Hufschmid's main page
My previous comments

Creating a better society

We need Health Research,
not Health
11 August 2022
25 Aug: Added material here and here.


How much do we really know about allergies?
So many health experts; so little knowledge
We should change our priorities
The results of my experiments
It might be best to soak all seeds
We should change our attitudes

Note: Some scientists might have precise definitions for the words grains, seeds, vegetables, fruits, berries, legumes, pulses, drupes, and nuts, but to most of us, those words are confusing. For a few examples:
• Most of us consider pistachios, walnuts, pecans, pine nuts, and cashews to be "nuts", but other people claim that they are "drupes" because they are the "seeds" of the "fruit" of a "tree", and that hazelnuts, acorns, and chestnuts are "nuts".
• Wheat and barley are considered as "grains", but also as the "seeds" of the "fruit" of a "grass", and this document says that "technically, all cereal grains could be called vegetables."
• Corn is considered as a "fruit", a "vegetable", or a "grain" depending on whether we eat it while it is dry, such as cornmeal, or moist, such as corn on the cob.
• Most of us consider raspberries and strawberries to be "berries", but other people say that they are "aggregate fruits", and that cranberries, watermelons, eggplants, bananas, and blueberries are "berries".

I will avoid the confusion by referring to all of the grains and nuts as "seeds" since all of them can create new life, like an egg.

How much do we really know about allergies?

What is an "allergy"?

Our immune system creates white blood cells to attack whatever it believes is dangerous, and those cells produce histamines and antibodies.
Our immune system is supposed to attack only substances that are dangerous to us, such as certain types of bacteria or viruses, but if our immune system attacks something that is harmless, such as pollen or peanuts, the result is an "allergy".

This can result in excessive mucus, watery eyes, asthma, itches, skin rashes, abnormal heart rate, and even death.

If our immune system attacks healthy cells, the result is an "autoimmune disease". This creates health problems that are extremely confusing and difficult to diagnose.

How many people have allergies?

We do not have the knowledge to accurately determine who has an allergy, or to what substances a person is allergic to, but according to these statistics, more than 50 million Americans suffer from an allergic reaction every year, which is about 15% of the US population.

Nearly 11% of the American adults and 8% of the children have food allergies; 4% of the population has an allergy to latex; and 5% have allergic reactions to insect stings, and nearly 100 Americans die every year from insects because they have such a bad allergic reaction.

The financial burden of allergies is estimated to be about 25 billion dollars every year for the USA.

Whose reaction should classify as an "allergy"?

The Wikipedia describes a person as having "mosquito bite allergy" if he has an "excessive reaction" to a mosquito bite, and this document tells us that people who have a "significant allergic reaction to mosquito bites" have Skeeter Syndrome, but how do we determine whose reaction to mosquitoes has crossed the line from "normal" to "excessive" or "significant"?

When we are bit or stung by a flea, mosquito, bee, wasp, or other insect, our immune system reacts by attacking the foreign molecules that the insect injects into us. This results in most of us (or all of us?) developing a small, circular area that swells and itches, but some people suffer from reactions that are more serious, such as a difficulty in breathing, or an increase in their heartbeat.

The allergy statistics claim that only 5% of the American people are allergic to insects stings, but since each of us reacts with swollen bumps, how do we decide which of our reactions should classify as an "allergy"?

There are no dividing lines between us

Animals and humans have a tendency to divide everything into two groups, such as friend and enemy, safe and dangerous, and moral and immoral. As a result, we tend to believe that a person either has an allergy, or does not.

If allergies were the result of just a few genes, then it would be possible for some people to have those genes, and for other people to not have the genes, thereby allowing us to divide the human population into two distinct and independent groups, as depicted in the pie chart above.

However, our immune system consists of a lot of complex components, such as white blood cells, bone marrow, and lymph nodes, and that complexity could not possibly be the result of only a few genes.

Furthermore, the people who have allergies are not allergic to the same chemicals, and the people who are allergic to a particular chemical do not have the same reaction to it. The wide variation in the chemicals that we are allergic to, and the wide variations in our reactions, is more evidence that our immune system is very complex.

Our immune system might be the result of thousands of genes, and a haphazard mixture of thousands of genes is certain to result in each of us having a similar but unique immune system with slightly different characteristics, limitations, and defects. Therefore, if we could analyze each person's immune system, we would not be able to divide people into two distinct categories; namely, those with allergies and those without.

I suspect that 100% of us have allergies

The statistics claim that only 15% of the population has an allergic reaction each year, which could be interpreted as meaning that 85% of the population does not have an allergy, but two reasons to believe that everybody has an allergy to something are:

1) I suspect that a lot of us have an allergy to a chemical that we don't come into contact with very often, thereby fooling us into believing that we don't have an allergy. For two examples:

Most people have an allergic reaction to urushiol, which is produced by poison ivy, poison oak, mangoes, and other plants, so if each of us were exposed to that chemical at least once a year, then we would experience an allergic reaction every year.

Sesame seeds are the ninth most common food allergy in the USA, but most of us rarely eat them, or we eat only tiny amounts, such as those that are sprinkled on top of a burger bun. Therefore, there are probably some people who are allergic to sesame seeds but do not realize it because they don't eat enough of them to notice a bad reaction to them.

I suspect that a lot of people who assume that they do not have allergies are occasionally having allergic reactions that are so mild that they don't consider it to be an "allergic reaction". For example, sometimes our nose or eyes will produce more mucus than normal, but how do we determine if the increase is due to a mild allergic reaction?

Our immune system can adapt to our environment

To complicate the issue of allergies, our immune system was designed to adapt to an unknown environment, but we differ in how well our immune system can adapt. As a result, some people have the same allergic reaction to an allergen throughout their life, whereas other people have less of a reaction as the years pass by.

For example, poison oak was common in my neighborhood when I was a child, and I frequently got rashes from it, but I noticed that by the time I was a teenager, I was no longer having rashes. My body seemed to have adapted to it.

The people who have an immune system that is the best at adapting to the environment will appear to be free of allergies when in reality they had one or more allergies when they were younger, but their immune system learned how to deal with the allergens.

The people who had an allergy when they were children, but who have an immune system that learned how to deal with it, should not be described as "free of allergies". We need a different category for those people, such as "overcoming an allergy", or "adapting to an allergen". The people who never had the allergy are genetically superior.

Can our environment create allergies?

A recent study shows that air pollution appears to cause some people to develop certain autoimmune diseases. Since an autoimmune disease is not much different from an allergy, we ought to investigate whether certain chemicals can also cause some of us to develop allergies.

There is already evidence that some of the insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals that we are spraying all over the planet are causing health problems for frogs, birds, and other animals and plants, and since humans are animals, we ought to be concerned with what those chemicals are doing to humans.

What is a "normal" immune system?

This dictionary defines "allergy" as:
An abnormal reaction of the body to an allergen, manifested by runny nose, skin rash, wheezing, etc.

Defining an allergy as an "abnormal" reaction is as useless as defining Skeeter Syndrome as a "significant" allergic reaction to mosquito bites because those adjectives require us to specify what a "normal" reaction is.

What is a "normal" reaction to an allergen? Since we have a strong craving to follow the crowd, we have an emotional preference to assume that "normal" is whatever is "typical" for the majority of people. However, as I pointed out in a previous document, it is more useful to define "normal" according to a perfect human. The majority of people should be described as "typical" or "average", not "normal".

What would the immune system of a "perfect" person be like? It would be an immune system that protects us from pathogens without causing "collateral damage", such as swelling, heart palpitations, itching, or excessive mucus production.

If we considered a "perfect" human to have a "normal" immune system, then comparing ourselves to that imaginary person would bring us to the conclusion that nobody has a "normal" immune system. Rather, we would conclude that the majority of people have a "typical" immune system with an "average" number of limitations and defects, and that the people with the best immune systems have fewer and/or less serious defects.

Does anybody have "normal" intelligence?

We should also apply that concept of "normal" to our minds. Specifically, we should describe a person to have "normal" intelligence if his brain has been designed "perfectly".

We are already using this concept in regards to material items. For example, a telephone, refrigerator, and robot is considered to be "normal" if it is functioning perfectly. For example, if the majority of robots that were being produced at a factory were behaving inappropriately, we would not describe them as "normal" robots. We would instead say that the factory has such terrible quality control that most of the robots are "defective".

Humans are essentially biological robots, but the "factory" that produces us does not have any intelligent supervision or quality control. Instead, every person that comes out of that factory is a haphazard jumble of genes. The result is that all of us should be classified as abnormal, defective, flawed, and imperfect.

If, instead, we were to consider a person to have a "normal" mind if his mental characteristics were typical of the majority of people, then we would consider a person to be normal if he cannot handle the truth about the 9/11 attack, evolution, the Holocaust, or the Apollo moon landing, and if he had trouble controlling his eating habits, temper, sexual cravings, and arrogance.

It would be more useful to consider a human mind to be "normal" if it is functioning "perfectly". What would a perfect mind be like? It would be a mind that has all of the best genetic qualities from the human gene pool, and none of the defects.

With that definition, none of us have normal intelligence or emotional characteristics because it is virtually impossible for one of us to get all of the best genetic qualities and none of the low-quality genes.

Instead of describing the majority of people as having a "normal" human mind, they should be regarded as having a "typical" mind, or an "average" mind.

One of the advantages to describing "normal" in that manner is that it helps to dampen the arrogance of the people who are above-average in intelligence. They have a tendency to titillate themselves and one another with praise, and they often look for opportunities to insult other people for being inferior to them. They should not regard themselves as being super geniuses. Rather, they should regard their mind as "less defective", or "less abnormal", than the "typical" person.

Schools could emphasize this concept, and help students control their arrogance, by giving grades that are described like this:
A  The least stupid
B  Less stupid than average
C  Average stupidity
D  Below-average stupidity
F  More intelligent than a monkey

Our prehistoric ancestors were as arrogant as we are, but their arrogance was kept under control because they could not boast about college diplomas, high salaries, awards, or mansions. They were also routinely intimidated by the complexity of the world, and how any of them could die at any moment for reasons they did not understand.

Today we allow our arrogance to get out of control, so we should experiment with our culture in order to find a way to dampen our arrogance and encourage more advanced behavior.

Does anybody have "normal" vision?

This concept also applies to our eyesight. Specifically, none of us should be considered to have "normal" human vision.

Everybody is aware that some of us have eyes that provide sharper images, but most people assume that we all see the same colors and have the same night vision. However, even though all of our eyes are similar, they are not exactly the same. If we could look through other people's eyes, we would see that the colors are slightly different, and so are the contrast and brightness levels.

The human retina has three different photoreceptor cells, which makes us more sensitive to those three colors rather than equally sensitive to the entire spectrum. Therefore, how can we be certain that we are getting an accurate view of the universe? Furthermore, as the light becomes more faint, our color receptors begin to fail, giving us an increasingly inaccurate view of the world. Also, does the word Blue in the black bar below seem darker than the word Yellow because our eyes do not see blue as well?

To add complexity to the issue, our sun does not produce all frequencies of light equally, and our location on the earth, time of day, and the atmospheric conditions affect how much of each frequency we see.

How do we know if our eyes are giving us an accurate view of the universe? How do we know if our ears and nose are interpreting sounds and odors correctly? There is no right or wrong way to interpret the reflection of light, or the vibration of air molecules, or the chemicals in the air. It is our arrogance and our ignorance that causes us to believe that we are interpreting the world correctly.

If there are aliens on another planet, they might have a retina that can see more than red, green, and blue, so they could claim to have a more accurate view of the universe than we have. They might have also controlled reproduction so well that they have caused their eyes to evolve to match the typical frequencies that are passing thought their atmosphere.

Our modern environment exposes us to new things

To complicate the issue of allergies, our body has some bizarre reactions that are similar to allergic reactions, but which would be better classified as "limitations" of our genetic design rather than an "allergy". For example, when I, and apparently a lot of other people, eat foods that have a lot of capsaicin or vinegar, the top of my head perspires and my nose produces a watery mucus, but not because I am "allergic" to capsaicin or vinegar.

It would be better to describe that reaction as a "limitation" of the genetic design of a human as a result of our prehistoric ancestors evolving for an environment that had such low and intermittent levels of vinegar and capsaicin that our body never developed a proper response to those chemicals.

Likewise, our eyes increase their production of tears when we cut into raw onions, but is it because we are "allergic" to onions? Perhaps, but it might be more accurate to describe that reaction as another limitation of the human body as a result of our ancestors not having much contact with raw onions.

How many other limitations does our body have? Is brain freeze another inappropriate reaction that we should describe as a limitation of the genetic design of a human because we did not evolve to eat frozen foods?

Incidentally, those bizarre reactions should be regarded as more evidence that humans are a haphazard modification of a monkey, and that there is no intelligent entity supervising evolution.

None of us is perfect

When we discover that a complex genetic feature, such as an immune system, liver, brain, or digestive system, is defective in a large percentage of the population, we should consider the possibility that the gene pool has so many defects that most – or all – of the "perfect" creatures are also defective, but in such a subtle manner that they appear to be perfect.

In regards to humans and allergies, most people have allergic reactions to something, such as insect bites and poison ivy, so we should consider the possibility that the human gene pool has so many defects in the immune system that nobody has a perfect immune system.

This concept is similar to what I've mentioned in other documents; namely, that a significant percentage of the human population is involved with adultery, theft, overeating, drug abuse, and other undesirable or dishonest activities, and people have been involved with these activities all throughout history, and in every society. The undesirable behavior is so common that we should not dismiss it as being due to "genetic mistakes", as we can with albinos and Siamese twins.

Undesirable behavior is very common because it is the result of genetic characteristics in the human gene pool. They are characteristics that we inherited from the animals. All of us are likely to have inherited the undesirable behavioral characteristics, but the subtle differences in our thinking abilities, self-control, and other characteristics results in some of us doing a better job of suppressing our undesirable cravings.

Everybody has an allergy to something

If we had the technology to analyze each of our immune systems, we would find a spectrum of immune system responses, although I doubt if the graph is symmetrical (such as the graph below).

At one extreme are the people who have the least problems with allergies, and at the other extreme are the people who die from contact with peanuts or penicillin.

I suspect that the people who assume that they do not have allergies actually have one or more allergies, but they assume they are perfect because:

I suspect that everybody has at least one allergy.

They have an allergy to a molecule that they rarely encounter because of their particular diet or environment.

Their reaction is so mild that they don't realize that they have an allergic reaction.

Their immune system learned to adapt to the allergen, at least to a certain extent, thereby causing them to be oblivious to their allergy.

They do not regard certain reactions as an "allergy". For example, they don't regard the itchy bump from a mosquito bite to be an allergy.

The advantage to assuming that everybody has a mild allergic reaction to at least one allergen is that it can cause us to be more aware of how our body is reacting, thereby increasing the chances that we notice one of our allergies.

If we ignore the possibility that we have an allergy, then we will never improve our lives, but if we can discover what our allergies are, then we have the opportunity to reduce the problem, thereby improving our life by reducing mucus production, throat clearing, itching, uncomfortable feelings, or other unpleasant reactions.

