Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

Creating a better society

Part 9:
A better society requires more self-control

23 February 2013

How much social progress are humans capable of?
What are our options with crime?
More sensible food policies require more self-control
Government officials should provide guidance
What type of titillation should we support?
How much self-control do you have?

How much social progress are humans capable of?
What are the potential talents and limitations of your mind?
Every animal has certain mental and physical abilities, but we cannot see their potential because we see only what they actually do. In a wild environment, animals do only the bare minimum necessary for their survival. In order to determine the potential of a particular animal, we must put it into different environments; we must experiment with it.

During the past few thousand years, people have been putting animals through tests to determine their abilities, and this allowed our ancestors to discover that some of the dogs are useful for hunting; some of the ox are useful for pulling a plow; and some of the horses are useful for transportation.

Today people are putting animals through more complex tests, and this is allowing us to determine which dogs are the best at working with the police in detecting chemicals, and which dogs can help blind people maneuver through a city.

The chimpanzees are currently acting like monkeys, but if we were to put them through a variety of different tests, we would be able to discover what they are capable of, and we might be surprised to discover what their potential is.

The same concept applies to humans, but we have not yet applied it to ourselves. What is your potential?

If we could go back in time 6000 years, we would see people who are virtually identical to us in regards to physical and mental abilities, but we would not see people like us. We would see crude, ignorant, savages. It would be impossible for us figure out which of those savages, if raised in our era, would become a successful airline pilot, and which would become a talented technician.

An observer of those savages would see what they actually are, not their potential. It would be impossible for an observer to determine if one of the men who is chasing after a wild animal with a sharp stick has the physical coordination necessary to ride a unicycle while juggling three balls, or if he has the mental characteristics necessary to supervise hundreds of people on a complex assembly line. Those savages would also be oblivious to their potential.

Furthermore, neither the savages, nor an observer, would notice their potential weaknesses. For some examples:
• It would be impossible for an observer to determine that one of the men who is successfully hunting wild animals and successfully raising a family would be a welfare recipient in the 21st century because of his inability to handle alcohol or gambling.
• It would also be impossible for us to determine that some of the men who are honest would become criminals in our era because of their inability to handle their cravings for our large amounts of material wealth.
• It would be impossible for us to determine that some of the savages who had formed wonderful friendships and marriages would have trouble forming stable relationships in our era because they have a tendency to fight over differences in religion, abortion, euthanasia, or politics.
• Our prehistoric ancestors had the freedom to do as they pleased, and it would be impossible for us to figure out which of them, if raised in our era, would be able to adapt to a world of laws, restrictions, and schedules. There would be no way for us to figure out which of them would whine about going to school; following orders from their boss at work; or being oppressed by tyrannical governments and policemen.

Now consider how these concepts apply to you. You are certainly aware of some of your abilities and limitations, but you couldn't possibly know everything about yourself. None of us can see the jobs, material items, or social environment of the future, so we have no idea of what we are capable of doing, and what we are unable to handle. For example, some of the people who can handle the drugs, gambling, pets, and pornography of the 21st century might have trouble with the wider variety of more advanced drugs, gambling, pets, virtual pornography, and sex robots of the 28th century.

None of our prehistoric ancestors argued about abortion or euthanasia, but now that we have those options, some people argue over them, and future technology will provide even more issues for people to fight about. How many of the people who are alive today would be able to calmly discuss the issues of the future? Some of the people who obey the laws today might be angry or rebellious over the laws of the future.

The issue of reproduction is a good example of this concept. Our prehistoric ancestors were concerned with keeping their children alive, not worrying about having too many children. Today China is trying to control its population by restricting families to only one child. Some of the Chinese people who were honest and pleasant became angry when that policy was implemented, and some have become criminals as a result of trying to circumvent the law. Some of the Americans who are currently defending their laws and condemning criminal activity may also become angry, rebellious, or willing to violate the law if we put restrictions on reproduction.

Furthermore, consider that China's policy is stupid. A more sensible policy would be to restrict reproduction to the people who are "below average", and encourage the "above average" people to have more than one child. This requires some group of people to pass judgment on who is "above average". If China were to implement such a policy, some of the Chinese people who are currently honest and tolerating their one-child policy would become angry with the new policy, and some may become so rebellious that they look for ways to violate it.

What will the laws of the future be? When our mind predicts the future, or tries to figure out how to design a new computer, or tries to create a new piece of music, we take what we know and modify it. This process limits us to subtle changes to what we already know. We cannot make significant leaps with technology, food, music, art, clothing, or future predictions. We can only build upon what we already know. As a result, when we contemplate the future, we may assume that we are thinking of something wild, but in reality we are making only a few subtle changes to what we have today. We should assume that life for people a few millions of years from now will be so different from ours that none of us can imagine what it is.

If you were put into a freezer and defrosted a few million years from now, would you be able to follow the laws of that era? Do you have the type of personality that can accept and adapt to laws that you do not like or do not understand? Or do you have the type of personality that will cause you to whine about your rights, your freedom, or your dignity?

Many of my articles describe some of our options, such as building new cities in which the basic necessities are free; eliminating private automobiles; evicting criminals from society; and allowing each city government to experiment with culture. Making such dramatic changes will alter both the jobs that are available to us, and what we do during our leisure time. Living in that type of city would be like jumping into the future.

Although some jobs, such as factory work, will be very similar to those of today, the business executives will have dramatically different jobs because they will have to make decisions according to what is best for society rather than what is best for profit, and government officials will also have to analyze issues according to what is best for society rather than how to get elected. It is possible that the people who excel at making profit or getting elected will also excel at helping society, but I don't think so. I think these new management positions will require slightly different emotional desires and intellectual talents, which in turn alters who among us rises to leadership positions in a new city. Furthermore, each of these new cities will have jobs that don't exist yet, such as analyzing and experimenting with sports, courtship activities, holidays, and other cultural activities. Since nobody does that yet, we don't know who will be successful at that job, and who will be a failure.

Some of the people in leadership positions today may promote the theory that they deserve leadership positions in a new society, but we must make everybody earn the job they want. In order to start a new city, some people have to be selected for the management positions, but those initial selections should not be considered permanent. Nobody should be guaranteed one of those jobs. Everybody should have to earn what they want.

As you read this article, try to consider how different life and jobs will be for us in a new city. In order for these new cities to be successful, we need to find a lot of people with a pioneer spirit. We need to find people who are willing to explore themselves and the unknown, work as a team, and think of life as an adventure. Furthermore, this article is going to show how a better society requires people who have better "self-control".

We need to sift humans in a sieve

If your job was to provide dogs to blind people, you would start the process by taking a large group of dogs and putting them through various tests and training programs. You would continuously remove those who didn't fit the standards that you set for the dogs. You would not demand perfection from any dog, but you would set standards, and you would remove those that did not meet the standards. You would essentially put the dogs into a sieve and sift them. Since you cannot create a perfect sieve, none of the dogs that pass your standards can be guaranteed a job. After a dog has been given to a blind person, it would have to be observed, and if it failed to do its job properly, it must be fired. The dog would have to continuously earn its position.

When the military needs pilots or mechanics, they follow the exact same procedure. They put recruits through various tests and training programs, and continuously remove those who do not meet the standards that were set for them. If a recruit gets through the training program, he will be given a job, but he will not be guaranteed that job. He will be observed, and if he fails to do his job properly, he will be removed. They have to continuously earn their position, and they are not allowed to give or sell their position to their children, spouse, or friend.

We should apply this concept to an entire city. We should restrict the immigrants to the new city to those who have shown some signs that they have the mental characteristics necessary to fit into that city. For example, we should ensure that every immigrant is capable of performing one of jobs that the city offers. Each immigrant should also be willing to adapt to the language, clothing, and culture of the city, as opposed to what we see in America in which some immigrants create "cultural bubbles" in which they follow their own language, clothing styles, and religion. Some people even whine that airlines need to provide them with special, "ethnic" meals.

We cannot truly determine who belongs in a particular city, so after people have moved into a city, we must continuously watch over them and remove those who show signs of being troublesome or destructive. Everybody must also continuously earn the job that they want. Business executives should not be allowed to sell their business, or give it to their children or spouse.

Religions promote the theory that all humans are equal creations of a loving god, but a city should be designed according to the more realistic philosophy that every person is a random and unequal jumble of genetic material, and that each city should set standards of behavior for their citizens and remove those who do not fit in.

How far into the future would you like to go?

Virtually everybody seems dissatisfied with the modern world, and so it is a safe assumption that most of us would be happier if we could travel into the future and finish our lives in a more advanced world, although some people might be happier to go back in time a few hundred years. If we could be frozen and defrosted every 10 years, most people would likely come to the conclusion that the world improves slightly with every decade. However, we would not necessarily want to live millions of years in the future. The reason is because humans are going to continue to change genetically, especially when societies start controlling reproduction, and so there will eventually be a point at which the future generations have become so intellectually and emotionally different from us that we do not fit into their world.

Each of us would discover that there is a certain point at which societies have become so different from what we enjoy that the future starts becoming increasingly unattractive. Each of us would want to finish our lives at a different point in the future. Some people might want to go only a few decades into the future, and others might want to go a few thousand years.

We would be fascinated with the technology that exists a few million years from now, but we would be social misfits in their world, just as a monkey would be in ours. We would not have the intelligence necessary to perform any of the jobs that are available, and we would be unable to pass their school courses.

We like to think of ourselves as super geniuses, but there will be a point in the future at which none of us have the intelligence to properly use the computer software or material items. There are already people today who have trouble using some of our computer software, and many people today don't have the ability to fly a commercial aircraft, use DNA analysis equipment, or operate a CNC milling machine. Every year more people reach their intellectual limit. There will be a point in the future at which the material items are so complicated that all of us would be overwhelmed with their complexity.

We would enjoy the technology of the future, but eventually humans will have evolved so much that we don't like their laws or social activities, and are unable to perform properly at their jobs and school courses.
People alive today can do arithmetic in their head and remember thousands of words, which would astound our ancestors millions of years earlier, who struggled just to count to 10 and had only a few simple words in their language. The people of the future may be able to do tasks in their head that we cannot do no matter how hard we try. They might replace our crude language with something they consider more sensible, but which we consider more difficult because it has many more words and a very precise set of rules.

There will also be a point in the future at which we find that the emotional qualities of the people have changed so much that we don't enjoy their social or recreational activities. We would discover that eating dinner with them is as awkward and uncomfortable as having dinner with a monkey. We may not like their clothing styles, either, or the decorations in their home. We may also have trouble following their rules of etiquette.

Now consider the opposite situation; consider what would happen if a person a few million years in the future would travel back in time to our era and give us their technology. We would benefit from some of their physical technology, but some of it would be too complicated for us to deal with. We like to imagine that we are so intelligent that we would be able to handle all of the future technology, but that is not true. Every person has intellectual limitations. In fact, we already know of some issues that are beyond everybody's intellectual abilities. For example, is the universe infinite or finite? Neither option makes sense, but those are the only two options that our minds are capable of seeing. Did the universe have a beginning, or has it existed forever? Neither of those options makes any sense, either, but as far as our mind is concerned, there are no other options.

It is possible that the reason the universe seems so confusing is because we are simply missing some important information, but I suspect that the human mind as of today does not have the intelligence necessary to understand it. We have been studying magnetism, light, and gravity for decades, but we still don't have a good understanding of them. It is possible that no human alive today has the intelligence necessary to fully understand those issues.

A monkey doesn't have the intellectual ability to understand our language or how to repair a telephone. You and I are much more intelligent than a monkey, but we would be fools to assume that we have the intelligence necessary to understand the universe. We would also be fools to assume that we would be able to understand and operate the machines and software that are developed millions of years from now.

Although we would not be able to understand the technology that is developed millions of years from now, we have not yet reached our intellectual limit. The human race is still making progress with robots, computer software, DNA analysis, and other technology. We may be able to continue developing technology for centuries before we reach our intellectual limit. By the time we reach that limit, humans should have evolved a bit more intelligence, thereby pushing the limit farther. If we continue to evolve, we may never reach our limit.

Now consider what would happen if a person a few millions years into the future were to travel back in time and tell us about his government system, school system, social activities, courtship activities, sports, recreational activities, and holiday celebrations. How much of their social technology would we be able to understand? And of that, how much would we enjoy? Would we want to engage in their holiday celebrations or sports, for example? Would we want to use their school system?

Physical technology is the same for all people. Math is the same for everybody of all eras, and so is chemistry and physics. There are only certain ways to design electrical circuits, airplane engines, and window glass. By comparison, social technology is whatever we want it to be. There is no right or wrong government system, recreational activity, courtship activity, holiday celebration, or school system. Our social systems have to be designed to fit our intellectual abilities and our emotions. Therefore, as humans evolve intellectually and emotionally, our social systems will have to change also.

The social systems millions of years from now will be different partly because the people know more about life than we do, and partly because the people have different mental characteristics than us. However, their math, chemistry, and engineering knowledge will be the same, although they will know more details than we do. Some of their material items, such as robots and airplanes, may be too complicated for us to operate, but we would be impressed by all of their material items and technology. By comparison, some of their social technology may seem idiotic to us. We may not enjoy their home decorations, for example, or their city architecture, or their clothing styles. We may not like the way they prepare and serve their meals, or the songs that they sing, or their birthday parties.

Although we would not want to use the social technology of the distant future, we can certainly improve upon the systems that we have today. The question that we don't yet have an answer to is, how much more advanced can we make our social technology before we hit our intellectual or emotional limit?

We have developed an impressive system for growing and harvesting the extremely finicky mushrooms, but can we create an equally impressive school system for teaching the finicky human children some useful skills? We have created some truly impressive factories for creating integrated circuits and LCD panels, but can we figure out how to design a city so that its architecture, transportation system, and layout are just as awe-inspiring and efficient as our most complex factory? We have figured out how to reduce impurities in medicines, metals, plastics, and glass fibers to extremely low levels, but are we capable of figuring out how to create a law enforcement system that will reduce crime to extremely low levels?

Are you capable of experimenting with your future?

Although I mentioned this concept in earlier files, I will remind you that achieving technical progress is easy for us because it requires we study and experiment with non-human items. By comparison, social progress requires that we study ourselves and experiment with our lives.

Many people are capable of experimenting with a rock or a cell phone, but how many people can experiment with their society? Most people are terrified of changes. They want everything to remain exactly the same. Therefore, achieving social progress requires finding a more courageous group of people who can control their fear of the unknown enough to experiment with their future. They must be capable of experimenting with new economic systems, new holiday celebrations, and new policies for crime, abortion, drugs, and clothing. How many people have the courage to do such experiments?

Which of our options do you have the mental ability to achieve?

How advanced of a society is the human mind, as of 2013, capable of creating? Are any of us capable of creating a society in which all of the basic necessities are free? Or is that an unrealistic fantasy that will not be possible until humans have evolved for perhaps another 700,000 years? Do enough of us have the self-control necessary to allow prescription drugs to be freely available? Or do people have to evolve for another 300,000 years before they can handle such an option?

Animals, both male and female, have a strong craving to fight for status and stratify into a hierarchy. Do we have the ability to control that craving and create a city in which everybody's home and material wealth is virtually identical? Or are we so much like animals that we cannot stop ourselves from competing for status and stratifying into a hierarchy of different classes that are treated differently?

We have phenomenal options available to us, but some of those options are impractical because of our mental characteristics. Our options for a new society are limited by our intellectual abilities and emotional cravings. Since each of us has slightly different mental characteristics, each of us has different options. For example, if a person has tremendous control over his drug use, then he has the option of living in a society in which there are no restrictions to any medical or recreational drug. If a person is capable of controlling his craving to steal, then he has the option of living in a society in which there are no locks, keys, or other security devices. What options is your mind capable of handling? What options is the "typical" human mind capable of?

Creating a new society requires finding a lot of people who have the ability to experiment with whatever changes we are interested in, but some of those experiments will fail. The type of society that a particular group of people ends up with will depend upon their particular mental qualities. If the people cannot control their sexual cravings, then their society will continue to have problems with rape and pedophilia. If the people are unable to tolerate equality in material wealth, then the people will stratify into different classes of people who have different levels of material wealth. If there are not enough people who can be responsible with their drug use, then drugs will have to be regulated. If there are not enough people who can control their cravings to steal items, then there will continue to be burglaries, thefts, and various security devices on homes and possessions.

Every society is the way it is because of its members. In order to create a different society, we must "sift out" a subset of the population, and that subset must be different rather than a random sample of the population. By being different, they will be able to develop a different culture. For example, if we put all of the religious fanatics in one society, all of the vegetarians in another, and all of the drug users in another, we will create three very different societies.

How do we create a "better" society? That depends on what you consider to be "better". It's easy to create a different society because all we have to do is take a particular subset of the population, but whether it is better depends upon what you want from life.

One of the reasons I suggest breaking all of the nations into semi-independent cities is to allow different groups of people to develop slightly different culture. There will not be enough cities for everybody to find one that they are completely satisfied with, but we can provide much more variety than what we have today, which is none.

Who benefits from identical cities?

Every city in America is expected to be a random mixture of whoever wants to live there. The cities do not have the freedom to control immigration or alter their culture. As a result of these policies, there are only a few subtle differences between our cities, such as that some cities have more restrictions on alcohol or gambling casinos. If you don't enjoy the culture or people in a particular city, you are not likely to be happier by moving to another city because all cities are virtually identical. Who benefits by forcing all of the cities to be so similar to one another?

It would be irritating if different cities had different monetary systems or languages, but if we design cities so that they are physically separated from one another and large enough to function as a small nation, then we can allow them to be slightly different from one another in certain cultural aspects.

It is acceptable for people to get as drunk as the man and woman in these photos, but we cannot expect a city to be pleasant when it is a mixture of people who enjoy this lifestyle, and people who abhor it. The people in a city should feel comfortable with one another. It is idiotic to mix people who despise, fear, or torment one another. Every city should set standards for behavior and evict those who don't fit in.
Breaking a nation down into semi-independent cities will not provide enough variety to please everybody, but there are other important advantages to this philosophy. One is that it makes it very easy for us to prevent war because none of the cities would be large enough to conduct a significant war, and no city would have any motivation to fight a war. All of their territories would be clearly defined and fixed, so they would not fight over territory. A war between these cities would be as absurd as Chicago starting a war with Cleveland.

Centuries ago the people were so ignorant, and often so hungry and overpopulated, that the Kings and Queens could easily send the foolish people into senseless fights with their neighbors, but if we create a world in which everybody is educated and has enough food to eat, and if we get rid of the monarchies and corrupt government officials, and if we control reproduction so that we don't have hordes of hungry, uneducated people, it would be virtually impossible for somebody to start a war. When all the cities are virtually identical, and when they all have fixed boundaries, then even the stupid people would realize that they gain nothing by fighting with other cities, and that they benefit tremendously if they cooperate with one another.

Another reason war would be unlikely between these cities is because it would be easy to watch over them and prevent them from developing significant weapons. None of the cities would be allowed to restrict air flights over their city, or prevent inspections.

We learn from our differences, not our similarities

No city has standards for its citizens, government officials, lawyers, judges, or journalists. This is creating some absurd situations. For example, we allow illiterate and retarded people to live in our technically advanced cities, even though they don't have the ability to function properly in the cities, and even though many of them end up living on the streets, or surviving through crime or welfare. For another example, America allows people to drive automobiles even if they are too old or stupid to drive properly.

We don't yet show any concern about who we are living with, or who gets into an influential position. Many people react to the unpleasant aspects of modern society by living in fear, getting drunk, or withdrawing from reality, but it would be better if each city experimented with their culture in an attempt to make life more pleasant for their citizens.

Unfortunately, we have a natural resistance to allowing different cities to be different. The "melting pot" philosophy appeals to lots of people because we want everybody to be virtually identical. We are naturally extremely arrogant, and we regard people who are different from us as being dangerous, inferior, stupid, or misguided. An animal regards everything as either a friend or an enemy. We are frightened of people who are different, and we separate from them. We want everybody to be the same as us. We want everybody to obey our rules for religion, abortion, crime, drugs, and even food. Allowing cities to be different requires exerting self-control over your arrogance and your fear of people who are different.

The issue of people arguing over food should not be dismissed as insignificant. It is February 2013, and there are lots of news articles about the "scandal" in Europe in which horsemeat was mixed with beef. If people consider the eating of horses to be a scandal, how are they going to tolerate more significant cultural differences?

It is wrong for businesses to lie about their products, but some people are not complaining that businesses lied about the horse meat. They are instead complaining that they were eating horses. Furthermore, before we complain about the businesses that lied about the horse meat, we have to ask ourselves, why did they lie? They lied because there is incredible paranoia and hysteria about eating foods that are different from what people are accustomed to. The majority of people are so much like animals that many businesses feel a need to lie to them about their products.

A lot of people boast that they are tolerant of different cultures, but we must judge a person by his behavior, not his boasting. Humans, especially men, are always looking for reasons to boast. We want to feel special. We have to ignore what a person says about himself and look at how he actually behaves. Many religious people, for example, claim that they will go to heaven when they die, but they are frightened of death, and they struggle to prevent death. Some religious people claim that everything that happens is because God wants it to happen, but when God tries to kill their children, they fight back with modern medical technology. Some religious people complain about me, but if God is truly in control of the world, then He wants me to do what I'm doing.

One of the reasons religion is so popular is that it is analogous to a blank coloring book that allows people to believe whatever they please, and to justify all of their behavior, no matter how senseless. For example, a religious person can justify hatred and war by claiming that they are fighting the devil, not humans.

The religious people are hypocritical because they don't truly believe their religion. Even a stupid religious person has enough intelligence to sense that his fantasies about heaven are unrealistic, which is why he is so frightened of death, and that his prayers for a television are never going to be answered, which is why he doesn't actually depend upon God bringing him a television. Religious people cling to their fantasies because they are emotionally attracted to them, not because they believe them. We could describe them as preaching religion while practicing science. Creating a better world requires finding people who have the self-control over their emotions to believe what the evidence shows rather than what their emotions want to believe.

Our natural tendency is to assume that we know what is best for the world, and we want to force other people to be like us. As a result of our intolerance of people who are different, I think that we will create the most pleasant cities when everybody within a city is similar to one another and following the same culture, but I think it would be better for the human race if we controlled our emotions and allowed each city to be different.

The reason it is better for the human race to allow cities to be different is because it allows us to learn from one another. It's not easy to learn about life from other cities when they are exactly the same as our city, but by allowing the cities to be different, each city can experiment with their clothing, schools, architecture, transportation systems, foods, holiday celebrations, restaurants, and other social technology. We can then compare life in the different cities to determine what we would like to experiment with. Through the years this will help us figure out how to create a better life for ourselves. The differences between the cities will also provide the world with cultural variety, which will be more entertaining than a world of identical cities.

We learn from our differences, not our similarities. This applies to businesses, also. Imagine if all of the companies that produce computers were following the orders of an arrogant dictator who insisted that each company be exactly the same as the others. In such a case, they would all have the same work schedules, and all of their engineers and scientists would conduct the same experiments, and they would all produce the same computer products, and in the exact same manner. Compare that to a group of businesses that are allowed to be different and conduct their own experiments. When they are different, then each business can learn from the others and inspire one another.

What is stopping us from achieving social progress?

The human race has the intellectual abilities necessary to create computers, window glass, airplanes, and other physical technology. We also have the ability to create economic systems, holiday celebrations, food recipes, school systems, and other social technology. However, we are achieving a lot of progress in technical issues, but social technology is almost stagnant, and much of it is irrational. What is stopping us from achieving social progress?

To answer that question, consider how engineers create a better airplane. The engineers analyze the existing airplanes and experiment with new designs. The results of their experiments allow them to make changes to the design, and then they repeat the cycle by experimenting again. The process is: analyze, experiment, observe the results, and repeat.

We have to follow the same procedures in order to create improved policies for food, holidays, clothing, schools, and other cultural issues. We must research the issue, do some experiments, observe the results, and repeat the cycle. Why are we having trouble with this?

Only a small minority of the human population has the ability and desire to develop better airplanes, telephones, and computers. As a result, businesses do not hire people at random to become engineers or scientists. They look for that small minority of exceptionally talented people. They essentially put people into a sieve and sift out the people with the most talent for this activity.

Until we have evidence to the contrary, I suggest we assume the same concept is true for the improvement of human culture. In other words, we should assume that the majority of people do not have the desire or ability to develop better policies for food, crime, schools, abortion, economic systems, clothing, holiday celebrations, or other cultural issues. Therefore, if we want to develop better culture, we would have to look for that small minority that has exceptional talent in the ability to research cultural issues, compromise on policies to experiment with, observe the results of their experiment, and then repeat the cycle.

If you agree with me that the more talented people should dominate the development of culture, then we must deal with the dilemma of figuring out who among us is "more talented" in this particular activity. It is fairly easy to pass judgment on who among us are the best carpenters, engineers, technicians, and musicians, but how do we determine who is among the best at improving schools, holidays, policies for crime, city festivals, economic policies, and policies on abortion? How do we determine who is a "cultural scientist"?

We must be careful about who we select to develop culture. Different people will give us significantly different culture. Should we allow the Pope, Billy Graham, and other religious fanatics to dominate the development of culture? How about Lady Gaga and Barbra Streisand? How about Larry Silverstein, Rahm Emanuel, and Michael Chertoff? How about Queen Elizabeth and Abe Foxman?

The American solution is to let the majority of people dominate society, but this philosophy doesn't work. The primary problem is that the majority of people are unable to cope with the problems of managing a modern society.
• Some people don't have the intelligence necessary.
• Some people don't have enough control over their emotions to think of society instead of themselves. They don't have enough control over their selfishness, or enough control over their craving for fame or material wealth. Or they cannot control their craving for territory, or their craving to be the dominant monkey in the hierarchy.
• Some don't have the emotional desires to deal with society. Most people seem too apathetic to care about dealing with the problems of modern society. They want to entertain themselves, not deal with problems. If you have tried to show people the evidence that Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, then you must have noticed that most of the population doesn't care that we are being cheated, lied to, and manipulated on a phenomenal scale.

Although America has fulfilled its purpose of putting the nation under the control of the majority of people, it would be more accurate to say that America has become dominated by a small network of criminals, mostly Jews, because the majority of people are unable to cope with the responsibility of managing a nation, and this has allowed a small group of criminals to exploit, manipulate, and dominate America.

Some Americans boast that America has some wonderful qualities, but every nation can boast that they have some wonderful qualities. Having some good qualities doesn't justify allowing a nation to remain as it is. We should always be looking for ways to improve life, not looking for excuses to do nothing.

Getting back to the issue of why our social technology is so stagnant, I think it is because the majority of people do not have the intellectual or emotional abilities to develop social technology. I think that the only way we are going to achieve significant social progress is to figure out who among us is better at developing it, and putting those people into the top government positions. But how do we determine who is capable of developing social technology? What sort of qualities should we look for in a person?

Some of the qualities are the desire to research cultural issues; the ability to have calm discussions about the issues; the ability to compromise on policies to experiment with; and the emotional strength to critically review the experiments. However, there is no way to figure out who has these qualities. We can only make guesses, and therefore, we must design the government so that we have the ability to review the performance of our leaders and regularly replace those we feel are doing the worst job. I will discuss more about the government in the next file of this series.

Will you participate in the fight for your future?

Our world and our future depend upon who is dominating it. Don't believe the propaganda that the majority of people are in control. To be precise, we could say the majority of people dominate every nation, but in practice, small groups are in control of every nation, and it's going to remain this way for the foreseeable future.

We are currently dominated by crime networks and freaks. Who will control us in the future? Different people will provide us with significantly different lives and futures. If you are apathetic, or if you become overwhelmed with the complexity of these decisions, then other people are going to make the decisions for you. Some group of people will dominate the world regardless of whether you participate in the struggle for control. Unless there is something wrong with your mind, it is better for all of us, including yourself, if you participate.

It is important for you to keep in mind that the battle for the world is going to be like every other competitive struggle in nature. Specifically, it will be a vicious fight. The Jews, the Yakusa, and who knows how many other crime networks are murdering, blackmailing, kidnapping, intimidating, and bribing people in order to control the world. Businesses, religious organizations, think tanks, charities, unions, and other groups of people are trying to control our future, also. If you are too frightened to join the battle, then you will let other people determine your future, many of whom are truly disgusting creatures. Some people will be "winners" of this battle, and others will be "losers". Don't be one of the losers!
What are our options with crime?
What does it mean to "take control" of culture?
I am proposing a society in which we take control of our culture rather than allow it to drift around haphazardly, but what does it mean to "take control" of our culture? It means that we must discuss and set policies for thousands of cultural issues that are currently developing inadvertently and haphazardly, such as:
• What should our clothing styles be for work, recreation, swimming, and social affairs?
• Where in a city can women nurse babies, and what are the proper ways for them to do it?
• What type of displays of affection between men and women are proper in restaurants, trains, offices, parks, and social activities?
• Do the rules for public affection apply to homosexual couples, also? Or should homosexuals follow different rules?

Our culture is currently drifting about aimlessly, but when we take control of it, we are going to have to do a lot of work. We will impose a big burden on ourselves, but the benefits are tremendous because it gives us total control over our future and our lives.

We will have to discuss thousands of cultural issues, and we will have to compromise on a policy for each of them. It will not be easy for us to agree to a policy because it is difficult to provide intelligent reasons for how one policy is better than another. Many of the policies are personal preferences, and to make this situation more confusing, your personal preferences are influenced by your environment. In other words, your personal preferences are not entirely due to your genetic preferences. Therefore, as you experiment with cultural policies, some of your personal preferences are likely to change. Also, some of your preferences will change as you learn more information about medical issues, the human mind, recreational activities, and other aspects of life. Therefore, once a society takes control of its culture and starts experimenting with policies, the people will need to occasionally reevaluate their policies and make adjustments to them. The task of improving our culture will never be completed.

Dealing with cultural issues is not the same as dealing with math problems. There is one way to solve each math problem, and once the problem has been solved, we are finished with it forever. When our ancestors discovered the value of pi, they solved the problem. We have added some digits to the value, but that value is going to remain the same for millions of years, possibly forever! However, there is no answer to the issue of clothing styles, the nursing of babies, or public displays of affection. We can only agree to a policy, and then occasionally evaluate it to determine if we want to make changes to it. Our ancestors answered the question of what type of clothing styles to produce, but we don't need their answer, and future generations won't need ours.

Because cultural issues have no answer, there is no way to prove that one person's culture is better than another. There are always going to be people disagreeing with our laws, economic system, holiday celebrations, clothing styles, and foods. We can provide intelligent arguments for allowing Stevia to be used as a sugar substitute, but we cannot provide intelligent reasoning for the type of clothing we consider appropriate for a beach. If the people who disapprove of a policy can quietly accept it, then there is no problem, but if they become angry, rebellious, or sarcastic, they become dirt in the transmission of society, and if they violate the laws, they become "criminals".

What causes some people to become "criminals"?

Animals react to stimuli in whatever manner their emotions were designed for. We could describe animals as following the philosophy: "Do Whatever Feels Good!" Our prehistoric ancestors also followed their emotional cravings with no regard for whether they were doing something worthless, self-destructive, or harmful to their society. They did not need any formal laws, rules of etiquette, police, or courts. They had the freedom to do whatever they pleased, and whenever they pleased. There was no such thing as a "criminal" in prehistoric times.

The concept of a "criminal" cannot exist until people create laws to control our behavior. Our prehistoric ancestors didn't need laws, but our large, technically advanced societies require thousands of laws. Unfortunately, animals were not designed to follow laws. In order for us to follow laws, we need these four qualities:

1) The intelligence to understand the law.

Some people, especially young children and retards, do not have the intelligence necessary to understand our laws, and as a result, they may react to the laws with confusion, apathy, anger, or frustration. When these people violate a law, they are not likely to show any guilt or understanding of what they did.
2) The education to understand the law.
Some people, mainly young children, retards, and idiots, occasionally violate laws simply because they don't have the education necessary to understand the law. This issue might seem to be so obvious as to be irrelevant, but I suspect that a lot of adults occasionally violate laws simply because they don't know about the law, or don't understand the law. This is especially true of our tax laws. We have thousands of tax laws, and they change every year, but who among us bothers to learn about the tax laws? For example, when parents give gifts to their children, when does the child have to pay taxes on the gift?

It is idiotic for a government to create laws that people don't understand or are oblivious to. It would be more sensible to design a government so that one of its functions is to reduce laws to the bare minimum, and to make them more understandable. Furthermore, now that we have computers, we ought to put our laws into a searchable database rather than print them on paper. This will also allow us to edit the laws to make them easier to understand, and laws that are canceled or outdated can be removed to an archive so that they don't clutter the database.

3) The willingness to follow the law.
Some people have the intelligence and education necessary to understand our laws, but they refuse to follow the laws. In some cases this is because the person is angry at society. The people who vandalize property seem to be in this category. In other cases it is because the person considers the law to be idiotic, and they don't consider themselves to be hurting anybody by violating the law. Most of the people who violate our laws about marijuana or prostitution are in this category.

The bottles of Stevia that I purchase are describe as a “dietary supplement” rather than as a “sweetener” or a “sugar substitute” because the FDA has make it illegal for Americans to use it as a sweetening agent. I suppose that I am violating the law by using it as a sweetening agent, but I don't care. I noticed years ago that I don't feel good if I eat large amounts of sugar, and I would rather maintain my health than follow a law which makes me feel bad. I don't regard myself as a criminal. I consider the management at the FDA to be criminals who are deliberately imposing irrational laws on us in order to help their criminal friends.

The people who create new nations are also violating laws, but they don't think of themselves as criminals, either. The people who created America in 1776, for example, did not consider themselves to be criminals or traitors who were murdering innocent British soldiers. They regarded themselves as defending themselves from a disgusting, abusive monarchy, and many of them may have considered the British soldiers to be mindless sheep who were foolishly fighting for the wrong cause.

4) The ability to suppress our emotions so that we can follow as the law.
Some people have the ability to understand the purpose of the laws, but they do not have the ability to control their emotional cravings, and so they violate the laws even though they realize they should not. These people become criminals who have a certain amount of guilt or regret for what they did.

We give better treatment to criminals who show guilt, but are they better people? Why should they deserve better treatment? For example, the pedophiles seem to realize that what they are doing is wrong, which is why they are so secretive, but how is a pedophile who is guilty for what he does better than an man who is so stupid or retarded that he rapes a child without any understanding that he is hurting the child?

Young children and retarded people will commit crimes in front of us because they don't fully grasp the concept that they are committing crimes. When we find a person committing a crime in secrecy, it is a sign that he is aware that he is misbehaving, and I would argue that those people are actually more dangerous than the children and retards. The intelligent criminals are more difficult to catch, for example, and they commit more complex crimes. The retards and the young children commit much simpler crimes, and they are much easier to catch, thereby making them less of a threat to society.

How do we reduce crime? There is no simple answer. Criminals are not a distinct group of people. Different environments will alter who becomes a criminal. However, I would say that it is helpful to think of criminals as being one of two primary groups:
1) The genetic criminals. These people are prone to becoming criminals because of such genetic problems as mental illness, lower intelligence, lower self-control, higher level of arrogance, or greater tendency to lose their temper.
2) The intellectual criminals. These people violate only the laws that they consider to be idiotic or abusive.

The genetic criminals are the most destructive to society because they are like animals who violate laws regardless of the consequences. They can hurt themselves, society, other people, and the environment. By comparison, the intellectual criminals are less destructive because they tend to follow the important laws and commit only victimless crimes.

We have no way to prevent the genetic criminals from being born, and we do not have the technology to fix their problems. Therefore, we must expect them to appear in every generation, and we should periodically analyze every child from the moment he is born so that we can remove those who become troublesome. It is possible that we have the medical technology to help some of them control their disorders, but even if they are capable of controlling their problems, they are not the same as the rest of us, so they should not be allowed to reproduce.

By comparison, it is theoretically possible to reduce the number of intellectual criminals by reducing the number of laws that people regard as corrupt or idiotic. As I will discuss in the next file of this series, one method to improve our laws is to design a government that is required to provide intelligent justification for its laws, and which is required to respond to complaints from the citizens about laws. However, a better government system is worthless if the citizens are apathetic, selfish sheeple. Therefore, reducing intellectual criminals requires raising standards for citizens. A certain percentage of the population must take an active role in watching over the government and the laws. If we can create that type of society, we will not achieve perfection, but we will reduce the number of laws that people regard as dishonest and disgusting.

