of them are offering good search functions today. I'm still using America Online, although years ago I tried Yahoo, Hotmail, and others.

Internet services should not manipulate us

Businesses have no incentive to be serious or honest in regards to their products and services. Rather, they try to make their products and services seem exciting. I am still using America Online for my e-mail service, and like other Internet services, they try to titillate us with news articles, entertainment, sports events, and videos. They also try to attract advertisers. Their sign-on screen is full of deceptive remarks intended to grab our attention and entice us into clicking the corresponding link, which takes us to some webpage, often the Huffington Post, or to some advertisement.

In case you don't understand what I am talking about, on the morning of 3 July 2012, I saved a few of the headlines on their sign-on page (in the three, green boxes below). Notice that they are attempts to manipulate us. The people who created these headlines are treating us as idiots, not as intelligent, respectable people. Instead of describing news articles in a serious manner, they try to make them seem exciting, and they try to stimulate our curiosity.

Life would be more pleasant if we were treated as intelligent humans. The headlines for news articles should summarize the information so well that we get a good idea of what the article is about, and that in turn would help us decide if we want to look at it. However, can you figure out what Sears is offering from this description:

Sears Adds a Huge Item to Layaway

Last year, there was a rise in installment pay programs for larger gifts and now Sears is testing it out with something you may really need.

  • What you'll finally be able to get
That particular article could have been described much more clearly as:
Sears is now offering a layaway option for vacation trips.

Here's another of their attempts to make a news article seem exciting:

Casey Anthony Has Chilling Memento?

Almost a year after her acquittal, little is known about Anthony's current secluded life, but friends reportedly revealed one detail.

  • How they say she remembers Caylee
A more sensible description would have been: 
Casey Anthony has a necklace that holds some of Caylee's ashes.

If America Online were to write serious headlines, we would often get all we want to know by looking at the headline, and we would not click the article for more details. America Online wants us to click the article so that they can expose us to advertising, so they write deceptive headlines to stimulate our curiosity. Businesses benefit from this manipulation, but none of us do, and neither does society. The people creating these deceptive remarks should be doing something productive for society. These people could be described as parasitic and destructive because they are consuming resources and irritating us.

The America Online screen is also full of sexually titillating remarks. The people creating these deceptive and sexually titillating headlines are being paid to do something that has no value to society. Here are a few examples from 3 July 2012:

Watch: Shriver Flaunts Bikini Body on Beach 

• Maria's been out of the spotlight, but new pics show her amazing figure.

• Miley Bares Extremely Tiny Waist

Kristen Wore a Very Tiny Skirt 

The 'Twilight' star looked conservative up top with a buttoned-up shirt -- but the bottom half of her leggy look really got our attention.

They Should Not Be Watching This

Something really private is going on in the room behind them -- but they're so sneaky, they installed a webcam.

• What friends might kill them for

Something Very Creepy Is in His Home

The interior of Ricky's home is wild -- and while most of it is innocent, some prized possessions may make you uncomfortable.

• Decoration we don't want to write here ...

We should be able to access the Internet and e-mail quickly and easily, and without being treated like cash machines, but businesses have no incentive to make the Internet or e-mail easy, sensible, or useful. By letting society design software for the Internet and provide us with services, then the government can set up teams of computer programmers who compete to make software that both the government officials and the users of the software regard as the best for society. In that type of competitive struggle, the developers would not have any concern about advertisers or profit. Instead, they would be competing to make the software easier to use, more reliable, and more useful.
Educational materials should evolve through time
Society, not sales, should support documentaries
In the world today, businesses have to pay for the cost of creating educational materials for schools and television documentaries, and as a result, they want to copyright their material and demand that people pay them for access to them. This is preventing other people from improving their materials. A better society would allow people to make a living by creating and modifying documents, videos, artwork, and audio files without the need to copyright them. This would allow all of these materials to slowly improve through time.

Part 4 of this series pointed out that many people are missing out on the incredible world around them that is so small that they need a magnifying glass to clearly see it. At the end of this document I posted links to videos that I made to show you some of the details that you may not be aware of. These videos will hopefully get you thinking about this issue of how copyrights are inhibiting progress.

If we get rid of copyrights, then we will slowly be able to build up a large database of educational videos, and they will slowly evolve. Somebody would start the process by creating a video on some particular issue, such as the videos that I've posted below, and then other people would be free to make changes to those videos with no regard to copyright infringement.