Allergies are detrimental to our lives

Allergies are detrimental to a person's life because, as I pointed out in previous documents, (such as this), health problems can interfere with our life in many ways.

For example, we do not want to be around people who are frequently blowing their nose, sniffling, or scratching their skin, and as a result, people with allergies are at a disadvantage when trying to attract a spouse and friends, and when applying for certain jobs.

Surveys show that almost everybody picks their nose occasionally. The people who do this in public buildings are sometimes wiping the mucus on furniture, or dropping it on the floor, which allows it to dry, blow around, and get into our food and lungs.

We don't want to pick our nose or watch other people do it so we ought to investigate whether any of the nose picking is due to a mild allergy that the person is unaware of. If so, then if we could figure out what is causing the allergic reactions, we might be able to reduce some of the nose picking.

Every year more people suffer from allergies

Our nations are putting a lot of labor and resources into developing drugs and treating people with allergies, but that does nothing to reduce allergies. Every year there are more people going to doctors and hospitals to deal with their allergies. The suffering from allergies is increasing, and so is the burden on our healthcare system.

All of the people in leadership positions are blaming the increase in allergies on the environment, such as "climate change" and the raising of children in such sterile homes that their immune systems cannot develop properly. Although our environment has an effect on how our immune system develops, we need leaders who can acknowledge the evidence that humans follow the same genetic rules as the animals.

If a farmer noticed that the percentage of his chickens that were allergic to something was increasing every year, in addition to investigating whether it was due to an environmental problem, he would also consider the possibility that the chickens are degrading genetically.

We do not have the technology to determine whether a person is suffering from an allergy because of his environment or his genetics, but we should assume most allergies are due to genetics because most of the people with serious allergies grew up in an environment that was very similar to their siblings and neighbors.

Why do humans have more allergies than wild animals?

Wild animals have fewer problems with allergies than humans. Although part of the reason could be because wild animals have less exposure to allergens than modern humans, the primary reason is because wild animals have fewer genetic defects than modern humans. This is also why they have fewer problems with nearsightedness, arthritis, baldness, tooth decay, weird behavior, constipation, difficulty in giving birth, and crooked teeth.

Wild animals also have a superior digestive system. They can eat raw food that has been decaying for days, and which is contaminated with bacteria, amoebas, and mold. Some animals can eat poop, bones, toe nails, and the contents of another animal's digestive system. By comparison, the human digestive system is so defective that we must be very careful about what we eat, and how we prepare our food.

Our ancestors developed the best intelligence of all animals, so why did they not develop the best digestive system and immune system? Why do modern humans have so many more problems with food and health than the wild animals?

Here are some possible reasons as to why humans have so many allergies and other health problems:

1) Evolution gives us only the vital characteristics.

We retain only the genetic characteristics that are vital to our survival and reproduction. The traits that are not vital will slowly accumulate defects and deteriorate, and eventually they will vanish from the gene pool, even if they are desirable traits.

Although there is no intelligence supervising evolution, every genetic characteristic is (or originally was), beneficial to the creature that has it. For an example, why do so many flowers, birds, insects, and other animals have beautiful colors and patterns? I think there are several reasons; specifically:

1) Flowers are colorful for the same reason that they produce nectar and a fragrance; specifically, it is vital that they attract pollinators.

Some animals have beautiful colors and patterns to attract the opposite sex.

Some poisonous and bad tasting creatures developed beautiful colors as a way of warning predators to avoid them.

Some of the beautiful patterns and colors are camouflage.

An interesting aspect of this issue is that all of the flowers and animals have unique colors and patterns. It is possible that the uniqueness is simply due to the random mixing of genes, but I suspect that natural selection is favoring unique colors and patterns for every species.

The advantage to having every species develop its own unique colors and patterns is to make it easier for the animals to identify members of their own species, and to identify the predators and harmless creatures, especially from a long distance. The animals that can more accurately and quickly identify other animals will have an advantage over the others.

Likewise, when flowers have unique colors and patterns, the insects and birds that are intended to pollinate them will have an easier time finding them.

Furthermore, predators are inadvertently causing every animal to have a unique appearance because if a species looks like their prey, then the predators would occasionally kill it by mistake, thereby eliminating the animals that resemble their prey.

This evolution is also occurring with our material items. For example, when humans are wearing black wetsuits in the ocean, they have a visual similarity to seals, which are prey to certain species of sharks. A company in Australia has responded by experimenting with wetsuits with stripes and patterns so that the humans look less like the prey of those sharks. As with evolution, this is a slow process of trial and error, but they will eventually figure out how to design their Elude wetsuits to significantly reduce shark attacks.

The same concept applies to the odors and noises that the animals make. By having unique odors and noises, the animals that depend on odors and noises will have an easier time identifying their own and other species, and make fewer mistakes about which animals are their prey.

This aspect of evolution explains why the human immune system is inferior to that of the wild animals. Specifically, as the intelligence of prehistoric humans increased, their immune system did not need to be so effective. For example, if one of them got sick after eating stinky meat, he would learn to avoid meat with that particular odor, rather than continue to eat it and suffer, as an animal would.

Likewise, if one of them was suffering from a blocked nasal passage as a result of an allergy, he would have the dexterity and intelligence to use his fingers to clean his nose, or to blow his nose, thereby compensating for his allergy, rather than suffer with breathing difficulties, like a stupid animal.

By compensating for the defects in their immune system, our prehistoric ancestors inadvertently allowed the defects to accumulate in the human gene pool.

Furthermore, prehistoric humans only had to live long enough to successfully raise children, so their immune system only had to function properly until about the age of 40, and then it did not matter if it began to deteriorate so much that they began to develop cancer, allergies, or autoimmune diseases.

Actually, it was a benefit to prehistoric people if their parents died soon after raising children because, as our ancestors became more intelligent and less like an animal, they would have developed an increasingly strong desire to take care of their parents, which would have wasted their time and resources, which is what we do today.

2) Technology has increased the rate of deterioration.

The previous paragraphs pointed out that our prehistoric ancestors inadvertently caused the human immune system to degrade, but during the past few thousand years, and especially during the past century, the degradation has been occurring at a much more rapid rate as a result of our medical care, welfare programs, and other technology. Today it is possible for extremely defective children to survive and reproduce.

3) We inadvertently increased our allergens.

We are exposed to more allergens today compared to our prehistoric ancestors because:

We live in permanent houses, work inside buildings, and travel in vehicles that expose us to a variety of dusts, molds, chemicals, insects, and pet animals.

We surround our homes and other buildings with a variety of trees and plants from around the world, and we are also living among farms, ranches, and parks that contain animals and plants from around the world. This is exposing us to a wider variety of allergens than our prehistoric ancestors had contact with.

We live among businesses, vehicles, and machines that produce a variety of pollutants and particles that appear to cause some people to develop autoimmune diseases, and possibly allergies also.

A recent study of cities shows that our artificial lighting is causing plants to produce allergens during more days of the year.

4) Our foods are no longer "natural".

We no longer eat the foods that we evolved for. The FDA claims that eight foods cause 90% of the food allergies in the USA: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans. Sesame seeds will be added to that list at the end of 2022, making it the ninth major food allergen. Prehistoric humans did not evolve to eat any of those nine foods.

Milk causes the most trouble of all foods, and that should not surprise those of us who believe in evolution because milk evolved only for babies. It is especially absurd for us to believe that humans need to drink animal milk every day in order to remain healthy.

The FDA realizes that milk causes a tremendous problem for a lot of people, but they continue to promote milk as one of the primary foods for our daily diet.

It is interesting to note that fish and shellfish cause a lot of allergic reactions, but not lambs, pigs, deer, chickens, and other land animals. This is evidence that humans evolved to eat land animals, and that large amounts of seafood is a recent addition to the human diet.

Further evidence that seafood is a recent addition is that we tend to mask the flavor of seafood with large amounts of lemon juice, butter, sauces, and spices, whereas sauces and spices are optional with pork, chicken, lamb, and other land animals.

It's also interesting that one of the most popular fish is salmon, and that might be because salmon could easily be caught by prehistoric people when enormous amounts of salmon travel up rivers to lay eggs. They would be especially easy to catch after they have laid their eggs and start to die.

I enjoy seafood occasionally, but I would not want to eat it every day. I regard seafood as providing me with "variety", rather than regarding it as a "delicacy".

Eggs are another major source of allergies. Our ancestors would have occasionally eaten a bird's egg, but it would have been only during the brief period of time that birds lay eggs, and most of the time they would have found only the small eggs of birds that have nests close to the ground. They did not have access to hundreds of cartons of large, chicken eggs every day of the year.

Furthermore, the people with an allergy to eggs are usually allergic to the white, not the yolk. However, our prehistoric ancestors would have eaten bird eggs that were fertilized, and most of the time the people would have found eggs after the white portion had started the transformation into a fetus.

A bird fetus (balut, photo to the right) might classify as "meat", which almost nobody is allergic to (other than a small number of people who have been bit by the Lone Star tick). How many of the people with an allergy to egg whites have an allergic reaction to balut?

Incidentally, I suspect that most of the eggs that our prehistoric ancestors found were from small birds, and so the eggs were smaller than chicken eggs, and they probably put the entire egg into their mouth, including the shell. In such a case, they would not have noticed that they were eating a bird fetus. They would not have cared, anyway, since they would have become accustomed to eating that type of food.

How rare are triple yolks?

In my criticism of space pornography, I pointed out that a person cannot assume that something they experience is a common event that everybody experiences, or that life is everywhere in the universe simply because there is life on the earth. I recently experienced an example of this concept.

On 28 July 2022, I cracked two gelled eggs onto a piece of sprouted wheat bread, and one of the eggs had three yolks. Should I assume that everybody occasionally has eggs with triple yolks? Furthermore, I can only remember finding two yolks in an egg once or twice during my life, so should I assume that three yolks are almost as common as two?

Click photos
if you want the
high resolution versions.

The photo to the left shows the two eggs after I cracked them onto the bread, and the photo to right shows the eggs after I pushed away the white portion to make it easier to see the yolks.

According to the British Egg Information Service, only one in 25 million eggs has a triple yolk. If that statistic is accurate for eggs in the USA, then I just experienced something that is almost as rare is winning a big lottery.

Incidentally, according to this website, finding a triple yolk is "believed to be a sign of good luck and symbolize a new beginning and something special in your future!"

It is a pity that I don't believe in such nonsense or I would be convinced that the triple yolk was a sign that the world is finally going to improve!

We must restrict reproduction

It is as idiotic to believe that we can stop allergies with drugs and medical treatments as the belief that we can stop crime with jails and by encouraging people to purchase guns.

The only way to reduce crime, allergies, and many of our other problems is to pass judgment on who among us has better genetic characteristics, and restrict reproduction to the people who are genetically superior.

The human race is degrading genetically, and this is causing every generation to have more problems with allergies, loneliness, mental illness, physical deformities, diabetes, liver problems, and every other possible type of genetic disorder. If we continue to allow uncontrolled reproduction, the human race will eventually degrade to the point at which everybody is suffering from many serious allergies.

We need leaders who can acknowledge the evidence that humans are an animal, and we follow the same genetic rules as other animals. The only way we are going to reduce allergies, crime, unemployment, mental illness, antisocial behavior, and other problems is to pass judgment on who among us has better genetics, and restrict reproduction.

In order to pass judgment on who among us has the genetically superior immune systems, we must eliminate secrecy and allow scientists to collect medical data about all of us. We must stop treating health information as "personal" and "private".

We gain nothing by being paranoid that other people will know the truth about our health, but each of us would benefit tremendously from more knowledge about health issues.

How can we determine what we are allergic to?

In order to pass judgment on whose immune system is superior, we need to know what each of us is allergic to, and how serious our allergic reaction is, but how do we determine what we are allergic to? Some businesses are offering tests for common allergens, but how accurate are those tests?

In this survey of people who believe they have an allergy, 44% claim to be allergic to pollen, grass, or other seasonal allergens, but some of those people could be making a mistake about what they are allergic to.

Many people have noticed that their allergies are less severe in the winter, and that can lead them to the assumption that they are allergic to pollen or grass, but we ought to consider the possibility that some people have fewer problems with allergies during the winter because of other things that can change between the seasons, such as our diets, and the amount of mold in our homes.

So many health experts; so little knowledge

So many health experts; so little knowledge

Some "health experts" are providing truly idiotic advice, such as those in Asia who promote manta ray gills, and the Chinese government, which recently legalized rhinoceros horns and tiger bones for medical purposes.

The governments and "health experts" in the USA and Europe are not much better than those in Asia. Here are a few examples of the incredible – and sometimes amusing – contradictions of our "health experts":

The Mayo clinic staff claims that "alcohol and certain substances in red wine called antioxidants may help prevent coronary artery disease", and "Various studies have shown that moderate amounts of all types of alcohol benefit the heart, not just alcohol found in red wine."

However, other "health experts" claim that no amount of alcohol is healthy.

Although the Mayo clinic advises us to drink "in moderation", and although it is possible that small amounts of ethyl alcohol can help some people with certain types of medical problems, they are not waiting for supporting evidence for their theory. Rather, they are behaving like a cocaine addict who justifies his chewing of coca leaves with remarks such as:

The chewing of coca leaves, in moderation, is an excellent way to get pain relief, and a variety of health benefits, such as minerals and vitamins, and exercise for our jaw muscles.

Some experts at the Johnson and Wales University claim that marijuana has 7 health benefits; this document lists 25 health benefits; and this document describes 61 health benefits.

However, other "health experts" claim that marijuana is detrimental to our health.

This article claims that sex and masturbation improves the health of both men and women, and "helps men live longer", and this article claims that 3 of its 10 health benefits are reducing heart attacks, blood pressure, and prostate cancer.

Some people claim that mushrooms have health benefits, such as inhibiting cancer, but other people, such as Tom Brady, believe that mushrooms are worthless or dangerous.

Of the people who eat mushrooms, some of them claim that mushrooms can be eaten raw; others claim that they are essentially indigestible if raw; and others claim that they must be cooked thoroughly to destroy the toxic agaritine that they contain.

In regards to melanoma, some experts advise as to avoid sunlight around noon, and to wear sunscreen, such as this document from John Hopkins University and this from the Harvard Medical School.

However, Dr. Mercola interprets this scientific study of melanoma to mean that noon sunlight is so beneficial that we should not use sunscreen. Is Mercola's interpretation of that research accurate?

Some people advise us to cook, ferment, soak, and/or sprout certain seeds to reduce lectins, but the experts disagree on which foods have lectins. For example, this document puts hazelnuts and pine nuts in its "Lectin-Free" list, and chia seeds in the High-Lectin list, but this document has those seeds in the opposite lists.

Other experts claim that some lectins are beneficial to our health, such as this and this, and some people at the University of Michigan found that the lectin that develops when a banana ripens (BanLec), inhibits the HIV virus.

However, this document provides us with "the truth about lectins", and one suggestion is to eat unripe bananas, papayas, and mangoes, mainly to reduce our consumption of sugar, but also to reduce the amount of lectins in our diet.