However, even if we create more sensible laws, we are going to have some intellectual criminals because there are some laws that are difficult to justify, and therefore, people are going to argue about them. For example, consider the laws regarding women. Different societies have different laws regarding the clothing that women wear in public, where they can nurse their babies, and what they can wear at a beach. There is no way for us to prove that one person's policy is more intelligent than another.

Some of our laws are personal preferences. We can reduce the number of people arguing over these arbitrary laws by allowing different cities to have slightly different culture, but we cannot create enough cities to please everybody. If we provide people with both options, namely, allow citizens to participate in the creation of laws, and allow cities to be culturally different, then we can tell people that this is the best we can do, and they must accept the laws of some city or be considered a criminal and evicted to the City of Misfits.

Laws should improve through the years, just like other technology

Every society is currently allowing government officials to create laws in secrecy, and nobody demands that our laws have intelligent justification. Who in America's government is responsible for the laws that prohibit hemp from being used for fiber and food? Who is responsible for the American law that prohibits Stevia from being used as a sugar substitute? The people who are responsible for our laws should identify themselves, explain their laws, and take responsibility for their laws. These people have an effect on our lives and the future generations, and they should not be allowed to operate in secrecy.

The creation of laws should be considered as a field of science. Our legal system is similar to chemistry, electrical engineering, and aeronautics, except that it is a field of the social sciences. The government officials who make policies should be in the role of a "cultural scientist". They should not be dictators, kings, or puppets of a crime network. Just as scientists try to improve technology, government officials should be trying to improve the laws and policies that they create.

In addition to creating laws to control our behavior, every society also needs a set of "behavioral guidelines" for our social interactions. For example, we need to provide guidelines on whether we greet one another by shaking hands, bowing, nodding, kissing on the cheek, hugging, or saying "hello". These guidelines are often referred to as "rules of etiquette" or "manners". Unlike laws, these rules are not enforced because there is no serious harm if a person violates one of these rules. These rules are arbitrary, but we ought to evaluate them occasionally to figure out if we want to change any of them.

As of today, our rules of etiquette are developing inadvertently and haphazardly, and the end result is that they change slightly through the years, and they are slightly different in different families, cities, and regions. I think it would be better if we took control of our culture and occasionally had discussions about our manners so that we could provide some intelligent guidance to them, and to ensure that everybody in a city is following the same rules.

When people violate "laws", we refer to them as "criminals", but when people violate rules of etiquette, we have a variety of descriptions, such as un-mannered, crude, weird, different, eccentric, discourteous, disrespectful, ill-bred, ill-mannered, inconsiderate, rude, thoughtless, uncivil, ungracious, impolite, and odd. These rude people do not hurt society, as "criminals" often do, but they create social awkwardness for themselves and others, which in turn can result in bullying, loneliness, arguments, and insults.

Rules of etiquette are arbitrary and meaningless. Nobody can "figure out" rules of etiquette. A child must be taught the rules for his particular society, and when we visit another society, somebody must tell us what their rules are. Now that everybody of importance has computers or cell phones, every society could post videos to explain their rules of etiquette, foods, holiday celebrations, and other customs. These videos would be useful for tourists and people who have to travel for business purposes. They would help people know what to expect when they arrive in a foreign nation, and how to interpret other people's behavior. Of course, this assumes that the government officials are capable of creating truly educational videos rather than propaganda. Comedians could have some fun with the type of "Dear Leader" videos that the North Korean government might create.

Incidentally, if a government hired a person to make a video to explain the etiquette of his particular society, it would immediately become apparent to him that he doesn't know what the rules are. He would have no idea what to put into the video. As he researched the issue, he would discover that the rules are slightly different to different people. If every nation were forced to make a video describing their culture, it would help every nation to realize that all of us are living like fish, and that many of our rules of etiquette are confusing and idiotic. It might help people to realize that we need to take control of our culture.

Even if a person is taught the rules of etiquette for his society, he will not properly fit into society unless he has the ability and desire to follow those rules. Animals do not have the ability or desire to follow rules, and humans vary in their ability and desire. Following rules requires keeping the rules in your memory, and frequently analyzing your situation to determine if any of the rules apply to that particular situation. People who don't have the intellectual ability to do this, and people who don't have the emotional desire to do this, will be regarded as "rude".

To complicate the issue of rude people, large nations have subtle variations in etiquette in different areas, and since no nation is yet exerting control over the behavior of immigrants, some societies, especially America, can end up with the ridiculous situation of people within a city practicing significantly different rules of etiquette, and children within a school following different rules.

An example are the differences in the way men and women greet one another. In some societies, there is no physical contact between men and women, and in others there is hugging and kissing on the cheek. It is ridiculous to put people together in one society when they are following different rules of etiquette. It creates social awkwardness, especially for children. Immigrants should adapt to the culture of the society they join.

Should a man greet a woman by saying hello, shaking her hand, giving her a hug, or kissing her on the cheek? It does not matter what the rule is, but every society should start discussing these issues and standardizing their rules. If we could bring these discussions out into the public, we would become aware of how arbitrary our culture is, and that different people are following slightly different rules of etiquette. Discussing these issues will also cause us to become more aware of the culture of other nations, thereby causing us to compare what we do to what they do, which in turn can give us ideas on what we might want to experiment with.

Why do people fight for freedom?

People have been fighting one another for "freedom" for centuries, but what is freedom? Most of the "freedom fighters" behave as if they are a comic book superhero who is trying to release a kidnap victim. They assume that freedom, democracy, liberation, common sense, and other concepts are actual entities in the universe, and that a small group of evil "tyrants" are suppressing those entities.

The freedom fighters assume that by killing the evil people, they will release the magical freedom, liberty, democracy, and other qualities. They fantasize that everybody will run out into the streets, hold hands, sing songs, and praise their heroic actions.

In reality, freedom, oppression, liberation, and other concepts depend upon your particular intellectual and emotional characteristics, and your particular education. Should we have the freedom to own whatever pet we please, including alligators and tigers, or should we have the freedom to live in a city that doesn't tolerate any pets, or should we have the freedom to put restrictions on pets and other animals? Should people have the freedom to carry guns? Or should we have the freedom to remove criminals so that crime is so low that only the policemen need guns?

There is no scientific test that will prove that one person's concept of freedom is more sensible than somebody else's. It is senseless to fight or kill one another over "freedom". We can and should regularly discuss these issues, but every city has to make arbitrary decisions on what life will be like for their residents, and the people who don't like the decisions must either peacefully accept the decisions, or be removed from society. The people in a city must have a certain level of emotional and intellectual compatibility or they will spend their time fighting with one another over freedom.

This issue will become more significant if we allow the government to take control of society. The more aspects of life that we allow the government to control, the more opportunities we provide for people to complain about government oppression.

There is no right or wrong way for people to live. When a government is allowed to take control of restaurants, businesses, social activities, city festivals, sports, and other activities, many or all of us are likely to occasionally encounter laws or rules that we don't care for, so all of us will occasionally feel oppressed, neglected, insulted, or abused. If we cannot control our disappointment and tolerate the laws we don't care for, then we become "criminals".

Consider the issue of drugs. Our ancestors didn't have any drugs, so they didn't waste any of their time whining about drug policies. Today we have thousands of drugs, such as alcohol, insulin, LSD, caffeine, painkillers, cough syrup, Viagra, steroids, birth control hormones, aspirin, and antihistamines. The government has to make a decision for every drug in regards to whether it should be permitted, restricted, promoted, prohibited, or regulated in some manner. This means that the government has to create thousands of different drug laws.

Every nation today is an incompatible mixture of people who are willing to follow their drug laws and people who refuse to follow their drug laws, and the end result is that every nation is involved in a battle with its own citizens over drug laws. America has already put millions of people in jail for refusing to follow drug laws, and many policemen and citizens have died in the fight over drug laws. We are arguing and fighting with one another over an issue that did not exist thousands of years ago. People today are also arguing about, whining about, and fighting over other issues that didn't exist in prehistoric times, such as guns, pets, religion, and money.

Future generations will know much more about the human mind, genetics, and other issues, and so they may come up with some truly impressive solutions to these problems, but I think the best solution for us today is to allow different cities to have different culture, and allow every city to control immigration and evict the misfits. And we need to create a City of Misfits for those people that nobody wants.

Modern society requires the government to create thousands of different laws. Although there may be some people who will be satisfied with all of the laws, it is much more likely that all of us will disagree with one or more laws. If the people in the city are willing to obey the laws they dislike, then the city will be peaceful, but how do we create a city with such a high level of compatibility? As of today, our only method is to allow every city to restrict immigration and evict the misfits.

Our drug policies are personal preferences, and so are our policies on clothing, money, economic systems, schools, sports, and recreation. There is no way for society to create a set of laws that everybody is satisfied with. The people in a city need a certain amount of compatibility with one another, and the people must also have the ability to obey the laws they disagree with.

However, it is important to note that obeying a law is not the same as blind obedience to it. In order for a modern society to function properly, a certain percentage of the population must take an active role in discussing laws, analyzing laws, and making suggestions for experiments to find improvements to the laws.

We have to distinguish between constructive criticism and destructive whining. We benefit when a person who disagrees with a law provides us with an intelligent analysis of it. He can post his documents on the Internet, or discuss it at meetings or at social clubs, just as scientists do with technical issues.

By comparison, we allow people to hurt society when they whine about oppression. Society degrades even further when a portion of the population is violating or circumventing the laws. And society becomes even more miserable when groups of people are so angry with the "oppression" that they form violent groups of "freedom fighters" who rebel against society and try to impose their views of freedom.

Earlier I mentioned that the people who created America were criminals, and that I am a criminal for using Stevia as a sweetening agent. Now I am proposing that we evict people for violating laws and rebelling against the government. Am I being a hypocrite or contradicting myself?

There is no dividing line between anything in life. Life is complicated, and becoming more complicated every year. There is no way to determine when a government has become so corrupt that the citizens should disregard the laws and rebel against the government. Each person has to make his own decisions. From my point of view, the governments of the past and present are so dishonest and abusive that it is admirable for people to rebel against them rather than submit to the abuse like passive sheep.

Note that I am not rebelling against our laws against burglary, murder, or rape. I am only rebelling against the law that our government officials are fully aware is abusive, which is why they are so quiet about it. Our government officials do not want to bring attention to this law because they know that publicity would cause even more people to become angry with them.

Every nation today puts pressure on citizens to mindlessly follow their laws and culture, and we consider a person to be a traitor if he criticizes his government or culture. We must change that attitude. We need to create a government that encourages the citizens to participate in the maintenance of society by allowing them to submit analyses of government policies and suggestions for better policies. The government should be required to respond to suggestions and complaints from the citizens.

Government leaders should not be allowed to develop laws in secrecy, or create laws that don't have intelligent justification. When the government creates a law, everybody involved with creating and authorizing it should be identified, and each of them should provide their reasoning so that we can see how each official is thinking. Citizen also need some method of complaining about the laws and the government officials.

The founders of America didn't have an Internet, so their method of allowing the citizens to complain was to encourage them to have demonstrations in the streets, but the Internet provides us with a more sensible option. We can allow citizens to post their proposals on a government website for everybody to see, and we can require the government officials to respond. I will discuss this in more detail in the next article of this series.

Who in China is responsible for their policy of one child per family? All of the people involved with that policy should have to post a document with their reasoning so that everybody can see who is involved, and what their reasoning is. The citizens would be able to pass judgment on which of those government officials they disagreed with, and they would be able to post their own suggestions for an improved policy. This would get a discussion going about the issue, and they could do this for every other issue that they face.

Carpenters, plumbers, engineers, and waitresses are expected to be responsible for what they do, so why not hold government officials responsible for their decisions? We should demand that every government official let us see what they are doing, and why, and we should pass judgment on whether we approve of the way they do their job.

By allowing the citizens to participate in the maintenance of society, we can forbid demonstrations in the street. The citizens could be told that if they don't like a particular law, government policy, business executive, school course, holiday celebration, or government leader, they either impress society with their intelligent alternative, or they keep quiet. We don't have to tolerate people who try to change society through violence. The people who cannot impress us with their opinions and end up losing their temper and resorting to violence should be regarded as dangerous savages who need to be removed from society.

Every society is currently following the philosophy that the people who cause trouble can be cured with punishments, but no amount of punishment will change their intellectual or emotional characteristics. The people who choose to be criminals have a different mind, and they want to live a different type of life and follow a different set of rules. We do not yet have the knowledge to understand why some people decide to become destructive, and we do not have the technology to change their brains. We must face the fact that there is something different about them, and that it is idiotic for a society to tolerate destructive members.

Society will be much more pleasant when the people are following laws because they want to, not because they are afraid of punishment. Until we learn how to fix criminals, we need to evict the people who refuse to follow our rules.

More sensible food policies require more self-control
Humans can no longer do whatever feels good
Animals do whatever they please, and so did our prehistoric ancestors, but we have to exert control over our emotions and make intelligent decisions about what to do. A simple example is food. Our ancestors did not have to control their consumption of food. They ate whatever they pleased, whenever they pleased, and in whatever quantity they pleased. Also, all of their food was "natural", so they did not have to be concerned about the health issues of processed foods, artificial flavors, preservatives, or candy. Their concern was finding food, not controlling their consumption of food or worrying about nutrition. Our emotional cravings for food evolved to fit that primitive environment. For example, humans developed an attraction to sugar to cause us to eat fruit, not to cause us to eat candy.

For another example, you may have noticed that when you are hungry, the first bite of a particular food tastes very good, but the more of it you eat, the more bland it becomes, and eventually you become tired of eating it, even though you might still be hungry. The reason we have this characteristic is to prevent excessive consumption of a particular food. It causes us to get variety in our diet. It should be noted that we become tired of certain foods faster than others, and this is certainly because some foods are more appropriate for us. For example, we can eat much more fresh meat and fruit compared to almonds, cabbage, and stale meat.

When our prehistoric ancestors found food, they would normally find only one particular food item at a time, perhaps an animal, vegetable, or a fruit. As they ate that food, their emotions became increasingly tired of it, eventually forcing them to stop eating, which in turn prevented excessive food consumption. If they were still hungry, they would continue looking for food, but they would look for a different food.

Our prehistoric ancestors had no understanding of nutrition or health, but they ate a proper diet and in appropriate quantities simply by following their emotional cravings for food. In this modern world, however, we regularly defeat those emotions through such techniques as:

1) Random eating rather than sequential eating
Sequential eating is when you eat all of one type of food first, and then eat all of another type of food, and so on, until all of your food has been eaten. Random eating is when you eat a portion of one type of food, such as meat, and then eat a portion of some other food, such as vegetables, and then another portion of something, such as bread, and so on, until all of the food is gone.

Animals and primitive humans normally engage in sequential eating simply because they are normally suffering from a shortage of food and eat whenever they find food. For example, when our prehistoric ancestors caught an animal, they would have a meal that consisted only of meat. They would eat a certain amount of meat, and then get tired of it. Later they might discover some vegetables, and they would eat those vegetables, but after a while they would get tired of eating them. Hours later they might discover some fruit, and that fruit would be the only food for that particular meal.

Our emotions evolved for sequential eating, so if we follow that practice, we are not as likely to eat excessively. When people settled into cities and began collecting food and preparing meals, they noticed that they enjoy food much more when they put a variety of food on one dinner plate, and then eat a portion of one food, and then a portion of another food, and so on, until all of the food is gone. This random-access method of eating tricks our emotions into thinking that we are getting a variety of foods, thereby preventing our emotions from making us become tired of a particular food. This in turn allows us to spend more time titillating ourselves with food.

2) Sweet desserts
When we are hungry, the first bite of a meal has a very strong flavor, and we enjoy it. The more we eat, the more bland the food becomes, and eventually our emotions cause us to become tired of eating. Many centuries ago people noticed that after they have stuffed themselves with food, they can continue to eat if they switch to something that is very sweet. This practice became known as eating desserts.

The reason this technique works is because our emotions were not designed for an environment in which sugar is available in large amounts. It is possible that some of the people who evolved in the tropics have some resistance to sugar, but people in the northern climates have virtually no resistance. Therefore, after we have eaten a meal and our emotions are telling us to stop eating, we can circumvent those emotions by switching to candy, pies, donuts, ice cream, and other sweet foods. This allows us to continue stimulating ourselves with food.

3) Flavorings
When we are extremely hungry, almonds will have a very nice flavor, but after eating just a few of them, our emotions become tired of them, and they become tasteless. Stale meat is also undesirable, and although women may have an attraction to vegetables, men quickly become tired of them.

Our ancestors discovered that the bland and undesirable foods become enjoyable if we cover them with spices, dressings, or sauces. The flavorings allow us to "jerk ourselves off" with foods that we would otherwise not have much of an interest in.

4) Drinks with calories
When our prehistoric ancestors were thirsty, they had to walk over to a creek or other water source. Today we have easy access to phenomenal quantities of fruit juices, vegetable juices, sodas, beers, wines, teas, flavored liquors, and flavored milk drinks. Some of these drinks, especially those that are sweet, are so titillating to our senses that we can consume large amounts of them even after we have eaten an excessive amount of food.

There is nothing wrong with any of these drinks, but we have to be concerned about the quantities, and the times of the day or evening that we are drinking them. We also have to be concerned about the effect of combining drinks with meals. For example, when people drink large amounts of beer with their food, will the beer interfere with the digestion of the food? Should food and drinks be separated?

Some people consume large amounts of water or other liquids with their food. This is understandable when they are eating dry foods, such as crackers, but what about the people who become thirsty while eating meat, vegetables, and other moist foods? Is that a sign that they are not getting enough water prior to their meals? Or is it a sign that they are eating excessively or too quickly and are using the water to wash the food down their throat? Or is it a sign that the food is too salty or spicy for their particular body?

I am not proposing that we give up sugar, drinks, or flavorings, or that we avoid the random-access eating method. Rather, I am trying to point out that we must start thinking about what we are doing rather than mindlessly titillating ourselves like a stupid rat with an electrode in its brain. We have to pass judgment on when we are providing ourselves with healthy, pleasant meals, and when we are hurting ourselves in our attempts to stimulate ourselves.

Our emotional cravings for food are no longer matching our environment, and that in turn means that we must control our emotions towards food. It is no longer wise for us to eat in whatever manner brings us the most pleasure. We have to make intelligent decisions about which foods to eat, and the quantities to eat. We also have to control the times of the day and night that we eat. For example, if we drink a lot of liquids prior to sleeping, especially caffeinated liquids, we may wake up during the night in order to pee.

If we were to experiment with meals, we might find that there are ways for us to enjoy food without creating a problem of overeating or bad nutrition, and which allows us to sleep better. For example, two experiments we could try are:

1) Two or three small dinners separated by an hour or two for entertainment, recreation, or socializing, rather than one large dinner. This would be impractical if everybody had to make their own meals, but it would be extremely easy if the city was providing us with free food at restaurants.

2) Providing more meals in the sequential method rather than random-access method. There are two different methods for restaurants to provide our meals in this manner. One method is for each restaurant to produce only one type of food, such as only meat, or only vegetables, or only bread. This would cause us to eat one particular type of food, and after we are finished we walk to some other restaurant for another type of food. The other method is for the restaurants to provide meals in a manner that is similar to what they refer to as "prix fixe", in which a small portion of a food item is served, and after we have eaten that, a small portion of another item is served, and so on.

None of us have the knowledge or intelligence to figure out the most appropriate foods or methods of eating. We need to do research into food, digestion, nutrition, and sleep, and we must find the courage to conduct experiments with society so that we can determine what type of restaurants, meals, eating schedules, and drinks are most appropriate.

Scientists should not be looking for ways to profit from sickness, sleep disorders, obesity, or malnutrition. They should instead be trying to understand these issues and recommending experiments for society. Perhaps they will discover that it is best for us to eat meat in the afternoon or evening rather than the morning, or that certain foods should not be mixed together in the same meal, or that we should have most of our carbohydrates in the morning rather than at night.

I cannot predict what we will discover about meals, but it is safe for me to predict that we are fools to do whatever titillates our emotions in regards to food. This brings me to another reason why I suggest that we create a society in which the basic necessities are free, and food is provided by restaurants. Specifically, it will make it easy for society to ensure that everybody is getting proper meals and nutrition.

As the human race learns more about health and nutrition, we will be able to do an increasingly better job of figuring out how to provide ourselves with healthy meals. Unfortunately, as with all scientific fields, the knowledge about foods will eventually become extremely detailed and complicated. The children in the future will have to take a lot of difficult school courses in order to learn what the human race has discovered about nutrition, health, digestion, and related issues. Rather than expect every child to become a nutritional scientist, it would be more sensible to provide meals at restaurants. With this philosophy, the majority of children need only a basic understanding of health and nutrition, and only the students who want to become chefs, doctors, and medical scientists would need to take the more advanced courses.

When food vendors must compete for profit, many will exploit our cravings for sugar. It would be better to remove the profit from food production and make the job of a chef into a serious career.
We have so much knowledge about chemistry, electrical engineering, and other fields that we can pass judgment on who among us has the education, training, and skills to be considered an expert in those fields, but we know so little about food and nutrition that nobody is an expert in these issues, except for the people who self-appoint themselves to the position. Our ignorance about food and nutrition makes it impossible for us to say who among us is qualified to make meals. Everybody is permitted to start a business and create and sell food items, even from pushcarts and vending machines, regardless of their understanding or concern about nutrition, digestion, or human health.

The government is concerned about the safety of the food, but not its health qualities or nutritional value. The businesses that provide us with foods have experts in marketing, not nutrition. The businesses are competing to titillate customers, including children, with little or no concern about the nutritional value of their foods, or whether their customers are eating excessive quantities.

The people who provide us with meals should not have to compete for profit. They should be considered to be doing the same type of job as technicians, plumbers, engineers, and carpenters. A chef is like a airplane mechanic, but for humans rather than material items. Instead of learning about airplanes and keeping them in good running condition by providing them with the appropriate types and amounts of oils, transmission fluids, and greases, a chef should learn about human health and keep us in good mental and physical health by providing us with the appropriate amounts of oils, proteins, carbohydrates, and fats. The difference between a chef and an airplane mechanic is that the chef has to provide the materials in a visually appealing manner and in a nice dining room.

People who provide us with food should not be allowed to exploit a child's craving for sweet foods. This cotton candy vendor puts on an entertaining show during the evenings with his illuminated machine, but who benefits from cotton candy? Adults should make wise decisions about children's meals rather than exploit or pander to the children. It would be acceptable to allow children to have cotton candy and deep-fried candy bars if we restrict the quantities that we can consume each day, but we allow businesses to sell unlimited quantities of sugary products to children. We also allow children to purchase unlimited quantities of these products from vending machines.

When society is providing food for us, then we can make intelligent decisions about the type of meals to produce, the quantities of each food item, and the times of the day or night a particular food is available. There is nothing wrong with candy, or even deep-fried butter, but the useless or dangerous foods should have restrictions, especially with children. We restrict a child's access to alcohol, automobiles, razor blades, guns, and many other items, so why not also restrict the child's access to candies, sodas, Hostess Twinkies, and other worthless foods? We also restrict a child's access to coffee and tea because they contain caffeine, so why not restrict their access to chocolate and cocoa? Our currrent food policies are irrational, especially with children.

Why do we eat?

The question of why we eat may seem ridiculously easy to answer, but when we take control of culture, we become "cultural scientists" who study the human mind in order to improve our social environment. If you try to answer that question from the point of view of a scientist who is experimenting with improvements to our culture, you should notice that it is actually very complex.
Instead of developing special bibs for adults who eat messy foods while driving or working, why not develop special foods that are less messy?
For example, sometimes people eat in a rush while focusing on something else, as opposed to focusing on the meal. These people usually eat alone, and they tend to eat while they are working at their job, waiting for a train, walking along the city streets, talking on a telephone, or driving an automobile. Therefore, to these people in those particular rushed situations, the answer to the question "Why do we eat" is, "To refuel our bodies", or "To relieve the feelings of hunger."

Businesses have responded to this "refueling activity" by providing a variety of spillproof cups for people who drink while driving an automobile, and by providing sodas and snacks in vending machines for people who want to eat as they walk around the city. If we decide to officially support this purpose for eating, then we could go one step further and develop special, less messy meals that are even more appropriate for people who eat at the same time they drive, walk, or work. The vending machines, street vendors, and food stands could offer this more appropriate food.

Or would it be better to discourage this activity by not producing any spillproof cups, vending machines, adult bibs, or special foods? Or should we support this type of eating only for certain people and situations, such as allowing office workers to eat and drink while they are working at their desk, but not allowing people to eat or drink while they are operating machinery, riding on a train, or driving a truck? Or should we prohibit this type of activity for everybody by insisting that everybody control their hunger and eat only in the designated areas? How do we figure out what is the best policy?

We can figure out the answers to math problems, but we cannot figure out the answers to cultural issues. Businesses answer cultural issues according to what brings them the most profit, but when we take control of our culture, the government officials must analyze these issues according to what is best for society. In many cases we have to experiment with a policy and watch the results. This requires government officials who can make wise decisions about which experiments to conduct and which to reject, and who can provide intelligent analyses of the experiments to determine the advantages and disadvantages to different policies.

There are benefits to providing babies with spillproof cups, but should we provide adults with spillproof cups for them to eat while walking, driving, riding on a train, or working at their desk? Do the benefits outweigh the burden? If people cannot agree on a policy, we could conduct an experiment to settle this. For example, the people in one section of the city could be provided with spillproof cups, and then we would be able to compare them to another section of the city in which people do not have those cups. We would then compare the two groups of people to determine what effect those cups are having on the group. It would not be an easy analysis, but we can do it.

In a free enterprise system, anything that makes a profit is justified, but when we are in control of our culture, we have to compare the benefit and burden to society. What is the burden of spillproof cups? One of them is that producing the cups requires engineers to design them; people to provide the raw materials to make them; and people to work on assembly lines to produce them. A potential burden that would have to be determined by experiment is that some people may become less productive at work, or may have more accidents, as a result of trying to drink while working.

The benefit that the cups provide must justify the burden. What is the benefit? An analysis of people with these cups might show us what the benefit is, but even if we find a benefit, we should also consider whether we would have a greater benefit if we put the engineers, assembly-line workers, and raw materials on a different project. In a free enterprise system, any project that has a profit potential will be funded, but when we are in control of the economy, we need to seriously ask ourselves how we are going to benefit from a project.

If we analyze a spillproof cup from the point of view of an individual person, then we would come to the conclusion that the cups improve our lives because an individual who chooses to use one of those cups will obviously enjoy it. However, it doesn't matter if an individual citizen likes something. We have to analyze everything from the point of view of its effect on society. How does society benefit from spillproof cups? Do the people with the cups become more productive at work? Are they happier? Do they make fewer sarcastic remarks? Does their performance at school increase? Does it reduce the number of accidents at work? Do they have fewer divorces?

Or, are the spillproof cups making the people less productive at work, and reducing their leisure time by a tiny amount, by causing them to waste some of their time on the filling of the cups, the cleaning of the cups, looking for their misplaced cups, and moving their cups around at their desk? We might also find that people who are using these cups are having more accidents at work and during their leisure time because they occasionally become distracted by trying to drink and work at the same time.

We might conclude that although people enjoy the cups, only certain people can justify drinking while they work, such as people who are frequently talking or perspiring. In such a case, we would design cups specifically for those people and their particular jobs, and we would tell everybody else to exert some self-control over their appetite and eat and drink only in the designated areas.

What should our policy be for feeding babies? Babies cannot control their appetite, so we cannot tell them to stop whining for food when they are hungry. Most people don't care if a woman feeds her baby with food or a bottle, but most people become hysterical if a woman breast-feeds her baby. What should our policies be for breast-feeding? Should women be able to breast-feed their babies in public? If so, what rules of etiquette should the women follow? Or should we provide them with laws so that we can arrest them if they breast-feed in the wrong manner? Or should women be prohibited from taking young babies out in public so that we don't have to deal with this issue?

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have to analyze the issue of breast-feeding or develop policies for it. A routine aspect of human life has now become an issue that we must develop policies for, and which many nations have laws for, and some women have been harassed over or arrested for. Modern society is causing problems for us over issues that were of no concern to our ancestors.

I doubt if any nation has put any intelligent thought into the issue of breast-feeding. Every nation seems to be developing policies for this issue according to their emotional feelings. If we want to create a more sensible society, then we have to exert some self-control over our sexual inhibitions and force ourselves to analyze the effect on society of different types of breast-feeding policies, but how many people can even discuss the issue of breast-feeding without giggling or acting childish? If we create a new city and put "ordinary" people in the government, we will end up with a government of obnoxious, giggling, inhibited children who can't discuss or cope with the issues of modern society.

Creating a more sensible society requires facing the fact that humans are monkeys, and that sex is a very significant aspect of every animal's life. Creating a policy for the breast-feeding requires controlling our sexual emotions and using our intellect to think about the issue from the point of view of what is best for society. Can you do this? And this is just one of thousands of issues that we are going to have to deal with when we take control of our culture. Unless we can find a lot of people with enough self-control to discuss these issues seriously, and discuss them from the point of view of what is best for society rather than what is best for themselves, we are not going to be able to develop more sensible policies.

What type of restaurants are sensible?

Most of the time that we eat we are doing so to enjoy the food, not refuel our body, and so we want the food to be visually attractive, and we often want to eat in a social setting, and sometimes we have additional entertainment, such as singing, comedy shows, or lectures. In these situations, the answer to the question, "Why do we eat?", is, "To enjoy the visual appearance and flavor of the food, the ambience of the restaurant, and to socialize."

In the free enterprise system, businesses determine what type of food is available at markets, what type of meals are available at restaurants, what hours those markets and restaurants are open, and whether there is entertainment at the markets or restaurants. Businesses also determine the visual appearance of the food and the furnishings of the dining room.

When we take control of our culture, we have to make thousands of decisions that are being answered by free enterprise. When is a chef going too far in making meals visually attractive? Should restaurants provide singing, comedy shows, lectures, or other entertainment before, during, or after the meals? Or should we separate entertainment from eating so that we can watch the entertainment without any concern about awkward seating arrangements, twisting our necks, and getting messy from the food? Or should we design some restaurants with theater-style seating and with special meals that can be eaten in a manner that allows people to comfortably eat and watch the entertainment?

There are lots of options available to us when we provide ourselves with free meals at restaurants. One of them is to schedule the meals for certain times of the day and evening, thereby allowing restaurant workers to have shorter hours, and even eat with us. In a free enterprise system, restaurants are expected to serve food continuously during the day and night, but we could set up a restaurant system in which the meals are scheduled for certain times, as is typical for schools and military units. This would allow the restaurant workers to prepare a meal, provide everybody in the dining room with food, and then sit down and eat with everybody else. It would be similar to the way parents provide meals for their children, and then sit down at the table and eat together. This would give a restaurant the environment of a family, or a group of friends.

It would be impractical in a free enterprise system for a restaurant to open for one serving of lunch, and then shut down, and then serve one group for dinner, and then shut down, but we don't need to design society for corporate profits. We have the technology and resources to design a city with plenty of restaurants. We don't need to worry about maximizing the number of people passing through a restaurant. We can allow restaurants to shut down between meals.

Having restaurants shut down when they are not needed would cause the restaurant workers to operate on a part-time basis, some only for an hour or two, which is impractical in a free enterprise system, but when we are in control of our culture, part-time jobs are as acceptable as full-time jobs because none of the employers have to worry about health benefits, retirement, or salaries. People simply do their jobs with no regard to how many different businesses they are working for. For example, a person may start the morning by doing some gardening for the city, and just before lunch he goes over to a restaurant to help make meals, and after lunch he works on an assembly line for the rest of the afternoon. As long as everybody is contributing to society, it makes no difference if they are contributing at just one, full-time job, or a dozen part-time jobs.

When we take control of our culture, we have incredible options available to us. All we have to do is become active participants in society rather than passive animals who wait for things to happen. We simply control our stupid emotions, discuss our options, pick some to experiment with, and start exploring our future.

Providing free meals at restaurants would also make it easy for us to conduct harmless experiments with the quantity of food that people were eating, the type of food that was eaten at each meal, and the times of the day that people were eating. For example, we could arrange for an experiment in which a large group of people have four or five small meals each day rather than three large meals. Or we might want a group of people to avoid breakfast to see if forcing their body to use some of the energy that they stored the previous day makes them feel better overall. Another group of people could experiment with having carbohydrates during the day rather than at night, or vice versa.

It would be impossible to do these type of experiments in the world today because it requires the coordination of restaurants and businesses. For example, in order for a group of people to experiment with two small lunches and two small dinners, the businesses would have to alter their work schedule to provide their employees with two separate lunch breaks, and the social activities in the evening would have to be adjusted to allow for two small dinners. This type of experiment would be practical only when the government has control of the economy, the social activities, the restaurants, and everything else. The city government would need as much control over the city as the management of a cruise ship has over their ship. This would allow the city government to schedule and organize all of the people and all of the activities.

It is important to note that these type of experiments would be useless if the people are so paranoid of being observed that they don't allow data to be collected about themselves. In order for the experiments to be useful, scientists would have to be able to collect data on everybody's health, productivity at work, relationships, performance at school, leisure activities, and other aspects of their lives. We would then be able to analyze the different groups of people to see how diet and eating schedules affect their productivity, relationships, emotional health, and physical health.

When we are not feeling good, we have a tendency to look for ways to titillate our emotions, such as through sex, food, or becoming the center of attention. Also, when our mind is not operating in its optimum condition, we are more likely to stumble as we walk, make mistakes in our email messages, and drop items that we are holding. Our tone of voice and the type of remarks that we make will also change according to our mental and physical health.

Removing the secrecy in our personal lives could make a lot of issues become apparent that we would otherwise never notice. For example, we might discover that certain diets, exercise routines, and other activities are reducing the number of mistakes in our email messages, or reducing the number of sexual remarks that we make, or reducing the number of accidents at work. When voice analyzing software becomes more advanced, our conversations and phone calls could be sent to a computer for analysis, and we might notice that certain diets or lifestyles are causing people to speak more clearly or have a more pleasant tone of voice.

The paranoid people are interfering with the study of the human mind and body. If detailed personal data about you had been collected continuously since you were born, then it might be possible for you to occasionally send your conversations to voice analyzing software, and that might allow you to see how your tone of voice or sarcastic comments increase and decrease from day to day, and that in turn could help you figure out when you are in good health, and when you are feeling bad, and how you can improve your life. If medical data about your body had been collected continuously throughout your life, you might be able to analyze that data and notice subtle changes that signal medical problems before they become serious. You might be embarrassed to have your personal information stored in a public database, but you have a lot to gain by allowing it to be collected and analyzed.

Voice analyzing software could also help us give a rating to everybody in regards to their ability to pronounce words properly. Have you noticed how many of the people on television and in our government are unable to pronounce words clearly? Some of them improve after taking classes in pronunciation, but why do they need such training and not you and I? If we could analyze everybody's ability to speak, we might start noticing patterns in who has the most trouble, and why so many of them are in influential positions of society.

Is it wise to let the government control our meals?

When a society is providing meals for free at restaurants, the chefs can be trained on nutritional issues, and the public doesn't have to be concerned about becoming an expert in nutrition. Ideally, the public would know as much about nutrition as the chefs and scientists, but in reality, we cannot study every subject. Every year the human race acquires more knowledge, and that means that every year the students must learn a smaller portion of our knowledge.

The more educated the citizens are about food and nutrition, the less educated they can be about some other issue. We must make wise decisions about which issues the majority of people should learn about, and which they can safely remain ignorant about. As we learn more about life, people must specialize in increasingly narrow areas, and they must let other "specialists" or "experts" deal with the fields that they know little or nothing about.

The automobiles in 1920 were so technically simple that many men did a lot of their own maintenance work, but not many men are capable of maintaining the modern automobiles. When I was a teenager, I would take vacuum tubes out of our television, test them in the tube tester at the Thrifty Drug Store, and purchase new tubes. Today the televisions are so complicated that ordinary people cannot do anything to maintain them.