Be an active contributor, not a passive complainer

The free enterprise system encourages us to complain to retail stores and businesses that we don't like their products, and to sue them for making mistakes or treating us improperly. We are encouraged to complain about doctors rather than take an active role in our own health problems. It is also common for people to complain about television shows rather than look for ways to improve them. In a better society, we would be encouraged to take an active role in society and look for ways to improve life for everybody.

As you watch the videos below, don't complain that they are boring or stupid. Instead, imagine living in a world in which everybody is encouraged to think to themselves, "How can I improve this video?" And imagine that occasionally somebody actually does make the effort to create a variation or an improvement. Imagine a photographer adding better video, and a scientist adding some technical details, and a graphic designer adding better diagrams. And then each person posts their variation on the Internet. Over time, the less desirable versions would be discarded, and the more useful versions will continue to evolve and improve, just like the song Greensleeves.

Instead of the Internet being dominated by nearly worthless videos, the Internet would eventually be full of useful videos about every other issue imaginable. This would provide students with valuable educational material, and it would help adults to satisfy their curiosity about virtually every subject.

For example, if you were thinking of trying rollerblades and were wondering what the difference is between the different models, you could not easily find that information on the Internet today. Businesses refuse to provide serious information about their products, and the individuals who produce videos can only give us their particular opinion. Some people don't even narrate their video; they just play music. Imagine living in a society in which engineers, photographers, technicians, and other people would contribute to the videos. This would provide us with access to a variety of useful videos on the differences between the rollerblades, how the rollerblades are manufactured, and tips for beginners on how to use them.

The popularity of a video is irrelevant

The attitude today is that the more popular a video, book, movie, or song is, the better it is. YouTube, for example, promotes the popular videos on the assumption that they are the best videos. However, if we judge items by popularity and encourage people to do what the majority do, then we should all be religious.

We are fools to judge a video, document, song, philosophy, or anything else according to its popularity. We have to look at its effect on our lives. If an item is intended to be educational, then we have to look at its educational value, and if it is meant for entertainment, then we have to look at its overall effect on a person's life and behavior to determine whether it has actually brought some pleasure to the person or if it has created undesirable attitudes or behavior.

Society should pass judgment on which videos and documents on the Internet are useful, and which should be deleted. This would allow us to clean the Internet of the less useful materials so that we don't waste our time browsing through them.

In regards to educational materials, it would be easier for us to determine the educational value of videos and documents if we switch to electronic education, and if we keep track of the materials that each student has decided to study. After the students are out of school and working, we can pass judgment on what they are actually accomplishing; what they are actually contributing to society. We can then assume that the people who are the most productive are those who have learned the most from their educational materials. For example, the people who become electricians would be analyzed to see who is doing a better job, and then we would assume that the educational materials that they used are better overall than the materials used by the people who were not as productive as electricians.

This method has disadvantages, such as not taking into account our different mental abilities and personalities, but we can't achieve perfection. Life is too complex. We have to find ways of accomplishing tasks in a reasonable amount of time and effort.

This brings up an issue that I've mentioned before. Specifically, when we design a society, we are going to give special preference to certain mental and physical traits. We cannot treat everybody equally. No matter how society is designed, some people will be more adapted to it than others. In other words, every society will always have misfits. It is impossible to design a society in which everybody is equally well adapted.

When we design a society, we have to ask ourselves, "What do we want the human race to become?" I think it would be better for humans to have the initiative to learn on their own with an electronic educational database. By offering that type of education, and by observing which of the materials seem to be the most productive, we will favor people who are best able to learn in that manner, and from those particular materials. Eventually this will result in children who can learn on their own, and from those materials. By comparison, when we give special preference to the mentally ill, the criminals, the alcoholics, the idiots, and the people who can't control their consumption of food, then we are favoring those people, and this will cause the human race to evolve into increasingly dysfunctional creatures.

If we favor people who need a different style of educational materials, such as educational material that is in the form of comedy, then we end up needing two different styles of educational materials. If we favor people who need a third style of educational material, then we need three styles of educational materials.