This document adds to the confusion by claiming that the type of blood we have determines which of the lectins are the most harmful to us. For example, people with Type O blood need to be more concerned with avoiding wheat than people with other types of blood.

This document advises us to reduce our consumption of foods that contain oxalic acid, phytic acid, tannins, and trypsin inhibitors, in addition to reducing our consumption of lectins.

Of course, the experts disagree on which foods contain the most oxalic acid, and which of the foods contain the acid in a form that allows it to get into our body.

That document also advises us to avoid GMO foods, but none of the health experts have evidence that GMO foods are more dangerous than the foods that are genetically modified by farmers or evolution.

That document also advises us to be concerned about the omega-3 to omega 6 ratio of the fats in our foods, but the health experts disagree on which of the oils and fats are healthiest, whether hydrogenated oils are dangerous, and whether dietary cholesterol will clog our arteries.

Some people tell us that we should never refrigerate olive oil because that can ruin the flavor and cause it to go rancid, and a few people believe that refrigeration will destroy nutrients. Other people say that refrigeration and freezing are an excellent way to preserve olive oil.

Incidentally, since it takes me a few months to use an entire bottle of olive oil, I have been putting in into small, glass containers and freezing it. When I need olive oil, I can either move a container to the refrigerator, or poke the frozen oil with a knife to break it into pieces. The small pieces can be sprinkled onto whatever needs a small amount of oil, and the larger pieces are useful when adding oil to something that I am making.

Frozen "olive oil cubes" might be useful for chefs if the oil is frozen into cubes of specific weights or volumes because that would allow chefs to take the amount of oil they need faster than measuring a liquid, and it avoids the chore of cleaning the measuring device. It also prevents the mess that frequently occurs as droplets of oil dribble down the bottle, eventually getting onto fingers, tables, and floors.

“If you are going to die soon from an accident...”

An important aspect of that article that tells us "the truth about lectins" is that the author points out that although some lectins have potential benefits, the people who have allergies to lectins, or who have autoimmune diseases, will benefit by reducing their consumption of lectins. This is an important issue because his advice is wonderful, but how do we determine who among us has an allergy to one or more of the thousands of lectins? And how can we find out if we have an autoimmune disorder?

The author of that article is giving us valuable advice that we cannot use because we don't know how to determine the characteristics of our immune system. His advice is as valuable but useless as a school teacher advising his students:

Those of you who will die in a car accident before you graduate should not bother studying for tests or doing your homework. You should just try to enjoy what's left of your life.

In order for us to avoid allergens, we need to develop tests that can accurately determine what a person is allergic to, and we need to provide everybody with access to those tests.

Which Know-It-All should we believe?

Which of the health experts in our world today are providing us with better advice than the medieval health experts?

Not many of the "health experts" are basing their advice on scientific experiments. Instead:

Some people create health advice according to how their particular body reacts to foods and allergens, which is based on the fantasy that all humans are essentially the same. Those people are "Evolution Deniers".

Some of the vegans, alcoholics, and drug users create health advice based on their particular emotional cravings, drug preferences, fantasies, and fears.

The religious fanatics create advice that is based on the fantasy that humans are the creation of some type of supreme being, and that human health issues are completely different from those of the animals.

The people who promote urine therapy are basing that advice on ... what?

Business executives and investors create health advice to promote the particular food they are hoping to profit from, although the abuse is not as extreme today as it was a century ago, when businesses could promote Coca-Cola as a "brain tonic".

Why are there so many health experts?

Only a small percentage of the population claim to be an expert in designing microprocessors, carpentry, or raising chickens, but a significant percentage of the population, possibly the majority, believe that they are experts on health and nutrition.

This results in millions of people frequently giving health advice to their family members, friends, and coworkers, and some people post documents and videos on the Internet to tell us "The Truth" about food and other health issues.

Why do so many people believe they are experts on health issues but only a few people claim to be experts on refining aluminum or repairing a washing machine? It is because, as I've mentioned in other documents, the more ignorant we are about an issue, the more likely we are to assume we are an expert about it.

For example, a religious fanatic created this timetable to explain when the universe was created, and to identify the birth years of the first 19 descendants of Adam and Eve, and some physicists claim to know what happened during the first microsecond of the creation of the universe.

Can we trust any of the experts?

My advice is is to be suspicious of everything we are told by our government officials, journalists, college teachers, scientists, engineers, and other people in influential positions because I think all of them belong in one of these 4 categories:

1) Some are deliberately lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, global warming, and many other issues because they are members of a gigantic, international crime network.

Some are inadvertently promoting the lies because they believe the lies, and they are too frightened of the unknown to look critically at the "official" explanations.

Some are promoting the lies in order to avoid retaliation by the crime network.

Some are promoting fantasies, such as the people who refuse to believe that humans are a species of monkey that follows the same genetic rules as other animals.

If we can start a new city, we will have to verify all of the information that we know about health, history, foods, nutrition, raising children, and everything else. For an example of why we must be critical of everything we know, consider what the experts are telling us about sugar substitutes.

What are the most sensible sugar substitutes?

There is nothing wrong with sugar, but we tend to consume too much of it. Unlike prehistoric humans, we tend to eat a lot of sugar every day because we have access to large amounts of fruits, vegetables, and other carbohydrates every day. Therefore, it would be beneficial if we could find a way to reduce our consumption of additional sugar, such as by finding a sugar substitute.

The US FDA has approved only six "high-intensity" artificial sweeteners:

1) Acesulfame potassium






However, the management of the Whole Foods market refuse to sell a food that contain any of these food additives, and all six of those artificial sweeteners are in that list. Who should we trust:
a) The FDA.
b) The executives of Whole Foods market.

Are the executives of Whole Foods merely pandering to a particular group of consumers? Is their extensive list of banned food additives an advertising stunt? Or do they truly have a concern for our health? And do they have the intellectual and emotional abilities, and the education, to make wise decisions about what is best for our health?

Does Splenda make sense to you?

According to these statistics, the most popular sugar substitute is Splenda, which uses sucralose. There are different variations of Splenda, but the original and most popular is a mixture of maltodextrin and sucralose.

The FDA defines "maltodextrin" as a chain of between 2 and 20 glucose molecules. It rapidly digests into glucose, but it does not have any significant flavor or sweetness, so it could be described as a non-sweet form of glucose.

Athletes often consume glucose when they are tired, but some prefer maltodextrin because it is not as sweet and sticky. The packages of maltodextrin that are sold to athletes show about 3.81 calories per gram, which is exactly the same as one gram of sucrose, fructose, and glucose.

The Splenda that is sold in 1 gram packets is the most interesting. This analysis of a Splenda packet shows that it consisted of 1.08% glucose, 4.23% water, 93.59% maltodextrin, and 1.10% sucralose, which means that it is almost 95% glucose. Therefore, a Splenda packet should have about 3.6 calories per gram.

The FDA recommends to have no more than 50 grams of "added sugar" each day. In the image below, right, the blue arrow shows that 1 gram of Splenda packet has 2% of that recommended 50 grams, which means that 1 gram of Splenda has 1 gram of added sugar. However, the packages of Splenda show that it has zero calories!

Maltodextrin label

Splenda label

Maltodextrin has 3.81 calories per gram.

The maltodextrin in Splenda has zero calories!

The FDA allows a business to claim that a food product has zero calories if the "serving size" has less than five calories. To make the situation more deceptive, many packages of Splenda (such as the package in the photo above, red arrow) claim to be "Suitable for people with diabetes".

If the serving size of ordinary sugar was set to one gram, would the FDA allow it to claim it has zero calories and is suitable for diabetics?
If a business that produces ordinary sucrose sugar listed a serving size of one gram, would the package be able to claim that it has zero calories and is suitable for people with diabetes?

The FDA says the "serving size" should be what people typically consume, but even if most people use only one packet of Splenda in a meal, that does not justify the claim that it has zero calories.

The maltodextrins digest rapidly into glucose, so the FDA and the businesses would be more honest if they regarded the maltodextrins as "non-sweet glucose" with exactly the same calories as sugar. They should also admit that it has the same effect on our body as glucose, which means that it is no better for diabetics than pure glucose.

Furthermore, there are so many people using more than one packet of Splenda in their foods that some of the boxes of Splenda packets show how many one-gram packets to use in the recipes that specify sugar in teaspoons or cups.

Splenda is a deceptive product. Splenda should be described as an artificially sweetened, non-sweet form of glucose. Or we could describe it as artificially sweetened glucose.

I think Splenda would be a more sensible product if it used glucose instead of maltodextrin. The reason is because the glucose would increase the sweetening power, thereby reducing the amount of sucralose that is needed. It would also have a greater resemblance to sucrose in regards to the way it feels in our mouth, reacts with foods, and reacts when cooked or baked.

There is nothing wrong with a business adding sucralose, Stevia, monk fruit, or other sweetening agent to glucose, sucrose, or some other sugar . That “artificially sweetened sugar” would allow us to reduce our sugar consumption. However, the government and businesses should be honest about the product.

Is glucose a sensible substitute for sucrose?

Incidentally, I wonder if it would be better if we replaced some of the sucrose with glucose. The reason is because sucrose provides us with fructose, which is stored in our liver, but not many modern humans need to store much, if any, fructose.

Fruits and vegetables are already providing us with a lot of sucrose and fructose, so it might be better for our health if we reduced our consumption of additional sucrose.

I have not purchased sucrose for decades, but I mix some glucose with Stevia when Stevia doesn't have the ability to counteract bitterness, such as with foods that contain cocoa. However, I cannot figure out if glucose is better for my health. We need to fund research into these issues so that we don't have to make wild guesses.

It is also acceptable for businesses to put maltodextrin in food products, but they should be honest about that, also, rather than pretend that maltodextrin is an inert additive that has no effect on us. For example, a few years ago, the KAL brand of Stevia contained maltodextrin, but they did not explain how much it contained, or why they included it. This resulted in a lot of complaints.

We are regularly exploited, lied to, and manipulated

Do any of the officials in our government or healthcare businesses care if overweight or diabetic people are being fooled by the deceptive description of Splenda into believing that Splenda truly is a sugar substitute?

Why does the FDA allow Splenda to claim that it has zero calories and that it is suitable for diabetics? Why don't any of the journalists, college teachers, doctors, or other people in influential positions complain about the deception?

Furthermore, why does the FDA refuse to classify Stevia and monk fruit (Luo Han Guo) as safe alternatives to sugar? The FDA has this document that lists some alternatives to sugar, and notice that instead of regarding stevia and monk fruit as "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS), they say they have "not questioned" those claims, which I think is the same as saying:
"We are trying to suppress stevia and monk fruit and promote six other unnatural chemicals, but we will not explain our reasons because, if you knew, you would be disgusted with us."

We cannot trust anything our government, business executives, journalists, college teachers, ADL members, and other people in influential positions tell us about Splenda, stevia, monk fruit, dairy products, caffeine levels in foods and drinks, the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, the world wars, the Holocaust, global warming, or anything else.

No nation has set standards for voters, and this has allowed the voters in every nation to create a government of lunatics, pedophiles, criminals, and unskilled, incompetent parasites.

There are no standards for people in other leadership positions, either, and this has allowed businesses, charities, religions, schools, and other organizations to become dominated by criminals and lunatics.

Our law enforcement agencies and courts are supposed to protect us from crime, but the incompetent voters and their disgusting government officials have allowed the courts, FBI, Scotland Yard, Europol, and other law enforcement agencies to become corrupt also.

Our government cannot properly manage an airport

The people who are getting to the top positions of modern societies are those who excel at exploitation, cheating, and manipulation, not the people who excel at providing intelligent guidance. I will use the Santa Barbara airport as a final example of their appalling mental characteristics.

The Santa Barbara airport has three runways. In the photo to the right, the blue arrow shows the long runway for the large commercial airlines, and the two red arrows show the two shorter runways for the private jets and airplanes.

The two short runways allow the private airplanes to take off and land over the ocean, but the long runway puts airplanes over homes, businesses, city parks, and markets.

There are not many commercial aircraft using this airport, so we can tolerate the noise they make, and it is unusual for military airplanes to fly into our airport, so they are not a problem. However, there are large numbers of private jets and airplanes.

If our leaders were considerate, they would require all of the private airplanes to use the two short runways, and to take off and land over the ocean. In such a case, nobody would be bothered by the noise. However, our officials allow private airplanes to use the long runway every day, and without requiring them to turn towards the ocean after they become airborne. They allow the private airplanes to fly directly over people, and at a low altitude.

Furthermore, if our government was truly considerate and responsible, they would require businesses to produce private airplanes and jets that are quiet. Most of us want automobiles and trucks to be quiet, but our leaders do not want strict noise restrictions for their private airplanes and jets because that would increase their price, and it would probably increase fuel consumption.

Why do the city and airport officials allow even the smallest, single engine private airplanes to use the long runway? They do not tell us, and the U.S. Constitution does not require government officials to explain or justify what they do because the officials are supposed to be submissive servants who give the people what they ask for.

Many people have sent complaints to the airport and city officials, and the city of Santa Barbara regularly has meetings in which the public is allowed to ask questions and make suggestions, but the government officials ignore the complaints. When they decide to respond, they pacify the people with lies, such as:
"Thank you for bringing this important issue to our attention! We will look into it immediately. Our goal is to serve you! We love you!"

Democracies always become corrupt

Democracies will always become dominated by people who cheat because the majority of people will always have "ordinary" mental abilities, which means that the majority of voters will always be vulnerable to criminals who are more intelligent than the average person.

Although most Americans do not regard Marxism or communism as a "democracy", all of the socialist governments are essentially extreme democracies because they promise to let the people live without leadership, do whatever they please, and be given whatever they want.

The only way we will create an effective and honest government is to set high standards for voters and other people in leadership positions. We are not cruel when we demand that a government official or business executive do his job properly.

The only people who should be allowed to vote are those who will behave similar to the managers of a factory. Specifically, the voters should give job performance reviews to the government officials, business executives, journalists, school teachers, and other leaders, and routinely replace the most incompetent. The voters must be intolerant of incompetence, and especially dishonesty.

Free enterprise systems become corrupt, also

A free enterprise system could be described as a variation of a democracy because the majority of people dominate the economy indirectly as a result of business executives competing with one another to be the best at pandering to the consumers, and it could be described as a variation of anarchy. The people who rise to the top positions of free enterprise systems will always be those who are the best at exploiting and manipulating the consumers, laws, government officials, schools, and children.

A free enterprise system does not set standards for the consumers, either. Instead, it allows consumers to behave in any manner they please, and the businesses must pander to them. By pandering to the consumers rather than providing them with intelligent advice and supervision, the consumers are encouraged to become arrogant, spoiled brats, and they are allowed to be irresponsible and rude.

This is one of many articles that claim that the number of rude customers has been increasing during the Covid pandemic of 2021 to 2022, and this article claims that the rude customers are one of the reasons the USA is experiencing a labor shortage in retail businesses during the pandemic.