As our material items become more technically advanced, it becomes increasingly unrealistic to expect people to maintain their material items. Eventually bicycles will become so technically complex that it becomes impractical for children or their fathers to maintain them. This problem is going to happen with food and health, also. Eventually the human race will learn so much about digestion, nutrition, and other health issues, and we will have so many different variations of foods, that it becomes impractical to expect people to deal with their nutritional needs.

In the world today, each person is responsible for his own meals, and so it is necessary for each of us to learn as much as possible about nutrition, but if a society provides meals to its citizens at restaurants, then only the chefs need to be trained on nutrition. The citizens don't have to bother learning about nutrition, or even about how to prepare meals or handle food safely. They can spend their time on something more important.

By comparison, it is not yet practical for a small group of people to maintain our physical health. Doctors cannot yet analyze a human body with such precision that they can tell us what sort of medical disorders we are suffering from, except for a few problems, such as when we are suffering from a broken bone or pneumonia. Doctors today are doing a terrible job of helping us understand, diagnose, and deal with problems related to hormones, digestion, sleep, allergies, and most other medical problems.

Eventually the scientists will have learned so much about human health and will have developed such advanced medical analyses that doctors will not waste any of their time asking us questions about our medical problems. They will instead give us some highly advanced analyses and tell us what is wrong with us. However, we are not going to see such advanced medical technology during our lifetimes. We have to face the fact that our doctors today are only slightly more knowledgeable than the doctors of the Middle Ages. As a result, it is wise for citizens to be taught about health issues and encouraged to work with the doctors to understand and maintain their health.

The human race doesn't yet know much about foods. For example, we don't know if olive oil is better for our health than canola oil, or how much cholesterol is safe to eat each day. Because we are so ignorant, you might respond that if we allow society to train chefs in nutrition, we will create a society which we are following some potentially idiotic or dangerous food policies. For example, the self-appointed experts in our government are promoting dairy products, even though a phenomenal percentage of the population has a bad reaction to such foods. Those self-appointed experts are also preventing Stevia from being used as a sweetening agent.

Some people might also worry that allowing a government to have control over restaurants and meals would allow the government to treat us as babies or slaves, and that we would be denied the freedom to eat what we please.

All of these concerns are valid. If we create a city that is dominated by selfish, irresponsible, inconsiderate, dishonest, or apathetic sheeple, then of course we risk the possibility of a crude, selfish, aggressive government that forces us to eat Velveeta cheese, Cheerios, and Wonder Bread in miserable, dreary, cafeterias. It is conceivable that the restaurants become worse than a prison cafeteria.

However, do not react to this possibility with fear. We can develop sensible policies for every problem that appears. For example, since there is a disagreement on whether olive oil is better than canola, corn, or soybean oil, then instead of letting the government pick the oils that we will eat, the restaurants could let people choose which oil or mixture of oils they want in their food.

We don't have to fear the government. The government is not our problem. It would be more accurate to say that every nation's primary problem are the apathetic sheeple, crime networks, retards, psychos, religious fanatics, and arrogant jerks. By creating a city with "better" people, the government will be better, the schools will be better, the businesses will be better, and the restaurants will be better.

We are also suffering from the craving for secrecy and the paranoia of being watched. We are allowing people to lie about their past, and we are allowing illegal immigrants to secretly live among us. If the people in a city can control their paranoia, then we could do a lot to improve our lives. For an extreme example in regards to food, imagine that when you enter a restaurant, your wristwatch or cell phone identifies you, and information about your meal is transmitted to a database. Imagine also that your wristwatch was constantly transmitting information about your physical activities, medical data, and location to the database. This type of database could help us figure out what type of meals, physical activities, and eating schedules are keeping people in the best mental and physical health.

An organization is whatever the members can make it. A city is a reflection of its people. If we can create a city of responsible people, then we can provide ourselves with chefs, mechanics, plumbers, technicians, scientists, and gardeners who are responsible and trustworthy, and we can create a government that consists of people who are truly interested in helping society. We would be able to provide ourselves with a variety of attractive and pleasant restaurants, and we would be able to eat the food with the confidence that it is nutritious.

When we put the government in control of our meals, we will certainly notice a reduction in the quantity of candies and other nutritionally useless food items, and so from the point of view of the people who want those foods, this type of society would be oppressive. Freedom is whatever a person wants it to be. To some people, freedom is the ability to make their meals every day and eat as much as they please, but to other people, freedom is never having to be bothered with purchasing food, preparing meals, or reading nutritional labels.

Everybody benefits by improving efficiency

It is much more efficient to provide food at restaurants compared to requiring everybody to make their own meals, and free meals are even more efficient. Therefore, a society that provides free meals at restaurants will waste less labor and resources on food production, food packaging, food distribution, preparation of meals, food-related financial transactions, and cleaning of meals. If we decide to provide ourselves with vending machines to serve drinks or food, those machines will be easier for us to build and maintain because they would only offer the food, not sell the food. This increase in efficiency could be described as freeing the people from some of the burden that our current societies are imposing on us.

A lot of people fantasize about living longer, but we can do the equivalent of extending our lives simply by reducing the amount of time that we waste on unnecessary activities. This concept applies even to the people who are not directly doing the activity. For example, if you are a married man, your wife might do the shopping for food, the preparation of meals, and the cleaning of meals, and so you may assume that you will gain nothing by making society more efficient in regards to food production. However, you will benefit indirectly.

By providing meals at restaurants, farmers can produce less food since less of it will be wasted, and that means the farms can be smaller, and that means that fewer people are needed to operate and maintain farms, farming equipment, fertilizers, and related supplies. There will also be fewer people involved with food distribution, packaging, cleaning, and the production of supplies for these activities. All of the people whose jobs are eliminated will be able to do something more useful for society, and everybody benefits as a result.

In a free enterprise system, unions and employees want to protect their jobs, not make society more efficient. As a result, they tend to resist improvements that might eliminate their jobs. When the government is in control of the economy, the unemployed people are simply given new jobs. Nobody suffers; everybody benefits. The more efficiently a society operates, the more labor and resources we have available for other activities.

When a city provides free meals to its citizens, we can operate as efficiently as a military unit that provides free meals to its soldiers. This system also allows us to make intelligent decisions about the times of the day that meals are available; the type of foods that are available at each meal; and the quantities of food that are available at each meal.

When the city has control of the economy, we have complete control over our future and how we live. For example, let's assume that after conducting some experiments, most people in the city decide that they prefer having two small lunches and two small dinners. All of the businesses in the city would be told to modify their work schedule so that the employees have two small lunches, and all of the social activities in the evening would be told to adjust for two small dinners. When the employees get off work, the restaurants would be prepared to provide them with a small dinner, and then they would shut down. The people would have a few hours to do whatever they pleased, and then the restaurants would open for their second dinner.

This concept of allowing society to make intelligent decisions for us about meals applies to all of our products and services, not just food. For example, in the world today, everybody is on his own to determine which cell phone to purchase, what to do if he has a problem with his plumbing, and how to deal with a broken bicycle. A lot of people are spending a lot of their leisure time on the research of products in order to figure out which item to purchase, and they are spending a lot of time maintaining their products, plumbing, electrical lines, and leaky roofs. It would be more efficient for the city to make decisions about products, and to provide maintenance. In such a case, none of the citizens would have to waste their time on the research or maintenance of products. Also, it would allow us to make dramatic changes to products, including a change as extreme as switching the entire city from alternating current to direct current. That might seem crazy today, but future power sources and electronics may make it sensible.

As I described in the previous file of this series, teams of people could make decisions for us about which prototypes to put into production, and the citizens would have free access to those products, and the city would handle the maintenance of the products. It is inefficient for the citizens to waste their time on the research of products, and on figuring out how to maintain them. The citizens only need to be taught how to properly use the products, do simplistic maintenance, and how to identify problems so that they can determine when one of their products need servicing.

It is even more wasteful to require citizens to purchase everything that they want because most items are used only occasionally. It would be more efficient to provide the citizens with free access to higher quality items that they share.

If we can create a city of honest, responsible, competent people, then we could set up a society that provides everybody with free access to products and services in a similar manner that employees of a business are provided with whatever equipment and furniture that they need. In this type of society, everybody contributes something of value to society, and in the process we provide one another with meals, recreational activities, homes, clothing, and maintenance services. This type of society would be much more efficient, and it would provide us with control over our social activities, meals, holidays, language, clothing styles, sports, business activity, and all other aspects of our lives and future.

“I like to cook during holidays. What will I do?”
Some people enjoy cooking for their family or friends once in a while, such as during holidays. If the city is providing free meals at restaurants, and if there are no food markets, and if none of the homes have full-sized kitchens or dining rooms, how will those people make meals or provide a dinner for their friends? The same issue applies to people who enjoy making beer, cheese, pies, or cookies. How are people going to make food items when they don't have kitchens or access to the raw materials?

There are different solutions to this problem, such as scattering some small restaurants around the city for the do-it-yourself cooks, or ensuring that there are plenty of social clubs for people to join for making beer, cheese, or holiday meals. The way to understand this concept is to think of a city as a big family. The buildings in your city are the rooms of your home, and the people in the city are your family members. If we can create a city in which the people are cooperative and have the sense of responsibility to treat the city as their home, then a lot of options open up to us, such as providing a few small restaurants for people to share when they are in the mood to make meals for their friends.

Society, not businesses, would own all of the buildings, farms, and transportation networks of the city. Therefore, society can set aside some small restaurants around the city for people to use when they are in the mood to make meals. Since people would be sharing these restaurants, they would have to reserve them for a certain time and day. A person would use a computer or a cell phone to determine which restaurants are available on the day that he wants to make a meal, and then he would reserve one of them. With all of the basic necessities for free, nobody would have to pay for one of these restaurants. He would then tell his friends or family to meet at that restaurant at that time and day. He would use the kitchen to make the meal, and he would serve it in the dining area.

You might wonder how it could be possible for a city to provide such a service for free. To understand this, consider a family. Everybody in a family needs to eat a certain amount of food each day, but it doesn't matter who does the shopping, cooking, or cleaning. Likewise, everybody in a city needs to eat a certain amount of food every day, so a city needs to provide a certain amount of food and a certain number of restaurants. However, from the point of view of the city, it does not matter who among us is making the meals. All that matters is that the food be eaten rather than wasted; that the food be prepared safely; that the meals be healthy rather than dangerous; and that people do not abuse the kitchen equipment or dining facilities.

The philosophy behind this type of city is that it is more efficient for a few people to make meals for a group of people compared to every individual and family making meals for themselves. Therefore, as long as a small number of people are making meals efficiently for a larger group of people, it does not matter who is doing the cooking. However, if an individual or a family wanted to cook only for themselves, they would defeat the purpose of this type of city, so the city would not support such an activity. From the point of view of people who want to cook for themselves and eat by themselves, this type of city would be oppressive, but I don't think many people are so anti-social that they need that type of freedom, and I don't think we should be concerned about those particular people, anyway.

Government officials should provide guidance
Secrecy inhibits progress
Secrecy is useful when people are fighting with each other, but from the point of view of the human race, secrecy is destructive because it interferes with progress. One of the problems of the free enterprise system is that it encourages businesses to fight with each other, and that causes them to keep secrets from one another. For example, they keep some of their technology a secret; they develop software that they will not share with other companies; and they keep some of their manufacturing techniques a secret. From the point of view of the human race, it would be better if all of this technology was shared. We cannot learn from another business when they are keeping their ideas a secret.

In order to eliminate secrecy between businesses, we must switch the competition from profit to improving society. In Part 8 of this series I pointed out that this would allow businesses to release their technology to the public domain after they have developed it, and that would allow more rapid technical progress.

Now I will point out another advantage to this system. If we describe the intangible hierarchy, work schedule, manufacturing procedures, lunch programs, and other aspects of the business as its "culture", then this system also allows businesses to learn from one another's "cultural experiments". It might help you to understand this concept if I give you a personal example.

Sometime around 1985, I don't remember exactly, personal computers were becoming popular at businesses. The company I was working at purchased a couple of Compaq computers with 8086 processors. None of the computers had a mouse. Eventually one of the electrical engineers asked me to help him lay out some of the circuit boards he was creating because he was getting too busy, and so I used AutoCAD version 2 to do it. Soon I was doing this on a regular basis for him.

One day he was unusually excited and told me that he visited an engineer who has his own home business laying out circuit boards with AutoCAD, and this man has a device called a "mouse", and that it makes AutoCAD much easier to work with. He told me that I should ask the company to buy a mouse for me. He tried to describe the mouse to me, but I couldn't understand the value of it. He decided that I needed to see the mouse for myself, so he arranged for me to visit that engineer. He drove me over to the man's house, and that engineer was nice enough to spend a few minutes showing me the mouse. I immediately saw its value.

Two points that I would like to bring to your attention are:
1) I did not understand the value of a mouse from a simple verbal description of it. It is often easier and/or faster for a person to understand something by seeing it, touching it, working with it, or observing somebody else using it compared to reading or listening to a description.
2) If the engineer with the mouse had been working at a large company rather than his own, home business, I would not have been able to visit him because of security and secrecy issues. Businesses in a free enterprise system behave like wild animals. They fight, cheat, sabotage, and steal from one another. They do not provide tours of their facilities to show the techniques that they have discovered.

By switching to an economy in which businesses compete to bring improvements to society, then in addition to releasing their technology to the public domain after the competition has completed, they can also release their culture. In other words, each business would be able to provide tours of their facilities to show their manufacturing techniques, and they could provide training programs for employees of competing businesses to help them learn some of those techniques. The businesses could also give descriptions of their hierarchy, work schedule, cubicles, or whatever they developed. This allows businesses to learn from one another and get ideas from one another.

It should be noted that this type of friendly competition would be practical only if people have a certain level of honesty. When we release technology to the public, we have to keep track of who is developing the technology so that they get credit for it. In the world today, people in management often get credit for what their employees do, and some people get credit for other people's work because of intimidation, deception, blackmail, or bribery.

From what little I know about Steve Jobs, some of his greatest achievements came about when he visited Xerox and observed their experimental computers that had a graphical interface and a mouse. The descriptions of him visiting Xerox remind me of when I watched that engineer use a mouse. I didn't invent the mouse; I merely watched somebody else use it. What did Steve Jobs actually create? And what did he merely observe?

It is important for society to keep track of what each person creates, and what they are merely taking from other people. As I described in other files, there are important reasons for giving credit to the people who deserve it, and keeping track of failures when people make mistakes. By keeping a database of everybody's performance, we can pass judgment on everybody's talent in regards to carpentry, scientific research, farming, engineering, and plumbing. This allows us to ensure that everybody is given a job that they are capable of performing properly at. Otherwise we might give funding to a scientist whose success came from plagiarism, or we might give a technician's job to a person who achieved his success through coincidence, or we might put somebody into a leadership position who achieved his success through intimidating his competitors.

I'm not implying that Steve Jobs was a terrible person. Rather, we need to determine what each person's talents are, and then put them into the jobs that they are best suited to. It is possible that Steve jobs was not very creative. Instead, his talent may have been a desire to explore new technology and the ability to make wise decisions on which ideas have the best potential. That is a valuable quality, but it is not the same as creativity. It is the type of talent we need for people in management positions who are reviewing prototypes and proposals for scientific research projects, engineering projects, new schools, new social activities, and new transportation systems.

There are lots of people in the government, investment companies, businesses, and magazines that review new products and proposals for new projects, but I don't think they are doing a very good job. For example, some of them are advocating projects to send people to Mars and the moon, and other people are approving proposals to send billionaires into low Earth orbit. These projects require phenomenal technical resources, but what is the benefit to you, me, or society? Those type of projects provide a few billionaires with some momentary titillation by allowing them to feel special, but I don't think titillating a few billionaires is worth the burden to society. If we decide to send something to Mars or the moon, we should send robots. If we want to send people, we should send somebody who doesn't need a round-trip, such as a person who is getting old.

In order to figure out who deserves which job, we must remove the secrecy in everybody's life so that we can keep track of everybody's achievements and failures. If we could analyze the life of Steve Jobs, we might find that he wasn't very creative, but that he was exceptionally interested in exploring new technology. That is a very useful talent for management. In fact, I would say that one of the reasons American industries are failing is because we don't have enough of those people in management positions.

For example, consider the American machine shops. During the early 1990s, some of the machine shops in America were under the control of managers who did not see any value in giving a computer to the machinists. Their attitude was that computers were for secretaries and engineers, and that the machinists were supposed to be making parts with their machines. If the businesses that were more successful in manufacturing were to open up their facilities to their competitors and provide tours and training programs, then a lot of those managers would have immediately realized how much more productive the machinists become with appropriate computers and software.

In the next document of this series I will explain why I suggest that our government have an Efficiency department. The officials in this division need to be the type of people who enjoy looking for methods of improving procedures and increasing efficiency. Steve Jobs may have had those qualities, in which case if he had been put into a top position of the efficiency department, he might have brought phenomenal improvements to America's manufacturing simply by reviewing new technology, new software, and new techniques, and then making wise decisions about which of them were worth experimenting with.

As of February 2013, most of the computers that are sold in America do not have floppy disk drives, and it is also becoming less common to find serial and parallel port connections. However, there are still a lot of American industries that are using CNC machines that depend upon floppy drives and serial cables for transferring data between the machine and a computer.

Modern society depends upon modern manufacturing techniques, but America's industries have been degrading for years. Many Americans blame cheap foreign labor, but our nation is a reflection of its people. We, not foreign nations, are responsible for our problems. One of the many reasons our industries are having trouble is because they are not modernizing their equipment or procedures. For just one, simple example, some businesses are still purchasing new floppy drives to replace worn drives rather than updating their equipment.

America has a tremendous variety of people. At one extreme are the adventurous Americans who enjoy experimenting with new technology and procedures, and at the other extreme are the Americans who are so terrified of changes that they are traumatized by Mochi ice cream, even though they love American-style ice cream.

In order for America to modernize its industries, the taxpayers would have to fund the modernization. Would that be practical? Could we afford it? For example, the government could set up a program in which 50,000 CNC machines are upgraded every year. Assuming that each upgrade requires an average of $20,000 in equipment, service, and training, that means taxpayers would have to spend $1 billion every year on a program to modernize the CNC controllers.

If that seems like a lot of money, consider that American taxpayers are spending more than that every year on foreign aid to Israel, and according to some reports, Americans spent $6 billion on the 2012 political campaigns.

A lot of people want the government to create jobs, but most of the jobs that the government creates are worthless. If the government were to fund the updating of old CNC computers, they would create jobs that have a tremendous value to us. Unfortunately, the government in a free enterprise system is not allowed to pick out certain industries for free modernization. That would be considered unfair to the other industries. Furthermore, other nations would claim that it is unfair to them if American tax money were to help private American businesses.

In a free enterprise system, a business is on its own to modernize its industries. Every business must spend a lot of time analyzing all of the different products, technology, and options, and then they have to make decisions. It is a lot of work, and it can be expensive. Not many people are interested in this activity. As a result, not many industries are as modern as they could be.

To a person who knows nothing about manufacturing, the concept of modernizing might seem as simple as wandering around a retail store to purchase a new cell phone or a new refrigerator. However, modernizing an industry is much more complex. The equipment, chemicals, procedures, and technology that a modern industry needs are much more complicated and confusing than a refrigerator or cell phone. Furthermore, many industries are so complex that if they change one piece of equipment or some procedure on an assembly line, they have to alter other equipment or procedures at other points of the manufacturing process.

Modernizing an industry requires analyzing hundreds or thousands of complex pieces of equipment, software, procedures, and technology. It is a tremendous amount of work. After the decisions have been made in regards to equipment and procedures, a lot of effort may be needed to install the new equipment and procedures, and to train the employees. Furthermore, there are very likely to be some unexpected problems that require additional effort. The complexity and expense of modernizing an industry causes a lot of business executives to resist modernization and focus on sales, advertising, and pushing employees into doing more work for less money.

Ideally, after a business has figured out how to modernize itself, they would use their knowledge to help other businesses modernize, but businesses in a free enterprise system are not going to help their competitors.

A more sensible economic system would put the government in control of all businesses, and there would be a government agency that is responsible for helping to modernize the businesses. The officials in this agency would continuously analyze new technology, and they would work with the businesses to help them become more efficient, reduce work accidents, and make jobs more pleasant. There would be no fighting between the businesses. The competition between the businesses would be to bring improvements to society. Therefore, if a business executive figures out how to increase the efficiency of his business, or how to reduce work accidents, he would benefit by announcing his achievements to the government. The government would use the knowledge that he learned to help other businesses. His achievement would also be recorded in the database of his life, and those type of achievements would improve his image.

This system rewards people who bring improvements to society, including the business executives who bring "cultural improvements" to their business. For example, if a business executive experiments with various work schedules, exercise programs, lunch schedules, or cubicle design, and if he discovers that his employees become more productive, healthier, and overall more satisfied with some particular working conditions, then he could proudly announce his achievements so that other businesses could learn from him and do their own experiments.

The free enterprise system encourages businesses to keep their technology a secret and hurt their competitors, but this system encourages people to put their achievements out into the public so that everybody can benefit from them.

The free enterprise system is a crude system that needs to be discarded. Businesses are fighting with each other like wild animals with no regard to the consequences. They pander to customers, most of whom are not much more advanced than a "talking monkey". The end result is that there is a phenomenal amount of money available for political advertisements, gambling, Hollywood, pets, strip clubs, alcohol, pornography, and drugs, but very little available for anything useful or serious.

If we take control of our economic system, and if we do a better job of selecting people for leadership positions, then our industries would become increasingly modern, efficient, and pleasant with every passing year.

Imagine a government in which our leaders are adventurous people who enjoy experimenting with new technology and procedures. In such a case, we would have government leaders who are continuously looking for ways to make our industries more modern, efficient, and pleasant. Steve Jobs may have had those qualities, but instead of putting his talent into modernizing our industries, he wasted his talent on becoming famous and wealthy. If he had been living in a society in which everybody is virtually equal and nobody can become wealthy, and if he had been a government leader who was responsible for our industries, we might have CNC controllers that are as easy to use as an Apple iPhone.

The people who rise to dominance in the free enterprise system seem to have psychotic cravings for money, status, or fame, and the type of people who rise to the top of governments seem to be even more psychotic. Our business and government leaders do not want to live "ordinary" lives. Many of them seem to be antisocial, and willing to abuse anybody in order to get what they want. If we can do a better job of analyzing a person's qualities and figuring out who among us is better suited to the different types of government positions, then we could theoretically create a government that consists of people who truly enjoy learning about, discussing, and experimenting with new ideas and technology. Also, imagine that instead of suppressing their competitors, the government leaders encourage us to develop our talents and get involved with society, even if on a part-time and temporary basis. With that type of government, we would be continuously making our society more efficient and pleasant.

Another example of how people in influential positions are interfering with progress is a recent report that pointed out that robots are not providing any benefit for hysterectomies. The article made the amusing remark that a robot "increases the size of patients' hospital bills". These people are equivalent to a person a hundred years ago making the remark, "A comparison between horses and automobiles shows that automobiles increase the size of a person's transportation bills." Or how about: "A comparison between the electric lightbulb and the kerosene lamp shows that lightbulbs increase the size of a person's utility bills." A person should not be allowed to have an influential job if he doesn't understand that robots, as of 2013, are at the stage of development as the very first automobiles were.

There are also people who don't realize that we often do things that are inefficient simply because we want to. For example, some vegetarians are almost dumb enough to say this:
"A comparison between vegetarians and omnivores shows that when people eat meat, they increase the size of their food bills."

It is possible that some people who rose to dominance in our society were simply lucky or talented, but most of the people who become dominant did so because they made a decision to put an abnormal amount of time and effort into becoming rich or getting into government. Many of them also chose to commit crimes, abuse their friends, manipulate people, and join crime networks. Since the natural tendency of all animals is to admire the dominant animals, we have a desire to make excuses for the psychotic and antisocial behavior of the people who dominate us, but we should face the fact that there is something wrong with them, and that their mental problems are the reason they chose their particular lives, and that their problems are also the reason they are so willing to abuse us and commit crimes.

Some of the wealthy business leaders justify their abusive behavior by pointing out that they brought technical progress to the world, but that progress would have occurred anyway. For example, if Steve Jobs had never been born, Xerox would have continued developing the mouse and graphical interface, and their ideas would have eventually been developed into a functional product. Perhaps Steve Jobs caused it to happen a year or two earlier, but it would have happened eventually. I don't think that Bill Gates actually created anything, either. The MS-DOS operating system came from some other group of people, and Windows was just an attempt to mimic the Apple operating system.

Ever since the 1980s, Apple and Microsoft have been fighting with one another, and sometimes with other companies, also. I suspect that we would have much more advanced computers and software today if we had gotten rid of our free enterprise system decades ago, and if we were preventing people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs from dominating the industry.

Another way to explain why some people rise to dominance is to consider how children react to bananas. When a mother buys a bunch of green bananas and puts them on the kitchen counter, the children have to wait for them to ripen. If a group of robots were waiting for bananas to ripen, then all of them would occasionally analyze the visual image of the bananas, and they would wait for it to become a certain shade of yellow. Since all robots are identical, they would all wait for the exact same amount of time, and they would all reach for a banana at virtually the same moment.

Since human children are different, there is likely to be one child in a family who has a tendency to be the first to eat one of the bananas. Two of the reasons that he tends to be first are: 1) he has more trouble than the other children controlling his emotions and waiting for the bananas to ripen, and 2) he is more selfish, which causes him to become more upset than the other children at the thought that if he waits too long, the other children will get the bananas before he does. That child will end up eating a slightly unripe banana as a result.

Now consider how this concept applies to new technology. In 1979, when Steve Jobs visited Xerox and saw their graphical interface and mouse, he was essentially looking at some very green bananas. He and lots of other people had seen those inventions, and some people could see the potential, but most people preferred to wait for the bananas to ripen. They wanted Xerox to continue developing those concepts, and bring them to the market only after they had something that was truly usable.

What is your BSC value? If you and other people were stranded on a tiny, desert island with only one banana tree and some green bananas, how long could you wait for them to ripen? If other people began eating the bananas at level 3, would you be able to accept the possibility of not getting any bananas? Or would you eat them at that level, also? To make banana bread, you should control yourself until they reached level 8. Could you do it? Would Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, or George Soros eat them immediately, while they were at level 1?
When Steve Jobs saw the mouse and graphical interface, he saw the potential for wealth and fame, and so he essentially grabbed the green bananas and rushed them into production so that he could get all of the money for himself. Is this a good quality for a leader? I don't think so. Steve Jobs and other people who are rising to the top of modern society seem to have the same lack of self-control and selfishness as a child who eats green bananas.

Some people describe Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and a few other people as a "genius", and they expect us be grateful to them for providing the human race with technology. However, I suspect that a lot of the successful business entrepreneurs are actually abnormally selfish, neurotic, and unhappy, and that they are causing more trouble than benefit. If we had been living in a society in which people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were put on mental health drugs or evicted, computers would have continued to develop, and we might have had much better computers and software today. I would describe the people who dominate our computer industry as neurotic savages who are fighting over money and fame rather than trying to help society.

Although Steve Jobs and Bill Gates may be neurotic, nobody is perfect. Therefore, no matter who is in control of our computer industry, we would be able to complain that he is an imperfect human with some undesirable qualities. However, we can and should pass judgment on which of them is helping society, and which are only helping themselves.

If we could have measured the mental characteristics of Steve Jobs, we might have found that he excelled in one quality, was better-than-average in a few other qualities, was average in some qualities, and was below average in some other qualities.

There are lots of mental and physical qualities about a human, and for every quality, there is one person who is at the extreme for that quality. For example, there is somebody among us who has the most attractive bellybutton, and another person who has the deepest bellybutton, and another person whose bellybutton sticks out the farthest. There is also somebody who can inhale the most air, hold his breath the longest, and inhale the most carbon dioxide without passing out.

If we were to give an award for the most extreme of every mental and physical quality, we would give out tens of thousands of awards. A lot of people would have an award, but very few would have more than one award. You might have the greatest ability to remember random numbers, or the most symmetrical eyelids, or the most hair on your knuckle.

Understanding this concept can help you understand why teams are so much more productive than dictatorships. Since each of us is slightly better at different tasks, we will benefit the most when we discover our talents and limitations, find a job that we are good at, and work together as a team. A man's emotional cravings to be the dominant male in the hierarchy cause us to foolishly believe that we are so incredibly talented that it makes sense for us to become the dictator of the world and tell everybody else what to think, how to live, and how to behave, but if we allow one person, or even a small group, to dominate the world, then we restrict ourselves to whatever that person or group of people can do. A dictator will suppress other people rather than inspire them to find their talents and contribute to the group.

Our arrogance causes each of us to believe that we know the best policy for drugs, crime, school, abortion, art, and government, and therefore, the world will benefit when we dominate the entire planet. In reality, it would be better from the point of view of the human race to allow each city to experiment with culture. As long as every city is cooperative, it doesn't matter if there are cultural differences between us. The problems of the world do not come from cultural differences. All of the problems in our world can be traced to the destructive behavior of certain, specific humans.

We could say that the problems of the world are the result of people who are behaving too much like animals and not enough like modern humans. Millions of people around the world are excessively violent, selfish, dishonest, envious, arrogant, inconsiderate, parasitic, irresponsible, obnoxious, or vengeful. There are lots of people fighting over religion, material wealth, abortions, jobs, and territory.

Why can't these people behave in a more sensible manner? Nobody can answer that question yet, but we have to do something about these people. We can't ignore the issue and allow them to ruin our world. We have no option except to remove them from society. This is emotionally difficult for us. Therefore, improving the world requires that we control our emotions so that we can pass judgment on the behavior of the people we live with - including our family members - and then remove or suppress the troublemakers.

Incidentally, in January 2013, another crime occurred that shows us how foolish people are to believe that guns will protect us from crime. While a Bulgarian government official was giving a speech, a man ran up to him and pointed a gun at his head. When nothing happened, people assumed that his gun had jammed, but it was not a real gun. The man only wanted to frighten the official. There are several lessons to learn from this:

1) Semi-automatic guns are not as reliable as revolvers.

People assumed that his gun had jammed because automatic weapons occasionally fail for the police and military. The significance of this depends on why a person purchases a gun:
1) For protection against criminals.
The people who purchase guns as protection from criminals will usually have only a fraction of a second to grab their gun and pull the trigger. They need accuracy, reliability, and speed, not a large quantity of bullets or machine gun features. For maximum protection, they need to strap a revolver around their waist and use hollowpoint bullets. However, the gun advocates promote the less reliable automatic weapons, large quantities of bullets, and high firing rates. These people, who believe an AR-15 will protect us from criminals, have the attitude of a child who is playing video games.
2) For protection against the government.
Many Americans purchase guns to protect themselves from the American government, and some believe the guns will prevent invasion by foreign nations, but these people are demonstrating a serious inability to think properly. Regardless of how many AR-15's a person owns, no individual citizen or small group of people can defend themselves against a modern military, regardless of whether it is our own military or from a foreign nation.

The people who believe that China and Russia will be afraid to invade us because we have guns are also idiots. China is not building aircraft carriers and drones because they are frightened of Ted Nugent and his gun collection.

2) We rarely have enough time to react to a crime.
Criminals tend to wait until nobody is expecting a crime, and then they commit the crime as rapidly as possible. As a result, victims and bystanders rarely have enough time to stop the crime. For example, even if that Bulgarian government official had a revolver strapped around his waist, and even if everybody in the audience also had a revolver, nobody would have been able to react fast enough to shoot that man before he pulled the trigger. Another recent example is this teenager who is accused of stabbing a woman at random in a retail store. No amount of guns would have helped her.
3) Guns are worthless if we are too emotionally weak to use them.
Some of the people in the audience, such as the security personnel, had guns, but none of them used their guns because every society promotes the policy of capturing criminals alive, even if it risks other people's lives.

Criminals are aware of our resistance to killing people, which is why they have no fear of fighting with the police. Criminals also frequently run from the police, even if the police have their guns pointed at them and are yelling, "Stop, or I'll shoot!" Criminals realize that the police are bluffing.

That man who pointed the toy gun at the Bulgarian official knew that he might be killed by security personnel, but he apparently suspected that he would be captured alive. He now faces a few years in jail, and some of the men who hit him after capturing him may get in trouble for hurting him. There are numerous cases of policemen and citizens in America and Britain getting in trouble for killing or hurting criminals. We are allowed to kill a criminal only if we can show a tremendous amount of evidence that we or somebody else is truly in danger.

4) Realistic toy guns are a nuisance to society.
Some people, including children, have already been shot by the police for pointing a toy gun at a policeman. Our realistic toy guns are increasing police confrontations. We have to stop doing whatever titillates our emotions and start asking ourselves such questions as, How does society benefit from these toys? How do the children benefit? Do the advantages of toy guns outweigh the disadvantages?
Keith Ratliff had an arsenal that would be useful to a military, but he was recently killed anyway.
It should be obvious that none of the millions of guns in America are stopping burglaries, rape, pedophilia, arson, or government corruption. Britain's policies on crime are not stopping crime, either. Our policies on crime are merely teaching criminals about the emotional weaknesses of society, and about the techniques and bluffs of the police.

As of today, we have only one way to reduce crime and corruption, and that is to remove the destructive people from society. This requires passing judgment on who among us is destructive, and then finding the emotional strength to remove them.

We also have to find the emotional strength to use our guns on the people who are fighting with us, or running away from us. When a policeman points his gun at a criminal and yells at him to stop or be shot at, everybody should realize that the policeman is not bluffing. There is nothing wrong with "shooting a criminal in the back", and the expression about killing a person "in cold blood" doesn't make any sense. Don't be intimidated by criminals who use those expressions to manipulate you into giving them pity. Do you worry about killing mosquitoes, ticks, or fleas "in cold blood"?

The people who cause trouble for society try to intimidate us into believing that they have a right to frighten us with toy guns, fight with the police, be captured alive, and be treated with decency while in jail, but we could respond that we have a right to live among people whom we trust and respect.

If somebody points a toy gun at you in order to frighten you, he will claim that he has a right to express his opinions, but we should find the emotional strength to respond that we have a right to evict or kill people who are destructive to society.

We cannot please everybody. Some group of people must dominate. Are we going to let the dishonest, abusive, parasitic, selfish, and violent people dominate our future?

We need to control the human population, just as a farmer controls his animal population. If we can find enough people who have the self-control and intelligence to become a "human gardener", then we will be able to remove the "human weeds" and transform this planet into a beautiful garden. We have options! We are not helpless. We simply have to find the courage to start experimenting with new policies.

People do not improve from charity

Although I promote putting our technology into the public domain, it would be available only to the cities that are involved with these experiments to create a new society. I would not provide technology to Venezuela, North Korea, and other nations that are behaving like wild animals.

The attitude in the world today is that we should share our technology and food with everybody, but we are foolish to give any type of assistance, including food, to the primitive nations. Every group of humans must learn to take care of themselves. We do not help people by giving them handouts. We are especially foolish to give assistance to nations that are aggressive, paranoid, or violent. Providing assistance to those nations is actually going to prolong their misery by making their lives nicer, thereby reducing the anger towards their government and their culture.

People tend to remain on the same path, and so the people who are living in miserable nations will be more likely to consider making changes to their nation if they become even more miserable. If we provide the miserable nations with food or technology, we will make their lives more pleasant, which will make the people less likely to complain about their disgusting government. We are foolish to help a corrupt government remain in power. It is better to let their suffering increase, and hope that it eventually reaches the point at which the citizens become willing to experiment with changes to their society.

Do not feel responsible to feed the hungry people in North Korea, and try to ignore the people in India and China who are selling their kidneys or their children to raise money. It is up to the people in Korea, India, and China to take care of themselves. If they don't want to, then ignore their suffering. We have to control our emotions when their hungry children cry for food. We must force them to suffer the consequences of their idiotic decisions.

Likewise, it is not our responsibility to help the hungry teenage boys in Thailand who are castrating themselves in order to become better prostitutes. It is the responsibility of the Thai people to show some concern for the quality of human life and do something about their social problems. If the Thai people don't care about this problem, then let them suffer.

Our best policy is to provide the miserable nations with information about how they can improve their situation, but they have to make the decision to do something.

People all around the world are hurting themselves directly and indirectly with their selfishness, hatred, pouting, arrogance, envy, territorial fights, religious fights, and other animal behavior. Men and women are hurting themselves and their relationships with their lies, deception, and manipulation of one another. It is up to the people of every nation to stop acting like stupid animals and start doing something useful to improve their lives and their society.