For example, the actor Alan Alda recently challenged people to create a video to explain flames, and the video that was selected as the best is one that I would describe as being a comedy style, or as an entertainment style. Some people respond better to the comedy style than the serious style, but there may be some people who learn the best with a Borat, "toilet humor" style of educational material. Girls might respond better to a different style than boys, and homosexuals might respond better to a still different style.

It may seem ideal to support all of these different styles so that every child gets the best possible education, but this is not a realistic policy. It would be better to support the serious style of education, and the students who do not respond well to that would not be very well-educated, and they would not be selected for reproducing. Eventually this would create humans who enjoy learning from serious materials.

Human children have already evolved the ability to automatically learn a spoken language, but we don't yet have the ability to automatically learn written languages or science, or the skills that we need in this modern world. Young boys evolved the desire to explore the world around them, play in the mud, and chase after frogs, but we don't have the desire to do detailed analyses of the mud or frogs. Young girls evolved a desire to take care of babies, but they never evolved a desire to study human health, nutrition, or modern technology.

By switching to an electronic education and favoring the children who can learn from serious materials, children will eventually learn on their own. Children of the future would be less like a monkey and more like a human. It would be much more pleasant to be a parent or teacher in that future world.

A lot of people like to fantasize about traveling back into time to visit our primitive ancestors, or going forward to see the future, but if we went back in time far enough, we would find that we have very little in common with our ancestors. They would appear to be talking monkeys. We would not enjoy living with them.

Likewise, if we could travel far into the future, we would discover that we are crude, sickly, ugly, stupid creatures compared to everybody else. We would not fit into their society. We would discover that their children are more intelligent than we are. Those future children might giggle at us when they discover that we are from the era in which some physicists recently announced that neutrinos were traveling faster than light.

“How could those physicists not realize that their measurements were within their margin of error for the speed of light? That was silly as announcing the discovery of a mountain that is taller than Mount Everest by 0.001 millimeters!”


Videos of small objects around us
Don't complain. Look for improvements!
Although I provide some information in these videos, there is a lot I don't know. Imagine if we lived in a world in which people would contribute whatever they could in order to improve our videos, documents, sports, holiday celebrations, and other social technology. Scientists could provide some technical information to these videos, photographers could provide better quality photos and video, and other people could add whatever they know. And a NASA employee might want to replace my remarks about them with something more intelligent.

Mint flowers

In Part 4 I posted some photos of the flowers of a mint plant that is growing in my yard, but none of the flower buds had opened, and I was not certain if any of them would open.

This video shows that, two days later on July 4, some of the flowers opened up.

Bird feathers

This video shows some of the details of three different types of bird feathers that I found in my yard, plus a peacock feather that comes from some other area.

Oyster mushroom bugs

I grew some oyster mushrooms from a kit, and when it was finished producing mushrooms, I put the material in the dirt in my yard. After a rain, some mushrooms popped up.

Not surprisingly, there were strange creatures crawling around on it.

Citrus scale bugs

The skin of oranges and lemons often have lots of tiny round spots on them.

In this video, I peel off a few of the spots on a lemon to show you that there is an insect under each of them.

Larva in a sand cocoon

I find these tubular cocoons in my house. They are made of a white silk that is covered with bits of sand and other debris.

I haven't figured out what this larva turns into, apparently some flying insect.

Wasp eggs

This black wasp was struggling to get out of my house, and when I tried to push it out the window, I severely injured it.

I decided to put it out of its misery by chopping off its head. To my surprise, the decapitated body began to lay neat rows of eggs!

Corroded steel

This is a corroded piece of steel rebar from my fireplace chimney. It is corroding in such a manner that you can see the grain of the steel.

The material in the photo resembles shingles on a house, but it is a single, solid piece of corroded steel rebar.

New video,10 August 2012

Moth and its eggs

I find small moths in my house every day

This video shows an unusually large moth. It laid six tiny eggs, all of which became caterpillars in only six days.

New video, 23 November 2012

Virgin births

I discovered that the larva in the sand cocoons, described in one of my videos above, turn into moths.

After I critically injured a newly hatched, virgin moth, it laid fertile eggs. How is this possible?

New video, 22 March 2013

Sewer fly

I finally figured out where these dumb flies are coming from, and why they seem so stupid.

I first mentioned these dumb flies (here) in June 2010.