We should change our priorities

We want material items to be high quality, but not people

Since the free enterprise systems and democracies pander to the majority of people, those systems create some pathetic situations. For example:

Our government sets high standards for airplanes, but there are no standards for people in leadership positions.

An example is the Supreme Court judge Ruth Ginsburg, photo, who needed assistance to walk through the airport. Nobody would tolerate an airplane that was so old that it needed other airplanes to help it fly, but nobody cares if government officials are so elderly that they need assistance to help them walk, write speeches, and answer questions.

Furthermore, we want airplanes to be inspected if somebody suspects they have a problem, but we don't investigate accusations that our government officials are involved with pedophilia, human trafficking, or other criminal activities.

There is also no concern about the mental qualities of the ordinary citizens. This results in us building and maintaining extremely high quality airplanes and trains to carry passengers with low quality minds, including extremely rude and violent passengers.

The British government puts a lot of labor and resources into maintaining a high quality horse-drawn carriage, but they don't care about the quality or value of the people that they pamper in the carriage.

Businesses, schools, and governments have created some impressive research labs to analyze and improve golf balls and racing cars, but the people who want to do research into human health have to struggle to find funding.

For example, the University of Hertfordshire has facilities for students to put race cars through wind tunnel analyses (photo below), but how many universities provide facilities for students to analyze their immune system, heart, kidneys, and other health issues?

Many states in the USA require automobile inspections, such as to analyze exhaust gases for pollutants, or verify that the car is in good working order.

However, no government requires the people to have an analysis of their mental health. This creates the idiotic situation in which automobiles are passing routine inspections, but none of the leaders of society, or the citizens, within those vehicles have to pass any type of mental tests to prove to us that their brain is functioning properly.

Engineers have developed some advanced sensors to monitor and collect data about machines and factories, such as the ECUs and on-board diagnostics in automobiles.

However, we are not developing advanced sensors for us to monitor and collect data about our physical or mental health.

Instead, we have only a few simplistic devices that don't provide us with much of an analysis, such as those that measure blood pressure and temperature. Furthermore, none of that data is saved in a public database for use by scientists and doctors.

Our culture is more concerned with the "health" of our material items than with the mental and physical health of the people. We need to make some significant changes in our culture and leadership to improve upon this idiotic situation.

We want images to be high quality, but not information

A similar pathetic situation is that we want our television sets, computer monitors, and smart phones to provide us with high resolution images, but we don't care about the quality or value of the information that those devices are providing to us.

The end result is that billions of people titillate themselves with high-quality images while allowing criminals, lunatics, religious fanatics, advertisers, and Freudian psychologists to fill their minds with idiotic theories, lies, contradictory advice, deceptive sales information, and propaganda.

We are finicky with food, but not with information

If a person is given rotten food at a restaurant, he would either complain or never go back to that restaurant. However, most people will accept "rotten information" without complaining.

When most people are exposed to contradictory, dishonest, confusing, and vague information, they react like the seagulls, skunks, raccoons, mice, and other animals that pick through our trash. Specifically, they pick out the information that they enjoy, as if they are at a smorgasbord and are picking the food they want to eat. They believe whatever is emotionally appealing, rather than put effort into thinking about and discussing the information. For some examples of this idiotic, animal behavior:

The universe
When exposed to a variety of philosophies about the universe, such as religions, atheism, evolution, the Big Bang, and astrology, the majority of people pick out the philosophy that they are most attracted to, and they insult the other philosophies. They have no desire to resolve the differences between the different philosophies.

Historical events
When exposed to a variety of theories about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landings, most people pick out the information they like rather than complain that we should resolve the contradictions between the theories.

Human health
Our government officials, business executives, and self-appointed health experts have created a health information trash dump that is full of contradictions, lies, and irrational opinions. Rather than demand more honest and accurate health information, most people choose whichever information they are most attracted to.

Information is more valuable than material items

We should alter our culture so that we change our priorities from gathering a large amount of material items, to demanding high-quality information for our minds. A "poor" person with a lot of valuable knowledge in his mind will have a more satisfying life than a "wealthy" person who has a mind full of propaganda, lies, nonsense, advertising slogans, and deception.

However, in order to provide ourselves with high-quality information, we must raise standards for the people who provide us with information.

The results of my experiments

Subtle medical problems are difficult to diagnose

I previously wrote that it was sometimes difficult for me to breathe through my left nostril. An area deep inside my left nostril seemed warm and uncomfortable. I assumed that the airflow through my nose was restricted because that warm area was swollen due to some mild allergic reaction to one or more allergens in my environment, such as pollen, foods, or mold.

It is not easy to figure out what my problem is because it is not so severe that I have an obvious reaction immediately after contact with some allergen. However, eventually I noticed that my left nostril was the most irritated after meals that had some of the items that I don't eat too often, such as sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, chia seeds, and amaranth. Therefore, I suspected I had a problem with one or more seeds, rather than with pollen, mold, or dust.

I decided to stop eating all types of seeds, and I discovered that I could breathe easier, and I no longer had that warm, uncomfortable area in my nose. So I began to experiment with the seeds to see which one I was having a problem with. I began the experiments with the seed that I had the least concern for; namely, corn. So for many days I would eat polenta, whole corn (from packages of frozen corn), and popcorn.

I did not notice any bad reaction to corn so I decided to switch to eating sprouted oats because the oats that I had already purchased were sproutable, and because there are so many people advising us to soak or sprout seeds rather than eat them raw. Day after day I ate porridge made from sprouted oats, but I never noticed a bad reaction.

I now usually let oats soak about 10 hours, and then sprout for about 12 hours, but the photo below shows four oat seeds that were soaked for 10 hours and allowed to sprout for 48 hours. There is a noticeable difference in how quickly the roots grow on different oat seeds.

I do not have a problem with sprouted wheat

The wheat that I had already purchased was also sproutable, so I then experimented with porridge made from sprouted wheat, and that did not cause me any trouble, either. Days later I decided to try making bread from the sprouted wheat. I had to add some gluten and yeast, but I did not notice any bad reaction to that bread.

I already had some packages of Kamut from Bob's Red Mill and even though they were not intended for sprouting, most of them sprouted, including some of the broken seeds, as the photo to the right shows. I did not notice a bad reaction to the sprouted Kamut seeds, either.

I do not have a problem with soaked farro

The word "farro" is used to describe three different types of wheat. I already had a package of Bob's Red Mill Farro, which does not identify the type of wheat, but it was not intended for sprouting, so a lot of the seeds were broken. Therefore, instead of giving the seeds time to sprout, I only let them soak for about 10 hours. I did not notice a problem with those seeds, either.

I might have some mild reactions

It is possible that I have a mild reaction to some of the sprouted seeds because all throughout the day and night there are subtle changes with various parts of my body, such as how easily I can breathe through my nose, how tired or dry my eyes feel, how much energy I have, and how thirsty I am.

I have no idea which of the changes I should consider as "normal" for my body, and which are due to a mild allergy or some other problem that I am unaware of.

Who among us is allergic to spices?

The ACAAI claims that 2% of the population is allergic to spices, but an allergy clinic in Britain warns us that "Spice allergies are underdiagnosed because of a lack of reliable tests."

The New York Allergy Center claims that an allergy to mustard is the most common, and other spices that causes allergies are celery, garlic, cinnamon, turmeric, and onion.

Is it possible that some of us have allergies to spices, but we haven't noticed because we eat such small quantities of spices that the reaction is mild?

Can several mild allergies become a significant allergy?

If a person has a mild allergic reaction to several allergens, then when he is exposed to only one of the allergens, especially in a small quantity, he might not notice the bad reaction, but what would happen if he was exposed to all allergens at the same time? Would each of the mild reactions contribute to a reaction that is so significant that he notices?

For example, if a person is allergic to several different types of seeds, herbs, spices, and pollen, but his reaction is so mild that he doesn't notice the reaction when he is exposed to only one of those allergens, what would happen if he ate a granola bar with several of those seeds and spices, and he ate it on a day in which pollen was in the air? Would all of the mild reactions accumulate to the point at which he has a reaction that is so significant that he assumes that he is allergic to the granola bar?

If so, and if he tries to figure out which ingredient in the granola bar he is allergic to by trying them one by one, he would not figure out which he is allergic to. He would have to go to a doctor for a skin prick or patch test, or a blood test, but how accurate are those tests?

We should require health tests

If allergy tests were accurate, then I would recommend that we require everybody take the tests. I think it is more important for us to understand our health than it is to put automobiles through smog inspections, or to provide students with laboratory equipment to test race cars.

Furthermore, the results of the tests should be put into a publicly accessible database so that scientists, doctors, and everybody else can get an idea of the health of the human race, and what we are allergic to.

We should stop treating health information as "private" and "personal" information. Our health information should be considered as "valuable knowledge" about the human race that we can use to improve our lives and reduce our health problems.

However, there are so many remarks about allergy tests being of limited value that I recommend putting more funding into developing better tests, and reducing or eliminating the resources that are going into the development of pet products, cosmetics, racecars, private jets, and golf balls.

I discovered that I prefer soaked seeds

I was originally planning to experiment with raw seeds to figure out if I have a problem with any of the raw seeds, but I discovered that I prefer the flavor of the soaked and sprouted seeds. I no longer have any desire for the raw seeds (other than hemp seeds, which do not seem to cause any trouble), so I lost my interest in experimenting with the raw seeds. The reasons that I prefer the soaked and sprouted seeds are:

1) Soaking removes the unpleasant odor

I consider the odor of whole wheat to be unpleasant, and I discovered that soaking the wheat for about 10 hours causes the wheat to have a much more pleasant, mild flavor. The water becomes a light brown and picks up the unpleasant odor almost immediately, so I replace the water after about an hour, and I replace the water several more times before the water finally remains clean. The water has a slightly bitter taste, so I assume the soaking process extracts, rather than destroys, the chemical(s) that give whole-wheat its unpleasant odor.

When I tasted the water that the oats had soaked in, it was also slightly bitter.

2) Sprouted wheat has a malt flavor

The wheat and some other seeds develop malt as they germinate and sprout. I like the flavor of malt, and I used to buy powdered malt from a local retail store to add to bread and pizza dough, but the store stopped selling it sometime in the 1990's, and I had forgotten about malt. Now I can get that malt flavor by sprouting the wheat.

3) Sprouted wheat makes bread more moist and sweet

The bread made from sprouted wheat is a slightly more moist and sweet.

It is amazingly easy to sprout certain seeds

I had already purchased the Palouse brand of hard white winter wheat and the Montana Gluten Free brand of oats. Both of them are advertised as sproutable, and both are extremely easy to sprout. Nearly 100% of the wheat seeds will sprout because there are very few damaged seeds, but oat seeds are more delicate, so there are some broken oat seeds.

The root tips appear very quickly. The photo below shows the wheat after soaking for about 10 hours, and then sprouting for about 26 hours, for a total of about 36 hours.

The photo below shows how large the roots on wheat can become after 48 hours. Whereas the roots would be noticeably different lengths on the oat seeds, they were almost identical lengths on the wheat seeds.
Wheat seeds produce heat as they sprout

I was surprised to discover that when hundreds of wheat seeds are together in a container, as they are in the photo above, the seeds sometimes feel warm. A few times I put a thermometer into the center of the seeds at different times during the sprouting process, and the seeds were 2 to 5C warmer than the surrounding air. However, I did not do enough measurements to figure out at which point during the soaking and sprouting they produced the most heat.

The photo below shows two kernels after 40 hours. Each wheat seed develops three roots, and one thick stalk that becomes the wheat plant.

The disadvantage with sprouted wheat

The only disadvantage that I have noticed with sprouted wheat is that the longer I let the seeds sprout, the more difficult it is to create bread. I suppose if I had let them develop tiny leaves they would have been even more difficult.

The sprouted wheat requires better control of the moisture level in the dough, and it is beneficial to add gluten. I also changed the manner in which I bake the bread. I now start the baking cycle at a higher temperature, and I turn the temperature down when the top of the crust becomes slightly toasted. The overall baking time is a few minutes longer than it used to be.

By starting with a high temperature, the top of the bread will become somewhat dry and rigid, which prevents the bread from rising too high and then collapsing afterwards. And then I must turn the temperature down so that the inside can cook without charring the outside.

The wet seeds can be popped or toasted

After the seeds have been soaked or sprouted, most of them can be "popped" and/or toasted in a hot air popcorn popper, frying pan, or oven. The oats and wheat actually make popping noises like popcorn, although they don't become much larger in size.

I have to shake the popcorn popper for the first minute or so to keep the seeds moving around in the hot air, but I find it easier to prevent excessive toasting with a popcorn popper. I prefer seeds that have been only slightly toasted to a very light brown color.

Should seeds be toasted when wet or dry?
Incidentally, what is the difference between toasting seeds that are dry, and toasting seeds that are wet? Some documents on the Internet claim that the lectins are more easily destroyed by moist heat, so does that mean toasting wet seeds would be more beneficial? Or does it also destroy nutrients?

Toasted seeds will not make bread
I tried several times to create bread, granola bars, and pancakes with sprouted and toasted buckwheat, oats, and wheat, but it was always a failure. A thin layer along the outside would cook properly, but the inside resembled a dense, moist porridge. I also tried the blender bread concept, but it was a failure, also.

I looked through the videos on the Internet to find out how other people were making bread from toasted and sprouted seeds, and I eventually encountered this woman who warned us to use raw buckwheat, not toasted buckwheat (kasha). Apparently, the toasting process destroys whatever is necessary for them to form a sticky paste. The sprouting process might add to that problem.

The sprouted and toasted seeds can be used in breads, pizza crusts, cookies, pancakes, granola, pasta, and other foods, only if there are other ingredients to provide the "glue" that bread needs, such as gluten, chia seeds, "ordinary" wheat flour, or eggs.

Toasted seeds make an excellent porridge
Porridge does not need to be sticky, so the sprouted and toasted seeds are excellent for porridge. I prefer an extremely thick porridge so that it almost requires chewing. That requires making the porridge in a microwave oven, or by baking it. Although the toasted oats remain slightly sticky, the toasted buckwheat, Farro, and wheat create a thick but "crumbly" porridge.

This buckwheat was baked.

The photos to the right shows buckwheat that I baked as a thin, flat sheet. I made it from buckwheat that I soaked and rinsed for 10 hours, then I toasted it slightly, and then ground it in a blender.

For the upper photo I added water, cocoa, glucose, Stevia, vanilla, and coconut oil to the buckwheat, and then I poured the mixture into white Teflon sheet and baked it. Then I sprinkled the top with some powdered glucose to give it some more contrast for the photo.

For the lower photo I only added water, and after it baked, I poured a cocoa sauce on top and baked it a bit longer to heat the sauce and dissolve the ingredients. There is not much to look at, but click the photos for a larger view.

It is similar to a brownie, but very crumbly, so I have to eat it with a fork or spoon rather than pick it up with my fingers. However, thin sheets lose heat quickly so unless you are living in a hot climate and want cold buckwheat brownies, it's better to make thick sheets, or cook it in a bowl in a microwave oven with a bit more water. Originally I had a photo of a thick piece, but the thin sheet looked more interesting since there's not much to see.