If the people of a nation decide to waste their time hating their neighbors or whining that the wealthy nations are not helping them during hurricanes or droughts, that is their problem. We can provide people with information about life and suggestions on how to improve their nation, but they have to make the decision to start behaving like a human.

All animals and plants are healthy because nature does not provide handouts of any kind. Nature requires every creature to take care of itself. There are no inheritances in nature, and there are no monarchies. No group of animals is allowed to collect taxes, either, or take a percentage of the food that other animals find.

Nature has no mercy for a creature that fails in the competitive battle for life. Here is a video of a baboon that is eating a young gazelle, and the gazelle is alive for a considerable amount of time as it is being eaten. During prehistoric times, many human children and adults ended up in a similar situation. For millions of years, humans had to take care of themselves, and this caused them to evolve coordination in their fingers, excellent color vision, and many advanced intellectual qualities. Today we feel sorry for the criminals and misfits, and we pamper a few wealthy people and hope that some of their wealth will "trickle down" to us. Our idiotic philosophy is allowing the human race to degrade into freaks who cannot trust one another or form a stable relationship.

Businesses can profit by helping the primitive nations with mining, manufacturing, and farming, but it would be better to ignore the potential profits, turn our back on those people, and wait for them to make the decision to take care of themselves and join the human race. The only assistance that we should give undesirable societies is information, suggestions, and encouragement to try experimenting with changes in their government and culture.

Note that the video of the baboon eating a gazelle is described as "graphic content". Why do we need a warning? As I pointed out in another file, we hide from real violence but we titillate ourselves with unbelievably horrible phony violence. How many people can control their emotions enough to make wise decisions about which videos need restrictions or warnings?

Our leaders should provide guidance, not distractions

The polls show that the approval rating of the president of the United States tends to increase whenever America is having some type of international conflict or war. The reason humans behave this way is because we are territorial. It is possible that people in leadership positions have known about this characteristic of human behavior for centuries, and that they have been secretly using it as a way to boost their popularity.

When the members of a business, orchestra, nation, or other organization become angry or disillusioned with their leaders, their leaders can increase their popularity by instigating a conflict with another organization. The conflict will trigger the territorial emotions within everybody's brain. The people will react as if they are a pack of wild dogs that is being attacked, and they will temporarily ignore the problems that they are suffering from and focus on defending themselves against their enemy.

Incompetent businessmen can use this technique by focusing anger towards other businesses, government agencies, consumer groups, or unions. Incompetent government officials can use this technique by instigating fights with other nations, other political groups, businesses, unions, or illegal aliens.

For an example, when I was growing up, the executives of the steel companies were whining that the evil, unfair, selfish, Japanese businessmen were cheating America by selling less expensive, subsidized steel. This caused tremendous anger towards Japan, and it distracted people from the reality that the American businessmen were selfish, incompetent jerks who had no desire to modernize their equipment. At about the same time the American automobile executives focused anger towards unions, government regulations, and Japan in order to distract everybody from the fact that they were also failing in the competitive battle with foreign automobile companies.

Millions of Americans became victims of this trick. They foolishly gave pity to incompetent American executives, thereby allowing those executives to remain in positions of influence and continue ruining their companies. The proper response to incompetent or corrupt management is to demand that the executives be replaced so that somebody else can try dealing with the problems.

The majority of people do not seem to understand this trick, and as a result, they become victims year after year. For example, thousands of Asians have recently been fooled into arguing over worthless islands. All of those nations have a lot of serious internal problems, and the people should be focusing on improving their nation and enjoying life and other people, not on hating their neighbors.

Incidentally, all of the islands that the Asian nations are fighting over are so tiny that I wonder what would happen if some nation secretly drilled a hole into each island, dropped in a nuclear bomb, and eliminated all of the land that is above water. Parents can sometimes stop their children from fighting over a toy by taking it away from all of them.

It is important for everybody to understand their emotional qualities so that we can sense when people are trying to manipulate us by instigating hatred between different groups of people. One problem with political parties is that they make it easy for our leaders to exploit our territorial desires. When a government is divided into Republicans and Democrats, for example, it is easy for government officials to distract people from their incompetence by instigating fights between the two parties. If every government official was an individual person rather than a party member, it would be more difficult for any government official to direct anger away from himself and onto somebody else.

If we promoted the concept of "economic parties", then we would provide business executives with yet another option to take advantage of our territorial cravings. In addition to blaming their troubles on unions, consumer groups, and government agencies, they would be able to blame an economic party.

Everybody in a leadership position should be an individual person, not a party member. We should also demand that each leader provide us with intelligent analyses, intelligent proposals for us to experiment with, and intelligent guidance rather than provide us with excuses, or beg for pity, or blame their problems on somebody else.

What type of titillation should we support?
Distinguish between productive and worthless stimulation
Both animals and humans spend their lives titillating their emotions. In order to create a better life for ourselves, we have to make wise decisions on when we are stimulating ourselves in a useful manner, and when we are engaging in worthless or destructive masturbation. For example, consider the two extreme opposite ways of dealing with the issue of food:
1) At one extreme, we could produce meals in the most efficient manner possible.
We would eat food in the most efficient manner possible with no concern for titillating our emotions, such as producing a low-cost, nutritional slurry that we consume from feeding tubes, as some farmers do with their geese. In that case, our restaurants would be as efficient as a recharging station for robots. We would not have to waste any of our time or resources on the production of vegetables, meats, dining room tables, or kitchen equipment.

2) At the other extreme, we could produce meals to be as emotionally stimulating as possible.
We would produce meals to stimulate our emotions with no regard to the use of labor or resources. We would create extravagant and luxurious dining rooms, and we would create meals that are visually artistic. We would create lots of artificial flavors, spices, and sauces that stimulate our nose and mouth beyond anything a real food could do. We would eat only the portions of the animals that we liked the best, and we would discard the rest. This philosophy towards meals requires a society to put a lot of their labor and resources into producing a wide variety of extravagant foods, dining rooms, spices, artificial flavors, and candies.

We do not want either of those extremes, but what do we want? Earlier in this article I asked, "Why do we eat?" I pointed out that our prehistoric ancestors didn't have to be concerned with this question, but in our modern era, we must deal with a lot of food related issues, and future generations will have even more issues to deal with. This question is becoming increasingly complex. When we take control of our culture, we have to seriously analyze the issue of eating and ask ourselves, "What are we trying to accomplish when we eat?"

Before you contemplate that question, you might find it useful to consider how technology of the future will allow us to make meals even more exciting than they are today. For example, eventually the pharmaceutical companies will have the knowledge to create chemicals that we take prior to having dinner, and which are similar to Viagra or "poppers". These drugs would enhance the stimulation of the food, thereby making the meal much more exciting. These drugs would be especially useful for children who are finicky with their food. Give a child some of these drugs, and anything he eats will be incredibly pleasurable.

Imagine people implanting wireless electrodes into various pleasure centers of their brain so that when they eat food or have sex, they can activate the corresponding electrodes, thereby increasing their pleasure. Would these people be enjoying life more than you and me?
Eventually surgeons will have the technology to implant wireless electrodes into the pleasure centers of our brain. This technology will allow people to create some truly exciting restaurants. After the customers have been served their meal, the chef would turn on a transmitter to activate all of the electrodes in his dining room, thereby causing all of his customers to become titillated beyond anything that you and I could experience during a meal.

Incidentally, those wireless electrodes would be useful for our sexual centers, also. When the people have sex or masturbate, they would activate the electrode that is embedded into their sex emotion, and that would allow them to experience pleasure beyond anything that we are capable of.

Our distant ancestors didn't have to be concerned about decorations in their dining room, the type of utensils they ate with, or the visual appearance of their meals. They were more concerned with finding food then in stimulating themselves with food. Today we can produce food so easily that we don't worry about finding food. Instead, we spend our time and resources finding ways to titillate ourselves with food. Our technology is providing us with phenomenal options for what we could describe as food masturbation, and the technology of the future will provide even more options, such as wireless electrodes in the brain. Our prehistoric ancestors were concerned only with finding food, but we have to be concerned about how we titillate ourselves with food. We have to learn to control our emotions and think more often.

Imagine that you are a top government official

The free enterprise system is currently handling all food related issues automatically for us. However, if we switch to a society in which we have control over our culture, then we must make all the decisions. For example, we must have discussions about which food items to produce. Do we want to provide ourselves with veal, foie gras, chicken nuggets, salami, Velveeta cheese, Wonder Bread, deep-fried candy bars, or Cheerios? What type of artificial flavors should we produce?

If we create a society in which we are in control of our culture, and if you become a top government official, you are going to have to discuss and deal with issues that are currently being dealt with automatically by the free enterprise system. For example, what type of foods should we provide for children? Without businesses to make those decisions for us, you and other people must be capable of discussing that issue, possibly experimenting with some policies, and compromising on other policies.

Without free enterprise, we are on our own to deal with food and other cultural issues. We are going to need people in the government who have the intellectual ability and emotional desire to discuss these issues seriously and compromise on policies. Are there enough people with enough self-control to do what is best for society rather than do what their particular emotions are craving?

What should our policies on food be?

In this modern era, we have to pass judgment on when we are providing ourselves with sensible meals and dining rooms, and when we are jerking ourselves off with food to the extent that we are hurting our health, wasting our resources, or encouraging bad attitudes. Businesses, such as McDonald's and Chuck E. Cheese's, can profit by producing meals and dining rooms that titillate children, but if we eliminate free enterprise, then we must make decisions on what we want our restaurants to be. What do you think is best for children?

We also have to pass judgment on when it is acceptable for us to waste the food items that we are not attracted to. For example, our primitive ancestors would sometimes, possibly most of the time, eat kidneys, brains, liver, lungs, and other parts of an animal that most of us discard. Our ancestors would also eat portions of fruits and vegetables that we discard, such as sections that have worms or which are fermented. Should we continue the practice of discarding kidneys, livers, tendons, cartilage, egg shells, bones, and brains? Or should we authorize scientific research into the nutritional value of these items, and if they turn out to be useful, grind them up into sausages or other products? Lungs contain mucus, so if we decide to put lungs into a grinder for sausage, we have to decide whether we should wash the mucus out, and to what extent. Our emotions are disgusted at the thought of eating mucus, brains, and eyeballs, but for all we know, carnivores evolved to eat entire animals, in which case we may be interfering with our nutrition when we restrict ourselves to eating a few muscles.

As I mentioned in this file, some people complain that businesses are using tendons, skin, and other items in chicken nuggets and ground beef, but is that "pink slime" unhealthy? Or are we merely emotionally distraught at the thought of eating those parts of an animal?

We should not let paranoid individuals set our food policies. We should study these issues seriously, control our emotions, and try to make intelligent decisions. We currently use dead animals, including those that are killed by automobiles, for such products as gelatin, and if this process is sensible, then why not use dead humans also? Human mothers discard their placenta, but if a placenta is just as nutritious as a chicken egg, why not use placentas for food, such as in omelettes or as a pizza topping?

Humans have such a strong inhibition about eating our own species that I do not expect any society to authorize the consumption of placentas or dead people. I mentioned that issue only to emphasize that there are a tremendous number of food items in this world that we refuse to eat, and we should seriously analyze our policies towards food and make intelligent decisions rather than react to these issues like a stupid animal.

Why do babies eat everything?

Incidentally, it is interesting that human babies are constantly putting things into their mouth. Is this due to a feeding emotion? Or is it a tasting emotion? Or is it a technique to expose a baby to bacteria and viruses? This behavior is so potentially dangerous that we should not ignore it. Why would we have evolved such a characteristic? There must've been a vital reason for this characteristic, but is it still necessary?

During the first few months of a koala bear's life, it lives in its mother's pouch and drinks milk, just like all other baby animals. However, when the baby is about six months old, the mother's digestive system produces a special poop that is full of bacteria, and the baby develops a desire to eat it. The craving to eat its mother's poop evolved as a way to ensure that the baby koala bear acquires enough bacteria to digest the eucalyptus leaves, and the mother's body evolved to create some special poop that is full of bacteria so that the baby doesn't eat the less-useful poop.

Human babies, like koala bears, are born sterile. Perhaps the reason human babies put everything into their mouth is to expose them to the bacteria of their environment so that they build up an immunity to their particular environment, and/or because they need some of that bacteria in their intestines.

In our modern homes, babies put potentially dangerous objects into their mouth, such as knives, jewelry, and medicines. However, for all we know, mothers would be helping their babies remain in good health if they put them outside once in a while and let them taste the grass, leaves, and dead butterflies. Perhaps the reason so many babies end up sickly or with allergies is because they were not properly exposed to the environment during the first few years of life. For all we know, our immune system was designed to adapt to our environment, in which case, if a mother keeps her baby in a sterile environment, her baby adapts to an unnatural environment instead of to the real world.

Parents are afraid to let their children be exposed to bacteria and viruses because they realize that a certain percentage of the babies have defective immune systems, and they want to protect their defective babies. However, from the point of view of the human race, if a baby dies from exposure to the environment, the parents simply should have another child. We have to face the fact that creating life is a difficult and imperfect process, and that some of the babies are going to be defective. We should not encourage parents to cry over the death of a defective child.

When is it acceptable to waste resources?

Everybody wastes food, even people who are starving to death. For example, many people would rather starve to death than eat spiders, flies, mucus, ticks, maggots, or their dead parents. In this modern era, it is acceptable to waste the foods that we don't like because we can produce food so easily. Besides, we can give the undesirable food to animals, so it's not really wasted. However, we often waste food that we enjoy. For example, we waste food in food-eating contests, food fights, shooting bullets through apples, and carving watermelons into artistic designs that we look at instead of eat. We also allow food to be wasted by providing buffets that allow people to put food on their plate that they later discard in the trash, and by having only one size of meal at restaurants, thereby causing people with a smaller appetite to waste some of the food.

In a free enterprise system, the wasting of food is justified if it results in a financial profit, but when we take control of society, then we must make decisions about which foods to produce, and when it is sensible to waste food. For example, is the benefit of a food fight worth the burden of producing the food and cleaning up the mess? Or should we restrict food fights to the foods that nobody wants to eat either because the food is spoiled or because there is an excess of the food? And should we restrict food fights to areas that we don't have to clean up, such as grass fields?

For another example of how we must make decisions about wasting food, restaurants tend to provide one size of meal for everybody, which causes people with smaller appetites to waste food. Is the simplicity of providing one size of meal worth the burden of the wasted food? Or should we tell the chefs to provide different size meals for different people? Or would it be better to have the chefs make smaller meals, and tell the people who are hungry to have additional portions?

It might seem as if the best policy is to never waste resources, but all of our activities could be described as wasting resources and labor. For example, we could describe the production of visually attractive meals as "wasting food, electricity, labor, and other resources in order to stimulate ourselves with artistic food". We could describe the people who enjoy artistic meals in an attractive dining room as "jerking themselves off" with food. If we want to completely eliminate the waste of food, electricity, and other resources, we would have to produce a food slurry and consume it from feeding tubes.

Almost everything we do could be described as a "waste". It doesn't make sense to complain about wasting resources or labor. When we take control of our culture, we have to analyze the advantages and disadvantages to all of our activities, and we have to pass judgment on which of them are worth the burden that they impose.

For example, consider the advantages and disadvantages to artistic meals. The attractive meals are a burden on us because they require much more labor in the kitchen compared to producing a food slurry, and dining rooms with utensils require more labor and resource to produce and maintain compared to feeding tubes. These meals put a burden on society. Is the burden worth the benefit? There is no answer to that question. Different people will have slightly different ideas on which meals are worth the burden.

Would you authorize goldplated foods?

If you are having trouble understanding this concept, consider the advantages and disadvantages - ie, the burden and benefit - to the foods that have gold dust or gold leaf, such as the bagel with gold leaf (in the photo). The only advantage to goldplated foods that I am aware of is that they are visually interesting. Therefore, I would say that it's only benefit to society is providing us with an insignificant amount of variety in the visual appearance of our meals. Is that small benefit worth the burden? What is the burden?

The disadvantage with goldplated foods is that gold is so scarce that in order for us to consume it on a regular basis, we must put enormous amounts of labor and resources into mining gold, and this imposes a significant burden on our lives and the environment.

We could reduce the burden of goldplated foods by producing only a small amount of them each year, but that creates the problem of figuring out how to distribute a small amount of a limited item to a large population. One method is to let people take turns having access to the goldplated foods so that everybody has equal access to it, and another is to provide the goldplated food to people as a reward.

Note that the free enterprise system solves these problems automatically without any of us getting involved, or even being aware of the issue. In a free enterprise system, anybody with enough money to afford goldplated food can eat it whenever he pleases.

When we take control of society, issues that we were not aware of suddenly become issues that government officials must discuss and create policies for. If you were a government official, you would have to think about the issue of goldplated foods and devise a policy for whether restaurants should offer them. If you decide to let restaurants produce them, then you must also develop a policy to distribute such scarce items.

Another issue to consider with goldplated food is that in a free enterprise system, the people who can afford such food can imagine that they are special people, and I think this is detrimental to society. Whatever we create a policy, we have to consider its overall effect on society. I think we hurt society when we encourage people to become arrogant or conceited. I think we will create a much more pleasant social environment when we encourage people to treat each other in a more equal manner.

If we allow only some people to eat goldplated foods, those particular people will feel special, but who benefits from that? I think that is encouraging destructive attitudes. I also think there is a detrimental effect on the people who must produce and serve the goldplated foods. They will not have as much job satisfaction as compared to when they are producing something that has value to society. They are put into the role of a peasant who is pampering his king. I don't think that creates a pleasant social environment. I think we should eliminate both the peasant class and the wealthy class.

How far should we go in making attractive meals?

I would prohibit the use of gold in decorating our meals, but what about using orchids to decorate meals? How about using sprigs of rosemary or basil? If you were a government official, what guidelines would you provide for the restaurants? Should we grow orchids simply so that chefs can put them on dinner plates?

Our free enterprise system is currently handling these issues automatically. As the chefs increase the attractiveness of their meals and dining rooms, the meals become increasingly expensive. Without free enterprise, we must discuss these issues and make decisions. We have to decide how much labor and resources we want to put into our meals.

I want meals to be attractive, but we must compromise on how far we go with the decorations. I personally would not authorize farmers to grow orchids simply to decorate dinner plates. I think the work of producing and distributing the orchids is much too high to justify a few seconds of visual titillation. I think it would be more sensible to put potted orchid plants in the restaurant as decorations, and replace them once in a while so that they can be put into a greenhouse to keep them in good health.

I think it is beneficial for society to make our meals attractive. They allow meals to become pleasant, relaxing, social activities. They allow us to enjoy life and other people. However, there is a point at which we are putting more labor and resources into the decorations than we are getting in return.

In a free enterprise system, many restaurants do something simply to make people feel special. We could describe that as titillating their arrogance or as stimulating their ego. The goldplated food is perhaps the best example. Those extreme decorations are not improving the meal, and they do not help people to socialize or relax.

Humans are sociable creatures, and by providing attractive dining rooms and meals, we can use meals as a social activity. However, we have to pass judgment on when people are going too far with the meals and restaurants. For example, I would say the "Happy Meals" that McDonald's provides are inappropriate for children. The children are titillated by those meals, but how do the children or adults benefit?

When we take control of our culture, we have to analyze everything we do. What are the advantages and disadvantages to food eating contests, food fights, or allowing people to waste food at buffets? These activities provide some people with momentary emotional titillation, but is the benefit worth the burden of producing the food? It might seem as if there is a right or wrong answer to this question, but, unfortunately, there is not.

A food fight is a waste of food, but that doesn't make it wrong, especially if they are using food that has spoiled and will not be eaten. If a group of people have a food fight in a dirt field, their pulverizing of the food could be described as preparing the spoiled food for recycling as fertilizer.

Having a fight with water balloons could be described as a waste of resources because society has to produce the balloons. A society that wastes rubber is not better than a society that wastes food. Having fights with paintballs could also be described as wasteful because society has to produce the paintballs and equipment. We could say that riding a bicycle is a wasteful activity because it consumes tires, oil, chains, and other resources. Allowing children to play in a fountain of water could be described as a waste of resources because the activity requires electricity, water pumps, and maintenance. If we want to be truly efficient, we would do nothing during our leisure time.

We want activities for our leisure time, but no matter what we do, it could be described as a waste of resources and labor. In the world today, businesses are offering any activity that they can proft from, and people are doing virtually anything that titillates them, but we should analyze all of our activities to consider their benefits and disadvantages, and then pass judgment on which activities we want to support, and which we want to discourage or prohibit. There is no right or wrong activity. Different people have different preferences as to what is "wasteful" and what is "fun". This is another reason why we should let cities have cultural differences. We cannot create enough cities to please everybody, but we can certainly do a better job of pleasing people compared to the cities of today.

What should our policies for clothing be?

The same concepts apply to clothing. Why are we wearing clothing? As of today, businesses, religious groups, and other people are inadvertently setting clothing styles according to what makes the most profit or what satisfies their particular emotional cravings. When we take control of our culture, we should make more intelligent decisions. We need to seriously ask ourselves, why are we wearing clothing? Why are we wearing shoes? What are we trying to accomplish?

At one extreme we would dress purely for function, such as producing clothing and shoes without designs, colors, or decorations of any type. The clothing would be designed to serve specific purposes, such as protection from the weather, or protection from thorns or chemicals, or to allow perspiration to evaporate and to prevent our skin from rubbing against a bicycle seat.

At the other extreme, we would design clothing purely according to its ability to stimulate our emotions with no regard to whether the clothing is comfortable or practical. A few centuries ago some wealthy women would wear dresses that were impractical, such as dresses with large hoops, as in the drawing, below. Today many women are wearing high-heeled shoes that cause permanent damage to their feet, and which are impractical for walking, running, and riding bicycles. Some women in the entertainment business not only encourage idiotic and dangerous shoes, they also encourage uncomfortable and impractical hats, gloves, hairstyles, makeup, and clothing.

Incidentally, a few people wonder if the custom that men should hold a door open for a woman developed during the time in when women were wearing such impractical dresses that they couldn't open a door by themselves. Now that lots of women are having trouble walking in their high-heeled shoes, we may soon have the custom of a man holding a woman's arm as she walks in order to keep her steady, and to help her up when she falls on the ground.
During prehistoric times, women could safely wear whatever type of clothing their emotions were attracted to. The women had only a few options for clothing, such as wearing a piece of fur around their waist or shoulders, or wearing simple leather moccasins. It was impossible for women in prehistoric times to wear high heeled shoes or a corset. They couldn't use makeup, either, or hair coloring, fingernail polish, hair spray, or perfume.

A woman's grooming emotions evolved to fit a low level of technology, not the modern world. A woman's emotions must now change to fit this new era. Until that evolution is complete, women should control their emotions and think more often. When women today follow their emotions, they waste time and resources on idiotic attempts to become a sex toy.

A man's grooming emotions are also out of place today, but unlike women, men do not have a craving to become a sex toy. Men are more interested in competing with other men for dominance and status. Men want to impress other people and feel important. As a result, we have a tendency to mimic the men in influential positions, and to select clothing that is expensive and intimidating. We have to control our emotions and force ourselves to be more tolerant of clothing that is practical, and which changes with the seasons.

Just as we should analyze our attitudes towards meals and pass judgment on which practices are more sensible, we should analyze our grooming and clothing practices rather than do whatever titillates us. For example, should women shave their body hair? Rather than answer that question with our emotions, we should analyze the advantages and disadvantages to such an activity from the point of view of what is best for society.

Imagine two cities, identical in all respects, except that in one city the women are shaving their body hair. How would life be different in those two cities? In the city where the women are shaving their body hair, the people must spend some of their time producing razors or hair removing chemicals, and the women have to spend some of their time removing the hair, and so the people in that city have a small but additional burden placed on them. What is the benefit to the burden? Will the people have more exciting marriages or sex? Will their relationships be more stable? Will the people be more productive at work? Will they be more relaxed and sociable?

We would have to conduct these experiments to determine what would happen if women stopped shaving their body hair, but my suspicion is that life would become more pleasant overall if women stopped this practice. Both men and women consider hairless women to be more attractive, and so we assume that women should shave their hair, but we are foolish to judge the value of an activity according to it's emotional appeal. Men have an attraction to pornography, but does that mean society will improve if we provide ourselves with more pornography and put it on ordinary television?

Men have a naturally strong attraction to women. Our attraction to women developed during prehistoric times to fit the women of that era. Our emotions are designed for female savages in their "natural" condition, not modern women who wear beautiful clothing, brush their hair, clean their teeth, and wash their crotch. I think that men today are being stimulated beyond what we were designed for, and I don't think that we are going to make life better for us by encouraging the women to become even more titillating. Most women have been shaving their body hair during the past few decades, but where is the evidence that this practice has improved life, sex, marriages, or friendships?

Furthermore, the removal of body hair creates women that are more attractive from a distance, and in photos, so it makes pornography more titillating, and it makes women more titillating from a distance, but I don't think that improves our lives. Besides, when we get close to the women, we can see and feel the stubble, and I don't think stubble is any more attractive than hair.

Most men have grown up around women who shave their body hair, wear jewelry, use cosmetics, wear high-heeled shoes, and color their hair. A lot of men may have trouble considering the possibility that some of these grooming practices are actually a waste of time and resources. It might help those men to consider how this concept applies to women and their attraction to babies.

When are women going "too far" with babies?

Women have a strong attraction to the sight, sound, and smell of a baby. What would you think if businesses were analyzing the odor of a baby and producing perfumes that are even more stimulating than the natural odors? Imagine women applying "baby scents" to their babies to make their babies even more emotionally stimulating. Also, imagine businesses figuring out how to make the babies more visually appealing through cosmetic surgery. Let's also imagine the women shave off the "peach fuzz" that covers a baby's body because they find completely bald babies even more titillating.
Men and women try to become attractive with piercings, breast implants, lip injections, high-heeled shoes, and foot binding, but how many of these grooming practices are truly beneficial to us?
Imagine if businesses discover that women become even more titillated by babies if we break the bones in the feet of the baby so that their feet can be deformed to fit into certain types of tiny shoes, similar to what some Chinese were doing to their daughters until quite recently. Lets's go one step further and imagine that chemists create a pill for the mothers that is similar to Viagra except that it increases a woman's attraction to a baby, and so the women who take this "baby enhancement drug" become even more stimulated by babies. Let's also imagine some businesses producing "baby pornography" videos to titillate the women. Let's also imagine that surgeons in the future are implanting wireless electrodes in the brains of women so that the women can activate their "mothering emotions" when they are playing with the babies, thereby increasing the pleasure that they receive from the babies.

Would you approve of mothers using those techniques to enhance their pleasure with babies? The women would claim that these practices are making their life much more exciting, and that if we stopped them from doing it, their life would become dull and dreary. Would you support their behavior, or would you tell the women that they are getting carried away in their attempt to stimulate themselves, and that they are not doing anything that has real value to them or their babies?

What would you think if women were implanting electrodes into the brains of their babies in order to cause the baby to spend more time smiling and giggling? Would you approve of that technology?

Some women have been accused of deliberately prolonging their child's sickness or obesity so that their child remains helpless and childlike. What would you think if mothers were having their children's pituitary glands removed to force the children to remain more childlike?

Imagine that pharmaceutical companies develop a Viagra-type drug for babies that causes the babies to spend more time giggling and smiling. Would you approve of mothers giving that drug to their babies?

What is the difference between a woman who is taking a drug to stimulate her "mothering emotions", and a man who is using poppers or pornography to titillate his sexual emotions?

We need to control our emotions and seriously analyze the advantages and disadvantages to our grooming practices and pass judgment on which of these practices are sensible, and which are wasteful, idiotic, or destructive.

Just as there is no right or wrong to the issue of wasting food, there is no right or wrong to what men and women should do to make themselves - and their babies - more appealing. There is nothing "wrong" with men or women breaking the bones in their feet, coloring their hair, plucking their eyebrows, having breast implants, splitting their tongue, or injecting fat into their lips. There is nothing wrong with mothers pushing their daughters into dressing like beauty queens or sex toys, either.

Since different people have different emotional characteristics, educational levels, and intellectual abilities, the grooming practices of a society will depend upon who is dominating it. If you are too apathetic to get involved in these issues, then somebody else is going to make the decision for you.

Another issue to consider is that if we decide that we don't like women with hair, or if we want women to wear high-heeled shoes, then we should restrict reproduction to the women who are most similar to what we want them to be. It is better to breed humans to have the qualities we want rather than try to give ourselves those qualities through surgery, drugs, foot binding, and hair coloring. If the Africans don't want curly hair, then instead of straightening it, they should breed themselves to produce straight hair. Since Jews don't like their ugly faces or unpleasant personalities, they should breed themselves to become more desirable rather than be envious of us and use cosmetic surgery to become more attractive.

This concept applies to a man's beard, also. Most men don't want a beard, and shaving is a waste of our time and resources. Shaving is not a significant burden on society, so we don't have to worry about it, but I suspect that future societies will eventually restrict reproduction to the men with less of a beard, eventually eliminating beards completely. We have more important genetic issues to worry about today, but thousands of years from now, after the human race has evolved into a healthier creature, the people will start dealing the insignificant genetic qualities, such as beards.

What is the difference between giving a gift and going to a prostitute?

All animals have a very strong craving to give food to their children, and the males of some species have to give food or meaningless gifts to the females. These dolphins, which are described as "wild" but are not truly wild since they have contact with people, have given gifts of food to people, and some pet owners have discovered their pets bringing them gifts of food. This cat supposedly gives gifts to its dead owner at a cemetery!
Our craving to feed children is so strong that businesses can make a profit by offering us the opportunity to give food to animals. People don't feed the animals because they want to participate in the care and feeding of the animals. Rather, they want to titillate themselves, and when they are finished titillating themselves, they want to leave, and they want somebody else to deal with the problems of taking care of the animal. If people truly enjoyed taking care of animals, then the feeding zoos would allow people to participate in all chores, such as the cleaning up after the animals, and maintenance of the fences and barns.
The customers of a feeding zoo and the customers of a prostitute are doing virtually the same thing; namely, stimulating their emotions. However, they stimulate different emotions.

Why is one type of stimulation acceptable but not the other?

The free enterprise system is making decisions for us about what type of feeding zoos and prostitution services are available, but if we eliminate the free enterprise system and take control of our culture, then we have to make these decisions. What type of zoos should we offer? Should we offer any type of prostitution services?

Our ancestors had no understanding or control of venereal diseases or pregnancy, so they had a valid reason for being frightened of prostitution. In our era, we can offer a variety of prostitution services that are safe, but that doesn't mean we should encourage any of them. We should seriously analyze and discuss all of our activities rather than react to them with our emotions.

Men have strong sexual cravings, and we should stop ignoring this issue. Hiding from the problem is not going to make it go away. What should teenage boys do when they become sexually aroused? Should they be told to masturbate? If they are living in a dormitory with other boys, when, where, and how should they masturbate? What should the rules of etiquette be for masturbation? Should we provide them with pornography, or will that make the situation worse? Should society provide men with some type of prostitution services? Should we develop robots for sex?

I don't know what the best policy for sex and masturbation would be, but we are never going to figure out a good policy when most of the population is too inhibited to discuss the issue seriously, and when most people are too afraid to experiment with different policies.

How many people are capable of controlling their sexual inhibitions well enough to discuss and experiment with sex policies? For example, would you be able to remain calm if your city was experimenting with sex robots? If the sex robots didn't bring any improvements to society, would you demand that society stop experimenting? Or would you be able to remain calm while the city tried some other experiment?

If, instead, the sex robots caused the teenage boys and/or adult men to become noticeably more relaxed and productive compared to when they were masturbating or going to human prostitutes, would you be able to remain calm while the city made sex robots an official cultural activity? Would you be able to remain calm if the city provided Teentown with "teenage sex robots" so that the teenage boys didn't have to masturbate?

Improving our lives requires experimenting with ourselves, and that requires controlling our arrogance, fear of the unknown, paranoia, and other emotions, and treating humans the same way we treat animals and plants.

Before you become worried that I'm promoting sex robots or prostitution, consider that I suspect that we will significantly reduce sexual frustration, prostitution, and masturbation by eliminating the free enterprise system because that will allow us to put an end to pornography and the sexual titillation in advertisements, movies, and television shows. I suspect that pornography is making our situation worse by overstimulating the men. I also suspect that we are making things worse for ourselves by allowing the women to dress like sex toys at their jobs, and for allowing them to dress their young daughters as sex toys.

I also think the best way to reduce sexual frustration, loneliness, and divorce is to experiment with a variety of courtship activities to help men and women form more stable relationships. Furthermore, I think that putting the teenagers into Teentown will make it easier for adults to help the teenagers meet and get to know one another, which in turn will help them form more stable relationships at an earlier age.

Also, as I mentioned in a previous file, I would not be surprised to discover that forcing nudity at public beaches would help men realize that women are just female apes, not sex toys. A woman is amazingly titillating in a bikini. They would be less stimulating if they were naked, except when they are sunbathing while lying on their back.

Incidentally, people are never satisfied with what they are. The people with light-skin want to have darker skin, and the people with dark skin want to become lighter. People with curly hair want to have straight hair, and people with straight year want to have curly hair. Businesses exploit these people, but we should encourage people to accept what they are. There is some benefit for us to have exposure to sunlight, and there may be medical benefits for certain people to lie under ultraviolet lamps, but is there any intelligent justification for encouraging healthy young women to lie under ultraviolet lamps or sunbathe?

Getting back to the issue of gifts, it was sensible for prehistoric women to have a strong craving to give gifts to their children, and for the adult men to have a craving to give gifts to their wives, because all of the gifts in that era were truly necessary, such as food, clothing, and tools. Today men and women are getting out of control with their giftgiving. Children need a certain amount of bedding materials, clothing, and food, but many people in wealthy nations are giving excessive amounts of gifts to their children. They are not thinking of what is best for the children. They are simply titillating themselves.

Elton John and his boyfriend live in an apartment building in Beverly Hills, andthey bought a two bedroom apartment next to their apartment so that their eight-day-old son and his nannies would have their own apartment to live in. Men are not capable of breast-feeding a baby, and men have no desire to take care of a baby, anyway, so it makes sense for Elton John and his boyfriend to provide their baby with his own apartment and a few nannies. However, Elton John and his boyfriend should not be described as "raising a child". What they are doing is analogous to a wealthy person who purchases a horse ranch and pays a few people to live on the ranch and take care of it for him. They are simply using this baby to titillate themselves. Would you want to be raised in that type of family?

Some homosexuals will respond that the life they provide children is just as good as the best heterosexual families, and in some cases, better. Josef Fritzl and his wife are an example of a terrible heterosexual family. I have no doubt that Elton John would have provided Josef Fritzl's children with a much nicer childhood. Fritlz was so disgusting that I would not be surprised if some baboons in a zoo would have been better parents for Fritzl's children. However, the disgusting heterosexual parents do not justify allowing Elton John or baboons to raise children. Instead, they justify raising standards for all parents.

Some homosexuals complain that if we prevent them from having children, we are discriminating against them. They believe that they have a right to have children, either by adopting children or, if they are men, by donating sperm, or, if they are women, by using their eggs. It would make more sense to say that nobody has a right to a child. Children are helpless creatures that are going to become the next generation of adults, so it makes more sense to say that we have a responsibility to provide them with a proper childhood. But what is a "proper" childhood?

What is a "proper" childhood?
Why not let robots raise babies?

If a "proper childhood" is nothing more than providing a child with food and protection from wolves, then homosexuals are capable of providing a proper childhood. Furthermore, if that is all a child needs, then robots will eventually be advanced enough to raise children. Future generations will be able to provide robots to the children in orphanages, thereby finally eliminating the problem of orphans.

Divorced couples could use a robot to take the place of their missing spouse, thereby providing their children with a two-parent family. People who don't have a spouse could marry a robot and then adopt children.

If a homosexual couple with children gets a divorce, will we take their children away from them, or will we divide the children between the two of them? If we allow divorced homosexuals to raise children by themselves, will we pass judgment on whether they are looking for another partner in an appropriate manner? For example, what if a man goes to bathhouses or gay bars and brings a different man home every night for sex? Is it acceptable for children to be raised in that type of "family"? What if he enjoys sex with several men at the same time? Would that be a proper family environment for a child?