New video, 23 March 2013

Drain bugs and crystals

After discovering fly larva in my bathtub drain, (see the video above), I wondered what was in my other drains.

I found more bugs, and some type of calcium crystals.

New video, 27 March 2013


These annoying creatures chew holes in my photographs and paper items, but like many creatures, they are actually quite interesting.

I put some in a bowl to see how they live, and I found five of their eggs.

New video, 30 March 2013

Lemon leaf and whiteflies

This shows one leaf from my lemon tree after it had become infested with whiteflies, which happens every year.

I found two different styles of whiteflies on this leaf, and a few other creatures. It was made from video that I recorded at the end of August 2012.

New video, 1 April 2013

Lemon leaf and flatbugs

The insects that live on my lemon tree change throughout the year. This video shows  the strange, flat creatures, and some other bugs, that I found on two lemon leaves on 1 April 2013.

Update 2 April 2013

After looking more closely at the yellow insect that died while popping out of the flat creature, I have come to the conclusion that it is some species of whitefly.
Dead insect
  I originally assumed that the eyes of that dead creature were round but had shriveled from dehydration, but its eyes look just like that of a whitefly. Also, a newly hatched whitefly is the same shade of yellow.
Whitefly face
Dead insect face
Before I made that video, I looked on the Internet to learn about the lifecycle of the whitefly. Thousands of pest control companies, individual citizens, businesses, teachers, and scientists have put some information on the Internet about whiteflies, but their sketches and photographs were too crude to help me answer such questions as, how many different species of whitefly are there? Do they all have the same lifecycle? There is one crude sketch of the whitefly lifecycle that makes me wonder if some species are a parasite on the flat bug.

The difficulty I had finding information about whiteflies is an example of the reason I began posting videos on this page. There may be thousands of people around the world who know the lifecycle of one species of whitefly, but that information is in their mind, not on the Internet in an easily accessible file. Imagine if there were no copyrights, and if all of those people could contribute information, photos, and video to an electronic educational database.

The world is spending billions of dollars every year on advertisements, gambling casinos, Israel, religion, and pets, but we are doing almost nothing to organize the knowledge that the human race has accumulated.

Imagine if the Internet had a section that was as organized and sensible as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. You would be able to look up "whitefly" and find high-quality images, videos, drawings, and descriptions. And imagine if we had software that would help us identify photographs. You would be able to take a photo of a bug, flower, tree, or bird, and the software would scan the photos and narrow down the possibilities of what it is.

As of 2 April 2013, a search for "whitefly" provides 765,000 results. Some sites have intelligent descriptions, but most of the photos, video, and sketches are of lower quality than what I can give you. And I didn't put much effort into my video!

One problem with the world is that most people are struggling to titillate their emotions under the assumption that titillation brings happiness. Professional photographers, for example, are trying to create photos that people are stimulated by, but who benefits from that?

Imagine if the government was funding an electronic version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. A lot of people who are currently wasting their talent on worthless photos, brochures, advertisements, websites, and fundraising propaganda could be cooperating to create an electronic educational database. And they could regularly update that information if we get rid of copyrights. Instead of searching through hundreds of thousands of websites, you would go directly to the "whitefly" entry and select the level of technical detail that you want.

 New video, 2 April 2013

Lemon leaf and flatbugs

My video called “Citrus scale bugs” shows the creatures that live under the white, circular disks on lemons and oranges, and this video shows some of the other creatures I find on my lemons.

New video, 28 July 2013

Spontaneous Creation
Part 1

I can understand why our ancestors believed in spontaneous creation. Until magnifying glasses were invented, nobody realized that there are tiny eggs and insects everywhere. This video shows some of them, such as a fly that is smaller than a grain of salt, and which has wings made of hairs.


Spontaneous Creation
Part 2

This video has more of the tiny creatures I found in my house. Our ancestors didn't know these creatures existed, but how much do we know about them? Why not let biology students study them for practice?

New video, 23 December 2019

Spontaneous Creation

This video shows the mosquito larva and rotifers that I discovered in a bucket of clean rainwater. Apparently water that is exposed to the atmosphere becomes full of living creatures within weeks or months. It makes me wonder, what is blowing around in the dust?


New video, 26 October 2014

Fruit flies

In this video, I let some fruit flies lay eggs on a piece of fig, and then watch them develop into larva, cocoons, and finally flies.