How many people have a problem with gluten?

When I looked on the Internet to find out how other people make bread with sprouted and/or toasted seeds, I noticed that most people were avoiding gluten and using eggs, chia or flax seeds, xanthan gum, or psyllium husks to provide the "stickiness" necessary to make bread.

During the past decade, there have been so many people assuming that they have a problem with gluten that businesses have responded with a lot of gluten-free products, but how many people truly need to avoid gluten?

Gluten is a significant part of European and American diets, so we ought to fund research into the health aspects of the seeds that have gluten. Perhaps some of the people who believe that they have a problem with gluten actually have a problem with the other chemicals that are in the seeds, and that soaking the seeds will allow them to eat gluten without any trouble.

The gluten-free products are another example of how our leaders in business and government should study our problems and provide us with guidance, rather than pander to or exploit the irrational assumptions and desires of the public.

It is also another example of how the only people who should be allowed to vote are those who can show us evidence that they can distinguish between a person who is providing leadership, and a person who was pandering to us or exploiting us.

Voting should be restricted to people who can
distinguish between leadership and pandering

Which foods are harmed by oxygen?

The issue of blender bread brings up an issue that I've wondered about ever since I had the brilliant idea of speeding up the process of making mashed potatoes by putting raw potatoes and water into a blender, pulverizing them into a paste, and then cooking the paste.

Years later I discovered that I am just one of many people to have tried that brilliant idea, and who discovered that it doesn't work. I assumed it was because oxygen was interacting with the potatoes, but this document claims that the blades "tear the starch molecules".

Regardless of why that technique doesn't create mashed potatoes, it caused me to wonder which foods should be processed in an inert atmosphere. For example, would bread be healthier or taste better if the entire process of grinding the seeds into flour, making the flour into dough, and baking the dough was conducted in a low oxygen environment?

Soaked or sprouted seeds can be dehydrated

I usually want to use the sprouted wheat for bread, so I dehydrate the sprouted seeds instead of popping them. I bought an inexpensive dehydrator that is very simple to operate because it has only a temperature knob and an on-off switch. The photo below shows the dehydrator with sprouted wheat on two of its five trays.

After the wheat seeds have been dehydrated (about 6 hours), I store them in a freezer until I want to grind them into flour. (I assume freezing the seeds will retain their flavor and nutrients.)
It might be best to soak all seeds

Where are the allergens in seeds?

People with peanut allergies can have a bad reaction to peanut dust, so if the chemicals that cause allergy problems with wheat and other seeds are along the outside of the seed, (the "bran"), could some people have bad reactions to the "seed dust" that is created at the farms and other businesses that process the seeds?

If all of the allergens, or most of them, are in the outer shell of the seed, and/or in the germ of the seed, then the processed white flour might have only a small amount of allergens, which would explain why so many people can eat processed white flour
without noticing a bad reaction.

We should stop feeling sorry for “underdogs

The processed white flour is not very nutritious, so 79 nations require it to be "enriched" by restoring some – but not all – of the missing nutrients. However, it is idiotic to add only some of the missing nutrients. Likewise, it is idiotic to add iodine to salt, a few B vitamins to nutritional yeast, calcium to orange juice, and vitamins A and D to cow’s milk.

It would be more efficient, and better for our health, if we could figure out what level of nutrients each person needs, and let each person take whatever supplements they need.

We should not waste society's labor and resources by putting nutrients into food products regardless of whether people need them. Besides, our nutritional needs change as we age. The requirements for babies are not the same as those for adults or elderly people. Furthermore, some people have medical problems or genetic disorders that require them to have additional supplements.

Many cities put fluoride into the public water supply to reduce dental problems, but that is as absurd as putting vitamins, birth control hormones, aspirin, or mental health drugs into the public water supply. One reason is because almost all of the public water is used for something other than human consumption, such as irrigation, toilets, dishwashers, swimming pools, and industries. Another reason is because if some people truly need more fluoride than what they get naturally in their diet, then they should take it as a supplement.

Incidentally, some people accuse the governments of putting fluoride into the water in order to cause brain damage. If that theory is unfamiliar to you, take a look at this Harvard University report that says:
"research in laboratory animals suggesting that high levels of fluoride may be toxic to brain and nerve cells. And human epidemiological studies have identified possible links to learning, memory, and cognition deficits"

I suspect that most of the people who support the policy of putting nutrients into food products, salt, and public water supplies enjoy the fantasy that they are heroes who take care of the mentally inferior people.

As I described in more detail in this document, we have strong cravings to be heroes. Unfortunately, we are not helping the human race when we feel sorry for adults who are too incompetent to deal with the modern world.

All adults today should have the desire and ability to learn about and properly use whatever medicines and nutritional supplements that they need. We create an unpleasant social environment when some of the adults are treating other adults as helpless babies.

It would be more pleasant and efficient if we eliminated the laws, chain link fences, security devices, and other procedures and devices that are intended to protect the irresponsible adults. For example, a doctor should only have to recommend a medical drug, and we should be able to order it and get refills through the Internet without being burdened by prescriptions. That would make life easier for doctors and patients, and it would be more efficient for society.

For another example, we should not have to waste labor and resources by putting messages on plastic bags to inform adults that a plastic bag is not a toy for children to play with.

We should raise standards for people instead of feeling sorry for the "Underdogs". We will have a more pleasant life if all of the adults that we live with are capable of taking care of themselves, learning a useful skill, being responsible, and controlling their eating habits, drug use, temper, sexual cravings, and other emotions.

Is soaking more beneficial than sprouting roots?

From my limited experiences, the soaking of the seeds, not the sprouting of roots, removes the unpleasant odor and flavor, and possibly most of the allergens. The sprouting of roots allows malt to develop in certain seeds, but does it remove any allergens?

Seeds are not a natural part of the human diet, and that results in most of us disliking the odor of whole wheat, Farro, Kamut, and many other seeds. Furthermore, a significant percentage of the population has allergic reactions to seeds. Therefore, I suggest we investigate whether it would be better for our health, and provide us with more tasty meals, if we put most or all of the seeds through a soaking process.

By soaking the mild flavored wheat, such as white winter wheat and Kamut, we can create a whole wheat flour with such a mild flavor that we could use it in many, possibly all, of our wheat products without the whole-wheat flavor interfering with the flavor of the product. That should be better for our health than "enriched" white flour.

By allowing wheat, and certain other seeds, to sprout for 10 to 40 hours, we can create flour with a malt flavor, and I suspect a lot of people would enjoy that in many types of cookies, pizzas, pie crusts, pancakes, porridges, and granola bars.

How are businesses producing sprouted seeds?

Some businesses, such as GoRaw, are selling "sprouted" seeds, but the seeds do not have root tips, and the businesses do not describe the process that they put the seeds through, so I wonder if they are getting the seeds wet for a short period of time, and then letting them dry. Those seeds might have started to germinate, but does it reduce the allergens as effectively as soaking the seeds and changing the water several times over 5 to 10 hours?

GoRaw created this page with a video to explain their sprouting process, but like all businesses, their video and documentation is just advertising propaganda. We cannot expect a free enterprise system to provide us with honest or useful information.

We should develop machines to soak, sprout, and cook

Flour that is made from whole seeds has a short shelf life, but that would not matter in Kastron because the flour would be produced only when needed. The homes would not have kitchens, so only the restaurants would need flour. However, the restaurants would not have to provide menus, so all of the meals could be planned days or weeks in advance. Therefore, the restaurants would not have to maintain a storage of flour. Instead, they would get whole seeds from the farmers.

When a restaurant plans to make kasha, oatmeal, bread, pizza, pancakes, granola bars, or other seed products, a restaurant employee would tell a computer how much of the product he wants, and the computer would measure the seeds, and then soak and rinse the seeds several times for perhaps 10 hours.

If the restaurant wants a malt flavor, then the employee would specify how strong he wants the flavor to be, and the computer would let those particular seeds grow roots for whatever length of time is necessary.

I also suggest we develop a machine to grind wet seeds into a paste for dough so that we can avoid the time, equipment, and energy of dehydrating and grinding the seeds. Then the computer would add whatever other ingredients are needed to make the bread product, and bake it.

To make a porridge, the restaurant employee would specify if he wants the seeds to be toasted after the soaking and/or sprouting process, and if he wants the seeds to be crushed for a smooth porridge, or remain as whole seeds, as is typical for rice.

There is no need for humans to be bothered with such simplistic and monotonous tasks as soaking or sprouting seeds, or making bread, porridge, polenta, granola bars, kasha, or pizzas. We have the technology to let machines do that for us. The restaurant employees should only have to set up the machines with raw ingredients, specify the products that they want produced, and ensure that the machines remain clean and working properly.

Gelatin can reduce some of our dependence on seeds

Meatloaf, turkey stuffing, Haggis, blood sausage, and some other sausages contain oats, buckwheat, barley, or corn. Since a lot of people have problems with those seeds, we could replace them with gelatin. Gelatin is not as effective as a thickening agent, but it has the advantage that it does not alter the flavor of meat products.

Gelatin is especially useful for meat that does not have much fat. For example, the ground bison and beef that I eat does not have much fat, so I add a small amount of gelatin to it. I then vacuum seal it in a bag, and cook it at a low temperature in a bath of water (sous vide). The gelatin absorbs the juice, and I think it improves the way the meat feels in my mouth. Unless I am unusual, other people would prefer adding a bit of gelatin to the low-fat burgers, also.

Most people cook burgers in a manner that causes the juice to be lost, but the sous vide method retains all of the juice, and the gelatin makes the juice a bit more thick and sticky, which helps it cling to the meat.

Although the sous vide burgers could be eaten as a "solid" burger, and the juice could be poured onto the bun, I prefer to crumble the burger into a bowl, which allows the pieces to be coated with the "gelatin juice", creating what could be described as a "thick, ground meat stew". I eat it with a plastic spoon.

I suppose most people would be horrified at the thought of eating a "bowl of ground meat with gelatin" with a plastic spoon because it is visually different from the meat products that we are accustomed to, but most people would probably enjoy it in tacos, enchiladas, potstickers, dumplings, and other foods in which it would be nice if the juice remained with the meat.

Adding various amounts of gelatin to any type of porridge or polenta is a way of altering the texture to provide us with variations in our meals. It is also useful in cocoa, carob, and fruit sauces for bread products, such as pancakes, slices of toast, or bowl pizzas.

Of course, before we increase our consumption of gelatin, we should investigate whether eating a lot of gelatin can cause health or digestive problems.

We should change our attitudes

Meals should be designed to improve our lives

Our free enterprise system and our democracy causes meals to be designed to be titillating and profitable, rather than healthy and beneficial. There are three attitudes that I suggest we experiment with:

1) We should be more concerned with understanding food allergies and digestive problems. We should develop tests so that everybody can determine whether they have a food allergy, and we should look for ways to reduce the allergies, such as by soaking seeds, and breeding plants to have fewer allergens.

Furthermore, we should stop promoting the fantasy that animal milk is one of the primary foods that humans need for good health, and acknowledge that it causes a lot of allergies and digestive problems. We should make a serious attempt to find a replacement for milk.

We should try to produce more food products at the location they are eaten, rather than in large factories that require the food products to be stored in warehouses and shipped long distances. The large factories should be used only for food products that can be frozen or dried.

For the food products that taste better when they are fresh and/or warm, we should create small machines to produce those items when and where they are needed. That will also allow us to avoid preservatives, and the labor and resources involved with packaging and un-packaging.

The smaller food processing machines will raise the cost of the food products since they will be less efficient than the giant factories, but we should be more concerned with human life than with profit.

Meat should be cooked at a lower temperature than what our authorities are recommending so that it remains juicy and tasty.

Furthermore, the meat should be cooked so that the juice is not lost or burned. When meat is cooked on a barbecue grill, the outside tends to become overcooked, and a lot of juice becomes air pollution.

When meat is cooked in a pan in an oven, the juice can be collected in the pan, but it can become overcooked and charred. Many people turn that overcooked juice into a thick gravy by adding flour or cornstarch, but those ingredients alter the flavor of the juice.

I think that the best tasting gravy is the pure juice that is collected at a low temperature, as with the sous vide method or a Crockpot that is set to a low temperature. We can make the juice a bit thicker with some gelatin, although it will not be as thick as it would be with flour or cornstarch. I think it is better for gravy to have a nice flavor than to be thick.

We should not mask the flavor of low quality meat

Many people react to low quality meat by trying to mask the flavor with sauces or spices, or by frying or barbecuing the meat to the point at which the unpleasant flavor is dominated by the outer layer of charred meat. The ground beef that the typical US market sells has such an unpleasant flavor and so much fat that most people want the juice to dribble out of it.

In a free enterprise system, businesses do not want to sell fresh meat. Rather, they want to sell the meat that did not sell during the previous day. Therefore, they are always giving us the oldest meat.

Although some people claim that there is a scientific reason for putting a mint sauce on lamb, I suspect that the custom was the result of people looking for a way to mask the flavor of lamb meat that tasted terrible because it was stale, overcooked, or from a diseased animal.

Likewise, people have been putting applesauce on pork for centuries, and although some people claim that the applesauce is beneficial for digestion, or that it "offsets the fat", I suspect that this custom also developed because most people overcook pork to such an extreme that it becomes so dry that they want to put something wet on it to give it the "feel" of the food that we evolved for.

Most people cook pork and beef ribs for so many hours that the muscle fibers detach from the bones and start to separate from one another, and such dry, overcooked meat needs an enormous amount of sauce to make it desirable.

When I cook pork ribs, I seal a couple of them in a plastic bag, and let them sit in a water bath at about 57C for 1 to 4 hours (longer cooking times seem to help the meat come off the bone). Then I pour the juice and ribs into a bowl, and I have ribs with all of the juice, and none of the juice has been burnt. The meat is so juicy and tasty that I don't have to put any sauces or spices on it. I don't even need salt.

The meat does not fall off of the bone, as it does when cooked at high temperatures, so it is more difficult to eat, but I consider that to be an advantage because it makes me spend more time eating the ribs, which extends the time and pleasure of eating.

However, it is difficult to eat ribs without picking them up with our hands and chewing the meat off the bone, like an animal, which I consider to be annoying because it makes a mess of our hands and face. The meat can be cut off the bone with a knife, but it is very difficult, dangerous, and messy to hold a slippery rib in one hand and use a knife with the other hand.

Can ribs also be cut into short sections and gripped by something?
Perhaps somebody can develop a "handle" that can grab the ribs so firmly that we can cut and scrape the meat with a knife.

Or, perhaps we could cut the ribs into small sections and use handles to hold them while we chew the meat off the bone.

Those smaller sections would allow us to chew the meat off the bone without making a mess of our face, similar to how some people cut corncobs into small sections and then hold them with handles, as in the photo to the right.

When pork is fresh and cooked at a low temperature, I can eat it every day, and without any sauces or spices. It is moist, doesn't need any tenderizing, and has a delicious flavor.