Or what if a homosexual divorcee hires a male prostitute for sex, and then the two of them become friends, and eventually the divorcee allows the prostitute to live in his home while supporting him financially. Congressman Barney Frank had that type of home life for a while. Is that a proper environment for raising children?

Why not let single adults raise children?
We allow divorcees to raise children by themselves, and we let mentally ill people have as many children as they please, even if they don't take care of them properly, so why not let single adults raise children, also? If a divorced woman and a mentally ill couple can provide a proper environment for children, then why not let single people raise children? Why do we require marriage?

Why not allow all single adults, regardless of their sexual preferences and mental health, to get pregnant from sperm or egg donors, and to adopt children? Why do we restrict children to married couples when so few people are capable of forming a stable marriage?

Every living creature adapts to its environment. We adapt to the climate, visual images, sounds, and foods. For example, since men are taller than women, I suspect that we have adapted to looking at women slightly downward, while women have adapted to looking slightly upward at men. Therefore, if women were to wear shoes that made them taller than men, I think it would create a slight emotional discomfort for both men and women. Our discomfort would not simply be due to feeling short. It would be partly because we prefer looking slightly downward at women, which causes their chin to be smaller in perspective, whereas when we look upward at them, their jaw becomes the more prominent part of their face.

Human children have been raised by a heterosexual mother and a father for millions of years. Until we learn more about our brain, we should assume that a child's brain has adapted to a heterosexual family that has a mother and a father. We should assume that a child's mind is expecting the type of family environment that existed thousands of years ago. We should assume that allowing homosexuals, robots, and baboons to raise a human child is forcing the child into an abnormal, unnatural relationship.

It might be best for homosexual children to have the option of switching to homosexual parents, but I don't think we should allow heterosexual children to be raised by homosexual parents until we have some reason to believe that this is acceptable.

In a prehistoric family, children would have learned a lot about male and female relationships, sex, nursing babies, childbirth, masturbation, and human bodies by casual observations of their parents and the other people in their group. They would not have learned any scientific details about human bodies or relationships, but the boys would have learned a lot about women, and the girls would have learned a lot about men. This knowledge would help them in their own relationships.

The "natural" way for a child to learn about relationships and sex is to watch the adults. Today parents are denying their children that education, and this is causing the children to pick up distorted information from television, feminists, religious fanatics, and advertisements. Children who are raised by homosexuals are likely to pick up a homosexual view of affection and sex. Those children will eventually get old enough to think for themselves, but why should children have to readjust to a heterosexual world?

Most parents believe that they are "protecting" their children from dangerous information when they prevent their children from seeing naked bodies, the breast-feeding of babies, affection, and sex, but if that theory were true, then the children of today would be better adapted to life than those of previous generations. However, I would say that the young adults today have more miserable relationships than those of any previous generation. By "protecting" their children from these issues, parents allow their children to learn about sex and relationships by watching Lady Gaga, James Bond movies, and Queen Elizabeth.

I don't think raising children in homosexual families will improve the situation for children, except perhaps for the homosexual children. I think we need to start experimenting with better methods of preparing children for adulthood. Adults have such strong inhibitions about bodily functions that it may not be practical to expect adults to control themselves well enough to allow children to see their naked bodies and watch their displays of affection and sex, and so a more practical solution for this modern era may be to allow schools to teach young children the type of information that they should acquire from their parents and other adults.

It should be noted that children did not evolve for alcoholic parents, either, or parents who keep them in a dungeon, or psychotic parents. If we are going to prohibit homosexuals from having children on the grounds that they cannot provide a proper environment for children, then we should also prohibit heterosexuals from having children unless they can also provide a proper environment. It is detrimental to society to force one group of people to follow standards but not another group. Nobody, not even the heterosexuals, should have a right to raise children. Everybody should have to qualify to become parents.

Adults want children for the same reason that children want to feed animals at a zoo. The adults want to titillate themselves with their children, they do not want to raise the children. It is "natural" for a parent to use their children as toys or dildos. We cannot complain that parents are using children as toys. However, we can insist that every adult control their emotions and raise children to become self-sufficient, productive members of society. Every society should pass judgment on which parents are controlling their emotions properly, and which of them have crossed the line from "enjoying" their children to abusing their children, or interfering with their child's development.

It might help you to understand this issue if you consider men and their craving for sex. Every man can be described as "using" his wife as a sex toy. Men have sex for their own pleasure, not to help their wife. We cannot complain about a man who is using his wife for sex, but we could pass judgment on when a man has crossed the line from "enjoying" his wife to "abusing" her.

Every wife can decide for herself if her husband has crossed the line from enjoying her body to abusing her, and she can get a divorce if she does not like the treatment that she receives. Children, however, cannot make decisions about how their parents are raising them. Society must get involved with the raising of children, and we must pass judgment on which parents have so little control over their emotions, or such bizarre emotional cravings, that they are unfit to be parents.

Most people would agree that Josef Fritlz crossed that line, but I would say that a lot of parents who consider themselves wonderful are actually bad parents for this modern world. We tend to think of a parent as being "bad" if they are physically abusive or sexually abusive with her children, but a parent should be considered bad if they are interfering with the child's development, such as by keeping them ignorant about sex, or forcing them to accept idiotic propaganda about religion, or by spoiling them to such an extent that they have trouble functioning in jobs and forming friendships. The Internet has lots of amusing videos of spoiled, bratty children, such as this, although some of them may be publicity stunts.

Society has no obligation to let anybody use children to titillate themselves. In this modern era, we must think of what is best for the human race and stop pandering to adults who want children.

Getting back to the issue of gifts, it made sense for prehistoric mothers to give their children gifts of food, clothing, and toys, and to encourage their children to eat as much as possible, especially prior to the winter. Our ancestors could be proud of themselves and their children for being slightly overweight and having lots of clothing. Today, however, we can produce these items in such excessive quantities that we have to develop more appropriate attitudes and customs.

For another example of why we must analyze our cultural activities and attitudes, our ancestors eventually learned how to raise dogs, goats, and horses, but they never had what we would describe as "pets" until recently. Today people are using pets as substitutes for human relationships, and society is putting a lot of labor and resources into pet supplies and services. Why do we prohibit the use of animals for sex but encourage the use of animals as substitutes for friends? If we take control of our economy and culture, then we must analyze all of our policies and products regarding pets, and we must pass judgment on which policy is beneficial enough to promote, which should be tolerated but discouraged, and which should be prohibited.

People are breeding dogs to give them the physical and personality characteristics that we find more entertaining. How unnatural do the dogs have to become before you would say that the people have become carried away in their attempts to breed dogs into substitutes for friends and babies? What if some women were breeding dogs to more closely resemble human babies by creating dogs that didn't have any teeth, enjoyed being held on their back, and had to be fed with a bottle? What if some men were breeding dogs to have vaginas that were more appropriate for men to have sex with? How extreme would the breeding programs have to be before you complained that the people had gone too far?

What would you think if people began implanting electrodes into the brains of their pet dogs so that they could force their dog to behave in a titillating manner whenever they pleased? What if pharmaceutical companies were producing a Viagra type of pill for dogs that would cause the dogs to behave more like a baby, for the women, and another pill for the men that caused the dogs to become sexually aroused? What if veterinarians were forcing dogs to remain in a puppy-like state by removing their pituitary glands? At what point are we going to stop acting like stupid fish and ask ourselves, where are we going with pets? When do we ask ourselves, how do we benefit from this activity?

Every society is currently ignoring the fact that humans have emotional cravings, and that millions of people, possibly the majority, are unsatisfied. Enormous numbers of people are searching for happiness because they are lonely, sexually frustrated, dislike themselves, or are suffering from mental disorders. We are doing nothing to deal with our emotional health. Businesses exploit unhappy people, but we are doing nothing to understand our problems or experiment with solutions. Most people are ignoring the issue of emotions.

There are no serious discussions on television about our emotions or bodily functions; schools cannot teach anything of significance about these issues; and most people are too inhibited to talk about these issues with their friends or children. As a result, children are not being properly educated about these issues, and everybody has to figure out for himself what to do about his emotional cravings. This is causing a lot of people to become confused and frustrated, and many people are engaging in idiotic or destructive activities in an attempt to bring themselves some pleasure, or at least some relief from their misery.

We should face the fact that humans have a lot of emotional cravings, and we should stop promoting the philosophy that happiness comes from becoming wealthy and doing whatever feels good. Our goal should not be to titillate ourselves. Our goal should be to understand ourselves, analyze our activities, and conduct experiments to figure out the most appropriate ways to satisfy our cravings.

For example, is it better to tell women who are lonely or who want a child to get a pet dog, or is it better to arrange for women to have contact with children at schools, recreational activities, or social affairs? Men want to feel important, but should we allow them to titillate themselves with awards, or should we develop other techniques to help men feel good about themselves? Is it better to tell teenage boys and/or men to masturbate, or would it be better to provide them with an alternative?

There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. We simply have to make decisions about what we want the human race to become, and we need to experiment with different policies, observe the results, and experiment some more. Ignoring these issues will not make them go away. People all around the world are regularly doing all sorts of idiotic and sometimes dishonest things in order to titillate their emotions. We should stop ignoring our emotional cravings and start experimenting with society in an attempt to bring true improvements to our lives.

For example, we might be able to significantly reduce the problem of loneliness by creating a city in which we are living in large apartment complexes, and everybody's home is virtually the same, and everybody is allowed to freely move around the city so that we can move near our friends. I think that would give us the type of life that our prehistoric ancestors had, and which we were designed for. I suspect that being able to open your front door and be among friends will be much more satisfying than living in a giant mansion far away from other people. The mansion has greater emotional appeal, but modern humans cannot do what titillates our emotions. We have to think about what is best for us.

As soon as we start experimenting, we are very likely to discover that we don't know nearly as much as we assumed, and unexpected problems are certain to develop. However, do not fear the unknown. Our experiments will help us to learn about ourselves, and we will be able to deal with any problems that occur.

How does society benefit from gifts or donations?

Humans have a very strong desire to give gifts. Businesses, children, and parasitic adults are encouraging and exploiting this craving. Women receive so much pleasure from giving gifts that I have seen them do it purely for their own entertainment, such as when two women are in a retail store and one says to the other something to the effect of, "I like this store! Let's buy each other a gift!" That type of behavior is analogous to a couple of men who are watching a television show, and one man says to his friend, "The women on this show are getting me sexually aroused. Let's jerk each other off!"

In prehistoric times, the craving to give gifts was a vital emotion that caused parents to take care of their children. Today, however, people are giving useless and sometimes detrimental toys, candies, and other gifts to children, and in addition we also give idiotic gifts to zoo animals and our friends and coworkers. Since we don't have any emotional craving to analyze the gift and determine whether it has a value, we must control our emotions and think about the value of the gift. Otherwise we may give gifts that are dangerous or detrimental, such as when we give bubblegum to a zoo animal.

We assume that we give gifts because we want to be helpful, but unless we have actually put serious thought into the issue, we give gifts to titillate ourselves. We are stimulated by the act of giving a gift, and by the expression of enjoyment on the face of the receiver of the gift. Our emotions don't care whether the receiver benefits from or needs the gift. In this modern world, we must exert control over our emotions and seriously consider whether the person receiving the gift is going to benefit from it.

Children cry when they are unhappy, and adults evolved to react to the crying by looking for ways to please the children. In prehistoric times, this behavior was beneficial because the children would cry only for sensible reasons, such as when they were hungry, cold, or in pain. The adults would react by trying to figure out how to stop them from crying. In the modern world, however, children are crying for all sorts of idiotic reasons, such as when they want some candy or toys. Also, a lot of the children today are defective, and they are crying because of internal problems. Adults react to the crying by trying to please their children with gifts, but the children are not necessarily going to benefit from modern gifts. This is especially true when the children are crying because of some mental disorder. No amount of gifts is going to stop defective children from crying.

Our prehistoric ancestors could safely assume that pleasing a child was helping the child, but that concept is not true today. In this modern world, parents have to control their emotions and analyze why a child is crying. The adults who don't enjoy thinking, or who don't want to control their emotions, or who have trouble controlling their emotions, are not suited to being parents in this modern world. Adults who mindlessly please children with gifts should be regarded as primitive savages in a modern world. They are analogous to the people who give bubblegum to a zoo animal.

Businesses exploit the craving that we have to give gifts by encouraging us to give gifts at Christmas, birthdays, weddings, and anniversaries. Businesses profit from this activity, and people enjoy receiving gifts, but profit and titillation shouldn't be used to justify an activity. We should analyze all of our giftgiving practices to determine which of them truly provides us with a benefit, and which of them are merely wasting resources, creating awkwardness, or encouraging a child to become a spoiled brat.

Adults must give food, clothing, and other items to children, but adults in this modern world do not need to give gifts to other adults. Many of the gifts that adults are giving to each other are so worthless that they quickly end up in the trash or the attic. The adults enjoy some momentary titillation when they give or receive a gift, but how does society benefit? Nothing improves with anybody's life as a result of these gifts. We are wasting resources, and wasting the time and talent of the people who work in the factories that produce the gifts.

I think it would be better to provide all adults with the basic necessities for free, in which case it becomes idiotic for them to give each other gifts. Instead of adults giving gifts to one another, I think it would be better to promote the attitude of adults doing things together. For example, instead of giving a gift to your friend on his birthday, you could arrange for some social affair, bicycle ride, snorkeling trip, or some other activity. We should put emphasis on doing things with other people rather than collecting items. The people who would rather collect items should be considered as primitive savages.

Giving toys to children is a waste of resources, also, because the chilren quickly become tired of the toy. It would be more sensible for society to create some higher-quality toys that the children can share. In that type of a city, a parent would pick up a toy for his child, and when the child is tired of it, the parent takes it back to the store and replaces it with a different toy.

A more serious problem with giftgiving is that we are allowing criminals and parasites to exploit our emotions by offering us the opportunity to donate money and items to charities. The people who donate money to charities (aside from those who have been pressured into doing so), believe that they are wonderful people who are helping the world, but they don't actually want to help the world. They have no desire to study or discuss any of the world's problems. All they want to do is titillate themselves by giving a gift. They don't want to analyze the charity to determine whether their money will be spent in a useful manner, and they don't want to look at the history of the charity to determine whether they have had any success in the past.

If we could remove the secrecy and analyze all of the charities, I'm sure we would discover that none of the charities have done anything to improve life for the human race. The charities are failing to stop hunger, cancer, illiteracy, and everything else that they claim to be stopping.

There appear to be thousands of charities implying that they are helping some group of people. These charities consume a lot of labor and resources, but where is the evidence that they are providing a benefit that justifies their burden? We already have real scientific laboratories that do research on cancer and multiple sclerosis, so why do we need charities to get involved with such a complex issue?

Imagine a society that depended upon charities

If you believe that the concept of charities is a practical and desirable method of dealing with problems, imagine taking this concept to such an extent that we replace our free enterprise system with a charity system. Imagine all of our railroads, factories, farms, hospitals, and research labs operating by charity. They beg for donations, and they use their money to hire engineers, technicians, factory workers, farmers, scientists, and truck drivers, and they produce and distribute products and services for free. Everybody in such a society would either be hired by a charity, or be one of their volunteers.

A "charity society" would have two, distinct classes of people, 1) the wealthy class, which consists of people who are paid by the charities, and 2) the volunteers who work for free. Since the volunteers would not have an income, the charities would have to provide them with free food, clothing, housing, and other essentials. Since only the wealthy class would have money, all of the charities would depend upon them for financial support. Therefore, the wealthy people would have to purchase the products and services that the charities offer, and they would have to donate money and items to the charities that don't sell anything, such as the charities that provide food to the volunteers.

Theoretically, everybody would be happy in "charity society" because the volunteers would love doing charity work, and the wealthy people would boast that they are wonderful humans who love to donate money to help the less fortunate members of society. It would be a beautiful system in which everybody is helping one another.

Do you think that an economic system that depends upon charities is practical? Would you want to live in that type of society? If not, then why should we believe charities will be effective in reducing hunger, illiteracy, cancer, or anything else? You might respond that charities are idiotic on a large scale, but sensible on a small scale, but where is the evidence that they are sensible at any scale?

A lot of money and labor has gone into charities during the past few centuries, and even if they did accomplish something of value for the human race, I think we would have had significantly more of a benefit if the money and resources had been put into more sensible programs.

It is idiotic for us to allow mysterious groups of people to beg for money and volunteers, and then use that money and labor in whatever manner they please. If a society wants to support research into cancer or multiple sclerosis, or if a society wants to do something about hungry children, or if a society wants to help a group of people deal with a hurricane, then we should do it officially and openly, not by allowing secretive, mysterious groups of people to collect donations and spend the money in whatever manner they please.

I would describe a charity as just a variation of extortion in which the criminals stimulate certain emotions in their victims that cause the victims to enjoy giving their money or labor to the charity. Charities are like these parasites that alter the brain of their victim.

It is emotionally pleasing to think that we can stop cancer in children simply by purchasing some cookies or giving a donation, but these charities are exploiting people, not stopping cancer.
There may be a few tiny charities that are truly trying to be beneficial, but my suspicion is that most of the charities are dominated by parasites, criminals, or people who couldn't find a job, or who cannot function properly in society, and they are exploiting our craving to give gifts and help children in order to provide themselves with money, and in some cases, sexual access to children. Some of the volunteers who work for the charities may truly be concerned with helping people but they are volunteers. The people who are profiting from the charities seem to be primarily interested in the money or gaining access to children. They are looking for a way to make an easy living, not a way to help the world.
I don't think a society should allow churches, charities, sports clubs, or any other organization to operate on donations. We are currently allowing people to do virtually anything they please, with no regard to whether it has a value, and we provide people and organizations with secrecy. We should pass judgment on which activities the citizens are allowed to engage in, and which activities should be forbidden. I don't think citizens should be allowed to pressure people into donating money, material items, or labor. Society should be in control of the activities, not mysterious, secretive groups of citizens.

For example, it is acceptable for a group of people to arrange for a sports event or a bicycle ride because everybody is treated equally and sensibly in those activities. By comparison, when a church or charity manipulates people into donating labor, money, or material items, they are treating the people like animals, and for their own benefit. Only society should have the authority to make people do things, and society should have to justify the activity.

Society, not individuals, should be in control of scientific research, and society should be in control of all attempts to deal with complex social problems, such as hunger and unwanted children. We should not allow mysterious groups of people to claim that they are going to solve these problems for us if we donate our labor or money.

Would you approve of charities that help hungry sex workers?
If you still believe that charities are beneficial, imagine an extreme situation. Imagine if charities were forming to help provide food and other necessities to the children who are struggling to survive through prostitution. Imagine that in addition to begging for donations, these charities also arrange for "donation tours" that take groups of men to different poor neighborhoods around the world so that the men can purchase the sex services of the children in order to help them earn a living.

These charities could boast that they are providing children with a significant income rather than a few handfuls of rice. These charities would provide children with enough money to purchase clothing, attend school, and pay rent. However, even though these charities would be providing more assistance to the children than all of the other charities combined, would you say that these charities are actually solving a problem? Or would you describe them as exploiting a problem?

What is the difference between a charity using "celebrities" to exploit our craving to take care of hungry children, and a charity exploiting a man's craving for sex by encouraging him to visit a child prostitute?

By the way, the logo for Kids to Love, at the upper right corner, has a drawing of a young girl in an odd pose. Is this just a coincidence? Or is this an indication that pedophiles are in control of that organization?

Imagine groups of men going on "donation tours" around the world to visit child prostitutes for the purpose of helping the children make a living.

These charities would be able to boast that their sex tours are providing hungry children with a significant and steady income, and that the children are going to school and eventually getting jobs.

Are sex tours your idea of a good solution to the problem of hunger, orphans, and uncontrolled reproduction?

The children who benefit from those sex tours would be grateful, and they would resist attempts to stop the charities. The children and the charities would boast that there are no victims, and that everybody is benefiting, and therefore, there is no reason to complain about the charities.

However, it doesn't matter whether an activity is beneficial to somebody, or whether somebody enjoys it. We have to think about what is best for the human race; what is best for society.

Charities that arrange sex tours would be beneficial to the sex workers and to the pedophiles, but they would not be beneficial to the human race.

Likewise, the charities that toss bags of rice to hungry children are providing the hungry children with a few meals, but they are doing nothing of value for the human race. The hungry children are grateful, and the charities titillate their employees and the people who donate, and some people are benefiting financially from the charities, but the charities are doing nothing to end the underlying cause of hunger.



Our emotions are similar to warning lights

Animals and humans are biological machines that respond to emotional feelings. This system worked perfectly for our prehistoric ancestors because their emotions had evolved to fit their environment. For example, after a prehistoric human ate a meal, he felt relaxed and happy. As the hours passed, and his body became increasingly low on energy, his brain reacted by increasing the emotion that we describe as "hunger". This unpleasant emotion was initially trivial, and he ignored it. However, as his body became low on energy, his emotion increased the severity of the miserable feelings. Eventually his body became so low on energy that his feelings of hunger reached such a high level that he became annoyed by it, and he reacted to the discomfort by making an effort to figure out how to find more food.

There is some portion of our brain that is a biological sensor that reacts to low energy levels by causing feelings of hunger. If a person was born with a brain that didn't have that hunger sensor, or if that sensor was nonfunctional, then the person would never experience hunger. Would a person who never experiences hunger be happier than those of us who occasionally experience such unpleasant feelings? Most people seem to believe that happiness comes from titillating yourself and avoiding unhappiness, but I think a person who never experienced hunger would not be able to enjoy food as much as those of us who experience it.

You can visualize your emotions as the biological equivalent of the warning lights on an automobile dashboard that become active when there is a problem with the automobile.

For example, when you are hungry, your food emotion is activated to push you into looking for food.

For another example, when your body becomes too hot or cold, some type of temperature emotion is activated to make you feel uncomfortable in order to force you to do something to correct the problem. Since humans are sociable, we probably have several different emotions that activate occasionally in order to push us into forming both friendships and intimate relationships.
Our hunger emotion is inappropriate today because it was designed for a primitive era in which food is scarce. For example, it becomes activated even in people who are obese because it is not looking at energy that is stored in fat or the liver. It is monitoring something else, such as the activity of the stomach, or the glucose level in the blood.

In addition to emotions that are inappropriate for our modern era, we also suffer from genetic defects and variations in all of our emotions. All of us have subtle differences in our emotions, but who among us has a "proper" or "normal" emotional craving for status, food, water, children, or sex? People are being born every day, but none of the babies have "perfect" emotions. Rather, all of the babies have subtle variations in their emotions.

Our genetic variations were taken care of during prehistoric times in the "natural" manner, which is very cruel. Specifically, people competed for life, and those whose emotions were unsuited to their particular environment ended up dying, being driven from society, or were less successful at reproduction and raising children. Now that we are preventing nature from controlling our genetic variations, we are slowly degrading into a wide variety of emotionally defective and incompatible freaks.

However, I don't bring up this issue to remind you that we must start controlling reproduction. Rather, I want to point out that hunger, sex, and other emotions were not given to us by a loving god so that we can enjoy food, sex, or life. Hunger is nothing more than a sensor or a feedback mechanism to cause a stupid animal to eat food when it is needed, and to eat an appropriate amount of food. Sexual cravings are nothing more than a mechanism to cause stupid animals to reproduce. The titillation that we receive from babies is nothing more than a mechanism to cause stupid animals to feed and care for their baby.

Animals and humans have the ability to taste and smell foods in order to cause us to eat the food that is appropriate for our species. Our ability to taste and smell foods is dependent upon two different things: 1) the sensors in our nose and tongue, and 2) the portion of our brain that interprets the signals from the sensors. Our sensors and our brain are designed by our DNA, and since every person has a slightly different genetic blueprint, we all have slightly different tastes sensors, and a slightly different emotional reaction to those sensations. This means that each person has a slightly different ability to taste and smell foods, and a slightly different reaction to tastes and smells.

If we don't set standards for meals and pass judgment on who among us has "appropriate" abilities to taste and smell food, and who has appropriate eating habits and desires, then the variations and defects will continue to increase, and they will eventually reach the point at which people are so different and so defective that it is impossible for restaurants to serve meals because everybody will insist on having a different meal.

Although the environment plays a role in our eating habits by causing us to become accustomed to certain foods, children in the same family have subtle differences in their attractions to food, manners, and ability to control their hunger. We do not have to require all people be identical in their eating habits, but in order for restaurants to be possible, and in order for it to be possible to feed children, the human race has to keep its eating habits within a certain range.

It is acceptable for one person to want more salt on his food, and another person to want more tomato sauce, but we are going to create problems for ourselves if we allow people to become so different that every adult and child is whining about the meals and picking out olives, mushrooms, or whatever item they refuse to eat.

If we don't set standards for humans, then we will eventually degrade to the point where parents cannot easily feed their children, and it becomes impossible for restaurants to function. This, incidentally, is another reason why I think it is important to send children to Teentown. The adults will provide the teenagers with meals, and observe which of them has a problem with food.

We must set standards for all of our emotions. For example, if we don't pass judgment on which women have "proper" cravings for children, then eventually some women will have such extreme and abnormal attractions to children that they cannot properly contribute to or participate in society, and some will be unable to properly raise children. If it seems impossible for women to have too strong of a craving for children, consider the mothers who are being accused of deliberately keeping their child obese or sickly in order to extend the amount of time that the child spends in the "helpless phase" of life. Another example are the women who have cut open pregnant women and stolen their baby. Men have to keep their cravings for women under control so that we can face the fact that women are just female monkeys, and some are mentally ill, and some are dangerous, and some have emotional characteristics that are unsuited to this modern world.

Modern humans regularly “cheat” our emotions

It's important to understand our emotions so that we can learn to control them and set standards for them. Emotions are just feedback mechanisms that are intended to cause us to do something. All of our emotions were vital in prehistoric times, but some of them are unnecessary or inappropriate today. Furthermore, and the issue I want to mention now, is that this modern world gives us the opportunity to "cheat" the feedback system, and this is sometimes - but not always! - a good idea.

We want to satisfy our emotions, and our modern world provides us with lots of opportunities to "cheat" the process that nature intended for us. For example, when our primitive ancestors were hungry, they would react by looking for food. When a man's sexual cravings reached a high level, he would react by trying to impress a female. When a man felt inadequate, he would react by trying to become a more impressive man, such as by doing a better job of hunting or making tools.

Today, however, we have lots of opportunities to cheat the process. The obvious method to cheat the process is to commit crimes, such as raping women rather than earning the women, or stealing food rather than earning it, or sabotaging a competitor so that we get the job we want. But there is another way to cheat the process, and that is to stimulate ourselves. For example, when a woman is unhappy, she can bring some momentary pleasure into her life by shopping and purchasing gifts for herself or other people. She will titillate herself in the process, but she is not solving the problem that caused the unhappiness. She is merely "masturbating".

Whenever you experience an emotion, it is because your mind is trying to manipulate your behavior. We are supposed to react to the emotion in a manner that solves the problem, but in this modern world, we are often bypassing the process and simply looking for ways to titillate the emotion. Modern humans must make an attempt to understand why the emotion was triggered, and we have to make intelligent decisions about whether we should ignore it or satisfy it in some manner. If we decide to satisfy an emotion, we then have to make a decision on whether we are doing so in an appropriate manner.

Thinking about our behavior and controlling our emotions is not natural. We prefer to do whatever brings us the most emotional pleasure, and many people look for ways to suppress the unpleasant emotions, such as with alcohol, daydreams, religious fantasies, or distractions, such as life-threatening sports activities.

The people who satisfy their emotional cravings in an inappropriate manner are hurting themselves, and they often hurt other people, and they may also waste society's resources. For example, when an unhappy woman goes shopping to titillate herself, she is doing more than wasting her time. If she buys gifts for herself or other people that nobody needs, then she is wasting resources and increasing the amount of trash, and if she gives unwanted gifts to other people, she is creating social awkwardness. If an unhappy woman pushes her friends or husband into following her around as she goes shopping, then she is wasting their time, also. A society will be happier when women react to their problems in a sensible manner, not by titillating themselves with window shopping or giftgiving. Likewise, a society will be more pleasant and efficient when the men find ways to deal with their problems rather than withdrawing into religious fantasies or trying to mask the problem with life-threatening activities or alcohol.

Another example of people cheating nature are those who use pets as substitutes for friends and sex partners. We experience such feelings as loneliness, sexual cravings, and desires for affection in order to push us into forming human relationships, not relationships with dogs. Unfortunately, rather than encourage us to understand our emotions and design social activities to help us meet people and form stable relationships, the free enterprise system encourages businesses to exploit our emotions. Businesses make an enormous amount of profit by selling pets and pet supplies to lonely people. These people are titillating themselves with their pets, but they are not solving the problem that caused them to want the pet.

Actually, I suspect that pets are increasing our problems. For example, pets increase the quantity of fleas, filth, and ticks in our cities, and, even worse, it encourages people to spend time with and animal rather than with humans. It would be more appropriate to react to the loneliness by experimenting with social activities and courtship activities. Unfortunately, we cannot experiment with social activities in a free enterprise system, or with the incompetent, selfish, and corrupt governments that we have today. We have to alter our society so that we can take control of our future.

Some people believe that children benefit by having pets, but the only way to determine whether pets are useful would be to have two virtually identical cities, but only one of which allows pets. We would then be able to determine if pets are making a child's life more pleasant, or helping them become better adults. My suspicion is that pets are encouraging arrogance, selfishness, and social awkwardness by allowing children to become accustomed to an abnormal relationship.

The relationship between a human and his pet is more unnatural than that between a king and his peasant. It is even worse than the relationship between the Americans and their African slaves. The slaves spoke a different language, and were uneducated, so there was no real communication between the slaves and their owners. The slave owners could treat their slaves in any manner they pleased, including having sex. We find the same situation is happening with pets. You might respond that some of the slave owners had treated their slaves with decency, but that doesn't justify such a relationship. Likewise, some pet owners treat their pets quite nicely, but we need more than that to justify the relationship.

Human children were intended to play with one another, not form a master/slave relationship with a different species. Children may learn some useful information about human and animal behavior by spending some time at a farm or a zoo, but allowing children to spend a lot of time in a owner/pet relationship is not necessarily beneficial. For all we know, this type of relationship is encouraging arrogance, selfishness, and social awkwardness.

Do not assume that your emotions are “normal”

To complicate the issue of emotions, some people are certain to be experiencing inappropriate emotional reactions as a result of some physical disorder. Our brain is a chemical computer, and our emotions are triggered by electrical and chemical signals. Therefore, we can be certain that some people occasionally experience inappropriate emotional reactions as a result of problems with their body chemistry. For example, a person might occasionally become sexually stimulated because of a problem his body is having with hormone levels or blood sugar, and another person might experience hunger unnecessarily because his hunger emotion is being inadvertently triggered due to a problem with his liver or kidneys.

The people who crave extreme levels of fame, status, or affection might never be happy no matter what their life is like because they may be suffering from abnormally extreme cravings for status or love because their emotions are being triggered unnecessarily and frequently, perhaps due to a defective brain or defective blood chemistry. Some of the people who eat excessively might be doing so because their food emotions are being triggered unnecessarily.

The people whose emotions are being stimulated more often than "normal" can be visualized as a defective automobile in which one of the warning lights is defective and accidentally fllickering on and off. These people need to ignore their abnormal cravings, but how many people have the ability to ignore or control their emotions?

You cannot assume that the emotions that you experience are always occurring for sensible reasons, and you cannot assume that you should satisfy every emotional craving. If you were genetically perfect, and if you were perfectly adapted to your environment, then you would be able to satisfy all of your emotional cravings, but none of us are genetically perfect, and during the past few thousand years, the human race has so dramatically altered our environment that none of us are truly adapted to this modern world.

Different races are emotionally different

We should also assume that there are subtle differences in the emotional qualities of different races of people. Different groups of people evolved different physical characteristics, and we should assume that our brains developed slightly different characteristics, also. We should assume that there are subtle differences in our cravings for food, sex, children, and status, and that some races are more prone to violent outbursts, envy, or pouting.

Our basic sexual feelings are also determined by our genetics, not by our environment. You did not become homosexual or heterosexual because of your environment, and your environment does not determine the images, sounds, and smells that you become sexually titillated by. It is possible to push people, especially when they are young, into doing something sexual that they don't want to do, but they will continue to have the same sexual preferences that they were born with. It is possible that our mind has been designed to allow the environment to have a slight effect on our sexual feelings, but if so, even that is a genetic characteristic. The environment can affect us only to the extent that our brain has been designed to be affected by it.

Female peacocks are titillated when the males vibrate their plume of feathers, while the female Frigatebirds are titillated by males that can inflate a large, red pouch under their necks.

If a female frigatebird were raised by peacocks, she would continue to be aroused by the red pouch rather than the peacock feathers. We cannot change an animal's sexual cravings simply by changing its environment.

When two races of humans have been separated for so long that they develop different physical characteristics, we should assume that they have developed some subtle sexual differences, also. For example, the men of some races may be more titillated by women's faces while other races may be more titillated by a woman's butt or breasts. Some races may be more affectionate, and some races may be more prone to S&M activities. If we could study pedophiles, we might discover that certain races are more easily titillated by young children.

Another interesting aspect of courtship and sexual behavior is that it is both irrational and unique for all animals. There is no right or wrong sexual behavior as far as nature is concerned. Every species develops its own idiotic sexual practices. There is a tremendous variation in sexual behavior, but there is not so much variation in certain other characteristics, such as the manner in which we digest food, or the manner in which birds fly.

All birds fly in a similar manner because aerodynamics is the same for all living creatures. Every animal digests food in the same manner because chemistry is the same for all creatures. Every animal's heart is a variation of the same basic pumping mechanism because everybody's heart must follow the same laws of physics. All of the most complex animals have two eyes, and they work in the same manner because all of our eyes must follow the same laws of optics.

There are subtle differences in the shapes and colors of our irises, and in our sensitivity to light, but the differences between our eyes are so trivial that if we had the technology, we could transplant a monkey's eyes into a blind human, and that would enable the human to have color vision that is almost identical to that of other humans. We can also transplant hearts and other parts of an animal's body into a human body.

By comparison, courtship procedures do not have to follow any particular scientific rules, so there is nothing in nature that is influencing courtship to follow a particular path of evolution. The end result is that every animal develops unique and truly senseless courtship practices.

Courtship procedures for this spider are not only idiotic, they are dangerous for the male. The male must get very close to the female and vibrate an iridescent flap, but since spiders eat one another, if the female is not titillated, she may attack and eat him.
When groups of humans are genetically isolated for so long that they develop differences in their physical characteristic, we should assume that they have also developed subtle differences in their courtship and sexual behavior simply because nature doesn't care what our sexual practices are. All that nature cares about is that our practices result in reproduction. The end result is that there are likely to be subtle differences in the courtship and sexual behavior of different races, thereby creating subtle incompatibilities and awkwardness when different races try to form relationships.

Some people have trouble pronouncing such English letters as "R", and some people slur or mumble their words. There is a significant difference between people in our ability to pronounce words. This cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. However, we cannot be certain of why we have these differences. Are some of the people who mumble doing so because they are a mixture of prehistoric and modern genetic traits? Are some of them related to a different race of humans that developed different speaking characteristics? Are some of them the result of defects in "normal" genetic characteristics? To summarize this concept, are the people who mumble:
1) Inheriting prehistoric genetic traits?
2) Inheriting traits of a different race of humans?
3) Suffering from defects in otherwise normal traits?

If we could remove secrecy and analyze everybody's sexual cravings, we would find that there are subtle differences in our sexual emotions. Why do some people enjoy anal sex, for example? Why do some people enjoy having sex with a three-year-old child? Why are some people enjoying sex with animals? Why are we different? Are some people picking up prehistoric sexual cravings? Are some people picking up sexual characteristics from a different race of humans? Are some people suffering from defective sexual emotions?

The same concept applies to all of our other emotions. We all have the same emotions, but there are subtle differences in their "levels", and what triggers them. Why are some men unusually competitive, violent, or concerned about their status? Did they inherit some emotional qualities from our prehistoric ancestors? Or did they inherit traits from a different race of humans? Or are they the result of defects or random changes in "normal" human traits?