As I mentioned in a previous document, I think that the reason pork is such a popular meat is because our ancestors have been eating it for so many thousands of generations that we evolved to enjoy it. We can chew pork without tenderizing it because our teeth and jaws evolved to eat that type of meat.

Restaurants should provide description of the meals

I also suggest that the people designing the meals in Kastron create a description of the meals, and that they include high quality color photos or videos so that we can see what we are going to eat. We would look at the photos and videos on a phone or computer, and the restaurants could also print the descriptions on paper and place them at the tables, such as the photo of the burger in the drawing below.

There are two reasons that I suggest that restaurants provide descriptions of the meals:

1) Emotional comfort
Although some people do not care whether they know what they are eating, some of us feel more comfortable when we know the ingredients, and sometimes how it is turned into a meal. I suppose we want to know what we are eating because of our fear of the unknown.

To help us identify the flavors
Our sense of taste and smell is crude, at least compared to animals. If we do not know what we are eating, we can easily make mistakes in our assumptions of what the food is. This is a very interesting issue, so it will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.

Our mind cannot identify foods accurately

Our arrogance causes us to believe that our brain is incredibly intelligent and precise, but it is just a monkey brain. Our brain was not designed to analyze data from our senses as accurately as a scientific instrument.

Optical illusions are examples of how our eyes and brain can misinterpret visual images, and the dispute over the audio recording known as "yanny or laurel" is an example of how our ears and brain can misinterpret audio data. That audio recording could be described as an "auditory illusion".

We also sometimes misinterpret some of the sensory data from our mouth and nose, which causes us to make a mistake in what we are tasting or smelling. We could describe those mistakes as being due to "flavor illusions", or "fragrance illusions". I think the two main reasons as to why our brain misinterprets data from our senses are:

1) Our brain was designed to help us survive and reproduce, not to be a scientific instrument. As a result, our mind does not care about reality, honesty, or accuracy. We interpret data in a manner that is most beneficial for our survival and reproduction, which results in us seeing what we want to see, and deceiving other people in order to get what we want.

Evolution only gives us what we need, not what we would like to have. Our sense of taste and smell evolved to give our prehistoric ancestors only what they needed for survival, and they did not need a sense of taste or smell that was as good as that of a dog or a scientific instrument.

Our brain has so little concern about reality, and does such an inaccurate job of interpreting sensory data, that the people who test foods have to be blindfolded, or the food has to be hidden, so they cannot see what they are eating. An example are the people in the photo below who were testing food for the US government in the 1930's.

The blindfolding of people should be regarded as proof that the human mind is so crude that we cannot trust our thoughts or feelings. If there are aliens in another solar system with a much more advanced brain, they might be able to test foods without blindfolds. Furthermore, their eyes and brain might be able to interpret visual images so accurately that they don't have any optical illusions.

We tend to believe what we want to believe

Our brain will interpret flavors and odors as it thinks they should be interpreted, or as it wants to interpret them. Our brain also makes decisions about flavors and odors according to what our eyes see, or what somebody has told us about the food.

Furthermore, our brain is so unreliable and crude that we will like or dislike a food according to such criteria as its price, the source of the food (such as whether it came from a farmer's market, trash bin, catering service, or students at a culinary school), and the name, age, sex, and race of the chef who made the food.

For example, this article discusses some of the experiments that have been conducted with people who taste test wines, and the experiments always show that humans do not have the ability to differentiate between different wines. Furthermore, if a person is told that a wine is expensive, he is likely to regard it as better tasting.

The reason our mind will like the foods that are expensive is because we are animals with intense cravings for status. This causes our mind to like whatever we assume will improve our status. This is the reason that wealthy people boast about eating expensive foods, such as lobster, caviar, and champagne. We want to feel special, and impress other people.

The opposite is also true. Specifically, we have a tendency to pout and assume that we are suffering if we have items that make us feel low on the hierarchy.

Enjoying life requires self-control

An expensive item will not necessarily provide us with satisfaction. However, an expensive item allows us to masturbate. Specifically, we can stimulate our craving for status by reminding ourself over and over that we are a special person because we have an expensive item.

In order for us to truly enjoy our modern world, we have to control our arrogance, craving for status, and other emotions. Otherwise, we are likely to fool ourselves into thinking that we are enjoying life when all we are really doing is masturbating over a Lamborghini. Or we might do the opposite, which is fool ourselves into believing that we are suffering because we cannot afford a Lamborghini.

Our memories also affect what we like

Although we have genetic preferences for certain tastes, visual patterns, sounds, and odors, what we like and dislike is affected by our environment. Specifically, the memories that we associate with something.

We usually do not apply this concept to humans, but we use it for training animals. For example, we teach an animal to poop outside of the house by doing something irritating if he poops in the house, such as yelling at him, or making some unpleasant noise.

This results in the animal accumulating unpleasant memories that are associated with pooping in the house. As a result, when the dog is inside the house and feels the need to poop, his mind will recall those unpleasant memories, and he will want to avoid experiencing the unpleasant situation again. This will cause the dog to believe that he "likes" to poop outdoors when in reality he doesn't care where he does it.

In regards to humans, as we grow up, we accumulate memories about food, hairstyles, clothing styles, recreational activities, material items, and jobs. If our mind associates something with pleasant memories, we will assume that we like it, but if we have unpleasant memories associated with it, we will assume we dislike it.

It might be easiest to understand how this process works by observing the misfit children. The children who have mental disorders will frequently be scolded by adults, and insulted or tormented by other children, resulting in a lonely, unpleasant childhood. Those misfit children can associate their unpleasant memories with the hairstyles, clothing styles, foods, or material items that they see on the people who ridicule them.

For example, if a young girl is frequently insulted by adults who are dressed in "conventional" clothing, but if the people dressed in the goth style treat her as a friend, then she will develop unpleasant memories for people wearing the conventional style, and pleasant memories of people who wear the goth style.

This can fool the girl into believing that she likes the goth style, and he dislikes the conventional style, when in reality, the human mind doesn't care which style of clothing we wear.

A child who associates a particular clothing style with unpleasant memories will dislike that clothing style.

A child who is comfortable around misfits will have pleasant memories of their clothing, hair, and activities.

Another example of this concept is the words that we like and dislike. For example, if a person develops unpleasant memories for the words midget or fat, then when he hears those words, those unpleasant memories will be stimulated. This can fool the person into believing that the words are cruel, hateful, or harmful.

This in turn can lead him to the idiotic conclusion that his life will improve if we switch to words that do not evoke unpleasant memories, such as referring to midgets as "little people," and referring to a fat person as a "plus sized" person.

As with all issues that we face today, this issue is more complex than it appears. For example, to some adults, the words "shit" and "diarrhea" evoke unpleasant memories. Therefore, when we are eating a meal with people who routinely use those words in their conversations, we are reminded of those unpleasant images and odors throughout the meal. Our meal would be more relaxing and enjoyable if we eat with people who do not use those words.

When I was a child, I was not bothered by diarrhea or vomit, so I and other children could talk about those issues while we were eating without being annoyed. As I grew older, I developed a distaste of those issues. However, the adults who are not bothered by those issues will have no problem discussing them while they are eating. Many adults are even amused by such things as "Mr. Hankey", or one the many types of "poop toys".

What is the difference between someone like me, who does not want to have a meal with people who use the word "shit", and a midget who does not want us to use the word "midget"?

The difference is subtle. I don't want to hear the word "shit" while I'm eating because it represents a concept that I find unpleasant. It is important to realize that I don't want people to switch to a different word, such as "poop", "bowel movement", or "digestive end product." I am not asking people to use an alternative word because it is not the word that bothers me. It is the concept that the word represents.

To further complicate this concept, I prefer the word "poop" over "shit" because of the memories I have associated with "shit". That word evokes two different groups of memories. One is the waste product, and the other is the low-quality people who frequently use that word. Therefore, the word "shit" evokes memories of unpleasant people, and the waste product, whereas "poop" evokes only the memories of the waste product.

By comparison, the midgets who complain about the word "midget" believe that the word is ruining their life, and that by switching to an alternative word, their life will improve. They are blaming the word, not the concept that the word represents.

I suspect that they are upset with the word midget because it reminds themselves of what they are, which is a genetically defective freak of nature. They do not like themselves. They will boast about being midgets, and claim to enjoy it, but they are simply trying to make the best of a miserable situation. Nobody wants to be a midget, or retarded, or a dwarf, or obese. Nobody wants a child to be these things, either. All of the people who are claiming to love their homosexuality, their mental illness, their dwarfism, and their other problems are simply liars who are trying to make themselves feel better. They are people who cannot face reality.

I can accept my problems. I don't whine that people should stop referring to me as scrawny or bald. I would not even care if people said I'm a "retard with a thyroid problem".

What is a "retard"? We could define the word to include people like me who have a genetic disorder that is so serious that we would have died at a young age if we had been born during prehistoric times. People like me are alive today only because of modern technology.

I do not like my defects, would not want to have a child with my defects, and do not want other people to suffer from these defects, but I can accept my defects. I do not lie to myself and pretend that I love being bald, or that one of God's greatest gifts to me is a thyroid problem.

There are undoubtedly some midgets who can accept their problem, but there are other midgets who cannot. We should not pander to the people who cannot accept their problems.

Everybody has imperfections, and we should consider the people who cannot acknowledge or accept their imperfections as the lower quality people. If we pander to them, we encourage more of their whining.

I think the people who are whining about such pronouns as "he" and "she", and demanding that we refer to them as "they" or "zir" are people who don't like their sexual disorders, and cannot accept their problems.

The word "nigger" is a more complex example of this concept because we have both good and bad memories of that word. The bad memories are of white people using the word to insult black people, and the good memories are of black people using the word in ordinary conversations, songs, and jokes.

The result of these memories is that when a white person uses the word, unpleasant emotions are triggered by the bad memories, and that causes black people to pout or become angry. However, when black people use the word, then everyone, not just black people, are reminded of ordinary conversations, so nobody is bothered by their use of the word.

American culture is treating the word "nigger" in an irrational manner because most people allow their emotions to react to the word, rather than use their intellect to think about the word. If people had more self-control and would think about the word, they would realize that it is just as harmless as all others. Even more interesting, as I pointed out here, we could regard the word as an insult to white people who cannot pronounce the word "Negro", rather than as an insult to black people.

Another example of how our memories affect what we like is that the only memories that most of us have about the game of polo are photos or television images of wealthy people watching that game while drinking a "complimentary bottle of Veuve Clicquot" or other expensive champagne. This can cause us to associate that game with people who are high in the social hierarchy, which can result in us liking the game.

Conversely, if we have been repeatedly failing to become high in the hierarchy, and if we are angry as a result, we might associate polo with the miserable memories of our failures, which can result in us not wanting to be reminded of polo. This can cause us to assume that we dislike polo.

Incidentally, the "complimentary" bottle of champagne at a polo game brings up two important issues.

1) How many wealthy people notice the exploitation?

The "complimentary" bottle of champagne is not truly "complimentary". The people are paying for the champagne when they purchase a ticket to the polo game, but they are told that the champagne is complimentary in order to titillate their emotional craving to feel special. This is another an example of how the free enterprise system is favoring the business executives who can find ways to exploit our emotions, rather than provide us with guidance.

The poor people believe that they are exploited by wealthy people, but the wealthy people exploit everybody, including other wealthy people. A lot of the wealthy people also exploit land, water, animals, and plants.

How extreme does the exploitation have to be before the wealthy people realize that they are being exploited just like the poor people? For example, imagine the Liberty National Golf Club offering dinners in this manner:

Lemon chicken
with complimentary champagne

 - $300

Or how about:

Pork chops
with complimentary Rolls-Royce Phantom
 - $465,000

2) Our leaders are promoting alcohol

The complimentary champagne is another example of how the people in high status positions are pushing alcohol on us. Imagine if a game of polo was providing complementary cocaine or Viagra.

It would be more beneficial if the influential people would promote something sensible and desirable, such as orange juice from freshly squeezed, ripe oranges that are free of unhealthy chemicals.

We must set higher standards for leaders

No society yet has any standards for influential people, and the result is that modern societies have become dominated by lunatics, criminals, pedophiles, crime network members, and people who inherited their money or became wealthy through divorce settlements. They are not people who provide us with guidance. They are people who exploit us, and exploit one another.

Our ignorance affects what we like

We are not aware of how ignorant we are. We like or dislike things according to our memories of it, but we are never aware of whether our memories are providing us with an accurate understanding of it. For example, some adults that I know told me that they do not like cantaloupe melon, but when I gave them a piece of a particular melon (referred to as "Sugar Kiss Melon"), they were shocked to discover that they love it.

They disliked cantaloupe simply because they had accumulated unpleasant memories of cantaloupe, and they assumed that their experience with cantaloupes has caused them to become experts on cantaloupe, but their memories were only of the typical cantaloupes that are sold in the American markets, which I agree are such terrible quality that they are not worth purchasing.

The Sugar Kiss melons are available only at some markets, and they are usually more expensive, which results in a lot of people avoiding them. The higher priced items are not necessarily better than the lower-priced items, but they are better with this particular brand of cantaloupe. (Their honeydew melon, Summer Kiss, is also fantastic.)

None of us is aware of how ignorant we are about cantaloupes, apricots, recreational activities, courtship activities, city planning, transportation systems, clothing styles, or other aspects of the universe. We like and dislike things without realizing that we have only a partial understanding of it, and that we might change our minds about what we like and dislike if we had more information.

Each of us should occasionally remind ourselves that we are analogous to one of the blind men in the story of the blind men and the elephant. We are not nearly as knowledgeable as we like to believe we are.

How accurate
your knowledge?
Furthermore, in addition to having only a small amount of knowledge, we don't know how accurate any of our knowledge is about foods, health, allergies, Jesus Christ, the world wars, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, or Anne Frank's diary. Some of that information has been proven to be lies or fantasies.

Modern humans should understand that being "educated" does not guarantee that we have complete or accurate information. Therefore, we must be very critical about the information that we put into our memories.

In a free enterprise system, we purchase the products that we like, and we avoid those that we dislike, but none of us truly has a good understanding of the products that are for sale, or what we like or dislike. We are ignorant people making decisions on incomplete and faulty information.

Unfortunately, even if we had more information, and more accurate information, most people would not be able to make a wise decision about what they like or dislike simply because most people are only capable of making "average" decisions, and half of the population will make decisions that are below-average.

Most people cannot make "wise" decisions about anything. They cannot make wise decisions about which political candidate to elect to the government, or how to raise children, or how to treat their spouse.

College students are supposed to be above-average in intelligence, but most of them cannot make wise decisions about what to study, or how to spend money, resulting in many of them accumulating large debts and a useless education.

Most people would have a more satisfying life if they had less freedom and more guidance and leadership.

Nobody truly understands himself

We can alter what we like and dislike by altering our culture. By changing the foods we eat, the way we prepare meals, the design of our city, and our recreational activities, we can change what we like about life. For some examples:

If children are raised in a culture in which the foods for children have low sugar levels, then they will like those foods because they will have no memories or awareness of  extremely sweet cereals, candies, and desserts.

If a person who enjoys watching polo games were to live in a city as I suggest in which there is no wealthy class to give polo an image of high status, and in which the city officials routinely experimented with recreational activities, and if the culture encouraged people to participate in activities rather than watch other people, then he might discover that he has more fun participating in other activities. He might come to the conclusion that polo is a dangerous sport that is too difficult for most people to participate in, and that it is a burden on society.

A person who dislikes bicycles might discover that he enjoys bicycles if he is living in a city as I suggest in which he has free access to all types and varieties of bicycles, all of which have been designed to be comfortable and reliable rather than to titillate ignorant consumers, and in which the city handles the storage and maintenance, and provides the people with lots of beautiful bicycle paths, and the bicyclists do not have to share the roads with automobiles or other vehicles.

He might also discover that he enjoys riding on the elevated bicycle paths that allow him to get close to the flowers of the Jacaranda trees and flowering plums, and which allow him to ride over creeks, rough terrain, and the artificial lakes and islands.

A person who dislikes pork, or who likes to put applesauce on pork, might discover that he loves to eat pork with nothing on it when he is living in a city in which he is provided with fresh pork that is cooked at a low temperature.

We should experiment with our culture

We must stop believing that we know what we want and find the courage to look critically at ourselves, and experiment with our options. We must acknowledge that we are animals, and we must exert self-control over our animal cravings. We must push ourselves into being much more critical of our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, and push ourselves into looking favorably at other people's opinions.

When somebody behaves differently, has a different opinion, or has a different preference for food, clothing, art, or home decorations, we have an emotional preference to insult them for being weird, crazy, or having bad tastes. We should instead suppress our craving to feel superior. We need to make a distinction between when a person is behaving in a detrimental manner, and when he is simply different from us.

We should push ourselves into wondering why a person is different from us. By analyzing people who are different, we have the opportunity to learn more about the human mind, life, and our options.

Prehistoric children did not grow up with comic strips, movies, television shows, and other types of "entertainment" that frequently treat sarcastic and insulting remarks as clever and amusing.

For example, the Parade magazine has this document with 100 "Good Comebacks" and "Sick Burns", but we should not admire people who can create or repeat such insults.

Businesses in a free enterprise system provide us with that type of entertainment because we enjoy feeling superior to one another, but promoting insults as "cleverness" encourages children to make insulting remarks. It stimulates their arrogance, and their desire to make other people feel inferior.

We should not regard people who make insulting remarks as being clever. It takes a lot of talent to provide somebody with useful constructive criticism, but it doesn't take talent to ridicule him. We will never improve our lives if all we do is insult one another. We need to analyze our problems and experiment with improvements.

We have strong attractions to democracies and free enterprise systems because they give us what we want, but pandering to our animal cravings will not provide us with the most satisfying life. I suggest raising children in an environment that encourages them to suppress their arrogance and treat other people as friends.

We all believe that we know what we like in regards to food, recreation, marriage, jobs, and everything else, but we don't really know much about ourselves or reality. We need to be more critical of ourselves, and be more willing to experiment with our options.

A description of a meal can help us enjoy it

Getting back to the issue of restaurants providing us with descriptions of our food, I think those descriptions can compensate for some of our crude mental characteristics. Beautiful, color photos or videos of our meal, including the ingredients, can help us to relax, enjoy the meal, and correctly interpret the flavors and odors.

Many Japanese restaurants create displays of plastic food items to show people the meals that they offer. An example are the desserts in the photo to the right.

Those type of displays might be useful in Kastron, also, at least for the foods that we are not familiar with.

The photos and descriptions of the food would be especially useful for when restaurants provide us with subtle variations of a food that we are accustomed to eating. For example, when we eat beef stroganoff, our mind expects the flavor and texture to match our memories of previous meals of beef stroganoff, so if a restaurant provides a beef stroganoff with some different ingredients, our mind will notice that it doesn't match our memories, and that can trigger our fear of the unknown, which in turn can cause our mind to be concerned that the food is rotten or contaminated.

That irrational emotional feeling will make it difficult for us to enjoy the meal. By providing a description and photos, we will realize that it tastes different because it has different ingredients, and/or the ingredients are in different quantities.

Incidentally, there are a lot of people that enjoy calligraphy and art, so instead of wasting their time on projects for themselves, they could create decorative descriptions of our meals, thereby doing something with their talent that we appreciate, as I described with jigsaw mosaics.

For example, they could describe the ingredients, and even the cooking method, of our dinners in a book that is a modern version of a medieval illuminated manuscript, as in the image below. Each evening we would turn to the page in that book that shows us the meal that we are being served that particular evening.

On another evening, we might be served a different type of beef stroganoff, and a description of its ingredients would reassure our emotions that the different texture and flavor is the result of different ingredients, rather than because the food is contaminated or rotten.

We should restrict our “food freedom

Having the freedom to choose our foods is useful only if we know more about foods than anybody else. Otherwise we will benefit by having a group of more knowledgeable people create meals for us.

Almost everybody believes that they are such an expert on food and health that they don't need to listen to anyone else's advice, but none of us knows much about foods or health, or what will truly provide us with the most satisfying life.

Unfortunately, nobody is an expert in foods or health, so nobody can provide us with truly wise advice. However, some people are capable of making better decisions than the majority of people.

The majority of people regularly make "average" decisions about food and health, rather than "wise" decisions. The end result is that most people eat excessive quantities of food, and the food tends to have excessive amounts of sugar, fats, and salt.

This in turn causes a significant percentage of the population to become overweight, sickly, or suffer from an abnormal amount of digestive problems, farting, burping, constipation, and diarrhea.

My suggestion to improve this situation in Kastron is for the scientists to design meals. The restaurants will not provide people with menus. Instead, each restaurant will have a schedule of upcoming meals, as in the cartoon of the Jetsons that I modified (farther above).

We would choose the restaurant we want to eat at, which allows us to choose the type of food we want to eat, but all of the meals will have been designed by a group of scientists to ensure that the meals are providing adequate nutrition.

This policy will allow the scientists to prevent the restaurants from providing children with excessively sweet and worthless foods.

Furthermore, this policy will allow the scientists to change the recipes whenever they learn more about nutrition, and they will not have to conduct advertising campaigns to plead with the public to try the new recipes, as the beer businesses had to do when they first offered beer that was lower in alcohol or calories. The first of those beers, from Coors, was not very successful, but Miller had more success a few decades later with a much more intensive advertising campaign. However, that advertising wasted a lot of labor and resources.

I also suggest we put more resources into developing robots to make meals for us, and to clean up the mess afterwards. The sous vide method of cooking is especially easy for robots, so there is no reason for people to bother with that chore.

There is nothing wrong with sweetening our food

Although I frequently criticize sugar, there is nothing wrong with sweetening our sauces, breads, or pizzas, or even our meat and egg products. My complaint about sugar is that most people are eating excessive amounts of it.

There are several methods to reduce our consumption of sugar. One is to raise children on foods with lower sugar levels so that they become accustomed to low levels of sugar. Fruits are naturally sweet, and I think that fruit should be the only sweet foods that children have access to. I suggest prohibiting children from having access to candy and sweet desserts so that they do not become accustomed to "abnormally" sweet foods.

In a free enterprise system, restaurants pander to everybody, including children, and this results in businesses promoting meals like the one below, which the Rachael Ray television program describes as one of the "Kid-Friendly" recipes.

Those foods are referred to as "kid friendly" because the high sugar levels titillate children, but it would be more accurate to describe those recipes as "food pornography for children".

A democracy and a free enterprise system encourage us to do whatever is most titillating, but children need guidance from the adults, not excessive emotional stimulation that results in them developing unhealthy, worthless, or destructive attitudes, desires, and goals. Raising children on abnormally sweet foods is encouraging them to become adults who want to continue consuming excessive amounts of sugar.

We should change our attitudes towards life. We should stop promoting the attitude that we can improve the life of a child by pandering to him rather than giving him guidance and making him learn how to take care of himself and deal with problems.

Adults also need guidance, but the businesses in a free enterprise system are in competition to titillate adults with the most emotionally satisfying foods, rather than provide us with healthy meals. Furthermore, many restaurants in the USA are titillating adults with large amounts of food, rather than adjusting the quantity of food to be appropriate for each person.

There is nothing wrong with adults eating sweet foods, but we should look for methods to reduce our sugar consumption, such as replacing some of the sugar with a sweet alternative. The US government promotes aspartame and sucralose, but our government is too corrupt and incompetent for us to trust, so I recommend that the Kastron government conduct their own analyses of sugar substitutes.

We can also reduce our sugar consumption by reducing or eliminating the sugar that we put into the dough of some bread products, and put powdered sugar or a sweet sauce on top of the final product. For example:

1)  Instead of putting sugar into the dough for pancakes and cookies, we put powdered sugar or a sweet sauce onto them.

It is common for people to sprinkle powdered sugar onto lemon bars (photo) and cookies, but most people also put a lot of sugar into the dough.


Instead of making sweet breads, such as cinnamon raisin bread and cranberry orange bread, we make a "plain" bread and spread a sweet sauce on top of it, such as a cinnamon raisin sauce, or a cranberry sauce (photo). Some sauces could be so thick that we spread them with a knife, and some could be so thin that they create a "bowl pizza" that we eat with a spoon.

From my personal experiences with sugar, if the same amount of sugar that we put into the dough is put onto the surface, the item will appear sweeter, thereby allowing us to reduce the amount of sugar we use.

The sauces can also solve the problem of bread products that are so dry that we want to coat them with butter, coconut oil, olive oil, or other fat, but most of us already consume excessive amounts of fats. Furthermore, we prefer salty fat, so increasing our consumption of fat usually increases our consumption of salt, also.

In order to eliminate sugar from the dough, we would have to change the way we make certain food items. For example, instead of making a cake from one or two thick layers, we would make thin layers so that every bite has some of the sweet, moist filling, similar to the cake in the photo to the right.

This concept can also be used to reduce our consumption of salt. Specifically, by sprinkling powdered salt on the surface of a bread product, or putting salt in a sauce, rather than incorporating the salt in the dough, we will consume less salt.

For certain foods, we can add tiny amounts of salt to the surface by spraying them with a mist of salt water. That causes the food item to become wet, but for some items, such as slices of avocado, that does not matter, and for other food items, the water can be evaporated by letting it sit for a while, or by warming or toasting it. For example, I cook mushrooms in a toaster oven, and I now spray them with salt water to give them a minuscule amount of salt before I put them into the oven. That avoids the problem of accidentally adding excessive amounts of salt after they have cooked.

If some business would create a high quality salt grinder, we could use it to create powdered salt when we need it. That would allow us to avoid the impossible task of keeping powdered salt dry in humid climates.

I have only tried a few different brands of salt grinders, and most of them are terrible, but the OXO model I bought at a local retail store (photo to the right) is working nicely. However, I have to keep it upside down to reduce the dribbling of salt. Fortunately, it is stable upside down.

We can also reduce our consumption of sugar by allowing fruit to ripen before we harvest it, thereby reducing the quantity of bitter chemicals in the fruit, which in turn reduces the amount of sugar we want to add to jams, pies, granola bars, and other fruit products.

The large container has sugar.
Click to see entire photo.

A person could consume excessive amounts of sugar and salt if he had access to unlimited quantities of powdered sugar, sweet sauces, and salt.

For example, when I was a child, the restaurants in the USA provided the tables with salt, black pepper, ashtrays, and sugar, (the photo to the right) and pancake restaurants also provided syrup. This allowed people to eat excessive amounts of sugar and salt (and while smoking cigarettes).

However, the restaurants in Kastron will have the authority to control the amount of salt and sugar that people have access to, and I suggest that they do not provide customers with any extra salt, sugar, or syrup.

Why can’t we make low-salt miso?

I think miso is a wonderful ingredient in sauces for certain vegetables and for meats with strong flavors (such as liver and canned sardines). It can also be used to make a "multi-flavored pizza". Specifically, by spreading a tiny bit of miso on some random sections of the pizza, a couple bites of the pizza will have a miso flavor, and other sections of the pizza will have some other flavor. However, the high salt content of miso limits its use.

How could there not be a way of making low-salt miso? This description of miso makes me wonder if we could break down the starches in the soybeans or rice in some other manner, such as by adding the enzymes that break down the starch rather than adding the koji. And perhaps we can prevent other bacteria by sterilizing everything, or by adding a lot of the beneficial bacteria so that they dominate.

If businesses are avoiding such techniques because it increases the price of miso, then I suggest we change our attitudes. We should be more concerned with human life than profit. Miso is inexpensive, and we eat only small amounts in one meal, so we should not worry if the price increases.

Perhaps we could change attitudes by encouraging "miso tasting" activities instead of "wine tasting".

Wealthy people distort our culture

Our tendency to mask the flavor of seafood with lemon juice, tartar sauce, and other spices supports the accusation that I made in other documents; specifically, that the wealthy people who boast about eating lobster and caviar are doing so only because those foods are expensive.

The people who describe their foods with such adjectives as luxuries, delicacies, classic combinations, sensory experiences, luscious, unmatchable in quality, and unrivaled culinary sensations, are masturbating.

They are stimulating their emotional craving for status. They are trying to feel important.

The wealthy people are not providing us, or themselves or their family, with sensible leadership. Instead, they are fooling themselves and other people. They are wasting their life on endless attempts to feel important and titillate themselves to extremes.

They inadvertently have a detrimental effect on our culture because instead of providing us with guidance about foods, gold, diamonds, automobiles, houses, and other things, they are distorting our view of life by creating the impression that the only way to fully enjoy life is to have lots of those expensive things.

I would not be surprised if some people would enjoy eating canned dog food if they were told that they were among the privileged few to be offered the outrageously expensive, French epicurean delight of fermented Peacock livers.

Do we really prefer meat that "melts in our mouth"?

Wagyu beef melts in our mouth because of its absurdly high fat content. This type of meat is not "food"; it is "food pornography".
Many wealthy people boast about eating Kobe beef, wagyu beef, "Prime" beef, fillet mignon, and other foods that "melt in our mouth".

Their boasting inadvertently reinforces the attitude that the less effort we put into chewing our food, the more pleasure we receive from eating the meal.

In a previous document I described the meat that melts in our mouth as "baby food for adults". Does baby food really give us the most satisfying meals?

The people who think so are probably following the Marquis de Sade attitude that we will get the most enjoyment from life by avoiding "work".

I previously pointed out that we love to eat crispy foods, and I wonder if the reason is because those foods force us to chew. We achieve more satisfaction from something when we must do some work to earn it. Therefore, I wonder if we prefer crispy foods because we must do some work to chew it, which in turn brings us more satisfaction compared to a food that doesn't require chewing, such as a soup.

I have been making meals for myself for more than 50 years, and when I now look back at those meals, I notice that there were only a few times when I made soup, or put food into a blender to make something like a smoothie, eggnog, or milkshake.