If people could control their craving for secrecy and their paranoia of being observed, and if the different races would accept the fact that there are differences between us, and if men and women could accept the fact that we are not a unisex creature, then we would be able to study the human mind and body to the same extreme that we study animals. This would provide us with tremendous information about the human race.

Most people fantasize about acquiring more money or fame, but information about how our mind and body works is more valuable than money, diamonds, mansions, and yachts. If we had a thorough understand of our bodies, we would be able to more easily identify and deal with our medical problems, and a more thorough understanding of our mind would help us alter our society, relationships, economy, and social activities to be much more appropriate to us. Information allows us to make our lives more pleasant, whereas money, fame, and food only provide some momentary emotional titillation.

Women should participate in the process of understanding the human mind. The feminists whine that women do not have any opportunities to be intelligent, and that "glass ceilings" are preventing women from achieving their potential, but men are not stopping women from analyzing themselves and providing the human race with a better understanding of their body and mind. Men should encourage women to help us understand women rather than pander to the women and encourage them to whine about sexism.

Although everybody has the same physical and mental qualities, there are subtle differences between us. It is impossible to pick out one person and describe his particular mental or physical characteristics as "perfect" or "normal". It is impossible to say what is normal in regards to sexual titillation, also. All we can do is discuss the issue of sex and courtship and pass judgment on what type of behavior we want to see in the human race, and what type of behavior we want to disapprove of. For example, most people disapprove of adults who are sexually attracted to children, but should we approve of adults who enjoy S&M sex? Should we approve of anal sex? How about sex with robots?

These concepts also apply to the manner in which we eat dinner, socialize, play sports, and sleep. All of these activities are irrational. There are no right or wrong social activities, foods, or sports. What we like and dislike about these activities is partly due to the environment and partly due to our particular emotions. If we could study the differences between the races, we would discover that we have subtle differences in our emotional cravings, and this is causing us to have slightly different preferences for food, sports, recreational activities, holiday celebrations, music, clothing, and home decorations. This information will help us create a better world for everybody. We should look forward to learning more about ourselves rather than fearing such knowledge.

Think about life, don't react to your emotions

When you experience an emotional reaction, especially a destructive emotion, such as envy, anger, or revenge, you should consider the possibility that the emotion has been triggered accidentally due to some problem with your blood chemistry, or because of crosstalk between nerves, or because you are becoming frustrated with your life, or because of some medical disorder that we don't yet understand. Do not automatically do what your emotion wants you to do.

Our attitude towards humans has to become more like our attitude towards automobiles and airplanes. If the oil level warning light of an automobile turns on, a mechanic doesn't automatically pour oil into the engine. He will first check to determine if the engine needs oil, and if not, he assumes that the warning light is broken, in which case he fixes the warning light. By comparison, when a child cries for food or toys, or when an adult craves money, status, affection, or sex, we try to give the person what he wants rather than analyze his situation and pass judgment on whether he needs what he desires. Giving toys to children who already have enough toys, or giving attention to people who are already famous, or building another mansion for a person who already has several mansions, is equivalent to pouring oil into an engine that already has too much oil.

There is nothing wrong with stimulating yourself, or stimulating your children or friends, but we have to be careful that we are not doing something idiotic, destructive, or wasteful. Are you eating because you are hungry, or because you are unhappy with life and are trying to titillate yourself? Are you having sex because you truly have the desire for it, or because you are feeling unhappy and want some pleasure in your miserable life? Do you want a child because you are actually ready for the responsibility of raising a child, or are you simply looking for a way to titillate yourself?

It's also important to keep in mind the possibility that our emotions are sometimes triggered accidentally. If you find yourself feeling hunger when you are not actually hungry, or if you find yourself sexually titillated in inappropriate situations, you may be suffering from some defect with your body or your emotions. Some of these disorders may be at least partly correctable. If you're not sleeping properly, for example, you can adversely affect your mind and body. For another example, if you set unrealistic goals for yourself, you can cause yourself a lot of frustration and stress, and that in turn might cause you to become overly sensitive to problems.

If you enjoy performing risky stunts, can you find a sensible reason for your desires? Or do you crave risky activities in order to distract yourself from internal pains, or because there is something defective about your mind or blood chemistry?

If you have cravings to collect expensive material items, is it because you have a sensible reason for collecting them? Or do you suffer from abnormal feelings of inadequacy, or abnormal cravings for status? If your emotions are abnormal, is it because of a medical disorder that you can control through diet or drugs?

When is self-stimulation acceptable?

Women enjoy being touched affectionately once in a while, and men enjoy touching women. When people are forming stable relationships, men and women will inadvertently satisfy their partner as they satisfy themselves. What is a man or woman to do when they either don't have a partner, or are unhappy with their relationship? How will they satisfy their cravings? Lonely women are allowed to pay a massage therapist to touch their body, but we don't allow men to do the equivalent, which is paying to touch women, even if no sex is involved. Why is it acceptable for women to pay people to touch them, but illegal for men to pay to touch women or pay for sex?

There are no right or wrong solutions to any of our problems. We simply have to discuss these issues, make decisions about what we want life to be and what we want the human race to become, and start experimenting with policies. For example, we could make it illegal for women to purchase massages unless they have a valid medical reason for a massage. We could put the massage therapists and their customers in jail, just as we do with prostitutes and their customers. Or we could arrange for the lonely men and women to try satisfying one another until they find a more stable relationship. For example, the women who want to be touched can be told to let one of the lonely men give them a massage, and we could tell the women to face the fact that the men may get sexually aroused in the process, and if so, she should deal with it in some manner and consider her favor to him as payment for the massage. Or, we could tell everybody to suffer loneliness and sexual cravings, participate in courtship activities, and form a stable relationship.

Women have a craving to kiss, care for, talk to, and touch babies, and if they don't have any babies, they will often use dogs. However, we don't let men have sex with dogs. Why are women allowed to use dogs to satisfy their emotional cravings, but not men?

We currently consider masturbation to be disgusting, but what is "masturbation"? Most people regard the word "masturbation" to refer to sexual self-stimulation, but I think it would be more useful to consider masturbation to be the stimulation of any emotion. Sexual stimulation is just one form of masturbation. I would say that people who are eating excessive amounts of food are masturbating also, but they are stimulating a different emotion. People who praise themselves because of their college diploma or athletic awards are masturbating, also. People who spend time pitying themselves are also masturbating.

Is masturbation bad? Not necessarily. It depends on why you are doing it, and what the overall effects are. In some cases, stimulating yourself can be beneficial. For example, when we become frustrated in our attempts to accomplish some goal, we will sometimes stimulate our arrogance by telling ourselves that we have the ability to succeed. Some people stimulate themselves by reminding themselves of images of their spouse or children, or imagining themselves as heroes in a parade. People frequently refer to this as "self-motivation" or "inspiration" rather than as "masturbation" or "self-stimulation", but what is the difference? In all of these situations, you are stimulating your emotions.

The primary difference between sexual stimulation and other forms of stimulation is that the sexual stimulation doesn't accomplish anything; it merely satisfies an emotional craving. By comparison, when you stimulate yourself to accomplish a task, you are (hopefully) doing something useful for yourself, your family, or society. We consider it admirable for a person to stimulate himself into accomplishing a desirable goal, but we are embarrassed or ashamed of sexual stimulation. However, the people who satisfy their sexual cravings through masturbation could be described as doing something useful because they are helping to keep themselves in proper emotional health. The cravings, when unsatisfied, are an annoyance. Of course, it is possible for people to sexually masturbate in a manner that is troublesome for society or themselves, such as the people who get objects stuck into their butt or vagina and then need medical attention.

We should not judge stimulation according to whether it is sexual or nonsexual. Instead, we should judge it according to its effect on society. A criminal who stimulates himself into committing a crime is doing destructive masturbation, for example, even though he may be doing exactly the same type of stimulation as a construction worker who is pushing himself into moving big rocks in order to make a rock wall.

For another example of how self stimulation can be useful, consider schools and training programs. We do not have cravings to learn or think. Some people enjoy learning about Hollywood gossip or sports scores, but that is not "learning" or "thinking". That is "entertainment". We really don't enjoy learning or thinking, so when we must put serious effort into these activities, we often look for ways to stimulate ourselves into accomplishing the task. However, we don't refer to this behavior as "self-stimulation" or as "masturbation". We tend to refer to it as "motivating ourselves".

What is the difference between a student who is "motivating himself" to learn a useful skill and a person who is sexually masturbating? Both of them are stimulating themselves, but they are stimulating different emotions and for different purposes.

Just as sexual masturbation can be either productive or destructive, so can the students who motivate themselves. For a few examples, a student might motivate himself to such an extent that he spends so much time studying that he interferes with his social life or physical health. Another student may motivate himself to achieving goals that are unrealistic for him, resulting in him becoming frustrated or angry, thereby creating a disruption in society. And another student may use excessive amounts of caffeine or other drugs to help him get through his school course, thereby harming his health.

In some situations, we use other people to stimulate us. For example, it can be easier to do unpleasant or difficult work when we are working with other people, and we are helping to stimulate one another. The term "military cadence" refers to soldiers who are chanting as they exercise. We describe this activity as motivation, or as inspiration, but we could describe this as a "circle jerk", or as "mutual masturbation", or as "group stimulation".

The point of these past few paragraphs is that stimulating yourself is not right or wrong. We should analyze all of our activities and pass judgment on whether we are stimulating ourselves in productive manners. Unfortunately, animals and humans were never designed to analyze themselves. We are designed to react to the world, not think about it. We are not designed to analyze our body or our emotions. Furthermore, we have very strong inhibitions about certain bodily functions and emotions, and these inhibitions have prevented every society from facing the fact that we have emotional cravings and that people are routinely stimulating themselves in a variety of different manners and for different reasons. No society can seriously deal with such issues as masturbation, sex, death, childbirth, nursing babies, waste products, digestion, mucus, or earwax.

Our inhibitions are inappropriate for this modern world, and they need to be controlled. There are men who consider themselves to be tough and courageous because they can get into fistfights or do risky sports, but they behave like frightened rabbits when their children ask about sex, waste products, or mucus. Women love to clean their house, clothing, and themselves, but they are too inhibited to clean their butt.

It is important to understand why we have these inhibitions so that we can learn to control them. These inhibitions were important for our prehistoric ancestors, but they are interfering with modern life. For example, watch this video of a gorilla eating its poop, and notice that a younger gorilla comes over to grab some of it and eat it also. Animals do not have strong inhibitions about poop.

As monkeys developed intelligence, they began to think more often, but thinking is dangerous for an animal, especially a dumb, ignorant animal. Our ancestors had to develop an emotional dislike of waste products in order to prevent them from eating it, using it as a building material, playing with it, and whatever else they started doing with it.

It is also possible that one reason we evolved such a disgust of poop is because our distant ancestors began experimenting with anal sex and with sticking things into their butt for sexual titillation. In our modern world, it is very easy for us to clean our butts and sanitize the items that we put into our butt, thereby making anal sex less dangerous, but our colon was never designed to deal with things that enter it. For all we know, anal sex is unhealthy. The colon absorbs liquids, so what does it do with semen? If the interior of the colon gets torn from anal sex, could some genetic material or chemicals in the semen get into the bloodstream? If so, would that cause trouble for the person? Is it possible for sperm to swim into somebody's bloodstream from a tear in the lining of the colon? If so, what would that do?

As our primitive ancestors developed intelligence, they needed inhibitions for anal sex, poop, childbirth, mucus, and vomit. These inhibitions prevented our stupid, monkey-like ancestors from hurting themselves, but these inhibitions are interfering with life today. Our waste products, for example, are disgusting to our emotions, but they are nothing more than digested food. I am not advocating that we play with or eat our poop. Rather, I am pointing out that we need to understand why we have these inhibitions, and we need to be capable of controlling our emotions so that we can teach children about it, study it, and create sensible policies for it.

Likewise, most animals have few, if any, inhibitions about cannibalism, which is why a female spider will consider a potential mate as a food source. Some creatures will even eat their own children. Carnivores need certain inhibitions about cannibalism in order to prevent them from hunting their own species. The more intelligent a carnivore is, the stronger those inhibitions must be.

Our inhibitions about cannibalism are so strong that most people would rather starve to death than eat their dead friend. To die of starvation when there is plenty of food is truly idiotic. The fact that humans have strong inhibitions about cannibalism is evidence that our ancestors developed the intelligence necessary to wonder whether other people were a source of food, and they occasionally ate one another, and the end result was that they did not survive the competitive struggle for life as well as the people who developed inhibitions about cannibalism. There is nothing right or wrong about eating human meat or drinking human milk. Our dislike of cannibalism is simply a method to prevent a semi-intelligent savage from hunting its own species.

Intelligence and curiosity are valuable mental qualities, but they are also dangerous to stupid or uneducated animals. Animals and humans developed a tremendous fear of the unknown and a strong desire to keep everything as it is because the world is full of dangers, and the creatures who survived the competitive battle for life were those who wanted to follow established procedures and took risks only occasionally or when necessary.

As our ancestors developed intelligence and curiosity, they would have started wondering about the world around them, and about their own body. You and I know so much about the world and ourselves that we don't have a lot of curiosity about it, but our primitive ancestors would have wondered about everything. They would have wondered what the stars were, whether any dirt was edible, what their fingernails were, and whether the hair on their head could be useful for clothing or tools.

Humans are the only creatures that have a problem with nudity, reproduction, childbirth, and bodily functions. Our incredibly powerful inhibitions could not have developed unless our distant ancestors were repeatedly exploring their body and hurting themselves in the process.

Although this video of a 15-year-old girl sucking on her bloody tampon may be just another prank for publicity, if we could travel back in time, we would have certainly found that our distant ancestors were occasionally wondering not only about their own body, but also wondering about other people's bodies, and about all of the animals, plants, and everything else in the world.

As our ancestors developed curiosity and intelligence, they began to explore the world, but they did not have the education or intelligence to understand what they were discovering. There was a potential danger with their curiosity, and nature solved that problem by causing them to develop inhibitions about the potentially dangerous aspects of the human body and the world. Our inhibitions about our body are analogous to a bad tasting chemical that some parents put on their child's thumb in order to stop him from sucking on his thumb.

Curiosity allowed our ancestors to learn a lot about the world, but many of them died or suffered in the process. For example, by experimenting with different foods, they discovered that there are lots of edible items, thereby increasing the number of foods in the human diet, but they also discovered that some of those items are poisonous. Nature kept their adventurous desires under control by counteracting it with a fear of the unknown and a desire to follow established procedures. Since each person has a unique blend of emotions, some people are more curious or adventurous than others.

Since everybody is arrogant, we tend to assume that our particular blend of emotions is ideal, and we tend to ridicule people who are different, but the differences between us allow us to take different roles in life and notice different aspects of the universe. Nature did not favor the humans who produced identical babies. Nature favored the humans who produced variety. A variety of children produces a more talented team than a group of people who are identical.

Reward the high-quality people, not the weirdos

Incidentally, that video of the girl sucking on her tampon is just one example of a video that has absolutely no value to society, but which gets a lot of publicity, including by supposedly intelligent news organizations, such as Huffington Post. The significance of this should not be overlooked! The best way to attract the attention of people is to titillate certain emotions, such as fear, disgust, or sex. People do not respond well to intelligent remarks, serious discussions, useful advice, or scientific knowledge. We are especially resistant to criticism.

It is important to understand these qualities so that you can avoid being manipulated by con artists, and so that you don't waste your time on worthless emotional titillation, or by being frightened of issues of no importance. For example, salesmen and con artists regularly manipulate us with praise. When political candidates talk about Social Security, they don't have intelligent discussions about the issue. Instead, they attract people with frightening stories about how Social Security will soon run out of money, or that their political opponent is going to reduce Social Security benefits. When influential Americans talk to us about Iran, they don't say anything intelligent. Instead, they stimulate emotions of fear with idiotic remarks about how the evil Iranians will go on a suicidal mission to destroy America as soon as they develop a nuclear bomb.

Most people "react" to events rather than "think" about them, and this makes it very easy to manipulate people by stimulating their emotions. Millions of people around the world reacted when Janet Jackson exposed her nipple during the Superbowl halftime show. Many people don't have any idea what happened during the game, and many did not even watch the game, but they heard about her doing that. Millions of people are regularly wasting their time learning about and discussing issues of no importance, and millions of people are living in fear that some evil nation will attack them or steal their worthless islands.

The video of the teenage girl sucking on her tampon is getting a lot of publicity. Would a video that was providing a serious analysis of a woman's menstrual cycle get more publicity or less publicity? Imagine a woman posting a video that gives a detailed description of what exactly is collecting in her tampon; whether the material that oozes out is exactly the same during each day or whether it changes; how the quantity of material changes at different stages of the cycle; whether she can feel any of the material oozing out of her; whether the material oozes out continuously or whether it comes out in spurts; whether the liquid is lumpy at any stage of the cycle; and how her cycle is different from that of other women. That type of video could be useful to young girls who don't know what to expect; adult women who wonder whether their cycle is typical; and men who are simply curious, but would it get much publicity? Would schools encourage children to learn from it? Would parents advise their children to look at it?

The girl who sucked on her tampon didn't give any description of it at all, not even a simplistic description of the smell. All she did was make unpleasant facial expressions. People have a very strong attraction to human faces, and we would rather watch people's expressions than listen to an intelligent explanation of some issue. Therefore, it is possible that her idiotic video would be much more popular and get much more publicity than a serious, descriptive video.

Likewise, a woman who tricks a man into having sex with her, such as Monica Lewinsky, or the women who chased after Tiger Woods, can get a lot of fame, publicity, and money by talking about it on television shows and writing books about it. By comparison, a woman who is honest and considerate, and who does something of value, is likely to be ignored. It's possible that Tiger Woods met some responsible, considerate women, but who are they? They don't get publicity. We tend to ignore the people who are responsible and considerate because they don't stimulate our emotions. They blend into the background.

There are billions of people in the world, but only a tiny percentage of them get publicity. Compare the people who get publicity to the people who are ignored. We give special attention and pampering, and sometimes lots of money, to the people who are the most greedy, disgusting, obnoxious, noisy, immoral, bizarre, parasitic, frightening, and abusive. The scum is rising to the top of human society because we are following our emotions like a stupid animal rather than thinking about issues and making intelligent decisions.

A farmer doesn't give special pampering to the weeds, sickly plants, or retarded animals. A farmer looks for the high-quality plants and animals, and he gives them special attention. We must do the same with humans. Start noticing and appreciating the people around you who are honest, responsible, and useful members of society. Don't ignore them. Don't give your attention, money, or admiration to people who are destructive, worthless, irritating, or parasitic. Don't let people or businesses manipulate you with their idiotic publicity stunts.

Our inhibitions were originally beneficial

Humans are the only animals to develop inhibitions about its crotch. These inhibitions were desirable during prehistoric times because it caused the people to hide their crotch and keep their crotch clean, creating what we would describe as "manners". These inhibitions did not interfere with the sex education of children because the lack of clothing, bathrooms, private bedrooms, and other modern technology meant that children were regularly exposed to nudity, sex, and other aspects of the human body, despite the attempts by everybody to keep their crotch hidden.

In this modern era, our inhibitions are much too powerful. Modern technology is allowing women to hide their crotch to such an extreme that boys can grow up in complete ignorance of what a woman's body looks like and how it functions. Men are hiding their body so well that some of them don't know if their sexual organs are typical or abnormal.

When we look at somebody's crotch, we are emotionally stimulated in a somewhat unpleasant manner, and most people interpret that unpleasant feeling as a sign that children will suffer psychological damage if they are exposed to nudity. However, children are not damaged when one of their emotions is titillated. Their emotions are titillated every day. For example, they regularly experience feelings of hunger, thirst, and pain. Our brain was designed to experience emotional feelings.

During prehistoric times, children regularly saw naked bodies, and they saw and heard their parents having sex, and they survived. If a mother today allowed her child to see her crotch, she would cause certain emotions to be titillated in her child's brain, but the child would not suffer. She would simply be allowing the child to learn what he would have learned if he had been born thousands of years earlier. I think it would actually be beneficial to the boys by providing them with a realistic understanding of a woman's body.

If parents would show affection and have sex in front of their children, they would also titillate emotions in their children, but it would not hurt them. It would simply provide them with the type of sex education that our prehistoric ancestors had.

The best way to understand this concept is to look at the boys who grew up during the 1960s, as I did. There was no Internet, and America was extremely prudish, and the end result was that many young boys grew up in amazing ignorance about girls and sex. The girls kept their crotch completely hidden from us, and they kept themselves very clean. The girls also had a tendency to avoid physical activities and remain in cool areas during hot days, so they did not perspire very much.

Some of us boys not only wondered what their crotch looked like, but we also wondered if their bodies ever stink or are capable of producing as much perspiration as boys. I have no memories of my mother sweating or stinking, and I was not the only boy to wonder if girls have cleaner bodies than boys. One teenage boy had a girlfriend, and eventually their relationship got to the point where she let him touch her. He put his finger into her butt and then smelled his finger, and he was shocked to discover that her butt had the identical stinky smell as his.

There is some area within our brain that is designed for thinking, and there are other areas that we could call emotions that try to bias that intellectual unit. Our emotions want us to come to certain conclusions, and our emotions are not concerned with reality or evidence. Since boys have strong attractions to girls, our emotions will bias our thoughts into assuming that girls are beautiful, nice smelling, and have wonderful personalities. We need lots of memories of them stinking, crying, having temper tantrums, and acting like monkeys in order to counteract our emotions.

When we raise boys in ignorance of what girls are, we deny the boys a realistic view of girls, and that allows our emotions to bias our view of what a girl is. It is similar to what happens when a child sees the benefit of having a pet but has no concept of the responsibilities involved. We end up believing what we want to believe because we have no idea what reality is.

We do not hurt children by making them aware of the responsibilities of owning a pet, and we do not hurt boys by letting them know the truth about girls. Boys and girls evolved for a prehistoric life in which there is no secrecy or privacy. Boys and girls were designed to be around nudity, sex, childbirth, death, hunger, storms, wolves, spiders, and the nursing of babies. Reality will not hurt us. In fact, it's possible that the reason so many adults today are having trouble coping with nudity, sex, and relationships is because they were so well secluded from reality during their childhood.

The reason we become emotionally upset when we see a crotch, or people who are pooping, or people picking their nose, or people having sex, is to cause us to turn away and provide them with privacy. Animals do not have these inhibitions, and as a result, they appear to be "rude" to one another. Humans have these inhibitions to create a more pleasant social environment, not because these activities are evil, dangerous, perverted, or embarrassing.

If we follow our inhibitions, we will assume that sex, death, nudity, waste products, and other issues will cause psychological damage to children, but in reality, our inhibitions are nothing more than mechanisms to cause a stupid monkey to keep its home and body clean, and to develop "manners". Hiding information about human bodies is causing children to become ignorant, confused, and abnormally curious about issues of no importance. It is idiotic, for example, to raise boys in such ignorance that they become teenagers who wonder if a girl's poop is as stinky as a boy's poop. We could describe parents who raise ignorant children as idiots, or as unfit parents, or as abusive parents, or as talking monkeys who cannot cope with a technically advanced world.

Girls will obviously develop a somewhat realistic view of their crotch, but when a society doesn't provide boys with accurate information about a woman's crotch, the boys have to make assumptions about it. Since humans do not like to think, boys are not likely to put any serious effort into researching the issue of women's bodies and coming to intelligent conclusions. Not many boys will figure out that a woman's crotch is just a trivial variation of a chimpanzee's crotch, except that it is messier because of the menstrual cycle that humans suffer from.

Instead, we are likely to let our emotions fill in the missing details in whatever manner is most pleasing to us. The end result is that boys are likely to assume that a woman's crotch is some type of beautiful sex toy. Likewise, when women hide the nursing of babies, boys are not exposed to the fact that breasts are glands for feeding babies. We will assume that breasts are also some type of wonderful sex toy.

If you are a man with a sister, have you ever wondered why you have little or no sexual attraction to her? Although we may have a natural tendency to look to strangers for a spouse in order to increase genetic variety, I think one reason that we find our sister unappealing is because we grew up in such close contact with her that we realize that she is just a female human. This is especially true if your sister is younger than you, in which case you will have lots of unpleasant memories of her in diapers, vomiting, crying, and stinking. You may also have memories of her having temper tantrums and arguing with you over idiotic issues.

By comparison, when you meet a stranger, you have no unpleasant memories of her. Your emotional cravings for women will be free to fill in the missing details, so you are likely to assume that she is a sex princess. Furthermore, your sister is likely to act "natural" or "honest" around you, thereby allowing you to see what she really is, whereas strangers are likely to put on a phony image in order to impress you.

I think that if schools were providing young boys with accurate information about sex and a woman's body, the boys would realize that a woman's crotch is the same as a monkey's crotch, except that it has a slightly different shape and odor. The boys will discover this information eventually, anyway, so by providing it to them at a young age, they will not waste any of their teenage years wondering about a woman's body. Likewise, I suspect that we could reduce the obnoxious fascination with breasts if women would stop hiding their breasts, and if they were to breast-feed babies in public.

Of course, we would need to run experiments to figure out the best policies. This requires finding enough people who have the emotional ability to experiment with policies for nursing babies, sex education programs, policies regarding nudity at beaches, and related issues.

In this modern world, our inhibitions are interfering with the education of children and causing unnecessary awkwardness, confusion, and frustration. Modern humans no longer need these inhibitions. We can now use our intelligence and our knowledge to make wise decisions about sex, death, waste products, childbirth, nudity, and other "sensitive" issues. Eventually the future generations should consider breeding these inhibitions out of themselves. That will enable the future generations to have discussions about issues, and teach their children about issues, that would make us squirm from embarrassment.

How much self-control do you have?
We need to study and understand our bodies and emotions
The knowledge that the human race has acquired about the human body came from a small number of adventurous people who were capable of controlling their emotions well enough to dissect dead bodies, and look closely at themselves and other people. Unfortunately, our inhibitions are continuing to interfere with the research of certain aspects of our body, and with our emotions.

Scientists can study rocks, plants, and animals without any problem, but our inhibitions are making it difficult for us to properly study humans. Our inhibitions are excessive for this modern world. Most people are paranoid that somebody will see what their body looks like, or discover what their medical problems are, or learn about their performance in school. We want to hide in the bushes, like a frightened rabbit, and we want to deceive other people about what we really are. We want to create a false image of ourselves to impress other people.

Imagine if we had absolutely no secrecy. We would be able to discover such embarrassing details as which men and women have smelled or tasted their vaginal secretions or semen. Was that girl who put her tampon in her mouth unique? Or is she just one of millions of women? That type of information might seem to be worthless, and by itself it would be, but put it together with other information about us and we could start understanding the human mind and body. It would also help us to determine the differences between the races, and how the environment is affecting us. For example, we might find that there are an abnormally large percentage of adventurous and curious people in America. We might also discover that as the Internet penetrates a nation, behavior changes slightly as a result of people having contact with different nations and new information.

A database that had virtually all details about our lives would help us to discover everybody's talents, characteristics, limitations, and desires, and it would help us to figure out how our lives are being influenced by the environment. For example, the woman who sucked on her tampon may not have done that because she was curious about it. She may have instead been lonely and looking for friends, or perhaps her friends had pressured her into it, or perhaps she did it to shock somebody, or perhaps she thought it would be a method to become famous or wealthy.

Some of the idiotic things that people are doing and posting on YouTube are the result of watching somebody else do it, such as the "cinnamon challenge". If we could observe everybody in complete detail, we would get a better idea of what in the environment is influencing different people of different ages, and which of those influences are "bad" and which are "good". This would be valuable information for society, especially for parents and schools, but we are not going to discover such information when people are so ashamed of their true qualities that they insist on secrecy and deceive us with false images of themselves.

We must understand and control our emotions so that we can stop being ashamed of ourselves. We must face the fact that we are animals, not a creation of a god. We should accept our animal characteristics and try to understand them. We should stop creating phony images of ourselves and stop deceiving other people about our true qualities. Don't waste your few years of life with deception, fear, shame, and embarrassment. Learn about yourself and others and try to find some true friends that you can be honest with.

You are going to be dead soon, and the people in the future are not going to care whether you had a medical problem, did badly in some school course, picked your nose, masturbated, or any of the other things that you are currently terrified that somebody is going to discover about you. If you are remembered thousands of years from now, it will be because of your achievements, not because of your limitations or flaws. The "embarrassing" personal details of your life are of no importance to anybody, except you. Most people, if presented with your personal details, would push them away. Your personal details are valuable only when placed in a database with the personal details of millions of other people. That type of database allows us to analyze the human mind and body. I want access to your personal information to help us understand the human race, not because I want to know about you.

Every society is behaving like a tribe of ignorant, stupid savages that allow their emotions to dominate their behavior. No society is yet able to openly discuss or teach their children about the human body or our emotions. We are making life worse for ourselves when we ignore these issues, and we are especially foolish to let businesses exploit people who are lonely, miserable, or sexually frustrated.

We need to discuss such issues as, What type of stimulation should society promote? What type should we tolerate but discourage? What type should we forbid? How and at what age should we teach children about sex, waste products, masturbation, and reproduction? What should society do for teenagers and single adults who become lonely or sexually frustrated?

There are no correct answers to these questions. Our future is whatever we want it to be. We simply have to discuss these issues, make some decisions, and start experimenting.

Why do we get married?

Earlier in this article I asked, "Why do we eat?" Now consider the question, "Why do we get married?" The answer to this question determines what our courtship activities will be.

If we go far enough back in time, before people understood that babies were the result of sex, the relationship between men and women was as crude as it is with animals. The men and women occasionally experienced a brief sexual attraction to one another, and then, when the babies appeared, they felt a strong desire to take care of the children. If we were to design courtship activities for those people, we would create some very simple affairs in which the men and women have an opportunity to meet, titillate one another, and have sex, similar to how the managers of a zoo arrange for the male and female animals to reproduce.

Eventually people figured out that babies were the result of sex, and that caused the men to be more concerned about who they have sex with, and the women likewise became concerned about whether a man was willing and capable to support her and her children. Although people are now aware of where babies come from, our courtship procedures today are just as idiotic as they were a few million years ago.

It can be pleasant to watch a mother interacting with her baby, and occasionally we encounter a husband and wife who treat each other in a manner that makes us feel good and inspires us to get married, but who enjoys watching single men and women during courtship? I think it is embarrassing to watch them. I think their conversations are idiotic, and the people are awkward and uncomfortable. They learn almost nothing about one another during their crude conversations, and as a result, they have to suffer through their senseless conversations and awkward behavior time after time, sometimes for years.

If we switch to a society in which the basic necessities are free, then the women will not need a husband to support them or their children. If we also restrict reproduction and adoption to the people who are "better than average", then the people who have been prohibited from having children will not get married simply for children. This type of society has two different groups of adults:
1) Childless adults. These are the adults who do not want children or who are not allowed to raise children. The primary reason this group of adults would get married is if they meet a person they truly enjoy spending a portion of their life with, especially their evenings and nights. The courtship activities for these people require helping them figure out who they would enjoy spending their nights with, and who has some compatibility in regards to leisure activities.
2) Adults who want children. In addition to finding a person they want to spend their life with, these people must also find somebody who is compatible in regards to raising children.

When we design courtship activities, we have to ask ourselves, what are we trying to accomplish? For the childless adults, the goal of the courtship activities is to: 
1) Help them determine what another person would be like to live with. Married couples should enjoy spending the evening and night together, and waking up together. Our prehistoric ancestors new what people were like to live with simply by growing up around one another in close contact, but we have to design courtship activities to make up for our lack of intimacy.
2) Help them find somebody they have some compatibility with in regards to leisure activities. This would be the primary focus of the courtship activities. We can never achieve 100% compatibility, but  husbands and wives need a certain level of compatibility in regards to meals, art, music, recreation, hobbies, and other leisure activities. These are issues our primitive ancestors never had to deal with, and as a result, human emotions did not evolve to look for compatibility in modern activities. Our emotions want a potential spouse to titillate us, not show us that they are compatible with us in regards to music, food, hobbies, or recreation.

The courtship activities for the people who want children would be the same, except that they also need to look for compatibility in regards to raising children.

Our "natural" courtship procedures were acceptable for our prehistoric ancestors for several reasons, such as:

• They did not have to get to know one another. They grew up together with more intimacy than people who take camping trips today. They knew what everybody's body looked like, how everybody behaved during the evenings, how everybody slept at night, and what everybody was like when they woke up in the morning.

• They didn't have many leisure activities or issues to deal with, so they didn't need to worry about whether their spouse was compatible with them in regards to music, recreation, sports, art, religion, abortion, home decorations, gambling, jewelry, cosmetics, politics, television shows, hobbies, pets, drugs, or alcohol.

• Their societies were homogenous. They didn't have large numbers of mentally ill people, different races, organized crime networks, or much genetic diversity.

When people intimately know one another, it is practical for them to find a spouse by titillating one another, but in modern society, we live among strangers, and this requires that we follow more sensible courtship procedures.
Our prehistoric ancestors didn't need to analyze one another for compatibility. All they had to do was find somebody that they enjoyed being with. As a result, it was sensible for a prehistoric woman to put herself on display and passively wait for a man to titillate her, and it was sensible for a prehistoric man to pick a woman solely according to her personality and visual appearance.

In our era, men and women must control their crude emotions when looking for a spouse. Courtship is no longer a simple, silly procedure in which we look for emotional pleasure. Courtship is becoming more like hiring a person for a job. We need to get to know one another, and we need to analyze a potential spouse for compatibility in regards to their philosophy towards life and their leisure activities. In addition, we have to be concerned about intellectual and emotional compatibility, and we must be concerned about whether a person has mental disorders.

We must have the self-control necessary to be honest with a potential spouse about how we live and how we spend our leisure time so that they can determine whether they want to live with us. Since it is not natural for us to be honest with a potential spouse, or to analyze the compatibility of a potential spouse, we need to design courtship activities to assist us.

To understand what a courtship activity should be, consider what they should not be. An example of a worthless courtship activity is an event in which men and women are told to meet at a particular location at a particular time to talk, eat dinner, dance, or play sports. The reason these activities are worthless is because when the people get to their meeting place, they will follow their emotional cravings. The women will passively wait for a man to excite them, and the men will struggle to impress the women, and the end result will be awkward, idiotic conversations that don't do anything to help them understand one another.

A modern courtship activity must put pressure on the people to be honest about themselves in regards to what they are like to live with, and we must put pressure on people to seriously analyze one another for compatibility rather than looking for excitement. It will take trial and error to figure out the best methods. The activities need a supervisor, and the people involved have to be in the role of students. The courtship activities have to be designed to bring out what people like and dislike in regards to food, recreation, art, leisure activities, and other issues, so that people can figure out who they are compatible with.

Our natural tendency is to impress and deceive one another, not be honest with one another. We are so selfish and arrogant that we will deceive and manipulate even though we know the lie will eventually be exposed. For example, women often lie about their age or their cosmetic surgery, and men often lie about their height, baldness, or income, even though they realize that their lies will eventually be exposed. Our natural tendency is to be deceptive and manipulative. Some men and women try to use pregnancy as a way of forcing a marriage. We look at a potential spouse as being analogous to a fish that we are trying to catch. Our attitude is that once we get married, that dumb fish is not likely to get a divorce simply because we lied a bit about ourselves.

When we look for a spouse, we are operating on fear rather than on pleasure. The women are fearful that they will never find a spouse and never have children, and the men are fearful that they will never find a spouse or have sex. As a result of our fear, we lie, deceive, and manipulate one another rather than seriously look for somebody we are compatible with. This crude, animal behavior was acceptable during prehistoric times, but in this modern world, we are wasting our lives and other people's lives as a result.

Our relationships are so deceptive and unstable that the humans are still passing venereal diseases around even though it would be very easy for modern humans to put an end to all venereal diseases. Some people supposedly passed a venereal disease to other people because they were angry that they got the disease, and their reaction was to deliberately hurt even more people. Women are also frequently getting pregnant with children that nobody wants, even though modern humans have an adequate understanding of pregnancy and can easily prevent the unwanted children.

How can we consider humans to be an intelligent form of life when we behave in such an irrational, deceptive, selfish, and abusive manner? We are just monkeys that recently figured out how to create buildings, clothing, and computers.

In order for us to create a better society, we have to understand and control our crude emotions and behave in a more sensible manner, but how many people are capable of that? How many men and women have enough self-control to force themselves to be honest with a potential spouse? How many people can control their cravings for material items and status so well that they can become honest government officials who work for society rather than themselves? How many people can control their cravings for secrecy to allow all of their personal information to go into a public database? How many people can keep their cravings for food under control, or their cravings for alcohol, drugs, or fame?

Animals must be selfish because they are competing with one another for life, but a modern society is a team, and it is most beneficial for us to be honest and cooperative. Being honest about ourselves will also help us to understand the human race. This is true for issues that you would never assume have any value. For example, women are so inhibited that they cannot talk about menstruation. Your initial reaction might be to assume that women have no need to talk about menstruation, but menstruation is a human health issue, not a women's issue. It affects the entire human race. For example, society must produce products for the women, such as tampons, and that requires people to produce the raw materials, work in the factories to produce the items, and deal with the disposal of the items, especially if the items clog sewer pipes. That burden is small, but it cannot be ignored because it affects everybody, and it affects our environment. Furthermore, some women supposedly suffer from occasional mood changes or pain, and that can interfere with their relationships or jobs, which in turn has a detrimental effect on society. Menstruation is an important health issue that affects everybody, including men and children.

If men and women could control their inhibitions and bring menstruation out in the public, we would all benefit in a variety of ways. For example, menstruation causes awkwardness at jobs when menstruating women want to go to the bathroom more often, but their male supervisors and colleagues are oblivious to the issue and assume that the women are trying to avoid work. Older and married men may be more aware of this issue, but I can remember during my late teenage years and early 20s thinking that some of the women who were frequently running to the bathroom were trying to avoid work or to take drugs. Not many women, if any, have the ability to tell a man that they are going to the bathroom more often because they are menstruating, and schools do not teach this issue, so the only way teenage boys can learn about it is if somebody tells them. Who is going to tell the boys when everybody is a paranoid, inhibited monkey?

Another advantage to understanding every woman's menstrual cycle is to figure out which of them has such a serious problem that they shouldn't reproduce. From the point of view of the human race, each generation of women should have less of a problem with menstruation. One of the many reasons that I suggest the concept of "Teentown" is to allow the adults to observe the girls and determine which of them has the worst problems with menstruation.

As of today, menstruation problems are low on our priority of genetic issues to worry about, but the future generations will eventually start dealing with this problem, and eventually women will not have any menstruation problems at all. The women who are born in the distant future will look back at our era as crude and miserable.

These concepts also apply to mucus. Everybody wants to keep their mucus problems a secret, but mucus is a human health issue, not a personal issue that affects only you. If we could observe everybody's coughing, sneezing, sniffling, and nose picking, and if we also could observe everybody's eating habits, exercise habits, etc., we would eventually figure out some of the environmental and genetic factors that influence these problems. By restricting reproduction to the people who have fewer mucus related problems, the human race will eventually have little or no problem with nose picking, throat clearing, and sniffling. If you had been born into that future world, you would be grateful that your ancestors eliminated these problems.

Incidentally, why did we develop such strong inhibitions about mucus? We seem to have stronger inhibitions about mucus than we do with other body fluids, such as blood, saliva, tears, earwax, and semen. Perhaps it is because mucus is normally invisible to us, and it becomes available in large quantities only when a person is sick, which makes it dangerous to play with.

In Peter Freuchen's Book of the Eskimos he describes a time when he was staying in a tent with some Eskimos, and the mother decided to make pancakes. She didn't have oil or butter to fry the pancakes, so she gave her children pieces of caribou fat to chew on and then spit out. On that particular day, the entire family, and especially the children, had very bad colds, and so the pancakes were fried in lumpy mixture of caribou fat, saliva, and mucus.

Now that people are aware of diseases, most people are horrified at the thought of eating somebody's saliva or mucus, but there was probably a point in human history when mothers would suck mucus out of their babies' noses and eat it, and there was probably a point at which people wondered if there was a use for their mucus, such as for jewelry, cosmetics, hair styling, or tools. Perhaps our inhibitions for mucus developed because people occasionally got sick from playing with mucus, or perhaps our inhibitions developed simply to create "manners".

These concepts also apply to our waste products. For an extreme example, imagine if people could control their inhibitions about farting to such an extent that they could allow scientists to attach a device to their belt that collects data about their farting and transmits it to a database. Collecting that type of data for a few months could provide some useful information, such as that broccoli causes more farting with men, or that old people have lots of farts that are mostly air as a result of their weaker stomach muscles that do not burp as often.

Engineers realize that they gain a lot of useful information by analyzing the exhaust of an engine, but the human race is still so inhibited that we have extreme difficulty discussing our digestive system and waste products without our heart pounding and our emotions becoming overly active.

Most of the human race has such inhibitions about waste products that we are not allowed to have public discussions about this subject, and most people are so inhibited that they cannot clean their butt. Our anus is essentially a mouth without teeth, and which remains closed most of the time. Our anus is no more disgusting than our lips. A lot of women will clean their hands, clothing, and other items excessively, and most people are willing to clean their teeth and mouth, but they won't clean their butt. They will only wipe it with a piece of paper. It is our crude emotions that cause us to be disgusted with our anus and giggle about it. There is nothing disgusting or amusing about an anus. It is just another part of our body, but our emotions cannot treat it as just another part. We must be capable of controlling our emotions in order to study and discuss it.

How many people are capable of controlling their emotions well enough to allow society to study and teach children about the human body? How many people are capable of experimenting with courtship activities, holiday celebrations, schools, sports, and economic systems? How many adults would be willing to that their teenagers move into Teentown?

Schools are not yet teaching children about human health or our bodily functions because the people who dominate society have such inhibitions about the human body that they cannot tolerate such a policy. If we create a new city and let it become dominated by people who are just as inhibited, then the schools in that new city will be just as unable to teach children about health as they are today.

It is possible that the human race has such strong inhibitions about bodily functions that we will not be able to teach children about these issues until humans have evolved for another few hundred thousand years. How about you? If schools were teaching children about masturbation, reproduction, childbirth, digestion, and other issues, would you be able to control your emotions and allow it to continue?

If you looked on the Internet and discovered that schools had posted serious and very detailed information, photos, and videos about sex, menstruation, masturbation, and other bodily functions, would you be able to control yourself and allow the children to look at it? Or would you become so emotionally distraught that you complain that the children should not have access to such "sensitive" information?

Would you be capable of experimenting with courtship activities? Imagine being single and living in a city that was experimenting with courtship activities. In order to meet a potential spouse, you would begin by selecting one of the courtship activities for your particular age group, but how many people can be honest about their age? Some people lie about their age to their potential spouse right now. Will those people be able to control themselves and fit into this new city? Or are they too much like an animal to reach the level of honesty needed for these more advanced courtship activities?

It would be useless to provide courtship activities for dogs or snakes because they don't have the mental abilities to participate in such activities. Likewise, courtship activities for humans would be useful only to the humans who have the intellectual and emotional ability to control their senseless cravings to act like an animal. How many people in the world today are capable of participating in a more advanced courtship activity?

The women who participate in the courtship activities would have to force themselves to stop behaving like passive, dumb monkeys that wait for males to titillate them, and the men have to do force themselves to stop behaving like dumb animals that try to impress the females with gifts and displays of dominance. In order for men and women to form more pleasant, more stable relationships, we have to interact with one another and get to know one another.

Another way to explain this concept is that a more advanced courtship activity is not "natural". The participants cannot do what they please. They organizers of the event must be able to put pressure on the participants to control their emotions, stop acting like stupid animals, and experiment with some unnatural procedures that force us to be more honest with one another and to interact with one another.

By experimenting with different types of courtship activities, we will eventually figure out how to design them so that they are truly useful in helping us find a compatible spouse. However, no matter what we discover, the procedures are going to feel "unnatural" to us. The only courtship procedures that will be "natural" and "comfortable" are the ones we have right now. As a result, the only people who will benefit from the more sensible, more advanced courtship activities are those who can control their emotions and follow "unnatural" procedures.

If you are having trouble understanding this concept, consider how it applies to a fat person who is trying to lose weight. In order for him to follow a different diet and exercise plan, he must stop doing what he wants to do, control his emotions, and be willing to experiment with a diet and exercise plan that feels unnatural, uncomfortable, and unpleasant. If he doesn't have the ability to control his emotions and force himself to do something that he doesn't want to do, then he will continue to do as he pleases, and nothing will change.

What is the best diet and exercise plan for a fat person to lose weight? Nobody has the answer to that question. People who are fat simply have to experiment with different diets and exercise plans. Likewise, we cannot say what the best courtship procedure is. We must be willing to experiment with different procedures. This requires people who can control their emotions so that they experiment with different, unnatural activities. Men have to be able to force themselves to stop putting on a phony act to impress women, and women have to force themselves to stop being passive creatures who wait for the males to titillate them with gifts and entertainment.

A more sensible courtship activity will seem unnatural, unpleasant, and uncomfortable, so we must have the ability to control our emotions and force ourselves to participate in the activity. These activities will not be "fun". They will be more like school, or training programs. We will have a resistance to them.

It might be easier to understand this issue if you consider our reaction to food, gambling, and other issues. Most people have the intellectual ability to realize that they must control their diet in order to keep themselves in good health, but millions of people have trouble following a sensible diet because they have trouble controlling their emotional cravings for food. There are also lots of people who have trouble controlling their craving for gambling, drugs, fondling women on crowded trains, and raping women.

Since millions of people have trouble controlling their cravings for food, gambling, drugs, alcohol, and sex, we ought to wonder how many people are going to be able to control their courtship emotions and participate in more sensible courtship activities. Following a sensible diet requires controlling your emotional cravings for food and using your intellect to make decisions. Is that difficult? I don't think so, but some people do. Following a sensible courtship activity requires controlling our emotional cravings to manipulate, deceive, and impress a potential spouse and using our intellect to force ourselves to be more honest and get to truly know one another. Is that difficult? I don't know since we have never tried to do it, but I suspect that a lot of people do not have the self-control necessary to do it properly.

Your initial reaction might be to assume that everybody is capable of being honest with a potential spouse, but if a person cannot control his consumption of food, drugs, or gambling, why should we assume that he can control his craving to deceive and impress? If a man cannot control his craving to grab at women on a crowded train, will he be able to control his craving to deceive and manipulate women in a courtship activity?

In order for us to truly find a spouse that we are compatible with, we are going to have to force ourselves to control our crude cravings and be more honest with one another. This will not be easy, and it will not feel comfortable for us, and I doubt if all men and women will be able to do it. If being honest with a potential spouse requires more self-control than following a proper diet then, since most people are overweight and sickly because they cannot control their diet, the majority of people will be unable to follow sensible courtship procedures.

Men and women are routinely deceiving one another right now when they look for a potential spouse, and this problem is going to get worse as technology improves. For example, during prehistoric times, nobody had to wonder whether a person was male or female. They also didn't have to wonder what anybody's age was because they grew up around one another. They also didn't have hair dyes, cosmetic surgery, wigs, or Botox injections.

Today, because of the paranoia of nudity, and because technology has provided us with cosmetics, hormones, and surgery, people are regularly deceiving us about their age and genetic defects. We cannot even be certain if a person is male or female, or a combination of the two. The feminists add to this problem by demanding that we stop identifying single women with the title of "Miss" and refer to all women as "Ms." The hysteria regarding homosexuality causes even more trouble by causing people with homosexual tendencies to hide their qualities. The more we deceive one another, the worse we make life for everybody. We are not benefiting from this deception.

As technology improves, the problem with deception during courtship becomes worse. The cosmetics and surgery of the future will make it even more difficult for people to figure out what another person's age is, whether they are male or female, and what race they are. Michael Jackson's apparent transformation into a Caucasian is going to seem crude compared to what people in the future are going to be able to do.

Humans are monkeys, not a wonderful creation of a loving God. Selfishness and arrogance is natural to us, not honesty. Our natural tendency during courtship is to manipulate, deceive, and lie to one another. Businesses are exploiting our crude emotions by providing people with products and surgery to help us in our deception of one another. We are wasting our technical talent, raw materials, and factories on products and surgeries to deceive one another, and we are interfering with our relationships.

We have to stop doing what we want to do and start thinking about what effect we are having on ourselves and the future of the human race. We do not benefit by hiding our bodies, lying about our age, hiding homosexual tendencies, hiding a craving for unusual sexual activities, or deceiving other people about our previous marriages. The deception is making it more difficult for us to find a spouse. We think that deceiving a potential spouse will help us, but many of our lies will likely be exposed during our marriage, resulting in a failed relationship or divorce, thereby wasting precious years of our life.

We can experiment with more advanced courtship activities, but we cannot make a talking monkey behave like a human. In order for a society to benefit from more sensible courtship activities, recreational activities, government systems, school systems, and other social technology, the people are going to need some ability to control their emotions and make intelligent decisions. Everybody can exert some control over themselves, but does the human mind have the ability - as of 2013 - to control itself enough during courtship so that we truly get to know other people and form stable marriages? Or are we still so much like animals that we need another few million years of evolution before men and women can be honest with one another?

Our ancestors grew up in close contact with one another, so they knew one another intimately. Now that we live in independent, isolated homes, we do not know one another very well. This requires that we create activities to force men and women to interact with one another and get to know one another. However, we defeat the process if we create phony images of ourselves and try to impress one another.

All creatures live for only one purpose, and that is to reproduce. To an animal, reproduction is an extremely competitive event. It is natural for animals to fight for a spouse. From the point of view of a male animal, getting a female is winning a contest. The males have no desire to be honest with the females or the other males. Male and female animals have no concern about one another. They are simply trying to satisfy themselves.

Men should stop competing with other men for a spouse, and women should stop being passive sex toys that wait for a prince to titillate them. We should not let the fear of being alone influence us. We should remain relaxed and pleasant. We must force ourselves to be more honest with one another about what we like and dislike, how we sleep, how we live, what we enjoy doing during our leisure time, and how we eat. We need to design courtship activities that force men and women to interact with one another, and so that we get to know what other people are truly like to live with.

In one of my earlier files, I mentioned the concept of "Singles Pageants" with such events as having each woman and man take turns standing in front of the group and doing something, such as talking about themselves, answering questions, singing, or dancing. A lot of people might respond that they don't want to do that; that those type of activities are not fun or comfortable. This is a very important concept to understand. We cannot design courtship activities to be "fun". They must be designed to be "useful".

If children were allowed to design restaurants as they please, they would almost certainly give themselves something ridiculous and unhealthy, such as lots of candy, and obnoxious activities, such as food fights. We cannot let children design restaurants or meals. We must design restaurants from the point of view of what would be the best for a child's mental and physical health.

Likewise, when we design courtship activities, if we let single adults design them as they please, we will create worthless but entertaining events in which we behave like savages who mindlessly follow their emotional cravings to impress and deceive. We have to design social activities with the same serious attitude that we design refrigerators, airplanes, and computers. We have to understand the human mind and design activities that will be useful to us, even if we don't like them.

If we designed our schools according to what the students would consider to be the most fun, our schools would be worthless. We have to design schools from the point of view of how to best educate people in the least amount of time, and in a manner that creates the least amount of frustration and stress. We want students to enjoy school, but entertainment should not be our primary goal.

Likewise, we are not necessarily going to consider our courtship activities to be "fun". We are more likely to consider them to be more like a school classroom. We will have to push ourselves to go to them. However, if these courtship procedures help us find somebody that is truly compatible with us, the suffering will be worth it.

How do we design a more sensible courtship activity? We must figure out how to give us what our prehistoric ancestors had; namely, an intimate understanding of one another. We need to figure out how to force men and women to meet and interact so that each gets to know the other as if they had grown up together in a prehistoric tribe. This requires that every courtship activity have somebody in a supervisory position to control the people rather than let them do as they please. When people are allowed to do as they please, regardless of whether it is a city festival, birthday party, or courtship activity, they have a tendency to remain with their friends, and if they have any contact with other people, it will be superficial. They learn nothing about themselves or other people.

In order for a courtship activity to be useful, the people have to be treated like students. The activities have to force people to interact with one another without creating phony images of themselves. I don't think one type of activity can do this. I think we need a variety of activities, such as dinner, lunch, sports, bicycling, music, dance, and arts and crafts. The teenagers should be forced to try every courtship activity because they would not have a good idea of what they like and dislike, but the older adults would have some idea of what they enjoy, and so they would go to the activities that they prefer.

We cannot "figure out" the best courtship procedures. We must start experimenting with them. My suggestion to start the experiments is to design a courtship activity with two components, and with at least one person in a supervisory position to control the participants. The two components would be:
1) An "unmasking" event.

This aspect of the courtship activity is to compensate for our crude emotions. For example:
• Women want to be passive and to wait for excitement, so they must be pressured to take a more active role in talking about themselves, and to analyze a potential spouse for compatibility rather than wait for a prince to titillate them.
• Men want to impress women, and so they must be pressured into stopping the boasting and being honest about what they would be like to live with, including their limitations and weaknesses.
• Both men and women tend to create a phony image of themselves, and so they must be forced to remove their phony image so that we can see what they really are.

My suggestion to accomplish these goals is to put people into an informal type of interview situation, similar to a job interview, except that instead of asking about a person's experience with chemistry, carpentry, or farming, we ask questions that would pertain to finding a spouse, such as their hobbies, sleeping habits, recreational activities, interests in music, attitudes towards different issues, and preferences with meals.

A supervisor would be in control of the event to ensure the questions are sensible, and to put pressure on each person to answer honestly. Women have a tendency to hide information, so the supervisor would force them to talk about themselves, and men have a tendency to boast, make jokes, and be entertaining, so the supervisor would put pressure on them to be more realistic and serious.

The questions would be personal, and everybody would be a bit embarrassed to answer the questions, but the unmasking event is not meant to be fun. The questions would not be designed to entertain the audience, either. The questions would be intended to provide the audience with an understanding of the person in regards to what he would be like to live with as a spouse; what he would be like to spend evenings, nights, and weekends with.

We cannot figure out the best questions. Only trial and error will determine how to phrase the questions so that they the most useful and the least embarrassing. By experimenting with questions, we would eventually devise some effective questions. The questions would force people to put themselves on display so that we can see their personality and get an idea of who we may be compatible with.

2) A leisure activity.

The leisure activity forces us to interact with one another to help us get some idea of who has a compatible personality and interests. The activity could be dinner, a bicycle ride, playing musical instruments, dancing, cooking, snorkeling, rowing, hiking, scientific experiments, CNC operations, robotics, tours of factories, or arts and crafts.

Husbands and wives do not work together; rather, they spend their nights and leisure time together. Therefore, when looking for a spouse, we do not have to look for a spouse that we can work with. We are not looking for a "team member". We are looking for somebody who we want to spend our nights and leisure time with. It is unrealistic to expect for a husband and wife to have 100% compatibility in their leisure activities, but if they have zero compatibility in leisure activities, they will not want to spend any of their leisure time together.

Men and women do not have a lot in common, so we are not going to want to spend all of our leisure time together, but I think marriages will be more pleasant if we find a spouse that has a certain level of compatibility in leisure activities. This issue will become even more important if we design cities for human life rather than for business activity. In such a case, the city would encourage and support so many different types of social clubs and activities that all of us would want to frequently get out of our home during the evening and weekends and do something.

In the world today, most people are spending most of their leisure time at home, but when we design a city that is full of activities, we will need to be more concerned about what our potential spouse does during their leisure time. A marriage will be more stable and pleasant if a husband and wife want to spend some of their leisure time together. Therefore, we need to design a variety of courtship activities, each with a different leisure activity, to help people figure out what they enjoy doing, and what their potential spouse enjoys. The variety would be especially useful for teenagers and young adults who don't yet know what they like and dislike. By experimenting with different activities, they can learn about themselves in addition to finding out who has compatible desires.

An example of a courtship activity
The courtship activities that I'm describing would not be practical in a free enterprise system because they cannot be designed according to profit. They have to be designed according to what is best for helping people to get to know one another and form a stable marriage. The government must support the courtship activities by providing buildings, supplies, and equipment. Everybody would be permitted to get involved with the creation of these courtship events, even if all they want to do is try it one time. Nobody needs to make any commitments or do it on a full-time basis. The attitude of the government is that everybody should have an opportunity to try their skills at this activity, and as long as a person's activities were showing some signs of being somewhat useful, they would be able to continue doing them.

The government would support courtship activities and other social activities because it is important for a modern society to help its members form friendships and marriages, and to enjoy life. Animals do not care whether other animals are forming a relationship, or even whether other animals are enjoying life. Every animal selfishly thinks of itself, and the male animals fight for females rather than help one another find a female. In modern society, this selfish behavior is destructive. Competition is useful in modern society when it inspires other people or helps people determine their abilities, but competition is destructive when it becomes a selfish fight over friends, spouses, or resources.

The government would encourage people to participate in the design and operation of courtship activities. Let's assume that somebody decides to create a courtship activity that is based on a dinner. He would become the "supervisor" of his event. He would decide what type of dinner he will offer, such as a formal dinner with certain types of clothing requirements, an informal dinner, a dinner and dance, or a dinner with karaoke. He would also decide what sort of unmasking event to mix with his dinner.

The first people to create these courtship events will truly be explorers who are on their own to figure out what to do, but after dozens of these events have occurred, people will be able to get ideas on what to do by looking at what has already been successful. The first few events will likely be amusing, embarrassing, and awkward. There may be quite a few failures, also, but don't let that frighten you!

For an example of what might happen at the dinner, the supervisor might have a few people take turns walking up on stage before the dinner starts and answering questions about themselves. Then they could have the dinner, and then a few more people could take turns answering questions about themselves.

The supervisor would play the role of a teacher or a trainer. He might set the seating arrangements for a dinner, or force the men to sit on one side of the tables and the women on the other. During the dinner the supervisor would visit the tables to keep the conversations on something useful, such as everybody's personal preferences about the food, or their sleeping habits, or what they like about music or art. The role of the supervisor is to keep the conversations on topics that help people to get to know one another from the point of view of finding a spouse, so he would try to stop the people from trying to impress one another, and he would try to stop the awkward or stupid conversations. If people became silent, he would try to get conversations going.

The people who go to these events would need the attitude of a student who is willing to exert some self-control and try to be honest about himself, and to seriously analyze other people. If the people who go to these events disregard with the supervisor and behave as they please, then they defeat the purpose of the event. The participants must be willing to give it a try.

For example, if a supervisor arranges an informal type of dinner with karaoke, and if the people do as they please, certain people are likely to dominate the singing, and others will remain silent. In some extreme cases, arguments will break out. In the Philippines, some people have been killed over their karaoke. The supervisor has to be in control of the courtship activity, like a teacher or a military commander, and he has to try to ensure that everybody is getting an opportunity to expose themselves.

Perhaps the best way to describe these courtship activities is that when you go to one of these events, you should not go with the attitude that you are looking for a spouse. Instead, you should have the attitude that you are going to work with the supervisor to expose yourself so that other people can see what you are, so that you can help them make a decision on whether they want you as a spouse.

To rephrase that, you do not go to a courtship activity to find a spouse. Instead, you go to help other people figure out if they want you as a spouse. That is an "unnatural" attitude, but if you were at a courtship activity in which everybody had that attitude, then other people would be struggling to control themselves in an attempt to help you understand them, and you would be struggling to help them understand you. You would all be trying to help one another find a spouse rather than compete with one another for a spouse.

The difference in attitude may be subtle, but it is as important as the difference between going to a buffet-style dinner in which everybody is selfishly competing for food, and a buffet-style dinner in which everybody is sharing the food.

Furthermore, when other people can see that you are making an effort to be honest and help them understand you, they are more likely to be motivated to do the same. By comparison, if you are dishonest, deceptive, boastful, or secretive, you are very likely to annoy other people, or encourage them to be the same, or cause them to lose interest in the activity.

In our era, we benefit much more when we control our selfish cravings and help one another. By comparison, if everybody at a courtship activity has the more natural attitude that they are looking for a spouse, then you become just one of many arrogant, aggressive predators who are trying to please themselves. That selfish behavior was sensible during prehistoric times because primitive people and animals must compete for a spouse, but in this modern world, we will benefit much more when we control our crude emotions and work together.

Since society would support the courtship activities, the government has to make decisions on which of the supervisors is doing a good job. However, it is very difficult to say who is doing a good job with a courtship activity. We cannot ask the participants whether they enjoyed the event because they are not supposed to enjoy it. We don't want the people to suffer, but the purpose of a courtship activity is to help people learn about other people so that they can form a stable marriage, but it is not easy to figure out who is contributing the most to that type of goal. The participants of the events must get involved with the decisions of which supervisors are doing the best job of helping people to find a spouse, and the supervisors who are the least useful will have to be told to find something else to do.

If people do not know what sort of leisure activities they prefer, they should go do lots of different events so that they can figure out what type of restaurants and meals they prefer, what type of recreational activities they enjoy the most, what type of musical events they prefer, etc. After people start figuring out what they like, they can concentrate on the events that they prefer, and that will help them determine who else has similar interests.

After doing hundreds of these courtship activities, the supervisors would start figuring out which unmasking questions and techniques are the most useful for helping us to find a spouse. Eventually we might be able to create some very effective courtship activities. However, I don't think we will ever be able to figure out how to make them feel "natural". I think they will always be embarrassing and require us to push ourselves into doing them, but if we form stable relationships as a result, they will be worth the emotional discomfort.

Don't expect perfection; strive for improvements

Some people might not like the idea of a courtship activity that is awkward and uncomfortable, but don't expect perfection. Our goal should be to improve upon the situation we have today, in which men and women waste lots of time trying to impress one another, go on awkward "dates", and have hour after hour of senseless conversation. If we could measure emotional suffering, we would certainly discover that there is significantly more frustration, confusion, fighting, misery, pouting, embarrassment, and awkwardness with our current courtship procedures compared to what I am proposing. If we can make a significant improvement to our current courtship activities, then we have achieved something that we can be proud of.

It is interesting to consider that if these courtship activities become extremely effective, then everybody may find more than one person that they want to marry, thereby creating the dilemma of choosing between them. A woman, for example, might find one man that she enjoys dancing with, and another man she enjoys bicycle riding and snorkeling with, and she another man that she prefers for dinner and walks in the park. Each of those men may also find that they have discovered two or more women that they are equally satisfied with. We are not likely to find somebody that is "perfect" for us, but we have the potential problem of finding a lot of people that are equally desirable.

Today most people are so desperate to find a spouse that they often marry somebody that they have serious doubts about, but if we can develop effective courtship activities, people are going to have the opposite problem. It will feel as if we are at a buffet with an enormous amount of food that we love to eat, and we must select only one item.

It's also interesting to consider that being rejected by a potential spouse would not necessarily bother anybody because most people may find themselves in the situation of having to reject one or more people that they would like to marry. Being rejected might become so common that people make jokes about it, or use it as topics of conversation. For example, when a man and woman encounter one another at a festival, the man may joke, "Hi, remember me? I almost married you!" And the woman laughs, "Uh, I think so... were you the man who didn't want me because I don't like snorkeling? Or.. were you that man who didn't like my taste in art?"

We must inspire one another, not fight one another

It may seem strange to go to a courtship activity with the attitude of working with a supervisor to help other people understand you, but we benefit tremendously when we help and inspire one another. Consider how this concept applies to exercise. Most people do not enjoy getting exercise. There are very few people, if any, who fantasize about retiring early so that they can spend more of their life exercising. There are lots of companies offering vacations for people to relax, and there are companies offering sex trips to Thailand and Morocco, and some companies offer weight-loss programs, but are there any companies offering "exercise vacations"? Most of us have to push ourselves into getting exercise, and all of us, including the most active athletes, find exercising to be easier when we are exercising with a group of people who can inspire us.

The same concept applies to advanced courtship activities. We are not going to consider them to be much fun because it is not natural for us to be honest with a potential spouse. We are going to have to push ourselves, and we will find it easier to do this when we are with a group of people that can inspire one another. This requires that people have the attitude of helping one another rather than fighting with one another.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that we cannot transform a monkey into a human. We can provide inspiration to a person to get exercise, but he must have the ability and desire to do the activity. We cannot make somebody become something he is not. Therefore, if we start experimenting with more advanced courtship activities, we have to be prepared for the people who do not have enough control over their emotions, and who continue to manipulate, deceive, keep secrets, and try to impress. Would Donald Trump or Carl Levin be able to admit whether they are bald? The supervisor should tell people who cannot be honest to leave the activity. It is ridiculous to feel sorry for them, or to tolerate their lies and deception.

If we put a group of peacocks into an advanced courtship activity, the males will continue to shake their feathers at the females. Likewise, if we put some men and women into an advanced courtship activity, it is possible that some of them have so little control over their emotions that they continue to deceive one another. Comedians could come up with some amusing skits about this. For example, they could have a skit in which a man has so little control over his craving to impress women that he lies about his height and his baldness even though he realizes that everybody knows that he is lying.

You might assume that nobody has so little control over himself that he does something, such as lie, when he knows he is going to hurt himself as a result, but this irrational behavior is happening on a regular basis with food, gambling, sex, drugs, and many other issues. There are certainly times in your life when you have done something that you knew you should not do. We all have a problem controlling our emotional cravings. The difference between us is how often we let ourselves get out of control, and over what issues, and to what extreme. For example, some people eat only a slight amount of excess food even when they know they are going to regret it, while others eat to the point at which they are groaning and unbuttoning their pants. Humans do not yet have enough control over our emotions to always behave in a rational manner, and so we can benefit when other people inspire us.

Can you experiment with crime policies?

These concepts are even more significant in regards to crime. We cannot design crime policies according to our emotional cravings. We have to design crime policies in the same serious manner that we design telephone networks and computers. As a result, we are not likely to consider our crime policies to be fun or entertaining. We are more likely to consider our crime policies to be unpleasant, unnatural, and uncomfortable.

No society yet is having any success with the elimination of corrupt government officials, crime gangs, or even teenage gangs. Jerry Sandusky got away with pedophilia for decades even though hundreds of children and adults were aware of what he and his friends were doing. Our crime policies have a 100% failure rate, but how many people care? If the technicians maintaining our telephone network had such a low success rate, people would be furious. Millions of people regularly complain about something, such as abortion, gun control, the price of health insurance, euthanasia, or Muslims, but how many people demand that we start experimenting with different crime policies, or that we fire the lawyers, judges, and government officials and give new people the opportunity? Some people complain they want "tough" law enforcement, but they don't want to try anything different.

On 16 December 2012, a woman in India was raped by a group of men on a bus, and her male friend was beaten unconscious. He survived, but she died. Rape is supposedly a common problem in India, but it was only after that unbelievably brutal rape that a small percentage of the Indian population became angry enough to complain. However, they complained only about rape, not about government corruption, burglary, sex slaves, pedophilia, crime networks, false flag operations, or other crimes.

This apathy is not limited to India; apathy is a worldwide problem because it is a characteristic of animal behavior. This report claims that Jimmy Savile abused children at 14 different hospitals over six decades. How many doctors, nurses, policemen, government officials, and parents knew about the pedophilia but did nothing? How many people were joining him in the pedophilia, or helping to cover up the crimes?

Julianne Hough recently mentioned that she was "abused" physically and emotionally, but she has so far refused to provide details. Perhaps she is merely referring to the ordinary criticism that all children experience, but if she is covering up a crime, such as pedophilia, then she is allowing the person to abuse other children. Perhaps her abusers are in positions of authority, and she has no confidence that the police, courts, or government officials will protect her if she talks about the crime, and so she remain silent. This lack of confidence in our courts, police, and government is another problem that exists all around the world, and it is allowing crime networks to thrive. Katie Piper is an example of this.

Or perhaps Julianne Hough's abusers were her "friends", and that created such shock, disappointment, and disillusionment that she wants to ignore the issue. We ought to investigate her claims of child abuse, but one family is angry that she is making these claims!

How can we stop crime when so many people react to it by hiding from it like a frightened animal? Corey Feldman said that pedophilia is "rampant" in Hollywood, but parents continue to send their children to be abused in the entertainment business because they are so attracted to the money and fame that they don't care about the potential abuse of their children. How can we stop pedophilia when most of the victims prefer to remain silent, and most adults prefer to ignore the issue? How can we stop government corruption when nobody is interested in firing or executing corrupt government officials? Lawyers have been disliked for centuries because of their tendency to exploit problems for profit and protect criminals, but people don't do anything about it other than make jokes about lawyers.

Did you know that it's possible for a woman to get pregnant from anal sex? Yes, indeed, that is how lawyers are conceived. Telling such jokes may provide us with some emotional satisfaction, but we are not going to stop the corrupt lawyers, judges, or government officials by making jokes about them. We must start experimenting with different crime policies, such as removing incompetent and corrupt people from positions of influence, or if they are destructive, evict them from society, and in extreme cases execute them or use them for medical experiments.

We don't want to hurt criminals, but feeling sorry for them is allowing them to hurt us with burglaries, rapes, pedophilia, corruption, crime networks, graffiti, and arson. We have to make a decision about who is going to do the suffering. Feeling sorry for criminals is allowing us to suffer.

University professors are lying to students about 9/11, the world wars, the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and many other historical events, but most parents and students don't care. How extreme and obvious would the lies in our history books have to be before parents complained that the professors must be fired or executed? Comedians might like to think about that.

In some Middle Eastern countries, people react to rape and pedophilia by telling the women to cover themselves in public. The women in India don't have to cover themselves, but they are told to remain at home as much as possible. The American reaction to rape and pedophilia is to encourage people to purchase guns, teach children to be fearful of strangers, and train girls on how to defend themselves from an adult man. None of these policies have stopped rape or pedophilia, but all of these policies have decreased the quality of life for women and children.

We cannot stop crime by living in fear. Crime is the result of human behavior, and the only way to reduce crime is to improve human behavior. Some people believe that human behavior can be improved by putting people in jail, but where is the evidence that jails have reduced crime? Furthermore, we are putting only certain criminals in jail, primarily people who sell drugs. Putting drug dealers in jail is doing nothing to stop pedophilia, rape, government corruption, crime networks, false flag operations such as 9/11, or teenage gangs. Putting drug dealers in jail doesn't even stop drug use. It is merely wasting our money and our police force.

We must start experimenting with different methods of dealing with crime, but how many people in the world today have the ability and desire to experiment with different policies? As I mentioned a few years ago, some Americans who love ice cream could not bring themselves to tasting Mochi. Most people are traumatized by changes in their life, and they have very little self-control. In order for a society to experiment with different social policies, we need to find a lot of people who have the emotional ability to handle the experiments. Do you have that ability? If we cannot find enough people who have the ability to experiment, then nothing is going to improve.

Most of the men today seem to believe that a man is "tough" and "courageous" if he can defend himself from wolves and criminals. That type of courage was vital in prehistoric times, but in this modern world, men rarely need to defend themselves from an attack. It is now much more important for men to have the ability to listen to different opinions and experiment with different policies. We need men who are tough enough to look critically at themselves and their culture. We need men with the emotional strength to admit that they don't understand the universe, and that they are imperfect creatures who occasionally make mistakes. We should consider a man to be "tough" only if he can face unpleasant aspects of reality and listen to a difference of opinion without clenching his fists, grinding his teeth, losing his temper, or experiencing an increase in his heartbeat. A man who cannot calmly and seriously discuss the evidence that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax or that Jews are lying about the Holocaust is not a tough man. A man who walks away from a child who accuses a football coach, doctor, or policeman of pedophilia is not a tough man, either.

How many people are willing to experiment with such policies as firing, evicting, or executing a corrupt lawyer, FBI agent, university professor, journalist, or NASA official? How many people are willing to experiment with standards for people in influential positions in order to provide ourselves with better quality leadership? If there are not enough people to support such experiments, then criminals will continue to dominate us.

The people who promote guns for protection refuse to use their guns to remove corrupt officials, rapists, or gangs. They are not protecting anybody with their guns, not even their own children. They won't even use their guns to stop pedophiles at schools, day care centers, or churches. How many of the people who knew about Jerry Sandusky's pedophilia were gunowners? How many of his victims had guns in their house?

If we create a new city, and if the people in that new city behave exactly like they are right now, then nothing will improve. Crime will be just as rampant, and so will pedophilia, rape, and government corruption.