If it were true that food that "melts in our mouth" gives us a better life, then we would get the most satisfaction from our meals by putting our food into a blender and creating a food paste, and the luxury restaurants would serve meals that are similar to the dinner in the menu to the right.

I suspect that the reason I was never strongly attracted to soups, smoothies, eggnogs, and similar foods is because I prefer the foods that require me to chew.

It is also interesting to note that we enjoyed putting extremely dry, crunchy croutons into soups and salads, and we enjoy dipping dry bread products, such as biscotti and dry cookies, into coffee, tea, or other liquids. I think this is more evidence that we get more satisfaction from our meals when we can chew our food.

When I was in junior high school, my mother made an eggnog for me in the morning, but I regarded the eggnog as a quick and simple breakfast, not as a "meal".

When I make a porridge, I prefer it to be so extremely thick that I can turn the bowl upside down without any of it falling out.

When we eat beef that is "tough", we have to cut it into smaller pieces, and we have to spend more time chewing it. This causes many people to believe that they are suffering because they have to do so much "hard work".

I think most people would get more pleasure from their meals if they changed their attitude from believing that work is bad to learning to enjoy work. I think that chewing our food brings us more satisfaction, and it makes the meal take longer, which allows us to enjoy the meal for a longer amount of time.

Of course, there is a point at which the work involved with chewing is too extreme, but exactly how much chewing is "too much" depends upon the person's physical characteristics.

This concept applies to all types of work, not just chewing. An obvious example are the men who can enjoy working all day to make a rock or brick wall, whereas some of us would become sore and exhausted after less than an hour.

Likewise, the amount of chewing that becomes "excessive" depends upon a person's teeth, mouth muscles, and ability to produce energy. The foods that I consider to "require chewing" might be considered as "melting in our mouth" to the men with much more stronger jaws and much higher levels of energy production.

Meals will be noticeably different in Kastron

With appropriate leadership, meals would not be designed to allow some people to feel special, or to pander to the public, and especially not to pander to children. Instead, the meals would be designed according to the effect they have on society and on people's health, attitudes, activities, and relationships.

For a simple example, imagine the Kastron government conducting an experiment by having some of the pizza restaurants providing round pizzas that are cut into large, pie shaped wedges, just like the pizzas at most restaurants today.

This piece of a taco pizza could be cut into four, bite-sized pieces.
The other restaurants would be required to make the pizzas as rectangles, and then slice them into small, bite-sized pieces. They would be smaller than the piece of pizza in the photo to the right so that they don't need to be cut any further.

The pizzas would be identical in regards to their ingredients, flavor, and consistency. The only difference between the pizzas would be initial shape of the pizza, and the size and shape of the pieces.

The difference in the initial shape would affect how easy it is to make and cook the pizzas, and the size and shape of the final pieces would affect how people eat the pieces.

The bite-sized "pizza bits" would be messy and awkward to pick up with our fingers, so the restaurant would provide forks.

The government would then analyze the restaurants to see what effect the pizza bits were having on the people and on society. Two of the conclusions that they might come to are:

1) It is much easier and quicker to produce rectangular pizzas because machines can easily produce rectangular sheets of dough, cover them with virtually any topping, bake them, and then slice them into rectangular pieces. Also, the machines can be smaller and simpler compared to machines that have to create round pizzas and reprocess the scraps of dough between the round pieces. The government would conclude that the rectangular pieces have an advantage to society.

By observing the people as they eat the pizzas, the government might notice that the people eating the pizza bits require more time to finish the meal.

In a free enterprise system, a restaurant wants customers to eat quickly and leave, but the government might notice that the people are spending more time enjoying the meal, the people they are with, the decorations in the restaurant, the view out of the windows, and the displays of flowers, butterflies, or minerals that are on the tables or walls. Therefore, the government would conclude that the pizza bits are an advantage because they are providing people with more enjoyment from meals for the same amount of food.

The round pizzas have a lot more "bare crust", which most people don't care much for. Therefore, the rectangular pieces have an advantage.

Is eating like an animal the best way to enjoy the food and the people we eat with? Will it provide us with the most satisfying life? I don't think so.
The culture in the USA puts a lot of pressure on us to eat large pizza wedges with our hands. For example, when John Kasich was governor of Ohio, there was a time he began eating a wedge of pizza with a knife and fork, and he was pressured by other people to pick up the wedge with his hands and shove it into his mouth (photo to the right).

We have a natural tendency to shove large amounts of food into our mouth, and to eat quickly, because we are animals, and animals evolved for a deadly competition for food.

In Kastron, the people in leadership positions are expected to do what is best for us, not pander to our crude, animal cravings.

If the government decides that forcing people to eat pizza with a fork causes them to get more overall enjoyment from their meal, and that it is easier for society to produce that type of pizza, then the government will order all of the pizza restaurants to switch to making bite-size pieces.

Restricting food freedom can improve our lives

Putting restrictions on  our food freedom, and allowing the government to collect data about us, will be miserable only if we allow incompetent or dishonest leadership. If we can provide ourselves with leaders who are truly concerned with improving our health and lives, we will benefit significantly from the restrictions and the collection of data.

In addition to getting better quality and healthier meals, we will reduce the waste of food because the farmers and restaurants will be able to plan the meals. This will reduce the amount of labor and resources we need to produce and process food.

Scientists do not yet know enough about health and nutrition to design meals that are ideal for us, but they will be able to slowly improve the meals by collecting data about us, and passing judgment on how their food policies are affecting our physical and mental health.

Everybody benefits when scientists design meals that keep us in good health because it will reduce the burden on our healthcare system, and the healthier children will do better in school, and the healthier adults will be more productive at their jobs.

Furthermore, the healthier people will be more pleasant and active during their leisure time, thereby allowing them to participate in social and recreational activities rather than lounging at home like a sickly, fat pig.

We should also allow citizens to volunteer for experiments. For example, a person who is suffering from digestive problems or excessive mucus production could volunteer to experiment with his foods in order to see if his problem is food-related. This would be better than him conducting the experiments by himself because he will have scientists and doctors to assist him with the analysis and experiment.

We could have truly fresh meat

With appropriate restrictions on our food freedom, the Kastron restaurants will be able to operate as efficiently as the kitchens on a submarine or a school. For example, by not providing menus, they will be able to plan meals weeks in advance, and they will not have to store a variety of foods that they hope some customer eventually purchases. Instead, they will order the meat, fruits, and vegetables only when they need the items for an upcoming meal.

None of the restaurants would have meat, vegetables, or fruits in storage and slowly deteriorating in quality. This will reduce the number of, and/or the size of, the refrigerators, freezers, and storage cabinets at the restaurants, which reduces the labor and resources necessary to build and maintain the restaurants. It also reduces the amount of space that the restaurants need.

Animals would be butchered only when we want to eat the meat, giving us access to truly fresh meat. This will be most significant for the meat that deteriorates quickly, such as fish, chicken, and pork.

It is conceivable that we could design a city in such a manner that those animals can be butchered, and the meat sent directly to the restaurants for meals that same day, rather than stored in a refrigerator. This would provide the restaurants with meat that is still warm. This would have the additional benefit of reducing the labor and energy that is needed for cooking.

The Kastron restaurants are not buffets

Although it might appear as if the Kastron restaurants will be similar to the smorgasbords and buffets of a free enterprise systems, the Kastron restaurants will be significantly different.

The smorgasbords and buffets produce enormous amounts of food because they don't know how many people are going to eat at the restaurant, or what they want to eat, which results in a lot of food becoming cold or wasted. By comparison the Kastron restaurants will resemble the dining rooms in people's homes. To understand the concept of the Kastron restaurants, consider what it is like to have dinner at a friend's home.

When a person invites some friends or relatives to their home for dinner, they know exactly how many people they are going to feed, and they produce food only for that number of people. Furthermore, they do not provide the guests with menus, or provide them with a gigantic buffet that has an excessive amounts of food.

The restaurants in Kastron will feel as if you are going into somebody's home to eat. Each restaurant will provide a particular type of meal, and there will be very few options. Furthermore, each restaurant will have planned for a certain number of people. If more people go to a particular restaurant than they have planned for, the excess people must go to another restaurant that still has capacity. Therefore, the people who arrive at the restaurants early will have the widest choices in foods.

People without reservations can look on a computer or phone to see a map of the restaurants, along with their current status in regards to whether they are open, and the number of vacancies. It would be similar to how airlines allow us to pick a seat from a map that shows which seats are still available, except that there would be no fees. In addition, by tracking the people in the city, we would be able to use the map to find out who is eating at a particular restaurant, or which restaurant a particular person is at.

Why is beef aged for weeks?

It is interesting to note that beef is deliberately allowed to remain in a refrigerator for 2 to 4 weeks, and sometimes for 8 or more weeks. We describe this as "aging" the beef, but it would be more accurate to describe it as allowing the meat to deteriorate, decompose, decay, or degrade. Why do we want chicken, fish, pork, lamb, and other meat to be extremely fresh, but not beef?

I have never had fresh beef, so I don't know what is wrong with it, but the documents that explain the aging process claim that there are two reasons for letting it decompose for many weeks:

1) We dislike the flavor of fresh beef.
This document describes fresh beef as having a metallic flavor.

We cannot easily chew fresh beef.
Apparently, fresh beef is so tough that it is difficult for our mouth to chew. By allowing the beef to decompose for several weeks, it becomes soft enough for our weak jaw muscles.

The fact that we dislike the taste and toughness of fresh beef is an indication that our prehistoric ancestors did not evolve to eat fresh beef. Therefore, we ought to investigate whether eating deteriorated beef is healthy for us. If fresh beef is healthier, then we should experiment with other methods of dealing with its metallic flavor and toughness, such as grinding the beef for sausages, tacos, and burgers.

We like to imagine that our prehistoric ancestors were courageous hunters who caught mastodons and woolly mammoths, but it is possible that our ancestors usually ate those big animals when they found them dead, in which case the meat would have been partially decomposed. Maybe that is why we have a preference for decomposed beef.

Furthermore, regardless of whether they caught a large animal or found it dead, there would have been so much meat that they would have been able to eat meat from it for many weeks, which meant that the final meals consisted of meat that was extremely old. That would also help to explain why we prefer decayed beef.

The scientists who study humans should control their arrogance so that they stop twisting history to glorify humans. When I compare the skeleton and jaw of a Cro-Magnon to a Neanderthal, I wonder how the Cro-Magnon hunted giant, woolly mammoths, and how they chewed the meat. It seems to me that the scrawny Cro-Magnon men would be more likely to chase after pigs and other small animals. Besides, how many woolly mammoths and other giant animals were living among the Cro-Magnon?

Perhaps only the Neanderthals regularly hunted the large animals, which would explain why their bodies and jaws were so much more massive and powerful. They did not need those jaws to eat pork, lamb, rabbit, or trout. Evolution cannot give a creature a powerful jaw unless it truly needs it.

We could have truly ripe fruits

By making everybody get meals at restaurants, and by allowing the restaurants to plan their meals ahead of time, the farmers in Kastron would be able to pick fruit that is ripe because the fruit would go directly to the restaurants for a meal, rather than be put on display at a market where it might remain for many days, and be squeezed over and over by consumers.

I pick Haas avocados when they
start to turn black, like this one.
If I had never had homegrown and fully ripened apricots, peaches, loquats, figs, oranges, and certain other fruits, I would never have realized how wonderful they taste. Allowing lemons and oranges to remain on the tree for a much longer period of time will reduce their bitterness, also.

I don't pick Haas avocados until they start to develop black spots. They become noticeably better tasting than those from the markets, which are usually picked while they are entirely green.

The avocados in the market also tend to become bruised to an extreme because they are dumped into bins at the farms, as if they are as tough as rocks, and then consumers squeeze them over and over.

In order to provide ourselves with fruit that is truly ripe and free of bruises, we need to put more of our technical talent and resources into developing machines that can harvest, transport, and handle fruit in a more careful manner.

Robots would make small meals practical

Robots can already do simplistic tasks, such as deliver food to restaurant customers (photo), but eventually they will be able to produce meals, deliver them, and pick up the used plates.

That will make it practical for robots to provide us lots of small meals rather than one large meal, which would allow the food to remain fresh and warm (or cold).

Specifically, instead of having all of the food delivered to the table at one time, the robots would bring each person a small plate with a small amount of food. The plates could be designed with a metal interior to retain heat (or to remain cold). This would allow everybody to have a small portion of food.

The people would then have the option of telling the robots to bring the next portion, or they could relax at the table and socialize a while.

By eating a meal in this manner, everybody would have fresh food, and each person would have the option of going to a different restaurant for each portion. For example, a person might begin his meal at a restaurant that provides a small amount of pizza, and then walk to a different restaurant to get a small piece of roast beef, and then walk to a different restaurant to meet some other people and get a small enchilada.

Nutritional bars could be designed for each person

The future generations will eventually have the technology to put everybody through routine medical analyses, and their computers will be able to observe what everybody eats during the day, and estimate the amount of exercise each person gets. This would allow their computers to create nutritional bars with the appropriate vitamins, minerals, drugs, and/or hormones that each person needs for the upcoming month.

Imagine computers designing nutritional bars for you, and for a specific time period, based on your medical history, food preferences, and activities, and the expected weather conditions in your city for that particular time period.

An elderly person, for example, might be given a nutritional bar with higher levels of vitamin D than a younger person who has a better digestive system, and who is getting more exposure to sunlight, and who has skin that produces vitamin D more efficiently.

The computers would also adjust the nutritional bars for the weather. For example, in the cities with cold winters, the computer might increase the level of thyroid hormones for the people with low thyroid levels, and who spend a lot of time outdoors.

The nutritional bars could also provide whatever enzymes or substances are needed to help people digest food and create cleaner, less stinky poop.

Incidentally, different foods affect the smell of our pee. For example, asparagus makes it smell terrible, but some foods and spices make it more pleasant. If we can identify the chemicals that give it a pleasant odor, and if those chemicals are harmless, then mothers could give some of the chemicals to their babies in order to make diapers less stinky. Some adults might also add it to to their foods to make their own pee smell better, especially the older adults who pee throughout the day and night.

Soaking and sprouting requires resources

If we decide to soak or sprout seeds, then we will make our meals more expensive because those operations require equipment, electricity, and labor. Water is also needed, but the waste water can be used for irrigation (since we are having a drought in the western USA, I put the waste water on the plants in my yard).

It might also be best to replace the water several times during the soaking process in order to remove more of the unpleasant chemicals, especially if the seeds are soaking in a small amount of water. The water immediately begins to pick up the bitter chemicals and unpleasant odor, so I replace the water 4 to 6 times over the 10 hour soaking period before the water finally remains fairly clean.

Replacing the soaking water several times will further increase the amount of water we use, and the complexity of the equipment and software.

The expense of soaking and sprouting seeds brings up the issue I mentioned in my crispy popcorn document. Specifically, I suggest that we switch our priority from titillating ourselves with status products, trophies, sugar, and "freedom", to experimenting with methods to truly improve our relationships, health, cities, recreational activities, work environments, and other culture.

So, find your pioneer spirit,
and let's start experimenting with improvements!