If a new city is dominated by people who want to spend their time titillating themselves with pornography, dogs, money, and fame, then the new city will be just like the existing cities. Creating a better life for ourselves requires finding a lot of people who have the emotional ability and desire to deal with unpleasant issues and experiment with unpleasant policies. Are you willing to spend some of your time experimenting with techniques to improve our societies?

“But I want to enjoy life, not suffer!”

My remarks that courtship procedures, crime policies, sports, restaurants, and other aspects of society should be designed to be useful rather than fun might cause some people to respond that they prefer to "enjoy" their life rather than "suffer". They may complain that I am proposing a society with so many sensible rules that I take the fun out of life. They may complain that this type of society expects them to exert so much control over their emotions that they will feel like they are torturing themselves. Some people may want more freedom. For example, some people may insist that they be allowed to eat excessive amounts of unhealthy foods because they would rather be fat and happy rather than be healthy and miserable, and some people may prefer to gamble to the point of hurting themselves because they get more enjoyment from gambling than they do from controlling their emotions.

What is happiness? To a wolf, happiness is fighting with other wolves over territory and status; catching small animals and eating them raw; and raising baby wolves. A wolf would feel as if he is being tortured if we forced him to eat a meal with us at a dinner table, take a bicycle ride with us, or sit in one of our school classrooms. Freedom, happiness, torture, and suffering depend upon your mental characteristics. An example that I find amusing is that Bradley Manning complained that he was tortured through such techniques as forcing him to be naked for many hours at a time in his prison cell. A lot of people would be thankful if nudity was the worst suffering they had to endure. Anders Breivik is even more amusing; his complaints include cold coffee and a shortage of butter for his bread.

Happiness is slightly different for different people because we have slightly different intellectual and emotional characteristics. The situation with humans is more complex than it is with animals because our happiness also depends partly upon the information in our minds, and that not only depends upon the information that we acquire from school and life, but it also depends upon how much thinking we do and how well we think. When you think about an issue, and especially when you discuss an issue with other people, you are likely to alter some of the information in your mind, and you may add some new information. This in turn can alter your views of happiness, although not necessarily in a productive manner.

Our mind has the ability to think, but it doesn't have the sense to know what to think about. We have to make wise decisions about what to think about. If that concept seems strange, consider the people who spend a lot of their time "thinking" about how miserable they are. They consider themselves to be thinking intelligent thoughts when they think about how they are abused by some person, or denied freedom by the government, or denied a job because they are a certain race or sex, or insulted by somebody. However, I would not describe them as thinking intelligent thoughts. I would describe them as focusing on some miserable event and excessively stimulating their emotions of anger, revenge, hatred, or pity. I would describe them as "working themselves into a frenzy".

The human mind has the freedom to think about whatever it wants, and so we have the freedom to either do something useful with our intellect, or ruin our lives or the lives of other people. For example, if a child is denied a toy or a candy bar, one of his options is to think about the issue and find a way to deal with it in a sensible manner, such as by telling himself that he doesn't need the item, and by forcing himself to forget about the issue and move onto something else. However, the child also has the option of thinking about how he is being denied the opportunity to enjoy life. He can think about his suffering over and over, hour after hour, day after day, thereby keeping himself in a state of anger, frustration, or hatred. He will waste his life and irritate other people.

Likewise, adults have the option of reacting to problems in a sensible manner, or they can react by stimulating anger, self-pity, or some other unpleasant or destructive emotion.

Why do some people react to problems in a productive manner, and others react by stimulating themselves into believing that they are being abused, neglected, insulted, or denied freedom? We are tempted to blame the environment, but children growing up in the same family will have different reactions to the same problems. The environment certainly does have an effect, but the primary difference between us is the design of our brain.

We should face the fact that the people who choose to be whiny, miserable, violent, envious, and vengeful have done so because of their genetic characteristics. No child needs a candy bar or a toy, for example. Giving those children what they demand is not going to make their lives any better, and it is not going to prevent them from having temper tantrums in the future. Likewise, appeasing adults who react to problems by whining or hating is not going to help them, either. The adults who cannot deal with life's problems in a productive manner need to be regarded as inferior to the rest of us. They should not be reproducing, and some of them should be removed from society.

Your life is whatever you make it. Although many of us suffer from some type of medical disorder that we have little or no control over, such as migraine headaches, defective livers, or arthritis, there are a lot of aspects of life that we have total control over. For example, we choose our friends, spouse, and foods. We also decide how much gambling we do, when we go to sleep, and how we spend our money. If you spend more money than you have, it is because you have chosen to do so. Each of us also makes decisions about what we lie about and whether we steal items.

If you make no attempt to look critically at yourself and improve your life, that is your decision. If you ignore society's problems and spend your time trying to please yourself, that is also your decision. If you are aware of pedophilia, corruption, the Jewish involvement in 9/11, or other problems, and don't bother to mention it to other people or make any attempt to stop the problem, that is your decision.

Most people have made a decision to ignore the problems of the world and to spend their time titillating themselves with food, children, material items, fame, Hollywood gossip, religion, or sex. If these people were put into a new city, and if they continued to ignore problems, then the new city would likely have the same problems with corruption, crime networks, and false flag operations.

In order for us to experiment with new social activities, new sports, new government systems, and new school systems, we must find a group of people who can participate in the experiments rather than whine about having to control their emotions. This requires allowing each new city to restrict immigration to the people who will become active participants in the experiments. It is foolish to bring people into a city merely to use them as cheap labor, or to allow refugees who have no interest in joining society, or to allow immigrants who are merely attracted to the material wealth or the women.

If we were to build a completely new city, the only way life in that city would be better than other cities is if the people in that city have higher-quality minds than the people in other cities. The corruption in Chicago is coming from certain residents of the city, and Detroit is deteriorating because of certain residents. We have a strong craving to feel sorry for people, and so we have a tendency to blame the problems of Detroit on the financial problems of the automobile industry, but no city needs an automobile industry. Cities have existed for thousands of years without such industries, and if we were to design cities as I propose - with underground trains, bicycle paths, and other types of transportation - no city would have an automobile industry. Detroit, Chicago, and other cities are ugly, corrupt, disgusting, and chaotic because the cities are dominated by people who are selfish, apathetic, irresponsible, dishonest, neurotic, stupid, and corrupt.

Billions of people believe in various religious fantasies, such as heaven, despite the lack of supporting evidence. Some of them are too intellectually defective or uneducated to understand the fallacy of their religious beliefs, but many of them are deliberately choosing to ignore the evidence because they are emotionally attracted to fantasy. How can any of those people create a better society? The people who are defective or uneducated will not be able to help us deal with society's problems, and the people who disregard evidence and follow fantasies will also be worthless.

If you can see the absurdity of religion, then you may assume that you don't have the problem of disregarding evidence, but keep in mind that whenever you find a physical or mental trait in other people, especially if it is in the majority of people, then it is a human characteristic, and that means you and I are certain to have it, also. When 70% of the population is routinely disregarding evidence and following fantasies, we can be certain that the other 30% are doing it also, at least to some extent.

For an example of how we all do this, consider what happens when a single man encounters an attractive woman. His emotions want to believe that the woman is attracted to him, or that she is interested in sex, and so his mind will often disregard the evidence and believe what he wants to believe. He may interpret something the woman does as evidence that she is interested in him, even though he has the intelligence to realize that there is no evidence to support such a theory.

All of us have emotions that want certain things to happen, and we have a tendency to ignore the evidence and believe what we want to believe. We all do it, but we do it with different issues, and we have a different amount of control over ourselves. When you are hoping for a promotion at work, for example, you are likely to interpret events as a sign that you will get that promotion. If you are paranoid of being watched, you will often interpret events as a sign that people are secretly watching you.

Another characteristic that we have to control is our craving to fight for territory and status. When we put pet cats and dogs into our homes, they have plenty of food and living space, and so they have no reason to fight with one another over territory. However, most pet animals fight for territory anyway because they cannot think well enough to control their emotional cravings. What would happen if we put humans into a world in which they had no reason to fight for status or territory? Would they be happy? Or would they continue fighting for status and territory anyway?

I would like to experiment with a city in which everybody is living in virtually the same home, and everybody is given free access to the same material items. This creates a city in which everybody is virtually equal. Would we be happy in such an environment? Would we be able to control our cravings for status and territory and learn to enjoy equality?

It is possible that most humans do not have the ability to control their cravings for status and/or territory, in which case those people would be miserable in a city in which everybody is equal. Those people may enjoy fighting for status and territory so much that they would prefer to suffer the consequences of such fights rather than suffer the agony of controlling their emotional cravings.

Have human men evolved to the point at which we can control our cravings to fight for status, territory, material items, and women? Or are we still too much like wild dogs?
If you find it difficult to believe that some people would choose to suffer, consider the men who get involved with dangerous recreational activities for entertainment rather than for their job. There are some men who enjoy skateboarding, boxing, motorcycle riding, and other activities so much that they are willing to suffer bruises, broken bones, broken teeth, and possibly death. From their point of view, they are not suffering; rather, they are enjoying life.

The same is true when dogs fight with one another. They don't regard themselves as risking their life or health, and they don't regard themselves as suffering when they are injured. They enjoy the fights, which is why it is possible to arrange for fights between roosters, dogs, and other animals. Those particular animals receive so much emotional pleasure from fighting that they will fight year after year, regardless of how many injuries they have suffered. They are just biological robots that fight when they are stimulated in a certain manner.

Humans fight over territory because we enjoy fighting over territory, not because we need the territory. We could live in peace, and we could cooperate with one another, but that requires controlling our emotions. War is not caused by poverty, a lack of oil, or a shortage of food. It is caused by human emotions, such as cravings for status and territory, and cravings to fight. Likewise, theft, pedophilia, rape, and burglary is not the result of poverty, ignorance, or the devil. It is caused by humans who cannot control their crude, animal cravings.

Creating a better world requires finding the people who can adapt to a more advanced society. Many people will be traumatized by a radically different society, and some will consider a more sensible society to be stifling, oppressive, or brutal. Only certain people will consider a new society to be an exciting adventure into the future.

Do I make life seem unnecessarily complicated?

I propose controlling our emotions, thinking more often, looking critically at ourselves, learning to compromise, and experimenting with different social activities and policies. Some people may wonder if I am making life appear more complicated than it really is. I would respond that humans have brought such dramatic changes to our environment that our emotions are no longer properly adapted to our world, and therefore, we must exert a lot of control over ourselves in order to truly enjoy this era.

Our primitive ancestors could "make a living" simply by picking wild apples and chasing after pigs with sharp sticks. They had the freedom to follow their emotional cravings and do whatever they pleased. We have a tendency to assume that primitive humans were suffering because they had to do a lot of physical work, but do any animals suffer? Polar bears do not whine about cold weather, and birds do not cry about the physical hardship of flying. The only animals that suffer are those that are poorly adapted to their environment.

Our prehistoric ancestors enjoyed life. The men enjoyed waking up each day to make tools and look for food, and the women enjoyed waking up each day to groom their children, look for food, and socialize. If we could go back in time and watch our primitive ancestors, we would see that they were just as happy as the monkeys, polar bears, and lizards. None of our ancestors were forced to follow orders or engage in activities that they didn't want to do. They did whatever they pleased. The intimacy and lack of secrecy gave them friendships and marriages that would have been more satisfying than the superficial, deceptive, inhibited relationships of today.

We have inadvertently brought dramatic changes to our environment. Today people need to learn how to read and write, do arithmetic, and operate a telephone. It is no longer possible for a man to survive by himself. Men today must be capable of working in teams, and they must be capable of thinking of what is best for society. Men must have skills of some sort in order to make a living, and they must be capable of working with modern technology. People today also need to be able to follow laws.

Life is becoming more complicated, but whether people of the future enjoy life depends upon whether they become adapted to their era. If we don't control reproduction, then there will indeed be a lot of suffering in the future. However, if we control reproduction, people will become increasingly intelligent, cooperative, and capable of working in teams. Rather than whine about the complexity of their era, they will love it.

Humans developed a desire to socialize in the evening around a fire, resulting in our desire for fireplaces. However, fireplaces are becoming increasingly impractical, so we need to evolve more appropriate desires.
We are still so emotionally similar to our primitive ancestors that we want to sit around a fire during the evening, and some people actually attempt to re-create a primitive life, such as this woman in Britain who has been living without electricity or modern conveniences for the past 13 years. The Amish are also struggling to avoid modern life.

It is becoming increasingly impractical and dangerous for us to provide wood-burning fireplaces in our homes, and although the imitation fireplaces are more sensible for our era, it would be better if humans evolved into a creature that enjoys modern technology and loses the craving to behave like a primitive savage.

Rather than sit around a fire and re-enact the hunting of a wild pig, the future humans should enjoy getting together in social clubs, restaurants, theaters, swimming areas, museums, and parks for more modern activities.

Humans must also develop a greater interest in discussions. Our primitive ancestors had simplistic conversations about pigs, children, and rain, and most people today have simplistic conversations about money, Hollywood celebrities, politics, and crime. What are people in the future going to talk about if they eliminate organized religion, Hollywood celebrities, money, war, crime, pedophiles, and corrupt government officials?

As the world becomes more peaceful, orderly, and efficient, the people will need to develop a greater interest in life in order to have a conversation. They will also have to lose some of the inhibitions that are preventing people from discussing a lot of important topics, such as bodily functions, reproduction, euthanasia, abortion, sex, masturbation, digestion, and courtship.

Women must also go through some significant evolutionary improvements. The primary purpose of prehistoric women was to raise children, but technology is making it increasingly easy to raise children. The women of the future will not need to spend much time raising their children. Therefore, women will have to develop interests for other activities. They will also have to develop the ability to work in teams, and they will need the desire to consider what is best for society rather than what is best for their children.

Feeling sorry for the men and women who are overwhelmed with modern life is not going to help them or us. We need to start restricting reproduction to the people who are better adapted to this modern world.

The people who are overwhelmed or annoyed by the issues of modern society, or who don't have any interest in discussing or dealing with the issues of modern society, or who have trouble with school or jobs, are not suited to this modern world. The arrogant, aggressive men who fight over right or wrong are not well-suited, either. We have to be capable of compromising, experimenting, analyzing, and admitting mistakes. People need to become more dependable, honest, responsible, and cooperative. The men and women who are too socially dysfunctional to form relationships with other people are no longer well suited to life.

Are you capable of experimenting with exercise, sports, or recreation?

Our natural tendency is to become increasingly sedentary with age, and I suggested in other files that we start experimenting with sports, recreational activities, and exercise options in order to develop activities that more adults are interested in participating in prior to their lunch at work, and during their leisure time during evenings and weekends. This requires people who are capable of controlling their fear of the unknown and experimenting with new types of activities.
Our societies today are encouraging adults to become passive, sedentary consumers of television, food, alcohol, drugs, pets, and professional entertainment. I think we should experiment with a city that provides us with lots of activities to encourage adults to get exercise and socialize.

There are lots of ways of encouraging adults to get exercise and to socialize. In other documents I suggested a few possible recreational activities and sports to experiment with, and now I would like to point out that we should also experiment with dances that are designed to provide us with exercise. There are already some types of dances, such as square dancing, that are simple enough for "ordinary people", and which have the potential of providing a lot of exercise, in addition to helping men and women interact with one another.

If we can find people with the courage to experiment with activities rather than mindlessly follow their ancestors, then we could occasionally experiment with different types of dances during our lunch hour or during our leisure time, in addition to experimenting with other types of sports and recreation. We could possibly develop a wide variety of dances that provide exercise, socializing, and entertainment. This would provide employees with another exercise opportunity at lunch, and it would provide more activities for us to choose from during the evening.

Most dances today are intended for professional dancers to entertain an audience, but we could experiment with a variety of different "exercise dances" that are designed primarily to provide significant physical activity. We could create some exercise dances for younger people that provide vigorous exercise, and dances for older people that are less intense. Since these dances would be designed for exercise rather than entertaining an audience, they would be designed to be simple enough for everybody to do without much training. Also, they would be designed to provide each person with plenty of room to move, as with square dances and tap dances, so that people are not perspiring on one another or stepping on one another.

If somebody were to create a new sport, dance, recreational activity, or holiday celebration, your emotional reaction would be to consider the activity to be idiotic, and to resist it. There are two important concepts to keep in mind when trying to improve society:

1) We resist changes, and so we will naturally be biased against anything new.

2) All of our activities can be described as senseless or idiotic. Therefore, it is very easy for a person to analyze a new activity and devise a variety of reasons as to why the activity is too stupid to experiment with it.

Our social activities are as senseless as our courtship procedures. There is no way to design a hobby, recreational activity, sport, dance, or holiday celebration that is "correct", and there is no such thing as an "incorrect" activity. All of our activities can be described as wasteful and stupid. Many recreational events, for example, are variations of people chasing after balls. There is nothing intelligent about a group of people kicking a soccer ball around a grass field. Every recreational activity can be described as stupid and senseless.

We cannot design an "intelligent" recreational activity. However, we can design activities that provide us with some benefit, such as socializing or exercise. The person who posted this video describes it as "morning exercises" for some Chinese workers. They are not professional entertainers, so they are not very exciting to watch, but if that activity helps them to exercise, then it is useful.

Activities should not be judged on whether they make sense. They should be judged according to their effect on society. If a particular activity provides us with some benefit, such as socializing, exercise, or entertainment, then it is useful. However, we have to consider the burden that the activity imposes on society. For example, auto racing doesn't provide us with any useful exercise, socializing, or other benefits, and it imposes a tremendous burden on society by requiring a phenomenal amount of resources. Golf provides a bit of socializing, but at a high cost in terms of resources. Some sports cause serious injuries or brain damage. Our holiday of Christmas promotes idiotic religious propaganda and giftgiving.

What is the benefit to playing baseball? The game requires large amounts of land and resources, and most of the people remain motionless during the game. I would describe the game of baseball as a waste of time and resources.

Every recreational and social activity could be described as stupid, but we can and should analyze our activities for their benefit and their burden, and then pass judgment on which of those activities we want to promote, and which we should eliminate or discourage.

Furthermore, we should design activities for specific groups of people and specific purposes, such as designing exercise activities for employees who have a limited time at lunch. This requires experimenting with exercise activities that don't require much land, equipment, time, or other resources, but which provide the employees with some useful exercise. We can also design specific recreational, exercise, and entertainment activities for children, single adults, pregnant women, and elderly people.

In the previous file of this series, I mentioned experimenting with a version of soccer in which there are half as many foam balls as there are players. For employees at lunch, this type of game might be able to provide them with some intense exercise in a short period of time. Some people might respond that such a game is stupid, but all games are stupid. Recreational and exercise events should not be judged according to whether they "make sense". They have to be analyzed according to their benefit and their burden. If a game achieves its purpose, such as providing exercise, then it is a success, even if it is silly. We should not try to design activities that are "intelligent". We should try to design activities that provide some value to our lives but without adding much of a burden.

Humans have a strong craving to follow established procedures, so if we create a new recreational activity, sport, or holiday celebration, our initial reaction will be to criticize the activity as idiotic, and we will resist it. We have to take control of our emotions and learn to enjoy experiments. We have to force ourselves to give the activity a try. We need the attitude of a student who is willing to push himself into learning something new rather than the attitude of a child in an amusement park who is expecting entertainment. After we have given a new activity a try, we have to learn to enjoy analyzing the activity and trying to find ways to improve it.

Some Americans who love ice cream are too traumatized by changes to taste Mochi, so how could they experiment with exercise dances, new sports, or new holiday celebrations? If a city consists of people who have trouble controlling their emotions, then the people will resist experiments with their culture, and they will try to follow established customs, and nothing in the city will improve. What about you? Are you capable of controlling your fear of the unknown so that you can experiment with different holiday celebrations or recreational activities? If some of the people where you work asked you to join them during lunch for an experimental exercise dance or a game of "foam-ball soccer", would you be emotionally capable of giving it a try?

Imagine living in a city that was designed for human life rather than business activity, automobiles, and religion. It would be easy for you to get exercise in this city because all you would have to do is walk out of your apartment building, or walk out of the building that you work in, and you would be surrounded by grass, trees, bicycle paths, and swimming areas. You could do a variety of physical activities by yourself, and it would be easy to join some group of people who are getting exercise by dancing, riding bicycles, or playing some sport. When you were in the mood to relax, the city would have plenty of places for you to eat, watch some entertainment, or participate in some entertainment.

Of course, this type of city would be desirable only if we were living in homogenous cities. You would not be interested in joining an exercise dance, or walking into a park to join a sports event, if you were living among retards, pedophiles, people speaking different languages, and people you fear or despise.

A lot of people might be willing to experiment with a different variation of soccer or baseball, but how many people would be willing to experiment with exercise dances? The professional singers and dancers have intimidated most people to such an extent that they are afraid to sing or dance. They worry about being criticized for being mediocre or below average. To make the situation worse, our society considers it acceptable to ridicule a person's mediocre performance. As a result, if we were living in a city in which people were experimenting with exercise dances, I suspect that most people would be too intimidated to give it a try. In order for us to benefit from these types of activities, people have to realize that they are intended for exercise, socializing, and recreation, not entertaining an audience. Nobody should be ridiculed for his exercising, even if he is terrible at it.

Animals and humans, especially males, are in competition with one another for status. As a result, our natural tendency is to look for opportunities to make ourselves look better and make other people look worse. Adults don't publicly ridicule people for being ugly or having crooked teeth, but we are encouraging the ridicule of people for being mediocre in their singing and dancing.

We accept the fact that most people are ordinary in their physical appearance, and that half the population is below average in physical appearance, and that many people are ugly. We need to encourage people to accept the fact that most people are mediocre or below average in their singing and dancing abilities. Most people are also ordinary in their ability to play baseball, row a boat, and ride a bicycle, but we don't make fun of them for that. Nobody benefits by ridiculing people.

During prehistoric times, our desire to ridicule other people helped to drive out the misfits and interfere with their success in reproduction, but as I explained in a previous file, we should evict the people we don't want to live with, and everybody else should be accepted. We should not torment the members of our team. We should either accept a person into our society, or evict him. We should not allow people into our society and then torment them.

As I mentioned in a previous file, we need to increase the restrictions on our behavior. For example, we restrict the elimination of waste products to designated bathrooms rather than allow people to do it wherever they please, and we also restrict spitting, but we do not yet have restrictions on courtship, socializing, exercising, and some other activities. As a result, some people are exercising by running along city streets or on sidewalks, inadvertently interfering with traffic, pedestrians, and bicycles. Many single people are trying to meet one another while riding a train or while at their job. It would be better to design a city so that we have specific areas for different activities.

The same concepts apply to singing and dancing. We don't want people singing and dancing in areas where people are trying to have a quiet dinner, or in the middle of a bicycle path, but if we design a city to have lots of areas for socializing and recreation, then the people can sing and dance in the designated locations. It is currently considered amusing for people to do "flash mobs" in which a large group of people in a public location suddenly start singing and dancing. So far these people have not caused any trouble, but if this were to happen on a regular basis, it would eventually get annoying. It would be better to set aside certain areas and buildings for different activities so that people don't bother one another.

Exercise dances, and all other types of recreational activities, would be intended to be simple enough for everybody to participate. There would be no performance standards to meet. Nobody would have to worry about learning how to use complex equipment, or taking training courses. The exercise dances would simply be another option for people to get exercise, and at the same time provide an opportunity for men and women to meet and interact. Some people's performance in an exercise dance might occasionally be amusing because of their clumsiness, and there is nothing wrong with giggling at them, but we should not encourage the ridicule of other people. We should help other people enjoy life, not fight for status, like stupid animals.

Our competitive nature causes us to look for opportunities to ridicule and criticize people so that we can make ourselves appear better than other people. Our crude emotions are hurting our societies. We should help one another suppress our craving to deceive, impress, and ridicule. We should help one another to focus on maintaining our health, enjoying other people, becoming a productive member of society, and enjoying life. And, since we don't like getting exercise, we would all benefit by being inspired by our friends to get some exercise.

How different can a city be before you are traumatized?

We can start experimenting with new cities whenever we find enough people who are interested in doing such experiments. We don't need any new technology. All we have to do is set aside some land, build some new cities, and start experimenting with our school system, economic system, social affairs, sports, and government. This is not difficult to do. It only requires finding enough people with the self-control to experiment with a new society.

We don't need everybody in the world to cooperate in the creation of a new city. All we need is enough people for at least one city. Certainly out of the billions of people on the planet there are enough to create one new city. So, what should we experiment with? What type of city should we try to create? For example, should we try creating a city that provides the basic necessities for free? Or should we begin with changes that are much more trivial?

It might help you figure out what you would like to experiment with if you spend some time imagining life in different types of cities. For example, consider living in a city in which housing, clothing, and other necessities are available for free. This would bring some very significant changes to your life, including our social affairs and holiday celebrations. For example, nobody would have any need or opportunity to give gifts to their friends, children, spouse, or themselves. We would have to alter our birthday parties, Christmas celebrations, and weddings in order to remove the gifts. Nobody would be able to donate money or gifts to charities or homeless people, either, because there would not be any charities or homeless people. Would you enjoy these changes? Or would you consider them to be traumatic and unpleasant?

The city would be noticeably different, also. For example, the city would have areas that resemble a shopping mall with various retail stores, but instead of selling products, the stores would offer a free exchange of items. They would allow us to pick up clothing, furniture, artwork, cell phones, and other items for free, and they would allow us to return the items when we are tired of them so that we could exchange them with something else. None of the stores would be competing to convince us to select their particular products, so none of the stores would have aggressive salesmen, and none of them would be interested in creating exciting window displays. Instead, each store would display their items in a sensible manner. The employees of the store would explain products, but they would not have any interest in promoting any particular product.

The people in the city would not actually own anything. They would not own their bicycles, cameras, or even their clothing. They would simply borrow what they want to use. If a person wants to redecorate his apartment, he simply returns the pieces of furniture or artwork that he no longer wants, and he replaces them with something different. Nobody would throw away unwanted items. If a person no longer wanted some particular item, he would return it to the store. The employees of the store would then pass judgment on whether it can be cleaned and/or repaired so that somebody else could use it, or whether it should be recycled. If a person was tired of a clothing item, he would return it, and it would either be cleaned and put back in the store for somebody else, or, if it was worn out, it would be recycled.

If an item was packed in a cardboard box, the person would eventually return the box to the store rather than dispose of it in the trash. There would be very little trash in this type of society because nobody owns anything, not even the cardboard boxes that items are packaged in. There would certainly be some types of packaging materials that are disposed of in the trash, but most boxes and shipping materials would be designed for reuse or recycling rather than disposal. Society would be operating from the point of view of what is best for all people, and what is best for everybody is to reuse and recycle as much as possible rather than dispose of items.

Everybody would find some concepts of the city desirable, but how many people would truly be able to adapt to this type of city? How many people are willing to take a broken lightbulb back to the store for recycling? There are people today who abuse rental items and items that they borrow from their friends and family members, and there are many people who resist recycling items. Some people want to destroy their unwanted laptop computers, washing machines, and televisions rather than recycle them. This city requires people who can control themselves and be responsible. This city will not function very well if we have to watch over one another and reprimand each other to be responsible and to clean up after ourselves.

This type of society will also change the reason people get married. There would be no financial or political benefits to marriage, and all men would be virtually identical in regards to material wealth, so women would not be able to select a man according to his wealth. Men and women will have to select one another according to more sensible criteria, such as whether they are compatible and truly want to spend their lives together. That might seem sensible, but can everybody do that?

This type of city doesn't allow anybody to become wealthy, but men want to compete with one another for status, so how will they compete? How will the men feel special? Or will all men be able to adapt to equality?

The only way the men can compete for status in this type of society is to compare their talent in doing something useful for society. The men will have to boast about their achievements for society rather than boast about their house, income, or yacht. They cannot become important simply through inheritances, by gathering material items, by joining crime networks, or by becoming friends with somebody who is important. How many men will be comfortable in a city in which they are competing for the benefit of society?

Many people cannot handle food, alcohol, or prescription drugs when they have to pay for them. What would happen if these items were free?
This type of society could have a detrimental effect on the people who eat food when they are unhappy. When the food is free, it is easy for a person to become sickly or obese, and when robots are capable of delivering food to elderly and sick people, then a person could become so obese that he cannot leave his home. People today occasionally become too obese to leave their home, but they require humans to feed them. What will happen when food is free and robots can deliver food? How many people are going to become trapped in their apartment because they are too obese to move? If prescription drugs are available for free, how many people will become addicted to painkillers? How many men will abuse steroids?

When a woman is unhappy in this type of society, she will not be able to titillate herself by going shopping. She could certainly do the equivalent of shopping by visiting the businesses that provide free clothing, shoes, furniture, home decorations, and other items, but with all of those items for free, all she can do is exchange some item that she already has with something new. Will exchanging an item bring any satisfaction to these unhappy women? Or will the pleasure of exchanging items be so low that they end up visiting the stores on a daily basis in an attempt to make themselves feel better? Will they redecorate their apartment every few weeks? With apartments available for free, will these women change apartments on a regular basis, also?

The women will have no need or opportunity to give gifts to their friends or their husband. They will not be able to donate money to any charities, either, or purchase items. Since children will also be provided with free clothing, food, playgrounds, bicycles, and other items, the mothers will have no need to give their children any gifts, or make meals for their children. What will women do in this type of society?

The women who want to do something for children will have to work with society, such as taking turns working at the restaurants for children, or with the schools, or with the social activities for children. They will not be able to "take the easy route" of giving gifts to children. They will instead have to do something of value for the children. To understand this concept, consider how it applies to animals at a zoo. The "easy route" for a visitor at a zoo to titillate himself is to give candy, bubblegum, or some other item to a zoo animal. If visitors are prohibited from doing those worthless and destructive activities, then the only way a visitor would be able to interact with the animals is if they got involved with the zoo employees, learned about the animals, and worked with the zoo employees to do something of value for the animals.

Likewise, the easy route for adults to titillate themselves is to give toys, candy, or other gifts to children. The more difficult route is to work with society to do something of value for the children. The easy route for a man to feel special is to acquire an expensive material item through crime, inheritances, or nepotism, and then show it off to other people. The more difficult route is to do something of value for society that people appreciate, such as creating a beautiful building, garden, or scientific achievement.

Crime is popular in the world today because it provides a shortcut to the acquisition of large amounts of money and material items, which in turn makes it much easier for people to acquire a spouse, fame, and status. In a world in which everything is free, and people are equal, crime will not help anybody to become important, attract a spouse, or increase their status. In this type of society, people will have to do something of value in order to rise above the ordinary person.

Who will be a misfit in the city?

When we change our environment, we make subtle changes in who among us is well adapted. Some of the people who are successful in the world today would not be successful in a city in which people are treated equally; people are responsible for their drug use; material items and homes are free; reproduction is controlled; and destructive people are evicted.

A lot of people are successful, wealthy, and influential because they made a lot of money from think tanks, religions, investments, advertising, or politics. How many of them will be able to function in a society in which they must have a useful skill and do useful work?

Some wealthy, influential people acquired their money from their parents or spouse. How successful and influential will they be in a society in which they are required to contribute to society? How many of them can even function properly at a job?

A few of the people who became criminals explained their choice to get involved with crime as due to their dissatisfaction with the income that they could make in an honest manner. Without crime, what will those people do to escape from being "ordinary"?

Some people become criminals because they don't like going to work every day and following orders. What will they do when everybody is required to contribute to society and there is no option to make a living through crime, religion, think tanks, charities, divorce settlements, investments, or gambling?

Every society is currently ignoring the misfits, and the end result is that the misfits have to struggle to find a way to make a living. Many of them end up in crime, marrying somebody who will support them, or getting involved with charities, government agencies, or religions. Many of them have to be secretive and deceptive in order to find a spouse. If we create a city in which everybody is expected to be responsible and contribute to society, and in which nobody can keep secrets, what are the misfits going to do? Are we going to constantly reprimand them for their bad behavior and their whining about jobs? The only sensible solution is to remove the misfits.

All of us are misfits to a certain extent because all of us were designed for a primitive life. We can't expect perfection from anybody, but we must pass judgment on when a person is such a misfit that he is destructive to society. These are the people who hurt society with their whining, pouting, hating, revenge, theft, arson, envy, vandalism, graffiti, and jealousy. Punishing these people is not fixing their problems, and even worse, some of these people get into influential positions of business, schools, and governments.

For example, my impression of the leaders of communist nations is that they tend to be abnormally envious, bitter, violent, aggressive, arrogant, and angry. However, rather than remove these disgusting people from leadership positions, their citizens support their desires to build statues to them, and even worse, they support their paranoia, envy, and hatred of other nations. The people who dominate society should be trying to improve the nation and impress the world with their achievements.

We must pass judgment on who is too incompetent or destructive for a leadership position. The people in influential positions should be working on attempts to improve life for us. Life should become more pleasant as a result of their actions, and if they cannot improve society, they should be replaced so that somebody else can try.

It makes sense for animals and primitive humans to be extremely selfish and to fight over territory, resources, and spouses, but in the modern world, we need people who cooperate and contribute. It was also sensible for children in prehistoric times to cry whenever they were unhappy about something, but in this modern era, children have to face the fact that they have to follow rules, and they cannot always get what they please. Children have to learn to control their emotions. We cannot expect children to do as good a job as adults, but we should set standards for behavior for children and deal with those who are the most like animals.

Do something to impress the future generations

By restricting reproduction to the people who are better adapted to this modern world, humans will eventually evolve into a creature that fits into this modern world. Instead of complaining about the complexities of modern life, people of the future will enjoy it. Instead of whining about having to work or get exercise, they will enjoy the activities. Instead of whining about somebody looking at their medical or school records, they will be at ease with the lack of secrecy. Instead of becoming hysterical when their children learn about reproduction, digestion, sex, childbirth, and breast-feeding, they will be happy to see their children becoming educated.

How do we figure out who among us is worthy of reproduction? To answer that question, just ask yourself such questions as:
• Who has the mental and physical characteristics that we wish we had?
• Who has the mental and physical characteristics that we wish our spouse had?

If you are a man, would you want to have the face and body of Henry Kissinger or Abe Foxman, or have either of their personalities or intellectual qualities? Would you want a wife who had the physical appearance of Barbra Streisand or Queen Elizabeth, or either of their personalities or intellectual qualities?

Since nobody is perfect, making decisions on reproduction requires setting priorities for physical and mental qualities. Our primary concern today is finding people with the intellectual and emotional abilities to form a modern society. It would be nice if the next generation had fewer skin blemishes, crooked teeth, and allergies, but we have to ignore the minor physical problems. It is more important for the next generation to be more honest, more responsible, have better self-control, and be better adapted to this modern world. After a few centuries of breeding, the humans will have better mental qualities, and then they can start worrying about the less important physical problems.

The human mind has the intelligence necessary to make decisions about who should reproduce, but the decisions are emotionally difficult to make. Making these decisions requires having the self-control necessary to pass judgment on who among us we want more of in the next generation, and who we want fewer of. Try to find that self-control within yourself so that the next generation is better than what we have right now. It might seem cruel to restrict reproduction to the people who have the best mental characteristics, but if you had been born into a future society in which everybody is healthy, honest, reliable, responsible, dependable, good-looking, nice smelling, and intelligent, you would be grateful that your ancestors were controlling reproduction.

Join the adventure!

Some people fantasize about going back in time to see Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilee, Marco Polo, Charles Darwin, William Wallace, or Archimedes, but a lot of the people who are alive right now are equivalent to those people. Some of the people that you live near or personally know will eventually be remembered in history books for being among the pioneers who helped to create a new world, and some of you will be, also, but right now we are just "ordinary" people, and many of us are insulted, ignored, or reprimanded.

When the information about the Jewish involvement in 9/11, the HoloHoax, and other issues finally comes out into the public, our "stupid conspiracy theories" will become "historical facts", and some of the people who ridiculed us will regret treating us in that manner.

Most people behave like arrogant, selfish savages. They resist thinking, and they don't notice that they are tormenting themselves and other people as they chase after emotional titillation. They don't appreciate people or life until it is taken away from them, as can be seen at their funerals.

Don't be one of the fools who wishes that he had gotten involved in creating a new world, and who regrets ignoring and ridiculing the pioneers. Become one of the pioneers, or at least support and appreciate the pioneers who are living around you. You have an opportunity that our ancestors didn't have. Take it!

Become an impressive chapter of future history books!